S. HRG. 113–720 

NOMINATIONS OF THE 113TH 

CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

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

NOMINATIONS OF THE 113TH CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–040 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–720 

NOMINATIONS OF THE 113TH 

CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 2, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

113TH CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 1

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 2

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL E. O’BRIEN, Democratic Staff Director

LESTER E. MUNSON III, Republican Staff Director

———— 

1Senator Casey served on the committee until July 16, 2013. 

2Senator Markey joined the committee on July 16, 2013. 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

[Any additional material relating to these nominees may be found 

at the end of the applicable day’s hearing.] 

Page 

Thursday, January 16, 2014 ............................................................................... 1 

Robert C. Barber, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Iceland ................................................................................................................... 4 

George James Tsunis, of New York to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of 

Norway .................................................................................................................. 9 

Colleen Bradley Bell, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to Hungary ....................................................................................................................... 12 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014 ................................................................................. 27 

Hon. Max Baucus, of Montana, to be Ambassador to China ............................... 30 

Hon. Arnold Chacon, of Virginia, to be Director General of the Foreign Service .......................................................................................................................... 54 

Hon. Daniel Bennett Smith, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State 

for Intelligence and Research .............................................................................. 59 

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 ................................................................................. 93 

Bathsheba Nell Crocker, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary 

of State for International Organization Affairs ................................................. 95 

Michael Anderson Lawson, of California, for the rank of Ambassador during 

his tenure of service as Representative on the Council of the International 

Civilian Aviation Organization ........................................................................... 102 

Robert A. Wood, of New York, for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure 

of service as U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament ............ 105 

Thursday, February 6, 2014 ............................................................................... 119 

Luis G. Moreno, of Texas, to be Ambassador to Jamaica ..................................... 121 

John L. Estrada, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Trinidad 

and Tobago ............................................................................................................ 124 

Noah Bryson Mamet, of California, to be Ambassador to the Argentine Republic ........................................................................................................................... 127 

Thursday, February 13, 2014 ............................................................................. 159 

Matthew Tueller, of Utah, to be Ambassador of the Republic of Yemen ............ 164 

Douglas Alan Silliman, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the State of Kuwait ...... 168 

Mark Gilbert, of Florida, to be Ambassador to New Zealand and to serve 

concurrently as Ambassador to Samoa .............................................................. 171 

Joseph William Westphal, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom 

of Saudi Arabia ..................................................................................................... 174 

(III)

Page

IV 

Thursday, March 6, 2014 ..................................................................................... 199 

Deborah L. Birx, of Maryland, to be Ambassador at Large and Coordinator 

of United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally ......... 201 

Suzan G. LeVine, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Swiss Confederation, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation 

as Ambassador to the Principality of Liechtenstein .......................................... 206 

Maureen Elizabeth Cormack, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Bosnia and 

Herzegovina .......................................................................................................... 210 

Peter A. Selfridge, of Minnesota, to be Chief of Protocol, and to have the 

rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service ............................................. 217 

Tuesday, May 13, 2014 ......................................................................................... 239 

Paige Eve Alexander, of Virginia, to be Assistant Administrator, Bureau 

for the Middle East, United States Agency for International Development ... 240 

Alice G. Wells, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom 

of Jordan ............................................................................................................... 245 

Thomas P. Kelly III, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Djibouti ................................................................................................................. 249 

Cassandra Q. Butts, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to the 

Commonwealth of The Bahamas ........................................................................ 252 

Wednesday, May 14, 2014 .................................................................................... 271 

Mark Sobel, of Virginia, to be United States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund for a term of two years .............................................. 274 

Sunil Sabharwal, of California, to be United States Alternate Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund for a term of two years ..................... 276 

Matthew T. McGuire, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

for a term of two years ........................................................................................ 290 

Mileydi Guilarte, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Alternate 

Director of the Inter-American Development Bank .......................................... 294 

Thursday, May 15, 2014 ....................................................................................... 315 

Andrew H. Schapiro, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic ......... 318 

Nina Hachigian, of California, to be Representative to the Association of 

Southeast Asian Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador ............... 322 

Wednesday, June 11, 2014 .................................................................................. 337 

Hon. Robert Stephen Beecroft, of California, to be Ambassador to the Arab 

Republic of Egypt ................................................................................................. 340 

Hon. Stuart E. Jones, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Iraq ........................................................................................................................ 342 

Dana Shell Smith, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the State of Qatar ............ 346 

James D. Nealon, of New Hampshire, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Honduras .......................................................................................................... 365 

Gentry O. Smith, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Office of Foreign 

Missions ................................................................................................................ 368 

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 ........................................................................................ 403 

Mark William Lippert, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Korea ..... 406 

Jonathan Nicholas Stivers, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant 

Administrator of the Bureau for Asia, United States Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 409 

Theodore G. Osius III, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam ....................................................................................................... 413 

Joan A. Polaschik, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the People’s Democratic 

Republic of Algeria ............................................................................................... 416 

Page

V 

Thursday, June 26, 2014 ..................................................................................... 437 

Hon. Alfonso E. Lenhardt, of New York, to be Deputy Administrator of 

the United States Agency for International Development ............................... 438 

Marcia Denise Occomy, of the District of Columbia, to be United States 

Director of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years .................... 443 

Thursday, July 10, 2014 ...................................................................................... 465 

Todd D. Robinson, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Guatemala ............................................................................................................ 467 

Leslie Ann Bassett, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay ....................................................................................................................... 470

Tuesday, July 15, 2014 ......................................................................................... 485 

Jane D. Hartley, of New York, to be Ambassador to the French Republic 

and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Principality of Monaco .................................................................... 490 

Hon. John R. Bass, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Turkey ................................................................................................................... 493 

Kevin F. O’Malley, of Missouri, to be Ambassador to Ireland ............................. 497 

Brent Robert Hartley, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia ...................................................................................................................... 512

James D. Pettit, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova ...... 515 

Thursday, July 17, 2014 ...................................................................................... 533 

Erica J. Barks Ruggles, of Minnesota, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Rwanda ............................................................................................................. 535 

Hon. George Albert Krol, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Kazakhstan ....................................................................................................... 539 

Allan P. Mustard, of Washington, to be Ambassador of the United States 

of America to Turkmenistan ............................................................................... 542 

David Pressman, of New York, to be Alternate Representative for Special 

Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador; 

Alternate Representative to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the 

United Nations, during his tenure of service as Alternate Representative 

for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations ............................................ 545 

Hon. Marcia Stephens Bloom Bernicat, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador 

to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh .............................................................. 547 

Tuesday, July 29, 2014 ......................................................................................... 577 

Hon. John Francis Tefft, of Virginia, to be Ambassador of the United States 

to the Russian Federation ................................................................................... 580 

Donald L. Heflin, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Cabo 

Verde ..................................................................................................................... 592 

Earl Robert Miller, of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Botswana .................................................................................................................... 594 

Craig B. Allen, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Brunei Darussalam ................ 597 

Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, to be the Deputy Representative to the 

United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador, and Deputy Representative 

in the Security Council of the United Nations; and to be Representative 

to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during 

her tenure of service as Deputy Representative to the United Nations .......... 606 

Stafford Fitzgerald Haney, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Costa Rica ......................................................................................................... 609 

Charles C. Adams, Jr., of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Finland .................................................................................................................. 612 

Page

VI 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014 ....................................................................... 631 

William V. Roebuck, of North Carolina, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom 

of Bahrain ............................................................................................................. 633 

Judith Beth Cefkin, of Colorado, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Fiji, 

and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of Kiribati, the republic of Nauru, the Kingdom 

of Tonga, and Tuvalu ........................................................................................... 636 

Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates .. 639 

Pamela Leora Spratlen, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Uzbekistan ........................................................................................................ 644 

Thursday, September 11, 2014 .......................................................................... 675 

James Peter Zumwalt, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Senegal and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation 

as Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau ............................................. 677 

Robert T. Yamate, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Madagascar, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation 

as Ambassador to the Union of the Comoros ..................................................... 680 

Virginia E. Palmer, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Malawi .. 682 

Rabbi David Nathan Saperstein, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom ......................................... 685 

Wednesday, September 17, 2014 ....................................................................... 697 

Robert Francis Cekuta, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Azerbaijan ......................................................................................................... 700 

Richard M. Mills, Jr., of Texas, to be Ambassador of the United States 

to the Republic of Armenia .................................................................................. 703 

Jess Lippincott Baily, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia .................................................................................................................... 707 

Margaret Ann Uyehara, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to Montenegro ................... 710 

Wednesday, November 19, 2014 ........................................................................ 737 

Antony John Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State ................ 739 

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 ................................................................................ 817 

Peter Michael McKinley, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ................................................................................................. 820 

Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be Representative to the United Nations 

for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador; and 

as an Alternate Representative to the Sessions of the General Assembly 

of the United Nations during her tenure of service as Representative to 

the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform .................................... 824 

Richard Rahul Verma, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

India ...................................................................................................................... 827

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT BARBER, 

GEORGE TSUNIS, COLLEEN BELL 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Robert C. Barber, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Iceland 

George James Tsunis, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Norway 

Colleen Bradley Bell, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador 

to Hungary 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Chris Murphy presiding. 

Present: Senators Murphy, Cardin, Kaine, Markey, Johnson, and 

McCain. 

Also Present: Senator Charles E. Schumer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS MURPHY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator MURPHY. Good afternoon, everyone. This hearing of the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee will now come to order. 

Today, the committee is considering three nominations—George 

Tsunis, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Norway; Robert Barber, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Iceland; and Colleen Bell, 

to be Ambassador to Hungary. 

Let me begin this afternoon by welcoming our nominees and welcoming your families. I will let you introduce any family members 

that may be here. 

I am going to give some brief opening remarks, followed by Senator Johnson, our ranking member. I will introduce you. I understand that Senator Schumer is likely going to be here to introduce 

you, Mr. Tsunis. So if he is not here yet when we are done with 

our opening remarks, I will introduce Ms. Bell and Mr. Barber, and 

they might begin. And then when Senator Schumer comes here, he 

can introduce you, Mr. Tsunis. But we are glad to welcome Senator 

Schumer when he can arrive. 

I want to congratulate all of you on your nominations. If confirmed, you are going to be called upon to serve and advance the 

interests of the American people in your respective missions. And 

2 

I thank you and your families for your willingness to serve this 

country in this important capacity. 

The moment is unique in the sense that we have a number of 

irons in the fire with our European partners. You are going to be 

there at a very important time to talk about our communal mission 

to promote global security, whether it be as NATO partners or in 

our joint efforts to combat terrorism. You are going to be there at 

a really important time for the growing economic partnership between the United States and Europe, a moment at which we hope 

during your tenure we will negotiate and perhaps enter into a new 

trade agreement, now referred to as the Transatlantic Trade and 

Investment Partnership. 

And we know that there is going to be continued interest in our 

very complicated, but very necessary intelligence relationship. I 

and a few members of the House were just in Europe over the holidays, talking about the importance of both clarifying our intelligence relationship going forward, but also preserving it because 

we have a communal interest to prevent grievous attacks against 

both the United States and Europe. 

Mr. Tsunis, let me begin with a few words about Norway. The 

United States and Norway enjoy a long tradition of friendly relationships based on democratic values. We also share an increase in 

addressing the problems posed by climate change, particularly with 

respect to the Arctic and building a cooperation in the region 

through the Arctic Council. 

On the security side, Norway, as you know, is a founding member of NATO, has been a partner with us in Afghanistan, Libya, 

the Balkans, and in counterterrorism. In her visit to Washington 

earlier this month, Norway’s Defense Minister emphasized the importance of European nations stepping up to the plate at a larger 

scale to take a share of global political and economic burdens. 

Norway is also the world’s seventh-largest petroleum exporter, 

and the Norwegian economy has enjoyed some pretty impressive 

growth in recent years. so we look forward to hearing your 

thoughts on how to continue these very important partnerships 

with Norway, particularly in the lead-up to next year’s NATO summit. 

Mr. Barber, another nation that is very important to this committee is Iceland. The United States is one of Iceland’s main foreign investors and trading partners. We were the first country to 

recognize Iceland’s independence in 1944, following Danish rule. 

It is another founding member of NATO. And although we no 

longer have U.S. military forces permanently stationed in Iceland, 

Iceland and the United States have worked closely again on missions in Afghanistan and Lebanon and the Balkans. 

And as we talked about privately, the Icelandic economy has 

been a success story for much of the past two decades, although it 

encountered deep financial problems in 2008. The collapse of these 

major banks, coupled with the global financial crisis, it had a ripple 

effect throughout Iceland’s economy, and we look forward to your 

thoughts on how the United States can continue to allow Iceland 

to recover. 

And finally, Ms. Bell, let me turn to Hungary. Since the fall of 

communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the United States and 

3 

Hungary have maintained strong bilateral ties, particularly in security matters through NATO. Hungary is a member of the European Union. It has successfully transitioned from a centrally 

planned economy to a market-based one since the fall of communism. Like the other countries represented here, the United 

States is among the top foreign investors in Hungary. 

But notwithstanding our close cooperation on economic and security matters, there have been some legislative and constitutional 

changes in Hungary since 2010 that have prompted concerns from 

the United States and included controversial legislation granting 

citizenship to ethnic Hungarians living outside the country’s borders, changes that could reduce the independence of Hungary’s central bank, and restrictions on the constitutional court. 

The United States has shared these concerns that have been expressed also by the Council of Europe, and we look forward to a 

discussion with you about how we can continue to work with Hungary on promoting democratic ideals. 

We thank you all for being here today to share with us your 

thoughts. We look forward to your swift confirmation. 

And let me now turn to our ranking member, Senator Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to join you in welcoming our nominees and also 

thanking you and your families for your willingness to serve. I appreciate the fact that you all took time to meet with me in my office, and as we discussed, these positions of ambassadorships is extremely important to not only convey to the countries that you are 

going to represent us Americans’ exceptionalism, our values, but 

then also you report back to us the concerns that those countries 

have in terms of U.S. actions. 

And so, incredibly important posts. I truly appreciate your willingness to serve, and I will look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Why do we not do this? I will introduce briefly Mr. Barber and 

Ms. Bell, and you can begin testimony. And when Senator Schumer 

gets here, he can introduce Mr. Tsunis. 

Robert Barber is our nominee to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Iceland. Mr. Barber, a leading attorney and litigator, has been 

a partner at Looney & Grossman in Boston, MA, since 1985. 

Known for his legal acumen and community service, he specializes 

in the needs of startup businesses, small and medium-sized companies, and commercial litigation, serving many companies in the role 

of outside general counsel. He is also an expert in the formation 

and early development of business ventures. 

A proven and experienced leader, Mr. Barber will bring essential 

skills to the task of furthering bilateral economic relations with the 

Government of Iceland. Mr. Barber previously practiced law in a 

variety of other roles, including as an assistant district attorney in 

the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and he has served 

in a number of community positions, as a trustee of the Phillips 

Brooks House Association of Harvard College, as a treasurer and 

4 

trustee of the Social Law Library in Boston, MA, and director of 

the Abbott Academy Association in Andover, MA. 

He attended Harvard College and Boston University School of 

Law, and he even holds an MCRP from the Harvard Graduate 

School of Design. 

Welcome, Mr. Barber. 

Ms. Bell, we are pleased to have you here today. Ms. Bell is a 

producer at Bell-Phillip Productions in Los Angeles, CA, has a 

strong history of accomplishment in the television industry. Known 

for her successful leadership of high-profile and influential social 

service, environmental, and arts organizations, she has a wealth of 

experience in a wide range of fields from the economy to human 

rights and the environmental, foreign policy, public health, and 

education. Ms. Bell will bring essential skills to the task of furthering our relationship with the Government of Hungary, who is 

a key U.S. ally in NATO and the EU. 

Previously, Ms. Bell worked for Bell-Phillip Television Productions as an associate producer. She also serves on, again, a number 

of institutions. She has been on the board of the JFK Center for 

the Performing Arts, the President’s Advisory Committee on the 

Arts, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Children’s Institute, the Music Center, and the National Academy of Television 

Arts and Sciences, just to name a few. 

Senator MURPHY. With that, why do we not do this? We will go 

to Mr. Barber for your opening remarks, then to Ms. Bell, and then 

we will have Senator Schumer here to introduce Mr. Tsunis. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BARBER, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

TO BE THE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND 

Mr. BARBER. Chairman Murphy and Senator Johnson, it is a 

great privilege for me to appear before you today as President 

Obama’s nominee for Ambassador to Iceland. 

I am truly honored by this nomination and very grateful to the 

President and to Secretary Kerry for their trust in me. If confirmed, I look forward to working with each of you and with your 

colleagues in Congress to further U.S. interests in Iceland. 

My oldest son, Nicholas, is with me today, representing his 

brothers, Ben and Alexander, and my wife and his mom, Bonnie. 

And if you would permit me, I would like to introduce Nick to you. 

Senator MURPHY. Welcome. 

Mr. BARBER. I am also delighted that two members of the Icelandic Embassy are present today, and I very much appreciate 

their appearance today. I am pleased to meet them, and if confirmed, I certainly would look forward to working with them. 

I am very thankful for and appreciate the support of my family 

and my friends. 

The opportunity to serve the United States, if confirmed, means 

quite a lot to me. Both my father and my maternal grandfather 

were career Army officers. In fact, I was born at Fort Benning, GA. 

I grew up in Charleston, SC, where the greatest influence on my 

life was my mother, Kathleen. A teacher, after having gone back 

to college while raising four kids, she guided gently, making sure 

I was aware of opportunities that were available to me and trusting me to make good decisions. 

5 

I feel as though I have been lucky all my life, being able to attain 

great schools on scholarships, which opened up even more wonderful opportunities. So knowing how lucky I have been, I look forward—I look for chances to help out, to pay back, and indeed to 

pay forward. And I believe that if I am confirmed, representing my 

country as the U.S. Ambassador to Iceland would be the ultimate 

opportunity for service. 

I am hopeful, too, as the chairman mentioned, that my experience in leading organizations, including my law firm and as well 

as political and nonprofit groups, will enable me effectively to represent the United States. By nature, I am a team player, a firm 

believer in team development, for it is through collaborative effort 

that the most productive and, I believe, the most fulfilling outcomes are achieved. 

As well, my years acting as outside general counsel to entrepreneurs and their companies, from startups to mid-sized firms, 

have helped me develop an ability to find solutions and to connect 

parties with common interests and complementary capacities. 

The United States and Iceland have long enjoyed a strong bilateral relationship. When Iceland declared its independence on June 

17, 1944, the United States, as you mentioned, was the first country to recognize it. In the last decade, this friendship has evolved 

from one dominated by political-military issues to a broader partnership that reflects our shared global agenda. 

Iceland is a stalwart ally and friend of the United States. As a 

charter member of NATO, Iceland has made contributions to peacekeeping operations around the world. And although the Keflavik 

Naval Air Station closed in 2006, NATO continues to operate an 

important radar defense system in Iceland, highlighting that country’s continuing contribution to our overall security. 

A close partner on law enforcement issues, Iceland has recently 

helped break up the illegal narcotics network known as Silk Road 

and actively engages with the United States in antitrafficking in 

persons efforts. Iceland is also a staunch supporter of humanitarian causes, as its search and rescue teams provided lifesaving 

services following earthquakes around the world. 

So following its banking sector crisis of 2008, Iceland is reemerging with a stable economy. While it is still recovering, Iceland has made through a series of confidence-building measures 

steady progress in putting its economy on sounder footing. 

Our business relations with Iceland are strong and growing. The 

reinvigorated American-Icelandic Chamber of Commerce is now up 

and running, working on behalf of American companies in Iceland. 

Raw materials and renewable energy are just some of the promising new horizons in our trade and investment relationship. 

As businesses are looking to invest in Icelandic renewable energy, the United States and Iceland are cooperating to develop the 

technology we need for a green, sustainable future. And Iceland is 

also growing in importance as a potential strategic partner in the 

development of Arctic natural resources. 

Iceland is a world leader in the use of geothermal and 

hydroenergy for electric power and heat generation, presents a 

great opportunity for energy diplomacy in the years ahead. If confirmed, I shall look for ways the United States can strengthen conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
6 

nections among the energy industry, the Icelandic Government, 

and relevant U.S. institutions, and I shall diligently pursue all opportunities for collaboration. 

In sum, Senators, the United States-Icelandic relationship yields 

benefits to both countries in security, in energy, trade and investment, the environment, and humanitarian causes. If confirmed, I 

will work to broaden our cooperation in these areas and to protect 

and further U.S. interests and safeguard American citizens. 

Thank you again for the privilege of appearing before you today. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barber follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BARBER

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished members of the 

committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee for Ambassador to Iceland. I am honored by this nomination, and very grateful 

to the President and to Secretary Kerry for their trust in me. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working with you and your colleagues in Congress to further U.S. interests in Iceland. 

My oldest son, Nicholas, is with me today, representing his brothers, Ben and 

Alexander and his mother and my wife Bonnie Neilan, and if you would permit me, 

I introduce Nick to you. 

The opportunity to serve the United States, if confirmed, means quite a lot to me. 

Both my father and my maternal grandfather were career Army officers; in fact I 

was born at Fort Benning, GA. I grew up in Charleston, SC, where the greatest influence in my life was my mother, Kathleen. A teacher, after having gone back to 

college while raising four kids, she guided gently, making sure I was aware of 

opportunities available to me, and trusting me to make good decisions. I feel I have 

been lucky all my life, being able to attend great schools on scholarships, which 

opened up more wonderful opportunities. So, knowing how lucky I have been, I look 

for chances to help out, to give back, to pay forward. I believe that, if I am confirmed, representing my country as the United States Ambassador to Iceland would 

be the ultimate opportunity for service. 

I am hopeful that my experience in leading organizations, including my law firm, 

as well as political and nonprofit groups, will enable me to effectively represent the 

United States. I am a team player, a firm believer in team development, for it is 

through collaborative effort that the most productive, and fulfilling, outcomes are 

achieved. As well, my years acting as outside general counsel to entrepreneurs and 

their companies, from startups to midsize firms, have helped me develop an ability 

to find solutions and to connect parties with common interests and complementary 

capacities. 

The United States and Iceland have long enjoyed a strong bilateral relationship. 

When Iceland declared its independence on June 17, 1944, the United States was 

the first country to recognize it. In the last decade, this friendship has evolved from 

one dominated by political-military issues to a broad partnership that reflects our 

shared global agenda. 

Iceland is a stalwart ally and friend of the United States. As a charter member 

of NATO, Iceland has made contributions to peacekeeping operations around the 

world. Although the Keflavik Naval Air Station closed in 2006, NATO continues to 

operate an important radar defense system there, highlighting Iceland’s continuing 

contribution to our overall security. 

A close partner on law enforcement issues, Iceland most recently helped break up 

the illegal narcotics network known as Silk Road and actively engages with the 

United States on antitrafficking in persons efforts. It also works closely with the 

U.S. Coast Guard to improve port security for vessels transiting to the United 

States. 

Iceland is a staunch supporter of humanitarian causes. Icelandic Search and Rescue teams have provided life-saving services following earthquakes around the 

world. Most recently, Iceland has provided monetary assistance through the U.N. 

to help Syrian refugees in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon. 

Following its banking sector crisis of 2008, Iceland is reemerging with a stable 

economy. While it is still recovering, Iceland has made, through a series of confidence-building measures, steady progress in putting its economy on sounder footing. 

7 

Our business relations with Iceland are strong and growing. The AmericanIcelandic Chamber of Commerce is now up and running, working on behalf of American businesses in Iceland. Raw materials and renewable energy are just some of 

the promising new horizons in our trade and investment relationship. 

As businesses are looking to invest in Icelandic renewable energy, the United 

States and Iceland are cooperating to develop the technology we need for a green, 

sustainable future. Iceland is also growing in importance as a potential strategic 

partner in the development of Arctic natural resources. A world leader in the use 

of geothermal and hydroenergy for electric power and heat generation, Iceland presents a great opportunity for ‘‘energy diplomacy’’ in the years ahead. 

If confirmed, I shall look for ways the United States can strengthen connections 

among the energy industry, the Icelandic Government, and relevant U.S. institutions, and I shall diligently pursue all opportunities for collaboration. 

Mr. Chairman, the U.S.-Icelandic relationship yields benefits to both countries in 

security, energy, trade and investment, the environment, and humanitarian causes. 

If confirmed, I will work to broaden our cooperation in these areas and to protect 

and further U.S. interests and safeguard American citizens. 

Thank you again for the privilege of appearing before you today. I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Barber. 

Let me now welcome Senator Schumer here. So pleased to have 

you to introduce Mr. Tsunis. I know your time is limited. So we 

will allow you to introduce our next witness. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Chairman Murphy and Ranking 

Member Johnson, Senator Markey. 

And first, Mr. Chairman, it was not too long ago in this body 

that you would wait years and maybe even decades to become 

chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee, and here you are, 

one of our brightest, most capable freshmen, chairing it already. 

Progress is being made, I would say to the public. 

It is a privilege for me to introduce George Tsunis, the nominee 

to be the next United States Ambassador to Norway. Mr. Tsunis 

is a lifelong New Yorker, born and raised on Long Island. He currently lives in Cold Spring Harbor, and he has had a long and distinguished career in both public service and the private sector. 

And that leaves no doubt he is well qualified to take on this 

great task that awaits him if he is confirmed as the next United 

States Ambassador to Norway. His career and commitment to the 

community is an exemplary one, and I believe that New Yorkers, 

and particularly those on Long Island, have greatly benefited from 

Mr. Tsunis’ intelligence, his generosity, and his philanthropic pursuits. So he is an outstanding choice to be Ambassador to Norway, 

where he is going to represent the United States, should he be confirmed, in a country that values democracy and is a strong ally. 

Mr. Tsunis is a lifelong Long Islander, raised in Commack. He 

attended Commack High School. I have given many a graduation 

speech there. He then earned his undergraduate degree at NYU, 

his juris doctor at St. Johns University. 

He is born to parents who emigrated from Greece. He is like so 

many New Yorkers, comes from overseas and just in one generation becomes an American and contributes so much to this great 

country of ours. 

He is a true tale of the American dream. He has never forgotten 

his roots. He is very active in the Greek American community. He 

8 

is an archon of the Ecumenical Patriarchic in the Greek Orthodox 

Church, the highest lay honor, serves as the national counsel of the 

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. And he and I are the 

grand marshals of the Greek Independence Day Parade in New 

York City in March. Yiasou. 

A highly successful entrepreneur and philanthropist, Mr. Tsunis 

first started out as an attorney where he rose through the ranks 

to become a partner in Long Island’s largest law firm. He has also 

had an illustrious career in public service as an attorney. He was 

a legislative attorney on the New York City Council, special counsel to the town of Huntington’s Environmental and Open Space 

Committee, and counsel to the Dix Hills Water District. 

Today, he is chairman and CEO of Chartwell Hotels, which 

owns, develops, and manages Hilton, Marriott, Intercontinental Hotels across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, and he 

has also been very active in foreign policy issues. He is a member 

of Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Leadership Committee 

and its Metropolitan Leadership Council and is a director of Business Executives for National Security. 

So he has been extremely successful in the hotel and real estate 

businesses, but what is most impressive about Mr. Tsunis is the 

time, investment, and commitment he has shown to the people of 

New York, people of Long Island particularly, who suffered tremendously as a result of Superstorm Sandy. 

His philanthropic efforts and humanitarian causes have had a 

tremendous impact. As a result, he has received a number of welldeserved honors from groups as diverse as Dowling College, Long 

Island Cares, WLIW Channel 21, the Long Island Children’s Museum. The Cyprus Federation’s Justice for Cyprus Award he received, presented personally by President of Cyprus Christofias. 

He has made generous contributions to Stony Brook for the creation of the George and Olga Tsunis Center in Hellenic Studies and 

the James and Eleni Tsunis Chair in Hellenic Studies. The latter 

are in honor of his parents. 

In short, he is just a perfect candidate for Ambassador. He is 

smart. He is successful. He is practical. He has a knowledge of foreign affairs. He has a generous heart. 

I know him. I know George a long time. We are good friends, and 

I can tell you that all of these nice things that it says in his biography do not equal the goodness of the man. He is just a decent, 

honorable, caring person. 

And that matters a lot when you are Ambassador. Because when 

the people of a country, particularly a relatively small country like 

Norway, see who you are, they are going to understand and have 

a special appreciation. So I think he is going to be a great Ambassador to a very important relationship, that between United States 

and Norway. 

We work closely as NATO allies, trading partners. U.S. companies invest in Norway in critical products. And so, this is a great 

nomination, and I would urge the committee to approve him with 

alacrity and with unanimity. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer. 

Thank you for being here. 

9 

And with that ringing introduction, Mr. Tsunis, the floor is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE JAMES TSUNIS, OF NEW YORK, 

TO BE THE AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY 

Mr. TSUNIS. Thank you, Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member 

Johnson—— 

Thank you, Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson, and 

esteemed members of the committee. 

Let me first thank Senator Schumer, who has been a mentor. I 

thank him for his support, his guidance, his imprimatur. It has 

been very meaningful to me. 

I am both honored and humbled to appear before you today as 

President Obama’s nominee to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of 

Norway. I thank the President for his trust and confidence in me, 

and I am grateful to this committee for considering my nomination. 

I am also grateful for this opportunity to serve our country, and 

I would be remiss in not acknowledging a few of the many people 

who have made this journey possible. 

First, my parents, who emigrated to this country of opportunity 

and meritocracy, seeking to build a better life for their family. My 

parents sacrificed a lot to give my sisters and I the opportunities 

they never had. So it is with gratitude that I acknowledge my mom 

today. I would have loved to introduce her, but she had recently 

been in the hospital. My mom, Eleni, who had the foresight and determination to ensure that my sisters and I received a sound education and a reservoir of love. 

Today, I would also like to remember my father, James, who 

passed away 12 years ago. My dad was the embodiment of the 

American dream, starting out as a busboy at the Roosevelt Hotel 

in New York City, eventually opening his own small coffee shop 

and then a landmark restaurant that we still operate 43 years 

later. 

He has embraced our country with open arms, teaching my sisters, Anastasia and Vicki, both who are public school teachers, the 

importance of hard work, the value of a good education, which is 

America’s great equalizer. 

Most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, Olga, and our 

three children, James, Eleni, and Yanna, who are behind me, this 

afternoon. They are my bedrock of support and living reminders of 

the legacy my parents started here in the United States. 

After attending law school, I worked in government, as an associate in a small law firm, and then as a partner in a large law firm 

until I founded Chartwell Hotels. During my tenure as CEO, 

Chartwell not only weathered this great recession, but experienced 

unprecedented growth. It taught me how to operate in a stressful 

environment. 

My company’s success was not the result of one person’s effort. 

Whether public or private, a successful organization is built 

through teamwork and a collaborative sense of mission. If confirmed, I will draw on this experience to make the best case for my 

country, cognizant that I will be working with a terrific American 

and Norwegian team at Embassy Oslo. 

10 

Throughout my career, I have maintained a strong interest in 

foreign and economic affairs. I have had the pleasure of contributing to public policy as a member of the Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Leadership Committee and as a trustee of Business Executives for National Security. If confirmed, I look forward to putting these experiences to work for the American people. 

We share strong bilateral ties with Norway, steeped in shared 

values, such as commitment to promoting human rights, democracy, and freedom throughout the world. Norway is a proactive 

global peace builder. Its influence and reputation in the international community far exceed its size. 

The most notable of these efforts are, of course, the Oslo Accords, 

although Norway has mediated a number of prominent conflicts. 

Norway is a strong supporter of the current negotiations between 

Israel and the Palestinians, which I believe reflects Norway’s 

strong desire to contribute to world peace and its reputation as an 

honest arbiter. 

As a cofounder of NATO, Norway is a reliable and fully engaged 

ally. American and Norwegian soldiers fought together and have 

stood together in Afghanistan to support its transformation into a 

sovereign and secure nation. 

During NATO’s operations in Libya, Norwegian F–16s were 

amongst the alliance’s most effective air assets. Norway will further deepen its commitment to military readiness and interoperability with U.S. forces through its plan to purchase 52 Joint Strike 

Fighters from Lockheed Martin, something I deem of great importance. 

Norway is an important business partner of the United States, 

and if confirmed, I will seek to expand the U.S. economic export opportunities and create American jobs. I will also work to deepen 

people-to-people ties between Norway and the United States 

through public diplomacy efforts. If confirmed, I will also seek to 

strengthen what is already a very strong relationship between our 

two countries and maintain the Embassy’s proud tradition. 

As I mentioned at the start, at my core, I am grateful for this 

opportunity to serve my country. I have an obligation to give back, 

and I look forward to answering any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsunis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. TSUNIS

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and esteemed members of the committee, I am both honored and humbled to appear before you today as President 

Obama’s nominee to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Norway. I thank the President for his trust and confidence in me, and I am grateful to this committee for considering my nomination. I am also grateful for this opportunity to serve our country, 

and I would be remiss in not acknowledging a few of the many people who have 

made this journey possible. First my parents, who immigrated to this country of 

opportunity and meritocracy, seeking to build a better life for their family. My parents sacrificed a lot to give my two sisters and me the opportunities they never had. 

So it is with gratitude that I introduce my mother, Eleni, who had the foresight and 

determination to ensure that my sisters and I received a sound education and a reservoir of love. 

Today I would also like to remember my father, James, who passed away 12 years 

ago. My dad was the embodiment of the American dream, starting out as a busboy 

at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, eventually opening his own small coffee 

shop and then a landmark restaurant that is still open today, 42 years later. He 

embraced our country with open arms, teaching his children the importance of hard 

work, family, and the value of a good education. These are not lessons that I or my 

11 

sisters, Anastasia and Vicki, took lightly. My sisters took that lesson one step further and became public school teachers. Most importantly, I would like to thank my 

wife, Olga, and our three children James, Eleni, and Yanna, who are my bedrock 

of support and living reminders of the legacy my parents started here in the United 

States. 

After attending law school, I worked in government, as an associate in a small 

law firm, and then as a partner in a large firm, until I followed my father into the 

world of business and entrepreneurship when I founded Chartwell Hotels. During 

my tenure as CEO, Chartwell not only weathered the recession but experienced 

unprecedented growth. Having personally witnessed the strength and resiliency of 

U.S. business and its success in the international marketplace, I feel I understand 

the importance of expanding our global business and trade. 

My company’s success was not the result of one person’s effort. Whether public 

or private, a successful organization is built through teamwork and a collaborative 

sense of mission. If I am confirmed, I will draw on this experience to make the best 

case for my country, cognizant that I will be working with a terrific American and 

Norwegian team at Embassy Oslo. 

Throughout my career, I have maintained a strong interest in foreign and economic affairs, and I’ve had the pleasure of contributing to public policy as a member 

of the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Leadership Committee and as a trustee 

with the Business Executives for National Security. If confirmed, I look forward to 

putting this experience to work for the American people. 

We share strong bilateral ties with Norway, in large part because we share a commitment to promoting human rights, democracy, and freedom throughout the world. 

Norway is a proactive, global peace-builder and for a country of just 5 million people, its influence and reputation in the international community far surpasses its 

size. The most notable of these efforts is the Oslo Accords, although Norway has 

mediated a number of prominent conflicts, including those in Sri Lanka and Colombia. Norway is a strong supporter of the current negotiations between Israel and 

the Palestinians. This reflects Norway’s strong desire to contribute to world peace, 

and its reputation as an honest arbitrator. 

In addition to peace and reconciliation efforts, Norway is a generous contributor 

to international development and humanitarian relief efforts. Norway is a strong 

partner on environmental matters, and a leader in the area of global climate 

change. With our common strategic interest in the Arctic, Norway is a natural partner in these fields. If confirmed, I will work to preserve and expand this invaluable 

partnership with Norway. 

A cofounder of NATO, Norway is a reliable ally. American and Norwegian soldiers 

and civilians have stood together in Afghanistan to support its transformation to a 

safe, sovereign, and secure nation. During NATO operations in Libya in 2011, Norwegian F–16s were among the alliance’s most effective air assets. Norway will further deepen its commitment to military readiness and interoperability with U.S. 

forces through its plans to purchase 52 Joint Strike Fighters from Lockheed Martin. 

Norway is an important business partner of the United States. We are Norway’s 

sixth-largest trading partner and our trade relationship is free of major disputes. 

My focus, if I am confirmed, will be expanding economic development opportunities 

both for U.S. companies in Norway, and encouraging Norwegian firms’ investments 

in the United States. The energy sector is at the heart of the U.S.-Norwegian economic relationship, and it is expected that U.S. energy companies will expand their 

interests in the Norwegian oil and gas sector, creating new export opportunities and 

jobs for American businesses. 

With the Senate’s confirmation, I will work to expand European support for the 

transatlantic relationship to deepen people-to-people ties between Norway and the 

United States. I will give my full support to public diplomacy efforts to reach out 

to people throughout Norway and to provide educational exchange opportunities for 

Norwegians to study in the United States, and expand these opportunities wherever 

possible. There is no better way to build understanding than to expose someone 

directly to life in America and direct engagement with the American people. 

If confirmed, I will work side by side with my outstanding Embassy team to 

strengthen this already strong relationship between our two countries and maintain 

the Embassy’s proud tradition, serving U.S. interests. As I mentioned at the start, 

at my core I am grateful for this opportunity to serve my country—I have an obligation to give back—and I look forward to answering any questions you have. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Tsunis. 

Now finally, Ms. Bell, welcome. 

12 

STATEMENT OF COLLEEN BRADLEY BELL, OF THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA, TO BE THE AMBASSADOR TO HUNGARY 

Ms. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Johnson, and distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

It is an honor for me to appear before you as President Obama’s 

nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Hungary. I am 

deeply grateful for the confidence and trust that President Obama 

and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. I am humbled by this opportunity, and if confirmed, I will proudly represent our country 

abroad. 

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to acknowledge 

some of my family members. I would particularly like to thank my 

husband, Bradley, and our four children—Chasen, Caroline, Charlotte, and Oliver—for their steadfast and unwavering support in 

this new endeavor. 

I would also like to thank my father, who is here with me today. 

A former United States Marine, he instilled in me the importance 

of hard work and integrity in achieving my goals. My passion for 

public service is driven by our shared hopes for a better world for 

our next generation, a world that we build with the friendship and 

cooperation of our partners and allies. 

Hungary is a strong ally of the United States. We enjoy a close 

partnership embedded in our common commitment to two bedrock 

Transatlantic organizations, the OSCE and NATO. Inspired by 

shared interests and common values, Hungary has been a generous 

and reliable contributor to the International Security Assistance 

Force in Afghanistan. Hungary also contributes peacekeeping 

troops to the international mission in Kosovo and to EU operations 

in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

Hungary has been an active and constructive supporter of U.S. 

efforts to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestine Authority and of the ongoing international program to disarm the Syrian chemical weapons program. Police and civilian security cooperation has been excellent, as exemplified by the presence of the U.S.-sponsored International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest. 

Last year marked the 90th anniversary of the United StatesHungarian diplomatic relations. That anniversary gave us an opportunity to celebrate and reflect on our partnership, a relationship 

which extends beyond our common interest in security as NATO allies, and is anchored by deep economic ties and common values 

shared by the citizens of our two nations. 

At the same time, we have been open over the last 2 years about 

our concerns about the state of checks and balances in Hungary 

and the independence of some key institutions. Many argue that 

sweeping legislative and constitutional changes have hurt the 

international investment climate, undermined property rights, 

weakened the judiciary, and centralized power in the hands of the 

executive. 

The United States has not been alone in this regard. The perceived erosion of democratic checks and balances has garnered 

scrutiny from various bodies within the European Union. If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to uphold American and European 

democratic values, to express our concerns where appropriate, and 

13 

to urge our Hungarian partners to work collaboratively with international partners and civil society on these issues. 

The idea of pluralism is integral to our understanding of what 

it means to be a democracy. Democracies recognize that no one entity, no state, no political party, no leader will ever have all the answers to the challenges we face. And depending on their circumstances and traditions, people need the latitude to work toward 

and select their own solutions. 

Our democracies do not and should not look the same. Governments by the people, for the people, and of the people will reflect 

the people they represent. But we all recognize the reality and importance of these differences. Pluralism flows from these differences. 

The United States has also expressed concern about the rise of 

extremism, which, unfortunately, is a trend not unique to Hungary. 

However, the rise in Hungary of extremist parties is of particular 

concern. If confirmed, protecting and promoting a climate of tolerance will be one of my key priorities. 

The Hungarian Government has undertaken a series of steps to 

address lingering hatred and the legacy of the Holocaust to include 

planned events in 2014 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of 

the large-scale deportation to Auschwitz and the 2015 assumption 

of the presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. If confirmed, I look forward to working with government organizations, civic and religious groups, and other stakeholders to 

confront and to beat prejudice and hatred in all of its forms. 

We have enjoyed and benefited from our close relationship with 

Hungary for over 90 years. Just as we continue to work together 

in Afghanistan and around the world to uphold freedom and democracy, so, too, will we work to maintain an open and at times 

difficult dialogue on the importance of upholding our shared values 

at home. 

I bring to the table two decades of experience as a businesswoman, executive manager, and leader in the nonprofit arena. As 

a producer, I have been an integral part in developing a U.S. product that we export to more than 100 countries for the daily consumption of over 40 million viewers. 

The demands of producing a daily show have honed my managerial skills and required me to carefully coordinate the diverse activities of a very large staff. My work in the nonprofit sector has 

left me with a deep appreciation for the role and the importance 

of civil society in a healthy democracy. 

If confirmed, I will give the highest priority to ensuring the wellbeing of U.S. citizens living, working, and traveling in Hungary, 

and I will also seek opportunities to enhance our cooperation on 

international security issues and to expand commercial opportunities for American firms while also firmly promoting and protecting 

our shared values and principles. 

If confirmed, I pledge to do my best in advancing America’s interests and values. I look forward to working with this committee and 

Congress in that effort. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bell follows:] 

14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLLEEN BRADLEY BELL

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished members 

of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

It is an honor for me to appear before you as President Obama’s nominee to be 

the United States Ambassador to Hungary. 

I am deeply grateful for the confidence and trust that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. I am humbled by this opportunity, and if confirmed, 

I will proudly represent our country abroad. 

With the Chairman’s permission, I would like to acknowledge the presence of 

some of my family members who were able to join me here today. I would particularly like to thank my husband, Bradley, for his steadfast and unwavering support 

in this new endeavor. I would also like to thank my father. A former United States 

Marine, he instilled in me the importance of hard work and integrity in achieving 

my goals. My passion for public service is driven by our shared hopes for a better 

world for our next generation, a world that we build with the friendship and cooperation of our partners and allies. 

Hungary is a strong ally of the United States. We enjoy a close partnership 

embedded in our common commitment to two bedrock transatlantic organizations— 

the OSCE and NATO. Inspired by shared interests and common values, Hungary 

has been a generous and reliable contributor to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Hungary also contributes peacekeeping troops to the 

international mission in Kosovo and to EU operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

Hungary has been an active and constructive supporter of U.S. efforts to broker a 

peace agreement between Israel and the Palestine Authority and of the ongoing 

international program to disarm the Syrian chemical weapons program. Police and 

civilian security cooperation has been excellent, as exemplified by the presence of 

the U.S.-sponsored International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Budapest. 

Last year marked the 90th anniversary of U.S.-Hungarian diplomatic relations. 

That anniversary gave us an opportunity to celebrate and reflect on our partnership—a relationship which extends beyond our common interest in security as 

NATO allies and is anchored by deep economic ties and common values shared by 

the citizens of our two nations. 

At the same time, we have been open over the last 2 years about our concerns 

about the state of checks and balances in Hungary and the independence of some 

key institutions. Many argue that sweeping legislative and constitutional changes 

have hurt the international investment climate, undermined property rights, weakened the judiciary, and centralized power in the hands of the executive. The United 

States has not been alone in this regard. The perceived erosion of democratic checks 

and balances has garnered scrutiny from various bodies within the European Union. 

If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to uphold American and European democratic 

values, to express our concerns where appropriate, and to urge our Hungarian partners to work collaboratively with international partners and civil society on these 

issues. 

The idea of pluralism is integral to our understanding of what it means to be a 

democracy. Democracies recognize that no one entity—no state, no political party, 

no leader—will ever have all the answers to the challenges we face. And, depending 

on their circumstances and traditions, people need the latitude to work toward and 

select their own solutions. Our democracies do not, and should not, look the same. 

Governments by the people, for the people, and of the people will reflect the people 

they represent. But we all recognize the reality and importance of these differences. 

Pluralism flows from these differences. 

The United States has also expressed concern about the rise of extremism which 

unfortunately is a trend not unique to Hungary. However, the rise in Hungary of 

extremist parties is of particular concern. If confirmed, protecting and promoting a 

climate of tolerance will be one of my key priorities. 

The Hungarian Government has undertaken a series of steps to address lingering 

hatred and the legacy of the Holocaust, to include planned events in 2014 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the large scale deportations to Auschwitz, and 

the 2015 assumption of the presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance 

Alliance. If confirmed, I look forward to working with government organizations, 

civic and religious groups, and other stakeholders to confront and defeat prejudice 

and hatred in all of its forms. 

We have enjoyed and benefited from our close relationship with Hungary for over 

90 years. Just as we continue to work together in Afghanistan and around the world 

to uphold freedom and democracy, so too will we work to maintain an open—and 

at times difficult—dialogue on the importance of upholding our shared values at 

home. 

15 

I bring to the table two decades of experience as a businesswoman, executive 

manager, and leader in the nonprofit arena. As a producer I have been an integral 

part in developing a U.S. product that we export to more than 100 countries for 

daily consumption with more than 40 million viewers. The demands of producing 

a daily show have honed my managerial skills and required me to carefully coordinate the diverse activities of a very large staff. My work in the nonprofit sector has 

left me with a deep appreciation for the role and the importance of civil society in 

a healthy democracy. 

If confirmed, I will give the highest priority to ensuring the well-being of U.S. citizens living, working, and traveling in Hungary and I will also seek opportunities 

to enhance our cooperation on international security issues, and to expand commercial opportunities for American firms while also firmly promoting and protecting our 

shared values and principles. 

If confirmed, I pledge to do my best in advancing America’s interests and values. 

I look forward to working with this committee and Congress in that effort. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Ms. Bell. 

Just to my colleagues, I told all of our nominees here not to be 

disappointed if it was only Senator Johnson and I here today, and 

I just want to assure you that this is not a coordinated sneak attack on this panel to have five Senators. [Laughter.] 

Let me direct my first question to Mr. Tsunis and Mr. Barber because two countries that you are going to be representing us in 

have some common concerns in the Arctic region, and given that 

Iceland has chosen not, for the time being, to align themselves with 

the EU, they do that in part because they see themselves as a gateway to the Arctic for a variety of industries and resources. 

Of course, Norway has had a connection, historic connection to 

the Arctic. And as a neighbor of Russia, also wonder what their 

views are on Russia’s new $600 billion military modernization and 

increased activity in the Arctic. 

So I wonder if you might both talk a little bit about how Norway 

and Iceland view the future of governance in the Arctic and perhaps how the United States and both of these countries can work 

together as we try to figure out a pathway forward? 

Mr. TSUNIS. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. 

Governance in the Arctic in Norway’s view is through the Arctic 

Council. It was established in 1996. Norway is one of eight fullfledged members on the council. Actually, it was very important to 

Norway that the permanent Secretariat to the council be located in 

Tromso, which occurred last year. 

The Arctic is a very important foreign policy priority for both the 

United States and Norway. As oil and gas continue to be found as 

we go further up the Norwegian Continental Shelf, there are tremendous opportunities for both the United States, Norway, and our 

respective companies in those fields. There are also shipping lanes, 

which are now starting to open up, and that could mean very significant trade opportunities for both our countries. 

As regarding Russia, Norway has always had a posture of constructive engagement. I will tell you there is some concern with 

problems in their civil society, problems in restricting their media, 

an uneven business climate at times, and the military buildup that 

you mentioned. But it continues to have constructive engagement. 

And last year, both former Presidents of Russia and Norway entered into a cross-border cooperation, the Barents Euro Cooperation 

Agreement. And I think that was a very positive step. 

16 

So, clearly, if confirmed, I am going to look to continue my engagement with Norway on all of these issues and to work with 

them in constructive engagement with Russia. 

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Senator, I will add just briefly to Mr. Tsunis’ comments and reinforce the comment that you, yourself, made, as well 

as Mr. Tsunis, that the United States and Iceland share an identity as Arctic nations, and they are two of the eight Arctic Council 

members. The Arctic Council has a mission to promote cooperation 

and coordination among its member states, including the six others, and this is a forum in which the United States believes it is 

important to engage not only with Iceland, but the other Arctic nations on issues that are of common importance to them. 

Senator MURPHY. Ms. Bell, you touched briefly on the same subject that I talked about with respect to Hungary, which is some of 

these concerning developments regarding the rollback of certain 

democratic institutions and the relative independence of the bank 

and of the court. 

And I do not want to overstate the concern as you look at each 

one of these issues individually, but when you roll them all together, one of the worries is that it starts to create a little bit of 

a dangerous precedent within the OSCE and within NATO, as we 

are preaching to people who want to join these associations as to 

the democratic reforms that they have to undertake. It is a little 

bit difficult when you look at the totality of what is happening in 

Hungary to continue to hold that line. 

So we do not normally get into the business of telling our European partners through our embassies what they should be doing 

with respect to internal and domestic policy. So what do you think 

our levers are here? What is the appropriate intervention, the appropriate push and pull that we can give our partners in Hungary 

as they work through the future of some of these issues? 

Ms. BELL. Thank you, Senator. 

If confirmed, one of the key priorities will be to build upon the 

mutually beneficial economic, diplomatic, and security partnership 

that we have with Hungary. At the same time, there are governance issues that have been addressed over the past 2 years. And 

these have not come strictly from the United States, but they have 

also been concerns that have been expressed by the European 

Union. 

As you mentioned, this erosion of checks and balances and the 

centralization of executive authority and also the freedom of and 

independence of the judiciary. And to name another would be 

media freedom. I absolutely do think that given the fact that Hungary is a strong and valued NATO ally of ours, a strong ally means 

an ally who has strong democracy in existence. 

So this is not always an easy conversation to have, but it is a 

necessary one. And if confirmed, I will continue to participate in a 

constructive and effective dialogue with our Hungarian partners 

about the values necessary to maintain and build a robust democracy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

17 

I guess I would just like to go down the table there and just ask 

a question from your standpoint. What are the greatest commercial 

opportunities we have with the country you are going to be Ambassador to, if confirmed? 

Mr. Barber, I will start with you. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

I think that Iceland is a country remarkable, for one, in its pioneering and innovation in the development of renewable power, 

geothermal and hydropower. Indeed, 85 percent of all energy used 

is sourced from renewables. 

Iceland is fortunate that its geological location is such that these 

resources are pretty readily available. But beyond that, Iceland has 

utilized its own ingenuity and resourcefulness of its peoples to develop these resources, to develop the technology to exploit them. 

And there are a number of both scientific collaborations that are 

in place as we speak, as between our two countries, our governments, and indeed between and among commercial enterprises in 

both countries to develop this technology and to employ it not only 

in Iceland, not only in the United States, but actually in other 

places around the world. There is great potential there, and that 

is just simply one area where I hope that our countries can work 

together. 

Senator JOHNSON. So there are opportunities for us to import the 

advanced technology from Iceland or vice versa, that they actually 

would be importing technology from the United States? 

Mr. BARBER. I would say both, quite frankly, Senator. But the 

Icelanders are out in front of the rest of the world in the effort to 

exploit geothermal renewable energy power here. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Tsunis, you talked about obviously Norway and oil. Are there other opportunities there between our two 

countries? 

Mr. TSUNIS. Sure. Although the heart of our business ties are in 

the energy field, there are—we have a $15 billion annual trade 

partnership with Norway. It is very important to them. We are 

their fifth-largest trading partner. 

There are 300 businesses that are currently operating in Norway. Sixty percent of our investments in Norway have to do with 

energy, and there is a huge, huge American community in 

Stavanger there. 

But in this trade relationship, we have a slight deficit in manufactured goods. We have a slight surplus in services, but there are 

a lot of things that we will be getting to—there are a lot of markets 

that will continue to open up. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, let me just ask, as Ambassador, how 

would you promote those trade cooperations? 

Mr. TSUNIS. Thank you for that save, Senator Johnson. 

There has—prior Ambassadors have been very, very engaged in 

this issue. It is important that we continue—interesting. 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me move on to Ms. Bell. 

Mr. TSUNIS. Please, thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. What are you looking at in terms of those 

commercial opportunities between the United States and Hungary? 

Ms. BELL. Thank you very much for the question. 

18 

The United States and Hungary have a strong commercial and 

business relationship. Nine billion dollars of U.S. investment are in 

Hungary right now. There will be opportunities to increase our 

trade relationship. I look forward to advocating for TTIP and ultimately using TTIP as a tool to promote the trade relationship, 

which will ultimately grow U.S. jobs and simultaneously improve 

the Hungarian economy. 

I look to work—I think there are opportunities, business and 

commercial opportunities in a variety of different business sectors 

in Hungary. I will look to promote commercial opportunities for 

U.S. businesses in manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, health and 

welfare, and energy at some point. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Bell, you talked about in your testimony 

the rise in Hungary of extremist parties, that that was a particular 

concern. Can you just describe that in a little more, greater detail? 

Ms. BELL. Yes. Thank you very much, Senator, for the opportunity to touch on this. 

It is important for us to continue to confront bigotry and intolerance at all times. There is an extremist group in Hungary. They 

are the third-largest political party in Hungary, and they hold 11 

percent of the seats in Parliament. They are responsible for a large 

percentage of the incidents of anti-Semitism and the vitriolic language that is coming out of Hungary. 

The Hungarian Government has stated that they will not cooperate with this party, Jobbik Party. Embassy Budapest and the 

United States has clearly and consistently expressed to the Hungarian Government the need to condemn these incidences immediately. 

I do believe and I hope that there is a chance that these—with 

the improvement in the economy and an engaged citizenry and effective diplomacy that we can reduce these rates. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me thank all three of our nominees for their willingness 

to serve our country. It is not easy. It will demand a lot of time 

and certainly family sacrifice. So I thank you all, and I thank your 

families for your willingness. 

In all three of the countries that you have been nominated to 

represent the United States, they are all members of the OSCE, 

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. I had the 

honor of chairing the U.S.-Helsinki Commission, which is the U.S. 

participation in the OSCE. 

The OSCE is the largest regional organization by number of 

countries in the world. It includes both the United States and Russia, which gives us a unique opportunity to advance the good governance issues that Ms. Bell was talking about as it relates to 

Hungary. I think it is fair to say that Norway and Iceland are 

strong members that share the U.S. commitment in all those areas 

and are our key allies. 

In regards to Hungary, which is a key strategic U.S. ally, as you 

point out—no question about that, a NATO partner—their commitments to the Helsinki principles are somewhat of concern. 

19 

Ms. Bell, you mentioned in your statement the fact that their 

constitutional and statutory changes are problematic. You were a 

little diplomatic in your written statement. I think much stronger 

in your response to our questions, which I appreciate very much. 

Maybe you are learning diplomacy. 

But let me point out that Hungary is a friend, and we have an 

obligation to be pretty direct about this. And what is happening in 

Hungary today is very concerning. You mentioned the Jobbik 

Party, which is the third-largest party, as you point out, in Hungary. And it is true that the government has not embraced the 

Jobbik Party, but they have not condemned it. They played politics 

with it locally. 

So we have not seen the strong government action that we would 

like to see. Instead, we see activities taking place in Hungary that 

really raises major concern for us. They are now setting up this 

museum to commemorate the German occupation of Hungary. And 

quite frankly, there is major concern here because it looks like it 

is trying to say that everything that happened in Hungary during 

World War II was the responsibility of the Germans, whereas we 

know there were many Hungarians that were complicit as to what 

happened in Hungary during World War II. 

And I mention that because, yes, we have seen, as you point out 

in your statement, the rise of extremism. It is not just Jews and 

Jewish community in Hungary. It is the Roma community, which 

is being very much singled out. 

And we have seen a rise of anti-Semitism and extremism, but we 

found governments have stood up against it. And in Hungary, we 

are concerned that we have not seen the strength in its government to condemn those activities. 

So if you are confirmed as our Ambassador, you have got to be 

a strong voice on this. You cannot equivocate at all. And to know 

that if the relationship between our two countries will continue to 

grow stronger, we expect their government to take action and not 

just to say one thing to the local constituency in Hungary and another thing to our Ambassador. 

So I will give you one more opportunity to respond on this. I very 

much appreciate your responses to Senator Murphy and Senator 

Johnson. I think they were right on. But I hope you understand 

that you have a responsibility to be very direct when a friend is 

not taking the right course. 

Ms. BELL. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

I do understand this, and I appreciate the responsibility that I 

will be taking, if confirmed. You have my word that I will continue 

to maintain a very strong and constructive dialogue with the Hungarian Government about the importance of drowning out this hate 

speech and these incidences of anti-Semitism. 

And as I mentioned, the Government of Hungary did say that 

they would not engage with Jobbik, and this is something that we 

will hold them at their word. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I hope also you will work closely with us in Congress and keep 

us informed and be prepared to accept advice from us as this issue 

unfolds because it is a major concern. 

20 

Mr. Tsunis, I have known of your record for a long time, and I 

thank you for being willing to allow your talent to be used to represent our country in Norway. It is a very important country, and 

as you have pointed out, the opportunities between our countries 

only can get stronger. 

Mr. Barber, Iceland is a very interesting country and I think 

maybe may lead the world in its ability to take care of its energy 

needs with renewable sources. And it offers incredible opportunity 

for us, and of course, it is pretty close by. So it really is a country 

that we think can become a much stronger ally. 

We have had some difficulties on military facilities, but it seems 

to me that there is a lot of promise for growth, and we thank you 

very much for your willingness to step forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Barber, I take it you have been to Iceland? 

Mr. BARBER. Sir, I have not. I have not had the privilege yet. I 

look forward to—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Tsunis, have you been to Norway? 

Mr. TSUNIS. I have not. 

Senator MCCAIN. I guess, and Ms. Bell, have you been to Hungary? 

Ms. BELL. Yes, Senator, I have. 

Senator MCCAIN. When? 

Ms. BELL. I was in Hungary in March. 

Senator MCCAIN. Good. Thank you. 

Ms. Bell, do you think that United States-Hungarian relations 

are in a good place? 

Ms. BELL. Senator, thank you very much for this important question. 

I think that there are aspects of our bilateral relationship that 

are very strong. We do have a strong military cooperation. Law enforcement cooperation is also very strong. Hungary works on a variety of different peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and a long-term 

peacekeeping mission in the Balkans, and also they have provided 

troops to Afghanistan and continue to do so. 

That being said, I do think that there is opportunity to improve 

the bilateral relationship. I think that there are a variety of ways 

of doing so and are not necessarily all mutually exclusive. 

If confirmed, I look—— 

Senator MCCAIN. For example? 

Ms. BELL. For example, to work to build the military cooperation 

that we do have at this point and also promote business opportunities for U.S. companies and also continue to work these governance 

issues, discuss these governance issues. 

Senator MCCAIN. So what would you be doing differently from 

your predecessor, who obviously had very rocky relations with the 

present government? 

Ms. BELL. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the broad 

range of society—— 

Senator MCCAIN. My question was what would you do differently? 

21 

Ms. BELL. Senator, in terms of what I would do differently from 

my predecessor—— 

Senator MCCAIN. That was the question. 

Ms. BELL [continuing]. Kounalakis, well, what I would like to do, 

if confirmed, I would like to work toward engaging civil society in 

a deeper, in a deeper—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Obviously, you do not want to answer my question. Do you think democracy is under threat in Hungary? 

Ms. BELL. I think that there are absolutely signs of an erosion 

of checks and balances in Hungary. I do think that. I think that 

there is a centralization of executive authority that has taken 

place. I do think that the media freedoms are compromised. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you think our—what are our strategic interests in Hungary? 

Ms. BELL. Well, we have—our strategic interests, in terms of 

what are our key priorities in Hungary, I think our key priorities 

are to improve upon, as I mentioned, the security relationship and 

also the law enforcement and to promote business opportunities, increase trade. 

Senator MCCAIN. I would like to ask again what our strategic interests in Hungary are. 

Ms. BELL. Our strategic interests are to work collaboratively as 

NATO allies, to work to promote and protect the security for both 

countries and for the world, to continue working together on the 

cause of human rights around the world, to build that side of our 

relationship while also maintaining and pursuing some difficult 

conversations that might be necessary in the coming years. 

Senator MCCAIN. Great answer. 

Mr. Tsunis, following last year’s parliamentary elections, Norway’s conservative party now had a center-right coalition, as you 

know, that will include the anti-immigration party called the 

Progress Party. What do you think the appeal of the Progress 

Party was to the Norwegian voters? 

Mr. TSUNIS. Thank you, Senator. That is a very seminal question. 

Generally, Norway has and is very proud of being a very open, 

transparent, and democratic parliamentary government. One of the 

byproducts of being such an open society and placing such a value 

on free speech is that you get some fringe elements that have a 

microphone, that spew their hatred, and although I will tell you 

Norway has been very quick to denounce them, we are going to 

continue to work with Norway to make sure—— 

Senator MCCAIN. The government has denounced them? They 

are part of the coalition of the government. 

Mr. TSUNIS. Well, I would say—you know what? 

Senator MCCAIN. I doubt seriously that they—— 

Mr. TSUNIS. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected and would like to leave my answer at they are—it is a very, 

very open society and that most Norwegians, the overwhelming 

amount of Norwegians and the overwhelming amount of people in 

Parliament do not feel the same way. 

Senator MCCAIN. I have no more questions for this incredibly 

highly qualified group of nominees. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

22 

Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Barber, talk a little bit about—and I am 

sorry that I missed your opening statement. But just talk a little 

bit about the state of the Icelandic economy recovery after the financial collapse. I know it affected Iceland in a very significant 

way. So what is the current economic status in the country? 

Mr. BARBER. Well, Senator, thanks for the question. 

And I can tell you that from the depths of the fall of 2008 and 

the extreme difficulties that both the banks and the country as a 

whole experienced as a result of the financial collapse, Iceland has 

recovered thus far remarkably well. It has now modest, though 

positive GDP growth, reduced unemployment, and inflation is now 

in check. 

All of those are parts of the problems that the country experienced in 2008, 2009, and indeed into 2010. They have got a ways 

to go, but as there are still some capital controls that are in place, 

restrictions on money leaving the country, and some credit issues 

still to be tackled on the commercial side, on the home residential 

side. But they are making great progress, and there are several indicators that are looking very positive. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Barber, one of the things that, you know, 

when I hear Americans talk about Iceland, most often Iceland is 

in a sentence or paragraph dealing with a place to go to see the 

effects of climate change, you know, if I talk to colleagues in the 

United States. So I know in the United States there is a significant 

awareness of climate issues in Iceland, and Iceland is sort of an example. 

Talk a little bit about, to the extent that you can, about the sort 

of internal—is there a lot of internal environmental activism in Iceland around climate issues? Because we are grappling at the congressional level of moving from talking about it to what the right 

policies are. I am kind of interested into how big an issue is that 

inside Icelandic society. 

Mr. BARBER. Well, I think it is. I think that Icelanders and citizens of the United States share a great number of values, and 

some of those are in the arena of the climate and the changing nature of our climate. 

There is a little bit of a pivot here. Well, I should say certainly 

concern about climate in Iceland kind of goes hand-in-hand with a 

desire for energy independence, and that, as I mentioned earlier in 

response to a question from Senator Johnson, that the Icelanders 

have done a great deal of work in developing geothermal resources 

and are, indeed, in collaboration with commercial enterprises in the 

United States exporting that technology and know-how. 

In fact, there is a joint Iceland-American company that has just 

won a billion-dollar contract to build a geothermal facility in Ethiopia. So, so there is awareness certainly of climate change as an 

issue, but also a desire to help not just within its own country and, 

indeed, in ours, but around the world to help to combat some of 

those effects by developing renewable resources where they are 

able to be developed. 

Senator KAINE. And innovative strategies. Thank you, Mr. Barber. 

23 

Mr. Tsunis, a thank you and then a question. So a thank you to 

convey. 

Norway has really been one of the great partners in the world 

on humanitarian relief in Syria, both in terms of dollars put into 

humanitarian effort, but also Norwegian personnel have played a 

major role in the destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile in 

Syria. And so, first, that is an important thing to acknowledge to 

the country when you are there that we recognize it. We appreciate 

them. We need more partners like Norway in this humanitarian 

issue. 

Increasingly, finding ways to make sure that humanitarian aid 

gets delivered in Syria is occupying more and more of our time, and 

Norway has been a good asset. So I hope you will convey that. 

And then the question that I wanted to ask you is, Norway has 

also been a really good ally for us in NATO and U.N. missions. So 

it is one thing to be a NATO member, but in terms of putting people into the field for both NATO missions with the United States 

or U.N. missions, whether they be in Libya or Mali or elsewhere, 

Norway has been a strong ally. 

Is your understanding that the Norwegian public remains supportive of involvement with international institutions like NATO 

and U.N. in these kinds of missions? Is there still popular will to 

continue that? 

Mr. TSUNIS. Thank you for your question, Senator. 

As you know, they are a founding member of NATO. They are 

very, very engaged. NATO remains very popular in Norway, and it 

is considered the cornerstone of their defense strategy. 

In November, Foreign Minister Brende and just last week the 

Defense Minister reiterated that at its core foreign policy and defense strategy is its relationship with the United States and with 

NATO. They have been a very effective ally. Some of the most effective—some of the most effective air resources in the Libyan conflict had been the Norwegian F–16s. 

They are continuing their commitment to defense and NATO. 

They are in the process of purchasing 52 F–35 Joint Strike Fighters, which really shows their commitment to interoperability. They 

have—also on the humanitarian effort not only are they a very active participant in the Lifeline Fund, which gives emergency funds 

to organizations that are under stress in civil societies, they chair 

the ad hoc liaison committee, which distributes humanitarian effort 

to the Palestinian state. 

And in Syria, Foreign Minister Brende just announced in Kuwait 

an additional $75 million in humanitarian aid for the people of 

Syria. That comes on top of $85 million for civil society and two 

$43 million commitments for humanitarian efforts that they previously have done. 

They have written off $500 million in loans in Burma, and 

throughout the world, they have shown themselves to be a very active facilitator of conflict but have also been very generous in humanitarian efforts, for development funds as well so these societies 

they are helping can stand on their own. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Chair, with permission, could I ask one question of Ms. Bell? 

24 

Ms. Bell, it strikes me that as I was hearing you chat about some 

of the civil institutional challenge in Hungary, particularly with 

the press, that you bring a really interesting expertise to this, having a background in media and press. You know, what better person to be able to speak to the values of an open society from a 

press standpoint and the reason to have a strong press climate 

than somebody who kind of comes out of that world. 

And so, I am just really going to offer you an opportunity to just 

kind of comment upon that. I think some of the best work we do 

are our Ambassadors individually, but also our Nation as a nation 

is the example that we set. When we set the right example, it 

speaks louder than any words we could say. 

You have been part of an industry in the communications side. 

You know what a free press, free and vigorous, robust, contentious, 

you know, press environment is like here. I would think that that 

would be something that in a diplomatic way you could, you know, 

bring to the table in encouraging Hungary to move more in that 

direction. 

Ms. BELL. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Yes, I do believe that freedom of the press is a core democratic 

value, and it is one that we all have to work, you know, to fight 

for the freedom of the press. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging the full range of civil society on this issue. 

I know that in Hungary right now there are watchdog groups 

and citizens who are working hard to bring back these freedoms 

and promote that very important core value of media and free 

press in Hungary. 

Senator KAINE. And finally, the State Department also has great 

assets and a special envoy that deals with anti-Semitism, wherever 

it is to be found throughout the world. And so, that is an asset also 

that you could draw on. Sadly, we see in too many countries in Europe, but elsewhere as well, anti-Semitism just still kind of a toxic 

brew that keeps stirring, and possibly it gets more challenging 

when there are difficult economic times. It seems to kind of spike. 

But we see that throughout European countries as well as a little 

bit in the anti-immigrant strain that was mentioned with respect 

to some others. So I would just encourage you to use those assets 

at State and your own personal assets in the industry to help in 

making the case for progress. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Kaine. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Barber, you are from Massachusetts, and I know you well, 

and I know you are going to do a great job as Ambassador. And 

I know that you do a lot of work with start-ups, and clearly, this 

is an opportunity to use your expertise in terms of the business relationship between the United States and Iceland. 

And you just mentioned this partnership that we have for a billion-dollar deal, and so maybe you could talk a little bit about this 

incredible energy resource, which Iceland has. They are 100 percent hydro or geothermal in terms of the production of their electricity. So it is a 100-percent renewable country. 

25 

What can that mean for us in terms of partnerships from a business perspective? 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you very much, Senator Markey, for your 

kind words. I hope that if I am confirmed, I will prove to be worthy 

of them. 

I think that the—thus far what I have learned about the collaboration between our two countries, both on the commercial side as 

well as the research, educational components, there is a great deal 

of collaboration happening, and I would hope, if confirmed, to be 

witness to—indeed, aid as I am able—further collaboration. 

It is, indeed, a very exciting opportunity. There is a good deal 

more that can be done. The efforts that are underway right now 

are very exciting ones. The university exchanges are among them. 

And I think that one of the great opportunities that if I am confirmed I would like to be a part of is to engage U.S. manufacturing 

companies in the effort to apply this technology to be the providers 

of some of the hard resources that get utilized in the exploiting of 

the renewable resources not just in our country, certainly in Iceland, but in other parts of the world. 

Senator MARKEY. Beautiful. Thank you. 

You know what I would like to do? I would like to give each one 

of you 1 minute to tell us what it is that you want to achieve. Just 

a 1-minute summary. What is your goal when you all left? What 

is it that you hope to have achieved as the Ambassador to the 

country that you are going to be our Ambassador? 

So we will begin with you, Ms. Bell, and then we will go right 

down, and we will finish up with Mr. Barber. So you have 1 

minute. Just tell the committee what your goal is. 

Ms. BELL. Thank you very much. 

Hungary and the United States share many common values and 

positions on foreign policy. As I mentioned earlier, they are a 

strong and valued member of NATO. If confirmed, I look forward 

to furthering our security cooperation. Hungary contributes regularly to allied operations and peacekeeping missions. 

I would also like to work to promote commercial opportunities for 

U.S. businesses and advocate for TTIP and ultimately use TTIP as 

a tool to increase our trade relationship, which will ultimately grow 

jobs for the United States and simultaneously improve the Hungarian economy. 

I also think it is an important time to continue the dialogue on 

energy security and the need for energy diversification to provide 

the energy security. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. One minute, that is great. 

Mr. Tsunis. 

Mr. TSUNIS. Thank you, Senator, for your question. 

We do not have the challenges in our bilateral relationship with 

Norway that we do with some of the other countries, but there are 

opportunities where we can do things that are better. We have opportunities to grow trade, provide greater investment opportunities 

for Norwegian companies in the United States, which are beneficial 

to our companies and workers. Statoil has a $27 billion investment 

with the United States. 

We want to open up markets and continue to open up markets 

in Norway for our American companies, which will also benefit 

26 

companies and workers. We want to continue our close intelligence, 

military relationships with Norway because we will counter threats 

together. We need to do this together, which is very, very important. 

And on the last point is just balancing energy security with environmental concerns. Norway does it very, very well. We need to 

continue to engage them to do that together. 

Senator MARKEY. And finally, Mr. Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Senator. 

I have got three—broadly stated, three priorities. One is the protection of the interests of United States citizens in Iceland, to build 

upon the very strong, already strong bilateral relationship to promote security of the United States and of Iceland. 

The second is along the lines of what has been discussed earlier, 

to promote those—seek out and promote those opportunities for bilateral trade and investment. One of the functions, I think, of an 

Ambassador is he or she gets to be a convener, a facilitator, a 

matcher of resources with opportunities. 

That is a very exciting prospect for me. It is part of what I have 

been doing in my life heretofore, and I look forward to that as an 

opportunity, if confirmed as Ambassador to Iceland. 

The third is, is to using the tools that are available, the tools of 

public diplomacy, to engage audiences across Iceland and to encourage the already-strong educational—Fulbright, for example— 

educational and cultural exchanges because I think this is good, in 

and of itself. But it broadens and deepens the bilateral relationship. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Barber. 

And thank each of you for your willingness to serve our country. 

I am sure each of you is going to do an excellent job. Thank you 

so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. 

What I love about this panel here today is that it represents the 

best of what we hope our Ambassadors will be, and that is representing the true diversity of the American experience. We have 

people with diverse background in law, in hospitality, in media, 

who have done philanthropic work in about 10 times as many different fields. 

We really appreciate you being willing to serve and appearing before us today. We look forward to your quick confirmation in this 

committee and then on the floor so you can get to work. 

We are going to leave the record open on this hearing until Tuesday at 6 p.m. If there are any additional questions, we hope that 

you will turn them around as quickly as possible to this committee. 

Senator MURPHY. And with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(27) 

NOMINATIONS OF MAX BAUCUS, ARNOLD 

CHACON, AND DANIEL SMITH 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Hon. Max Baucus, of Montana, to be Ambassador to China 

Hon. Arnold Chacon, of Virginia, to be Director General of the Foreign Service 

Hon. Daniel Bennett Smith, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary 

of State for Intelligence and Research 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Cardin, Coons, Durbin, Udall, Murphy, Markey, Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, McCain, and 

Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. 

Clearly one of the biggest opportunities before U.S. foreign policy 

today is getting the relationship between the United States and 

China, in the context of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, right. 

And I can think of few individuals more able and qualified at this 

important moment in history than our friend and colleague, the 

Senator from Montana, to help provide advice and guidance to the 

President and to Congress about how to get that relationship right. 

As you are well aware, China is likely to become the world’s largest economy and all of us need to embrace that fact. Six of the 

world’s 10-largest container ports are in China, as are numbers 11 

and 12 on that list, which presents tremendous opportunities for 

American exporters. U.S. exports to China have increased by almost $40 billion in the past 4 years alone, from $67 billion to $106 

billion, creating and sustaining millions of U.S. jobs in sectors 

across the board from automobiles and power generation, machinery, aircraft, and other vital industrial sectors. 

Through the rest of the 21st century and beyond, much of the 

strategic, political, and economic future of the world is likely to be 

shaped by the decisions made in Washington and Beijing and the 

capitals of Asia over the next 4 to 5 years. 

28 

The key challenge you will face as Ambassador, should you be 

confirmed—and I am sure you will be confirmed—is how to recognize the strategic and economic realities unfolding with the rise of 

China. You will play an integral role in reconceptualizing the problems we face and how to turn them into opportunities. In my view, 

the strategic decision by the Obama administration during its first 

term, described ‘‘as a Rebalance to Asia,’’ was absolutely right. If 

confirmed, you will be a central player in conveying a clear message to the entire region that America is an Asia-Pacific player and 

will be part of the region for the long haul, that we will continue 

to extend the efforts to rebalance our foreign policy to the Asia-Pacific, making sure the resources are there to work with allies and 

partners to shape the broader regional environment in the context 

of China’s rise, that disagreements need not lead to conflict, neither should any of us labor under any false pretense that we are 

not going to safeguard and promote our national interests, and that 

we need to work with China and our other allies in the region to 

construct a new rules-based order for the Asia-Pacific community 

built on open and inclusive diplomatic, security, and economic 

mechanisms and institutions. 

And so we look forward to hearing from you, Senator Baucus, 

shortly. 

With that, let me introduce the distinguished ranking member, 

Senator Corker, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

way we work together, and I want to thank both of you for being 

here today: Senator Tester for introducing and, obviously, Senator 

Baucus for being willing to serve in this way. And I appreciate the 

relationship we have had in my 7 years here in the Senate. I appreciate the very frank conversation we had in our office about this 

post that you are getting ready to assume. And again, I thank you 

for your willingness to do it. 

You know, probably the most important—I think you know 

this—relationship we, as a nation will have over this next decade, 

will be with China. And my guess is that it is not a relationship 

that is not particularly well defined. So you will be going to China 

in a period of time and in a position to really shape that relationship. 

Many Americans today wonder whether China is friend or foe, 

and candidly, you are going to have a big impact on how that outcome emerges. So I think it is an important relationship. I think 

we should do everything we can to strive to make sure that we 

complement each other’s countries, and I think you are going to 

really strive to do so. I know as the Finance Committee chairman, 

you have worked on so many trade issues, have been an advocate 

for free trade. And I know you are going to continue to do that in 

this position, and yet we need to shape it in such a way that the 

Western values that we care so much about are front and center. 

Stability in the region is very, very important, and that is probably an area that you have spent less time on in your post as head 

of Finance. And yet, with China doing what it is doing right now 

29 

in the South and East China Seas, there are a lot of tensions that 

are being created and obviously new tensions between Japan and 

China. 

So we hope to see greater global integration take place. We have 

opportunities right now to help shape that as a nation. You will be 

leading those efforts. And again, I thank you for your testimony, 

which will take place in just a moment, and your willingness to 

serve in this way. 

So I will stop, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to a very productive session. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Corker. 

We are pleased to welcome to the committee a friend and colleague, the junior Senator, soon to be, possibly, the senior Senator 

from Montana, Senator Tester. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Chairman Menendez and Ranking 

Member Corker, Senator Murphy. It is my pleasure today to introduce Max Baucus to the Foreign Relations Committee. Max is a 

legend in Montana. His commitment and his passion for the State 

is second to none. That is why Montana has trusted him to represent that great State for nearly 40 years. 

Max is also a legend in the U.S. Senate. As a longtime leader of 

the Senate Finance Committee, Max knows the issues affecting our 

relationship with China better than anyone. Max has been to 

China eight times. He has led trade and agricultural missions 

there. He has fought to normalize our trade relations, and he 

knows the Chinese leadership well. 

As chairman of the Finance Committee, Max also knows trade 

issues inside and out, a skill that will serve him well as he represents our interests to our second-leading trade partner. 

Max’s commitment to greater economic opportunity has paid off 

for Montanans and Americans for literally decades. As Ambassador, he will have the opportunity to take his passion, his work 

ethic, and his knowledge to the next level. If Max is confirmed as 

the next Ambassador to China, he will join a fellow Montanan 

overseas. Our current Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFall, also 

hails from the Big Sky State. 

But it is really the footsteps of another Montana legend that Max 

is prepared to walk in. After 24 years in the Senate, including a 

record 16 as majority leader, Mike Mansfield became America’s 

Ambassador to China in 1977. As a teenager, Max memorably met 

Senator Mansfield who became a lifelong mentor to Max. With his 

deep knowledge of China, international trade, and a work ethic 

that Senator Mansfield would be proud of, it is my pleasure today 

to introduce you to Max Baucus. 

Finally, I would just say this. It is with mixed emotions today 

that I introduce to you Max Baucus. As a U.S. Senator, Max has 

been a friend and a mentor of mine since I have gotten here, since 

before I have gotten here, in fact. I remember when I was thinking 

about running for the United States Senate. Max Baucus was one 

of the first people that I went and visited here in his office in 

Washington, DC. Max looked at me and said, do you have the fire 

30 

in the belly because if you do not have the fire in the belly, do not 

do it. 

I can tell you unequivocally here today Max Baucus has the fire 

in the belly to be the next Chinese Ambassador, and he will represent this country very well in that capacity. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I introduce to you, Senator Max Baucus. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. We know your schedule, so you are welcome to leave when you feel you must. 

Senator TESTER. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Senator Baucus, the floor is yours. Your 

full statement will be included in the record. Do not hesitate to 

summarize it as you choose. And, of course, I see your lovely wife 

is here. If you want to introduce her to the committee as well and 

any other family or friends, you are welcome to do so at this time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, OF MONTANA, 

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO CHINA 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to thank my colleague, John Tester. No one could 

be more lucky than I to have such a good colleague and such a good 

friend. He is an amazing man. 

I would like to introduce my wife, Melodee, and my daughter-inlaw, Stephanie. Would you guys please stand so we can see you? 

Melodee and Stephanie. Stephanie is my daughter-in-law, Stephanie Baucus. And they are just wonderful, wonderful. They are 

family and mean so much to me. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome to the committee and thank you for 

your willingness as well. We understand that when our ambassadors go abroad, it is also a commitment of their families. So we 

appreciate that. 

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as 

President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next United States Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. 

I thank the President for his support and trust. He is a true 

friend with whom I have been honored to get to know and work 

with closely over the years. I also appreciate the support and the 

confidence of Vice President Biden and Senator Kerry, friends with 

whom I served here in the Senate for many, many years. 

I am also grateful to Ambassadors Jim Sasser, Jon Huntsman, 

Gary Locke, for their friendship and counsel. These distinguished 

statesmen, along with many others, have worked hard to build a 

strong relationship between the United States and China. I am 

humbled to have the opportunity to expand on that foundation. 

The United States-China relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world. It will shape global affairs 

for generations to come. We must get it right. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working with members of this committee and with other 

Members of Congress to achieve that goal and strengthen ties between our two countries. 

My fascination with China goes back 50 years to my days as a 

college student at Stanford. I was a young man and grew up on a 

ranch outside of Helena, MT, full of youthful idealism and curiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
31 

osity. So I packed a backpack and took a year off from my studies, 

hitchhiked around the world. I set out to visit countries I had only 

imagined: India, Japan, China, just to name a few. 

Before I departed, I had never thought about a life in public service, but that trip opened my eyes. I realized how people across the 

globe were interconnected, how we are all in this together, basically 

the same values, the same wishes, put food on the table, healthy 

lives, taking care of our kids. We are all in this world together. We 

are all interconnected. I saw the vital role America plays as leader 

on the world stage. We are the leader. I returned to the States with 

a focus and commitment to a career where I could improve the 

lives of my fellow Montanans and my fellow Americans. 

I came to Washington in 1973 with a goal of working with my 

colleagues in Congress to address the challenges facing our Nation. 

Throughout my career, I have tried my best to do just that. 

I am proud of the role I played spearheading environmental protection, strengthening America’s health and safety net programs, 

and fighting for Montana. I am especially proud of the work I have 

done to build ties and foster collaboration between the United 

States and countries around the world. 

In my capacity as Senate Finance Committee chair and ranking 

member, I led the passage and enactment of free trade agreements 

with 11 countries: Australia, Bahrain, Jordan, Chile, Colombia, 

Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea. 

My position has also allowed me to travel to emerging and established markets on behalf of the United States. And since 2010, I 

have been on the ground working to advance U.S. trade interests 

in Germany, Spain, Belgium, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, 

Colombia, and China. 

I have learned some core lessons along the way. One of the most 

important, I have become a firm believer that a strong geopolitical 

relationship can be born out of a strong economic relationship, 

which often begins with trade. 

In fact, America’s relationship with China began with trade. In 

1784, a U.S. trade ship called the ‘‘Empress of China’’ sailed into 

what is now the port of Guangzhou. That visit opened a trade route 

that moved small amounts of tea, silk, and porcelain. Today, 

United States-China trade accounts for more than $500 billion in 

goods and services each year. 

From my first official visit to China in 1993 to my most recent 

in 2010, I have worked through economic diplomacy to strengthen 

ties between the United States and China. I look forward to continuing that work to build a stronger, more equitable economic relationship between our countries. 

If confirmed, I hope to accomplish two overarching goals, goals 

that are critical to our relationship with China and can help 

achieve our shared interest in a safer, more prosperous world. 

First, to develop our economic relationship with China in a way 

that benefits American businesses and workers. 

And second, to partner with China as it emerges as a global 

power, encourage it to act responsibly in resolving international 

disputes, respecting human rights, and protecting the environment. 

When I visited China in 2010, I met with President Xi Jinping, 

who was then Vice President. We discussed a range of topics, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
32 

cluding Chinese current policies, its enforcement of intellectual 

property rights, its barriers to U.S. exports. I remember President 

Xi stressing that the United States and China have more common 

interests than differences. In his words, cooperation between our 

nations could help drive peace and stability. In fact, he used that 

word, ‘‘cooperation,’’ repeatedly. 

Leaders from both sides have recognized that we have much 

more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. I believe that as 

well, and I see many areas of our relationship where cooperation 

is not only possible, it is vital. 

China must be fully invested in a global rules-based economic 

system. Its economy continues to expand rapidly. It grew 7.7 percent last year. And China is the world’s second-largest economy 

and one of our largest trading partners. 

So how do we continue to bring China into the fold? By engaging 

the Chinese through bilateral talks and regional forums. Engagement will allow us to identify shared goals. It will allow us to 

achieve concrete results. 

As Finance Committee chairman, I worked to bring China into 

the global trade community. I met with Chinese Premier Zhu 

Rongji in 1999 and pushed to extend permanent trade relations 

with China and supported its entry into the World Trade Organization. The strategy has already paid dividends. 

Last year, China agreed to negotiate a bilateral investment treaty with the United States, one that adopts our high standard approach to national treatment protections. The treaty will mark an 

important step in opening China’s economy to United States investors and leveling the playing field for American businesses. We 

have much more to do, though. 

Cooperation is also critical on geopolitical issues. As China 

emerges on the global stage, it has a responsibility to contribute 

more to preserving the regional and global security that has enabled its rise. 

The North Korea nuclear issue is just one example where close 

United States-China coordination is clearly in both sides’ interests. 

And if confirmed, I would work to urge my Chinese counterparts 

to redouble their efforts to press North Korea to denuclearize. 

Countries in the Asia-Pacific have expressed concerns about China’s pursuit of its territorial claims in maritime disputes along the 

periphery. And if confirmed, I will urge China to follow international law in maritime issues and other international standards 

and stress that all sides must work together to manage and resolve 

sovereignty disputes without coercion or use of force. 

I will continue to make clear that the United States welcomes 

continued progress in cross-strait relations. I will also encourage 

China to reduce military deployments aimed at Taiwan and pursue 

a peaceful resolution to cross-strait issues. 

As the United States encourages cooperation with China, it must 

also remain loyal to the values that define us as Americans. If confirmed, I will urge China’s leaders to protect the universal human 

rights and the freedoms of all its citizens, including ethnic and religious minorities. I will call on Chinese authorities to reduce tensions in Tibet and Xinjiang and restart substantive talks with the 

Dalai Lama or his representatives without preconditions. 

33 

If confirmed, I will not be an Ambassador confined to the Embassy in Beijing. I will be out in the field working to solve the challenging issues facing our two nations and building relations between our two peoples. 

I look forward to visiting with the people of China and have the 

honor to be a guest in their country to listen and to learn from 

them. 

Ambassador Locke has told me of the outstanding team at the 

Embassy in Beijing and in our consulates across China. If granted 

the privilege to serve as Ambassador, I will be fortunate to have 

a dedicated team of hardworking professionals at my side. 

Later this week, Chinese and other communities around the 

world will celebrate the start of the lunar new year. It will mark 

a time of renewal, of new beginnings. The opportunity to serve as 

Ambassador will mark a new beginning for me as well, and if confirmed, I will strive to strengthen the United States-China relationship for the benefit of our two countries and the world. 

Chairman Menendez, Senator Corker, all members of this esteemed committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to appear before you. 

And I will submit my remaining testimony for the record and 

welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAX BAUCUS

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, members of the committee, it is an 

honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next 

United States Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. 

I thank the President for his support and trust. He is a true friend with whom 

I’ve been honored to closely work with over the years. I also appreciate the support 

and confidence of Vice President Biden and Secretary Kerry, friends with whom I 

served here in the Senate for many years. 

Before we begin, I’d also like to take a moment to introduce my wife, Melodee. 

My family is the most important thing in my life. I want to thank them for all of 

their support. 

I’m also grateful to Ambassadors Jim Sasser, Jon Huntsman, and Gary Locke for 

their friendship and counsel. These distinguished statesmen—along with many 

others—have worked hard to build a strong relationship between the United States 

and China. I’m humbled to have the opportunity to expand on that foundation. 

The U.S.-China relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships 

in the world. It will shape global affairs for generations to come. We must get it 

right. 

If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with members of this committee and 

with other Members of Congress to achieve that goal and strengthen ties between 

our two nations. 

My fascination with China goes back 50 years to my days as a college student 

at Stanford. I was a young man who grew up on a ranch outside Helena, MT, full 

of youthful idealism and curiosity. And so I packed a backpack, took a year off from 

my studies, and hitchhiked around the world. I set out to visit countries I had only 

imagined—India, Japan, and China, to name a few. 

Before I departed, I had never thought about a life of public service. But that trip 

opened my eyes. I realized how people across the globe were interconnected. And 

I saw the vital role America plays as a leader on the world stage. I returned to the 

States with a focus and commitment to a career where I could improve the lives 

of my fellow Montanans and all Americans. 

I came to Washington in 1973 with the goal of working with my colleagues in 

Congress—both Republicans and Democrats—to address the challenges facing our 

Nation. Throughout my career, I have tried my best to do just that. 

I am proud of the role I played spearheading environmental protections, strengthening America’s health and safety net programs, and fighting for Montana. I am 

34 

especially proud of the work that I have done to build ties and foster collaboration 

between the United States and countries around the world. 

In my capacity as the Senate Finance Committee’s chair and ranking member, I 

led the passage and enactment of Free Trade Agreements with 11 countries: Australia, Bahrain, Jordan, Chile, Colombia, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, 

and South Korea. 

My position has also allowed me to travel to emerging and established markets 

on behalf of the United States. Since 2010 alone, I’ve been on the ground working 

to advance U.S. trade interests in Germany, Spain, Belgium, Russia, Japan, New 

Zealand, Brazil, Colombia, and China. 

I have learned some core lessons along the way. Among the most important, I 

have become a firm believer that a strong geopolitical relationship can be born out 

of a strong economic relationship, which often begins with trade. 

In fact, America’s relationship with China began with trade. In 1784, a U.S. trade 

ship called the Empress of China sailed into what is now the port of Guangzhou. 

That visit opened a trade route that moved small amounts of tea, silk, and porcelain. Today, U.S.-China trade accounts for more than $500 billion in goods and 

services each year. 

From my first official visit to China in 1993 to my most recent trip in 2010, I 

have worked through economic diplomacy to strengthen ties between the United 

States and China. I look forward to continuing that work to build a stronger, more 

equitable economic relationship between our countries. 

If confirmed, I hope to accomplish two overarching goals that are critical to our 

relationship with China and can help achieve our shared interest in a safer, more 

prosperous world. 

• First, to develop our economic relationship with China in a way that benefits 

American businesses and workers. 

• Second, to partner with China as it emerges as a global power and encourage 

it to act responsibly in resolving international disputes, respecting human 

rights, and protecting the environment. 

When I visited China in 2010, I met with President Xi Jinping, who was then the 

Vice President. We discussed a range of topics, including China’s currency policies, 

its enforcement of intellectual property rights, and its barriers to U.S. exports. I 

remember President Xi stressing that the United States and China have more common interests than differences. In his words, cooperation between our nations could 

help drive peace and stability. He used that word—cooperation—repeatedly. 

Leaders from both sides have recognized that we have much more to gain from 

cooperation than from conflict. I believe that as well, and I see many areas of our 

relationship where cooperation is not only possible, but vital. 

For example, China must be fully invested in the global rules-based economic system. Its economy continues to expand rapidly—it grew 7.7 percent last year. China 

is the world’s second-largest economy and one of our largest trading partners. 

So how do we continue to bring China into the fold? By engaging the Chinese 

through bilateral talks and regional forums. Engagement will allow us to identify 

shared goals. It will allow us to achieve concrete results. 

As Chairman, I worked to bring China into the global trade community. I met 

with Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji in 2000, and pushed to extend permanent trade 

relations with China, and I supported its entry into the World Trade Organization. 

The strategy has already paid dividends. 

Last year, China agreed to negotiate a bilateral investment treaty with the 

United States that adopts our high-standard approach to national treatment protections. The treaty will mark an important step in opening China’s economy to U.S. 

investors and leveling the playing field for American businesses. 

It’s also critical for the United States and China to work together to develop a 

shared understanding of acceptable norms and behavior in cyber space, including 

a cessation of government-sponsored cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property. 

Such behavior hurts China as well as the United States, because American businesses are concerned about the cost of doing business in China. If confirmed, I will 

work with Chinese counterparts to ensure meaningful actions are taken to curb this 

behavior so that it does not undermine the economic relationship that benefits both 

of our nations. 

As the largest energy consumers, greenhouse gas emitters, and renewable energy 

producers, the United States and China share common interests, challenges, and 

responsibilities that cut across our economic, national security. Last year our countries announced new commitments to work together on climate change and clean 

energy. During Vice President Biden’s last visit, for example, our two governments 

volunteered to undertake fossil fuel subsidy peer reviews this year. If confirmed, I 

35 

will endeavor to build on our existing cooperation with China, including collaborative projects on energy efficiency, smart grids, transportation, greenhouse gas 

data, and carbon sequestration. 

Cooperation is also critical on geopolitical issues. As China emerges on the global 

stage, we believe it has a responsibility to contribute more to preserving the 

regional and global security that has enabled its rise. 

The North Korean nuclear issue is just one example where close U.S.-China coordination clearly is in both sides’ interests. If confirmed, I would work to urge my 

Chinese counterparts to redouble their efforts, along with us and our partners in 

the 6P process, to press North Korea to denuclearize. 

Countries in the Asia-Pacific region have expressed concerns about China’s pursuit of its territorial claims in maritime disputes along its periphery. If confirmed, 

I will urge China to follow international law, international rules, and international 

norms on maritime issues, including by clarifying the international legal basis for 

its claims. I will stress that all sides must work together to manage and resolve sovereignty disputes without coercion or the use of force. 

I will continue to make clear that the United States welcomes continued progress 

in cross-strait relations and remains committed to our one China policy based on 

the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. I will also urge China 

to reduce military deployments aimed at Taiwan and pursue a peaceful resolution 

to cross-strait issues in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of the strait. 

As the United States encourages cooperation with China, we must also remain 

loyal to the values that define us as Americans, including our commitment to universal values, human rights, and freedom. 

If confirmed, I will urge China’s leaders to protect the universal human rights and 

freedoms of all its citizens, including ethnic and religious minorities. I will call on 

Chinese authorities to allow an independent civil society to play a role in resolving 

societal challenges; take steps to reduce tensions and promote long-term stability in 

Tibet and Xinjiang; and restart substantive talks with the Dalai Lama or his representatives, without preconditions. 

The free exchange of information, including over the Internet, is essential to the 

growth of modern societies. Yet in China, we have witnessed a government crackdown on free expression that is limiting areas of domestic debate. If confirmed, I 

will work to convince China that open debate and the free flow of information is 

in its own interest, enabling the type of creativity and innovation that will lead to 

a more stable and prosperous society. 

I also look forward to visiting with the people of China. I would be honored to 

be a guest in their country—to listen and learn from them. If confirmed, I will not 

be an ambassador confined to the Embassy in Beijing. I will be out in the field, 

working to solve the challenging issues facing our two nations and building relations 

between our two peoples. 

Ambassador Locke has told me of the outstanding team at the Embassy in Beijing 

and in our consulates across China. If granted the privilege to serve as Ambassador, 

I will be fortunate to have a dedicated team of hard-working professionals at my 

side. I will do everything possible to ensure that the dedicated officers and staff 

working at the U.S. mission in China have the tools and support they need to continue performing the important work of the United States abroad. 

Later this week, Chinese and other communities worldwide will celebrate the 

start of the Lunar New Year. It will mark a time of renewal and new beginnings. 

The opportunity to serve as Ambassador will mark a new beginning for me as well. 

If confirmed, I will strive to strengthen the U.S.-China relationship for the benefit 

of our two countries and the world. 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before you today. I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baucus, for that pretty comprehensive introductory statement, and your entire statement will 

be included in the record. 

Let me start off. You are extremely well versed in all of the economic, trade, and related issues. And I think as someone who has 

had the privilege of sitting on the Finance Committee under your 

chairmanship, I have seen that firsthand. But as you recognized in 

your opening statement, this is a pretty comprehensive portfolio 

with China. And in that regard, I would like to visit with you on 

one or two things. 

36 

One is China continues to refer to a new type of great power relationship, and I wonder what you think China means by that. Is 

that China laying down a marker for saying, hey, we have a greater say in our back yard, so to speak? And what should America’s 

counter be? Should we even be using that phrase? What are your 

views on that? 

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, as you have said in your opening statement and I in mine, a view that is shared by all members 

of this committee and Congress, most who think about this question, it is imperative that we, America, be deeply involved in the 

Asia-Pacific. The rebalancing mentioned by our President and others referred to I think is critical. It is because the United States 

and Chinese interrelationship is so valid to solving problems not 

just in China and America but worldwide. 

China talks about a new relationship. I think it is always interesting and somewhat helpful to talk about new relationships, to 

look forward, to try to find something new and something fresh like 

the Chinese new year, the first of any new year. But China’s interpretation of the new relationship, as I understand it, says its core 

interest is one which I think we should be very wary of. As I understand China’s interpretation of the new relationship and focusing on its core interests, it is frankly one that suggests that China 

take care of its own issues in China, whether they are human 

rights issues or whether it is Taiwan, the Senkaku Islands, Diaoyu 

in their version, in the South China Sea. That is essentially a 

version where China takes care of its part of the world and the rest 

of the country takes care of their parts of the world. That is not 

an approach that makes sense to me. It is not an approach which 

makes sense, I am sure, to the President, although we have not 

talked specifically about this. 

The approach that makes sense is for the United States to urge 

China to be a full member of, and to participate fully in, the United 

Nations rule of law, to resolve issues according to international 

rule of law principles and norms. And that includes work with the 

United Nations with respect to North Korea, the United Nations 

with respect to Syria, Iran. It means open skies, open seas, to 

maintain security in the world. Half of the commercial tonnage 

shipped in the world today across the Strait of Malacca and the 

South China Sea—it is extremely important that the United States 

stays engaged in the world and helps work with China. And the approach to China should be it is very simple. It is one that is positive, that is cooperative. We work to constructive results about one 

grounded in reality. We stand up for our principles. We stand up 

for our principles, but as we work and engage China. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Baucus, there are a couple of areas on 

the economic front and the security front that are, I think, critically important, and I would like to get your commitment to the 

committee that once you are confirmed and in Beijing, that you will 

work toward these goals. 

One is the question of cyber security and theft, which of course 

has been part of the strategic dialogue that has been had between 

the administration and the Chinese leadership. 

The other one is intellectual property. A 2013 American Chamber 

of Commerce China survey found—and I was there this past AuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
37 

gust and talked to them about this—that 72 percent of respondents 

said that China’s IPR enforcement was either ineffective or totally 

ineffective. And the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that U.S. intellectual property-intensive firms that conducted business in China lost over $48 billion—billion dollars—in 

sales, royalties, and license fees in 2009 because of IPR violations. 

So can you commit to the committee that upon your confirmation, these are areas that you will work to improve with our Chinese counterparts? 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I absolutely will. As 

you asked the question—and I thought about this before. When I 

sat where you are now in the Finance Committee, I have asked 

many questions along those lines of witnesses of the administration. Why are you not doing more to protect intellectual property, 

get going here, get moving? It now dawns on me that as a member 

of the administration, I am going to have to, along with others in 

the administration, do what we can to address intellectual property 

theft. It includes not only trademarks and other traditional IP, but 

also it is cyber theft. It is industrial espionage, which obviously is 

becoming more rampant. I have heard figures that are even greater 

than the ones you mentioned. It is a huge problem. 

And it is really an opportunity for the United States to keep reminding China that China has benefited so much by our open 

rules-based economy, and China will benefit more in the future the 

more China protects its own intellectual property and follows more 

rules-based solutions to its economic and political problems. It is a 

huge issue and you have my commitment, if confirmed. 

The CHAIRMAN. And finally, I appreciate you raising us standing 

up for our principles because I think in any relationship, one that 

is honest, straightforward, but that stands up for our principles is 

important. And while we obviously are fixated on the economic 

challenges and opportunities, on the relationship to engage China 

in a rules-based system that ultimately observes international 

norms as disputes seek to be resolved, the question of human 

rights, the question of Tibet where your immediate two predecessors, Ambassadors Huntsman and Locke, went to visit Lhasa, 

Tibet, I hope you will do the same when you have that opportunity. 

The question, as we celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Taiwan 

Foreign Relations Act. These are standing up for principles that 

make it very clear that we seek to engage, we seek to find cooperation, but that we will also stand up for some fundamental human 

rights issues and imperatives that I think are important. And I am 

glad to hear it in your statement, and I look forward to seeing it 

in your actions as Ambassador. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thank you for being here today and for your opening comments and our prior meetings. 

I know we talked just a little bit in our office about some of the 

security situations, and I know you are very aware that China has 

recently named an air defense identification zone that overlaps 

with commonly known Japanese territory. And under article 5 of 

38 

our security agreement with Japan, we would come to their aid if 

certain provocations occurred there. 

I know you have had a lot of briefings with the administration 

in preparation for this. And again, I know it is an area that has 

been outside, generally speaking, of the great trade issues and 

other kind of things you pursued in Finance. But what is your 

sense of what China intends by taking these steps that they have 

recently taken? 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, I think the best approach, if confirmed, one I will pursue, is I will do all I can to reduce tensions 

in the East China Sea. It is unfortunate that China set up the 

ADIZ. The United States has not recognized nor confirmed that action. And I think that it is important for the United States to let 

China know that so as to discourage other potential actions that 

China may take. 

Having said that, it is a delicate relationship between China and 

Japan. And it is, I think—and I have done this frankly with the 

Prime Minister when I was recently in Japan—to counsel caution, 

counsel reduced tension, counsel to back off here a little because 

otherwise we run the risk of a major dispute, of a major problem 

where, if tensions are high, there could be a miscalculation or easily a miscalculation. It is important, again, to remind China that 

it is in China’s best interest to maintain a peaceful Asia-Pacific, including the East China Sea, because if relations deteriorate significantly, that will inure to the detriment of all countries involved, in 

this case primarily China, primarily Japan, but also Korea and 

other Asian nations in the Asia-Pacific. And it is just in everyone’s 

interest to just reduce the tension, and that is an effort I will undertake. 

Senator CORKER. On December the 5th in the South China Sea, 

a Chinese warship crossed right across the bow of the USS 

Cowpens. I know that Chinese officials have been critical of our 

‘‘pivot to Asia’’ with many of the comments that they have made. 

Again, what is your sense of what they were attempting to do with 

that episode? 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, Senator, if I knew, I am not sure I would 

be sitting here. It is hard to know exactly what China’s intentions 

at that time were. 

I suspect that China was probing a little bit, pushing a little bit, 

seeing how far it could go. That is very risky. That is very dangerous. There was bridge-to-bridge communication between the 

Cowpens and the ship, the frigate, that crossed the bow of the 

Cowpens, as well as the aircraft carrier that was somewhat in the 

vicinity. 

But it raises the point of the importance of engagement at all 

levels. In this case, we are talking about military to military. Our 

Government is attempting to ramp up military-to-military exchanges with China at various levels. It is fairly rudimentary at 

this point. We have a lot further to go, but everything begins with 

a first step somehow somewhere, and this is I think very, very important. I speak to Admiral Locklear, for example, and others. They 

explain to me what they are trying to do. And I, if confirmed, will 

do what I can to encourage the Chinese to follow up at a next higher level. 

39 

That is important in many ways, to encourage transparency with 

the Chinese and with American transparency, to encourage more 

communication at military levels so that it eventually, at higher 

levels, a U.S. commander can get on the telephone and talk to a 

Chinese commander. What is going on here? What is up here? If 

they know each other in advance, the communication channels are 

set up, it is going to help. It is not going to solve all the problems, 

but it is going to help. 

And the rebalancing that I think is very appropriate is one that 

engages China at all levels. It is not just military. It is economic. 

It is political. It is human rights. And I believe, as we all know as 

people who represent our States work to get stuff done, that the 

more we can talk to people, even if we are just talking about their 

kids, just talking to people, getting to know them better and make 

it regular, more and more often the more likely it is that we are 

going to develop trust and better understand each other to minimize misunderstandings and minimize adverse actions that otherwise would take place. 

So I believe that we will just keep working at it. We have no 

choice. Keep working at it and we will make some headway here. 

Senator CORKER. I know that somebody is going to bring up—I 

would hope anyway—the issue relative to journalists in China. We 

were there recently and met with a number of journalists that were 

concerned about what now is actually happening there. And I am 

sure you will address that at some point through questions here 

from the dais. 

One last question and then I would like to make a brief statement. 

What are the areas, Senator Baucus, that you think are the best 

suited for improvements between us and China at present, today? 

You know, when you get over there, in the very first days of being 

there, you are going to begin to set an agenda. Where do you think 

the areas of improvement best lie? 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, Senator, I mentioned two, broadly, in my 

statement. One is pursuing economic relations and the second is 

the overall geopolitical. 

I do think that economic, commercial efforts do help significantly. 

By that I mean the more we can have an actual level playing field 

in China, the more American businesses are actually able to do 

business in China in a nondiscriminatory way, where China does 

not discriminate, whether it is their regulations, whether they are 

denying access for whatever reason. The more that Americans are 

engaging Chinese people, engaging Chinese companies, whether 

more importantly it is the private sector, the more that helps because the goal here is to get us talking to each other, getting to 

understand each other and know each other. 

Now, people counsel me, if I have the opportunity and the privilege and if confirmed, to come up with two or three main initiatives. And I am working on that right now. I do not want to, at 

this point, be presumptuous and say what they might be. It would 

be a bit premature. But I do not want to be, if confirmed, an ambassador that just has his talking points and goes around and 

meets with all different folks in China just parroting the talking 

40 

points and so forth. Rather, I want to be one, if confirmed, to make 

a difference. 

Senator CORKER. I actually had just a comment I would like to 

make, and I will be very brief. 

As I mentioned, we had a good meeting in our office. And I think 

the administration has been long on making statements, you know, 

like a new era of power relations or a pivot, without much definition or policy to go behind that. I do not think you are the type 

of person to take direction from some 25-year-old at the White 

House calling you and telling you what to do, which I know oftentimes happens in these positions. 

So for that, I am very upbeat about the fact that you are taking 

this position. I think you have shown independence. And I just 

would ask you to take full advantage of the fact that I do not think 

the administration has a defined policy toward China, to take advantage of that, develop one that really allows us, over this next 

decade, to have the kind of relationship, both pro and con, with 

China to help shape their future, but also to build on the economic 

opportunities that our Nation has and to strengthen the security 

issues that we both are going to have to deal with. 

So I thank you for this. I look forward to your service. I look forward to your continued independence in this position, and I look 

forward to seeing you on the ground there. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. If I might first thank you. 

I read your April statement focused on security, which I deeply appreciated and agree with you and will work to follow up with the 

points you made in that statement. 

But second, I am part of a team here working for the President 

and this administration. And I will do everything I can to help implement administration policy. 

Senator CORKER. You can help them most by showing strength 

as an ambassador and developing that policy, which I hope you will 

do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator 

Baucus, thank you for your extraordinary public service and your 

willingness to continue that public service as our Ambassador in 

China. I want to thank Mel and your family, because this truly is 

a family commitment, for your willingness to continue to serve our 

country. This is a critically important position, the Ambassador to 

China. 

You have already heard mentioned by my two colleagues many 

issues. Our relationship with China is complex, and there are a lot 

of important matters. 

As the chair of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, 

I was in China last year and had a chance to meet with many of 

the government officials. And I agree with you. People to people are 

critically important. I found the meeting with the students to perhaps be some of the most enlightened discussions that I had, and 

they had already met with U.S. students that were over there, and 

I think that had a great impact on a better understanding between 

our two countries. 

Clearly, the economic issues are very, very important. I could not 

agree more with your statement about dealing with intellectual 

41 

property and the chairman’s comments about intellectual property 

and the amount of theft that goes on in that country. China needs 

to have confidence in its own people and its own creativity. 

And the currency manipulation is a matter that has to be dealt 

with. And I concur in that. 

And the security issues are critically important. Maritime security and China’s unilateral declaration was extremely unhelpful. 

And we will get to some of these other issues. 

But I want to bring up the matter of human rights. The chairman mentioned it. And your statements are what I would have 

hoped to have heard, and I thank you for that. My concern is will 

good governance and human rights be always on the table in our 

discussions with China. This is a country in transition. They have 

made a lot of progress. Recently they decided to—we will see if 

they carry it out—eliminate the reeducation labor prisons. I hope 

that is the case. That is a step in the right direction. They have 

opened up some of their system allowing people some opportunity. 

You mentioned the Tibetan Buddhists or the Uighur. The discrimination against minorities goes to any minority—any minority—in that country. From the point of view of trying to practice 

your religion, you cannot do it. They will not let you. So many of 

the Chinese people are held back because of where they are born, 

not really having any opportunity for advancement. The journalists 

are absolutely being denied. The United States Embassy’s Web site 

was even compromised by the Chinese Government for being able 

to get out information. 

So I just really want to underscore the importance of the statement you made that representing not just U.S. values but international values of good governance so that American companies 

that want to compete and work in China can get a fair deal. They 

do not have to worry about whether there is an implied problem 

with dealing with a local government official that they are not allowed to participate in that puts them at a disadvantage. 

So can you give us that assurance that good governance, human 

rights will always on the agenda of your discussion as our Ambassador? 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, you have that assurance. It is extremely important. 

I am very proud of an action I took a good number of years ago. 

When I was in China, I met with the then-President, Jiang Zemin, 

and raised with him and asked him to release a dissident in Tibet. 

He said I did not know what I was talking about basically. But I 

went to Tibet, went to Lhasa and raised the same point there. And 

sure enough, within about 2 or 3 weeks, this person was released. 

And I do not know what I had to do with it, but I raised the point 

strongly a couple—three times—because I thought it was so important and was very heartened with the results. 

Protection of human rights is the bedrock. It is the underpinning 

of American and world society. We have some blemishes in our 

country, but we are the leader in human rights. People look to 

America, look to America to lead on so many issues, including protection of human rights, religious freedoms, freedom of the press, 

all the rights that are enumerated in the universal declaration. It 

is what most progress springs from. 

42 

And the answer is, ‘‘Yes’’, Senator. You have my commitment. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you for that strong statement. 

I want to mention one other area where you are going to have 

a special interest in dealing with, and that is breathing the air over 

in China. When I was there—I do not know what the chairman’s 

experience was—I was there for 3 days. There was not a cloud in 

the sky, but I could not see the sun. 

When we tried to deal with climate change in the past, we have 

always been concerned as to whether China would also do its fair 

share. Well, we have China’s attention right now. This is a problem 

they cannot hide from because people see that China must do a 

much stronger job in reducing their carbon emissions. 

How do you see working with China to provide universal leadership so that we can have responsible policies to deal with carbon 

emissions? 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, we are making some headway. We 

have a lot more to do. Recently Vice President Biden met with 

Counselor Jiang Ze Xi to put together a climate change working 

group addressing several points. One is pollution from heavy, larger automobiles. Second is building efficiencies through different finance incentives. Another was the smart grid systems. It is basically technologies that the Chinese can use that we can help provide and work with them to help achieve their objective. 

The point you made is obvious. It is the air pollution. I have seen 

up to a million people die in China a year due to air pollution. 

Senator CARDIN. I might point out you are responsible for the 

safety of our personnel that are there. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is correct. 

Senator CARDIN. They have to breathe that air. Literally they 

have to have breathing devices on certain days. I mean, I think it 

is critically important not just for the safety of Americans that are 

in China. It is obviously a universal issue. And as Ambassador you 

can make progress in that regard. 

Senator BAUCUS. No question. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN Thank you. 

Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Congratulations. Your appointment comes at a pretty exciting 

time and place in terms of the issues that are going on with regard 

to China. Their growth in their economy and their influence in the 

world is really an amazing development to watch from a historical 

perspective. 

And by the way, I would just share, as I did with you on the 

phone when we spoke about this. And I think the President has 

said this. Our policy is not to contain China. On the contrary, I 

think we see a growing economy that we can be trade partners 

with, a billion people we can sell our products and our services to. 

We look, hopefully, to a China that uses its increased influence and 

its military capabilities to be a partner in addressing some of the 

global issues that our world confronts. Just think about how much 

easier the issue of Iran and North Korea and Syria would be if 

China were engaged in a positive way in trying to influence the direction of that. 

43 

But there are also some real challenges, some of which have been 

highlighted here today. In particular, I think the Chinese use the 

term ‘‘the new model of major country relations.’’ And it seems that 

the way, at least, they define it right now is that, No. 1, the United 

States would basically begin to erode or abandon some of its regional commitments that it has made to places like Japan and the 

Philippines and Taiwan and even South Korea to some extent. 

And the other is something you will hear them often say. In fact, 

I think at Davos Senator McCain was asked this question by someone in the audience. Why is the United States always interfering 

in the internal affairs of other countries? And when it comes to 

China, that usually is this issue of human rights. 

The late Ambassador, Mark Palmer, in a book, ‘‘Breaking the 

Real Axis of Evil,’’ argued that United States ambassadors in 

places like China should be freedom fighters and that United 

States embassies should be islands of freedom open to all those 

who share the values of freedom, human rights, and democracy. 

You have begun to answer that question here today, and it was 

asked on some specific topics. But do you agree that the United 

States Embassy in China should be an island of freedom and that 

one of your primary jobs there will be demonstrating to China’s 

peaceful advocates of reform and democracy that the United States 

stands firmly with them? 

Senator BAUCUS. Going to your earlier point, Senator, I read 

your speech in Korea. I thought it was very perceptive and it made 

points which I would like to work on with you. 

Clearly the United States symbolically is an island of freedom. 

You asked to some degree the specific question, should it apply 

physically to the Embassy. That is a question I am going to have 

to take back and work with the administration on. I do not know 

the administration policy precisely on that point, but I will determine to find it. My basic principle is you bet. We are there to stand 

up for human rights and freedoms generally in the world. But with 

respect to your specific question, let me take that back. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, just as you do take that issue back, I think 

you will find broad consensus on this committee and I hope in the 

administration that our embassies should be viewed as an ally of 

those within Chinese society that are looking to express their fundamental rights to speak out and to worship freely, et cetera. 

On that point, the Chinese Government has detained over 1,000 

unregistered Christians in the past year. They have closed what 

they term illegal meeting points. They have prohibited public worship activities. And additionally, by the way, unregistered—and 

this is amazing—Catholic clergy—unregistered with them—that remain in detention. Some have even disappeared. 

I would ask would you be open, if you are confirmed, to attending 

a worship service in an unregistered Catholic or Protestant church 

within China. 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, I am going to do my very best to represent our country constructively, seriously engage, and listen in a 

way which I think is most effective. I will take actions which I hope 

accomplish that objective. 

44 

With respect to where I go and do not go, that is a matter of 

judgment, and it is one I am going to be thinking about very carefully about where I go and where I do not go. 

The goal here is to be effective. A major goal, as we discussed 

here today, is the protection of human rights, probably the bedrock, 

fundamental goal because so much springs from that. And it is a 

goal that I will espouse fully and use whatever way I can to accomplish that goal effectively. 

But let me not answer that directly because I do not know the 

degree to which that makes sense at this point. First of all, I am 

not confirmed. I am not there. And this is frankly not a point that 

I have discussed with the administration, but I will take that back 

too. 

Senator RUBIO. And I am respectful of the reality that in order 

to have the operating space to be effective, you do not want to necessarily be in direct and constant conflict with the host government. On the other hand, there comes a point, I would argue, Senator—and I hope you keep this in mind—where that effectiveness 

cannot come at the expense of the fundamental rights of the people 

of that country and in particular what we stand for as a nation. 

And I would just caution that, again, as you see the Chinese attitude toward some of these issues, their attitude basically is mind 

your own business on these issues. If you want to have a good relationship with us, you need to stop speaking out on these grotesque 

human rights violations. And I hope it never becomes the policy of 

the United States to look the other way on these issues for the purpose of achieving a more friendly operating environment because 

that, I hope, is not the definition of this new model of major country relations. 

I think if the Chinese are willing to use their new-found economic and even military abilities to be a productive member of the 

global community, committing themselves to things like freedom of 

navigation, respect for human rights, I think that would be an extraordinary development for mankind. If, on the other hand, this 

new-found power is used to turn their neighbors into tributary 

states and to continue to impress people within their own country, 

I think we have a big problem and a major, major challenge. 

I know you need to go back to the administration on some of 

these issues, but I hope this is not a matter of debate. I hope that 

it is clear that we want a good relationship with China but not at 

the expense of the fundamental human rights that define us as a 

nation and as a people. And I think you are going there at a very 

unique time where freedom activists in that country are looking for 

an advocate and a spokesperson that will stand with them strongly. They look to America to be that, and you have a unique and historical opportunity to do that and I hope it is one that you will embrace. 

But thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Menendez. 

I want to thank Senator Baucus for your 35 years of remarkable 

service to this body and this institution and express my confidence 

that, Senator, you could not have found a better nominee—PresiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
45 

dent Obama could not have found a better nominee in the United 

States Senate. Your long work and leadership on the important 

and difficult trade issues that will dominate much of your service 

as Ambassador—I hope you are swiftly confirmed—makes you, I 

think, a great representative for the United States, and your 

grounding in our values and your appreciation of the difficulties 

and the tension between advocating for human rights and for our 

values while still addressing the issues of real concern to our home 

States and to our country’s future. I think you are very well 

grounded in the challenges ahead. 

We both come from meat-producing States. Lots of beef comes 

from Montana. Lots of poultry comes from Delaware. And it is my 

hope that you will keep at the head of your agenda open access to 

the market of China. 

Let me, if I could, speak to two intellectual property issues and 

then to one regarding Africa. 

There have been some real changes recently in China’s trade policy that are creating real barriers to innovations in biotechnology 

in the American agricultural sector particularly in grain. And if 

confirmed, I am hoping you can speak to how you would use your 

position as Ambassador to work with USDA and USTR to address 

the important issue of innovations in biotechnology and how we 

harmonize and sustain a good relationship with China. What sort 

of time will you invest in that particular area? 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, it is an issue that has become of greater concern—the recent actions you just referred to. I think the answer to some degree is just to keep pushing but especially with respect to sound science because there are too often countries—and 

China is one—which limit agricultural products for political reasons, not reasons based on science. And I think the more we can 

point out what the science is and that the poultry that is attempted 

to be introduced into China from your State is perfectly safe, it is 

fine, and to keep pushing, to keep talking. 

It is my experience, frankly, with respect to another product, in 

this case beef, with other countries, South Korea and Japan, just 

keep talking, keep pushing over and over and over again. And finally, we are at the point where both Japan and South Korea take 

a lot more American beef. They are not 100 percent yet, but huge 

progress from where they were about 10–15 years ago. So I will 

push strongly. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

I have heard similar concerns. Our second-largest agricultural 

product is corn, and I have heard similar concerns broadly, nationally from corn growers. 

Let me move to ways in which the Chinese Government has used 

their anti-monopoly law and recent actions by their National Development Reform Commission to extract concessions from American 

companies, even those that do not operate in China, in terms of 

making concessions in patent cases. The standard they are suggesting is that any United States company that files a patent infringement lawsuit against a Chinese company will then be barred 

from their market and coerced to make concessions whether it is 

in patent law or trade secrets or other areas. If you would just 

speak briefly to the importance you attach to strengthening the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
46 

tellectual property regime within China and continuing to make 

progress on their respect for IP rights here in the United States. 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, I do not know if you were here, but 

earlier I explained how often on the other sided of the dais I 

pushed so strongly for the administration to do a better job of protecting intellectual property worldwide, often China. And now that 

I am on this side of the table, I have got to put my money where 

my mouth is and do something about it, at least working with the 

administration to do the best I can. I will push, obviously, as 

strongly as I possibly can. 

But it is important for China to understand—and I do not mean 

to be presumptuous here—that the more China goes down that 

road under its antimonopoly law, the more it is going to hurt its 

economy, the more it is going to hurt the living standards of people 

in its own country. And China, like all nations, has a lot of issues 

it has to deal with internally, and a lot of them are economic. 

There is environmental. There is pollution, but there are also economic issues within China. The Chinese people and the country of 

China in the long run will be a lot better off the more they open 

up, the more there is more transparency, and the more the playing 

field is actually level. It is extremely important that that also is a 

point we make over and over again. We could compete. Chinese 

companies can compete, but we want a level playing field. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

My last question will be about exactly that, a level playing field. 

Africa—as you know, I chair the Africa Subcommittee here in Foreign Relations—is I think a continent of immense importance to 

the United States, to China, and to the world as the greatest storehouse of remaining mineral reserves for the world. The recent discoveries of oil and gas and minerals all over the east coast, the 

west coast have sparked a real aggressive move by China to take 

a dominant position in access to Africa’s natural resources. In fact, 

they have eclipsed the United States as the leading trading partner 

for Africa, and their dramatic investments in infrastructure and in 

economic development are often done in ways that are not on a 

level playing field, concessionary loans and relationships that do 

not follow the same trading rules that we do. And frankly, to the 

extent we try to advance a values agenda in Africa that promotes 

human rights and open society and commitment to democracy, we 

often find ourselves in some real tension with the Chinese and how 

they are pursuing their interests on the continent. 

It is my hope that as Ambassador you will seek ways that we 

could partner with the Chinese constructively and positively in 

some countries like South Sudan and Sudan where they could play 

a positive role, but you will also hold up this vision of fair trade, 

of a level playing field moving forward. 

If you would, just speak to your concerns about the Chinese role 

in Africa and how you think as Ambassador you might add to the 

forward movement we need to see here. 

Senator BAUCUS. Frankly, Senator, with respect to Africa, I have 

a little bit to learn. I see the press reports—we all do—of Chinese 

investment in Africa and the concerns that you have just outlined. 

And we will push for, obviously, rules-based, value-based investment. If China wants to invest in Africa, that is fine. That is ChiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
47 

na’s right and should, just as we should. But I also think we Americans—American businesses—look for ways to invest more aggressively in various African countries. 

I will keep your point very firmly in mind, Senator, and go back 

and try to find a better answer. 

Senator COONS. I am confident that your rich and deep experience and long service here has equipped you better than anyone 

who could possibly be nominated, and I look forward to your service. And I am grateful for you and your family and for everything 

you have already given this country. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator COONS. I am confident your service will be exemplary. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to join Senator Coons in thanking you for your past 

service to the country and your willingness to serve in this capacity. 

I also appreciate the time you spent with me yesterday, and I enjoyed the conversation. 

As a business person, I always seem to frame these issues from 

a businessman’s perspective. Taking a look at our relationship with 

China, to me it seems like just one long, ongoing negotiation. And 

one of the things I certainly learned in negotiating in business was 

I first like to understand the motivation of the person I am negotiating with and then I like to spend a lot of time on the front end 

figuring out what we agree on before we get into the areas of disagreement. So I kind of want to structure my questioning along 

that framework. 

Again, in our meeting you said you have been to China a number 

of times on different trade missions and you have met with a lot 

of leaders. How would you assess their motivating factors? What 

motivates Chinese leadership? 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, I think like most leaders in most countries they want to do well, provide for their people, but also people 

like their jobs and want to do what they can to provide for their 

people but also undertake actions so they do not lose their jobs, 

frankly. My experience is basically yours. Often though, to be honest, when I talk to leaders worldwide, it is because I do not know 

them well, it is hard to get past the pleasantries and get past the 

talking points. It takes a lot of time to get past pleasantries and 

talking points that one does get past only when one is able to 

spend quite a bit of time with that person. 

In this case, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, theoretically I have a lot of time to spend with a lot of different people in 

China and do my best to figure out which ones are the most effective, which ones will make the most difference so that I can be 

most effective. That is going to be a goal of mine. 

And I agree with your general approach, just figure out what you 

agree on, put that aside, mark that as progress as it is progress, 

and figure out what you do not yet agree on. But then the next 

point is to, when you are talking, try to understand the other person’s assumptions, the other person’s premise, asking questions, 

48 

just listening because the more you ask questions, positive questions, nonadversarial questions, and try to figure out where they 

are coming from, the more likely it is you are going to find little 

insights and new ways to find a solution here. 

My approach in this job since I have been here in the United 

States Senate has been to do my very best to work with Senators 

on both sides of the aisle to get results, just be pragmatic, and that 

would be my approach here, too, to just do the best I can, listening, 

being forthright. I am the kind of guy, too, who likes to talk 

straight. This is what it is and not be angry about it. This is just 

what it is. This is what we can do, this is what we cannot do, and 

to listen and to convey the impression that we want to solve problems. 

Senator JOHNSON. I appreciate that. And I tend to agree and I 

hope it is true that their primary motivating factor is improving 

the condition of the people of China. 

But then let me ask a question. So what do you think would motivate them to initiate the air defense identification zone? How does 

that further that goal? 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, I am no real expert on China, but it 

is my strong belief that Chinese people are just as proud as we 

Americans are proud. I think, unfortunately, the Chinese leadership has taken advantage of that pride to test America in the 

South China Sea or the East China Sea, and it means we have got 

to stand up. It is the old thing in life, being fair but firm, be fair 

to show that you can work with people and they can trust you but 

firm, uh-uh, we are not going to be taken advantage of. And that 

is vitally important here for the United States in my judgment. 

And we would be fair but firm by engaging them in a constructive conversation, for example, with respect to the Senkakus, say 

uh-uh, we do not recognize that, the ADIZ, but kind of cool it, calm 

it. The same with the South China Sea, say we do not countenance 

potential air defense identification zones in the South China Sea. 

That is not a good thing to do for a lot of reasons. Our basic is that 

our national security is No. 1 to us, as their national security is 

to them, but also our commercial, economic security is so important 

not just to the United States but also to China and other countries 

in the world. Half the tonnage travels through the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea, and it is vitally important that that 

commerce continue so that companies can grow and prosper. 

So in answer to your question, I cannot really tell you the motivation of the Chinese leadership, but I can tell you that the approach that we should take, if confirmed, is one that I will pursue, 

namely constructive engagement, talking but standing up, positive, 

constructive engagement grounded in reality and make sure they 

understand both sides of that. It is constructive and positive but 

also grounded in reality. And I think the general rebalancing to the 

Asia-Pacific is important, but again, it is at all levels. It is not just 

military but also economic and political. 

Senator JOHNSON. I would just like to quick hear your thoughts on—I think the latest figures, China owns or holds $1.3 trillion 

worth of U.S. Government debt. What are your thoughts on that? 

From my standpoint, the primary problem with that is if anybody 

holds $1.3 trillion of U.S. Government debt. But can you just kind 

49 

of give me your thoughts in terms of the potential dangers of that 

or positive aspects? 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes. Well, the biggest concern, frankly, is that 

anyone holds so much of our debt. It is important to get our debt 

down. 

Actually the percentage of United States debt that is held by 

China I think is pretty small, smaller than most people think, but 

nevertheless, it is very important. The real key here is to get our 

trade imbalance down so that China is not continuing to accumulate such currency reserves. That is the big point here, so they are 

not then, therefore, investing so much in U.S. treasuries. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Max, one of the issues that affects my State and is going to affect 

a lot of the IT industry in America is the Chinese Government with 

their propensity to subsidize businesses that are supposed to be 

competing in the open market, but as we all know, as soon as the 

government starts subsidizing, the market lists badly. 

The chip industry and particularly the prices have been volatile 

over the years because of different governments’ subsidies of their 

own industries. I am speaking now of Micron Technology, which is 

one of Idaho’s largest private employers. Their success has been up 

and down because of other governments’ interference with a free 

market price for chips. 

You are probably aware that the Chinese Government is spending billions to prop up their semiconductor industry, and indeed, 

they are finalizing a policy right now to provide additional government support for that. That is going to harm U.S. producers that 

are out there in the marketplace trying to do the right thing as far 

as producing semiconductors. What are your thoughts on that? 

What can you do about that as far as reining back the Chinese efforts in that regard? 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, Senator, it is a big problem. The United 

States Government is undertaking some actions. We have seven actions before the World Trade Organization with respect to China, 

most of them revolving around the Chinese Government subsidizing favored industries, SOV’s for example, and it is important 

that we follow up on those actions. 

The new bilateral investment treaty, which is not finalized yet, 

will help. China is engaging with the United States and has agreed 

to a bilateral investment treaty which recognizes national treatment which helps. We have been spending a lot of time trying to 

get China to sign up to the procurement agreement it earlier 

agreed to when it entered the WTO. It has not yet fully signed on 

to the procurement agreement because the terms it wants to sign 

up with are inadequate. They are insufficient. And we just keep 

chipping away. No pun here. Keep working at the problem here. 

This bothers me, Senator, as much as it does you. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you much. I appreciate your commitment 

to that because this is—the size and the magnitude of the Chinese 

Government and the economic power that they have is a real problem. And I am glad to hear your commitment to that, and I would 

50 

urge you to urge them in the strongest terms that they have got 

to compete fairly in the marketplace or there are going to be some 

serious problems. 

Let me turn to another product that is close to my State and to 

your home State and that is beef. We have been working hard to 

try to get the Chinese to accept U.S. beef. And I am very concerned 

about the difficulties in the East and South China Seas are going 

to cause problems with these negotiations that we are having. And 

I know you touched on that, but I wondered if you could comment 

just a little bit about your thoughts as far as the upheaval and us 

trying to get the Chinese to open their markets to U.S. beef. 

Senator BAUCUS. You have my commitment, Senator. I have 

worked very hard on this with respect to South Korea and Japan, 

and I am now starting to try to get China to take our beef. China 

does not take much American beef right now. 

The potential disturbances in the East China Sea and the South 

China Sea are extremely concerning. However, I do believe that 

with very strong, measured, statesman-like discussions with China, 

we can minimize the potential adverse development in those two 

oceans. 

But you have my commitment to work on beef. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate that. 

The CHAIRMAN Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Max, we congratulate you and look forward to, at our arrival at 

the Beijing airport, seeing you. 

Senator BAUCUS. If confirmed, I will be there with warm greetings. 

Senator MCCAIN. I look forward to that. I am sure Chairman 

Menendez will appreciate that. 

Obviously, we are supportive of your nomination. 

I must say I am a little concerned at some of your answers. It 

is not that the Chinese are proud as we are proud. It is not that 

the Chinese want to keep their job. It is not that we can work 

things out with China, which we can. But it is not that they are 

proud people. It is not that they are wanting to keep their job. 

The Chinese leadership has a sense of history that they believe 

that the last 200 years was an aberration and that China has to 

be the leader and the dominant force in Asia. And you have to appreciate that if you are going to deal with them. And the fact is 

that the South China Sea has implications which could lead to another ‘‘Guns of August,’’ and their aggressive behavior, whether it 

be a near collision with a United States ship or whether the imposition of the ADIZ or whether it be many of the other actions they 

have taken are part of a pattern of their ambition to dominate that 

part of the world. 

I suggest one guy you go see in Singapore is Lee Kwan Yew. I 

suggest to you that he will give you the perspective of China and 

their ambitions and their behavior and what you can expect from 

them because he knows them better than anybody. And I will tell 

you what he will tell you. He will tell you that the Chinese will 

say, well, we will take the western Pacific and you can have the 

eastern Pacific. The construction and acquisition of an aircraft carrier is a statement of a desire to be able to project power. 

51 

The role that China is playing in Asia today should be of great 

concern to all of us, not to mention the fact that they have continued to repress and oppress and to practice human rights violations 

on a regular basis in Tibet, and the tensions between China and 

India on the China-India border continue to be ratcheted up. The 

more penetrations of China across the border between China and 

India are real. 

So we have to understand that this is not a matter of being 

proud as we are proud. This is not a matter of they want to keep 

their job. This is a matter of a rising threat or challenge to peace 

and security in Asia because of the profound belief of the Chinese 

leadership that China must and will regain the dominant role that 

they had for a couple thousand years in Asia. And unless you understand that, you are going to have trouble dealing with them. 

Well, you are going to have trouble dealing with them effectively. 

That does not mean we preach confrontation. That does not 

mean that we believe that a clash is inevitable with China in Asia. 

But the best way to have that be prevented is a close alliance with 

our friends in Japan, with China, and the countries in the region 

that are now united because of the threat that China poses to them 

with their aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and the 

East China Sea. 

When the United States of America ran two B–52s over the area 

after the declaration of the ADIZ, I thought that was great until 

they then advised American airliners to observe it. What if the Koreans want the same thing? What if other countries want the same 

thing? We are seeing a time of rising tensions in Asia, and unless 

you understand Chinese ambitions and Chinese perspective and 

view of history and recognize that they are continuous human 

rights abusers on a daily basis, then I think you will have difficulty 

being an effective representative in this very important job. 

And you may disagree or agree with my comments, but I do not 

base my comments to you on John McCain’s opinion. I base it on 

the opinion of every expert on Asia that I know of in China, and 

that is that there is a growing tension, there is a growing threat 

of another ‘‘Guns of August,’’ and there is a need for us to not only 

make the Chinese understand that there are boundaries but also 

to work more closely with the other nations in the region, whether 

it be Vietnam or the Philippines or Indonesia or other countries 

that the Chinese, because of their hand-fisted behavior, have 

united in a way, the likes of which I have never seen or anticipated. 

I would be glad to hear your response. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

I do not disagree with you. You make very important points 

which I largely do agree with. I applauded the B–52s flying over 

the ADIZ. I thought that was a very important message the United 

States send. It was the right thing to do. 

And I have met twice with Lee Kwan Yew. On the way over 

again, I hope to talk to him again. He is a very, very important 

man. No question. 

Senator MCCAIN. And by the way, one more. 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. I would check in with Kissinger also. 

52 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, he is on my list. We are scheduled to meet 

very soon actually. 

Your point is basically, I think, accurate. It is kind of the old 

thing in life: you hope for the best; assume the worst. And it is just 

important for us to maintain our alliances and firm them up with 

the countries you have mentioned, and there are some others. 

But the overarching goal here for us as a country, I think, is to 

engage China with eyes wide open, to try to find common ground. 

We have talked about the military-to-military exchanges. There are 

other things we can do to help minimize a potential confrontation, 

say, in the South China Sea. I am a realist. Believe me. And I understand the version of Chinese history which you have just espoused, and it has a large ring of truth to it. But as we work with 

China, as I said earlier several times, it is going to be grounded 

in reality. No. 1 is the United States of America, we find a relationship with China where we can make some headway. 

And I do believe how we manage this relationship—we are very 

much determined that living standards of Americans and Chinese 

and other people in the world—we have got to get this relationship 

right. But if we work with China, we stand tall. We protect our 

rights, maintain our friendships and our alliances and keep our 

naval fleet strong over there so that we can protect our interests 

but in a way that for us is nonconfrontational too. We just have 

to work together the best we can, standing up for our rights. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Baucus, congratulations to you, to your family. Congratulations. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, John. 

Senator BARRASSO. You have had a chance to talk a little bit 

about trade issues and concerns. A number of others have asked 

the question regarding specifically China’s trade practices. As I 

have discussed in this committee before, soda ash continues to face 

significant trade barriers around the world. The United States is 

the most competitive supplier of soda ash in the world due to the 

abundance of this in this country. Green River Basin in Wyoming 

is the world’s largest-known deposits of this naturally occurring 

trona. It is a component of glass, detergents, soaps, and chemicals. 

In May 2007, you specifically hosted a meeting with members of 

the Finance Committee with the Chinese Vice Premier at the time, 

Wu Yi. And at that time, my friend and predecessor, U.S. Senator 

Craig Thomas, was undergoing treatment for leukemia. He was unable to attend the meeting with you as a member of the Finance 

Committee. But on his behalf, you specifically hand-delivered a letter written in both English and Mandarin from him to the Vice 

Premier that asked China to eliminate their value-added tax rebate 

on soda ash exports. I am grateful for your assistance. 

In July 2007, China actually eliminated their 13-percent valueadded tax rebate on soda ash exports. Very welcome news in this 

country. 

Unfortunately, on April 1 of 2009, so 2 years later, China reinstituted a 9-percent value-added tax rebate for soda ash exports. 

53 

So I would just ask, if confirmed, to serve as our Ambassador to 

China, if you will work to highlight and eliminate market-distorting subsidies like the value-added tax rebate on soda ash exports that I believe harm U.S. workers and producers. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet, Senator. I remember that exchange 

back then. Madam Wu Yi is a very impressionable person. And I 

am sorry that the value-added rebate was reimposed, and I will do 

my best to get that turned around again. 

Senator BARRASSO. You also raised the issue of beef, and I know 

Senator Risch has talked a bit about beef. U.S. beef producers take 

great pride in providing a healthy and safe product. The United 

States exported $5.5 billion in beef sales across the globe this past 

year. And I am concerned about the U.S. beef industry, as I know 

you are, continuing to face what is to me an unscientific trade barrier with China. In 2003, China banned all U.S. beef exports after 

the discovery of a BSE-positive cow in the State of Washington. 

Prior to 2003, the United States was China’s largest beef supplier. 

China’s continued ban on U.S. beef imports has allowed Australia to take our place as the leading foreign beef supplier to 

China by value. 

In 2011, you and I both signed a letter, along with 36 Senators, 

to the Secretary of Agriculture and to the U.S. Trade Representative on the need to take steps to eliminate these unscientific trade 

barriers to U.S. beef exports. Recently there have been articles indicating that China may ease some restrictions on imports of U.S. 

beef, but we do not have details. We do not have timelines. And 

I believe this issue needs to be raised at the highest levels with 

Chinese officials. 

I would ask you what immediate action, if you have anything 

planned that you would do with this, and would you work with our 

U.S. Trade Representative and our Secretary of State and the Chinese Government officials to address this issue? 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, I certainly will. I care a lot about beef. 

Senator BARRASSO. I know you do. 

Senator BAUCUS. We will make some headway here. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am curious, Senator. Did you have any conversations with the Governor of Montana prior to your nomination 

about the appointment of your replacement to the Senate? 

Senator BAUCUS. I have not. 

Senator BARRASSO. Any conversations with your former chief of 

staff, Jim Messina, prior to your nomination about your successor? 

Senator BAUCUS. I have not. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN Well, Senator Baucus, I think you have had a full 

exposition of the issues that you are going to be facing and I think 

you have acquitted yourself extraordinarily well, which is no surprise to those of us who know you. 

It is the intention of the chair to hold a business meeting, a 

markup, next Tuesday. That will depend upon questions for the 

record being answered. The record will remain open untill noon tomorrow. I would urge you, if you do receive questions for the 

54 

record, to answer them as expeditiously as possible so that we 

could proceed with your nomination. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

If I might, Mr. Chairman, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I meant what I said in my opening remarks, that is, I want 

to work with you and the committee on issues that are important 

to the committee and to keep a dialogue and a conversation going. 

The CHAIRMAN We appreciate that commitment. 

With that, Senator Baucus, you are excused. 

And we are going to call up the next panel. We have two nominees before the committee: the Honorable Arnold Chacon, of Virginia, to be Director General of the Foreign Service; and the Honorable Daniel Bennett Smith, of Virginia, to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. 

We are going to ask the members of the audience who are leaving to please do so quietly so we can begin the next panel. 

With that, to both Ambassador Chacon and Mr. Smith, your full 

statements will be included in the record without objection. We 

would ask you to summarize those statements in around 5 minutes 

or so and then to have a dialogue with you after that. So we will 

start off with you, Ambassador Chacon. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNOLD CHACON, OF VIRGINIA, 

TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE 

Ambassador CHACON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 

members of the committee. I am honored to be here today before 

you as President Obama’s nominee to be the next Director General 

of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. I deeply appreciate the confidence the President 

and Secretary Kerry have shown in nominating me for this key position. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to advance American diplomacy through strengthening the Department of State workforce. If 

confirmed, I look forward to directing the recruitment, hiring, assignment, welfare, professional development, promotion, and retirement processes of the Civil Service, the Foreign Service, and our 

locally employed staff and other colleagues who work at the Department of State. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to take a moment to introduce my wife, Alida, who is also a member of the Foreign Service. 

And I am also pleased that my daughter, Sarah; brother, Michael 

Chacon; and my brother-in-law, Michael Fonte, could be here today 

as well. 

My wife Alida and I have had the privilege of serving together 

with our three children throughout Latin America and Europe, as 

well as in a number of positions in New York and in Washington, 

DC. And as a Foreign Service family, we care deeply about promoting the U.S. interests abroad and the future of the Department 

and its people. 

Secretary Kerry said, ‘‘Global leadership is a strategic imperative 

for America, not a favor we do for other countries. It amplifies our 

voice, it extends our reach. It is key to jobs, the fulcrum of our influence, and it matters to the daily lives of Americans. It matters 

55 

that we get it right for America, and it matters that we get it right 

for the world.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, diplomacy and development are ever more important to safeguarding national security and prosperity of our people 

in the United States because if we can successfully manage or solve 

problems diplomatically, we save the lives and money that would 

otherwise be spent in dealing with conflict. 

I believe the men and women of the Department of State are 

among the most talented, loyal, and hardworking people I have 

ever met. They and their families deserve the best possible support. 

And if confirmed, I will work hard to equip them with the training, 

tools, and supportive personnel policies they need to fulfill our critical mission. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge and express my sincere gratitude for your perseverance and unwavering support for 

increasing minority recruitment and retention. As my predecessor 

before me, I pledge to work closely with you to achieve a more diverse workforce. I have personally seen, Mr. Chairman, that as our 

embassy teams engage with foreign audiences, our support of the 

American values of social inclusion and freedom resonates far better when they see that we walk the talk by employing a workforce 

that includes people of all cultures, races, and religions drawn from 

across the United States. With innovative outreach and bold action, 

the Department of State is making inroads that will help us reach 

our diversity goals. 

The Foreign Service represents the United States around the 

world at embassies, consulates, and increasingly at less traditional 

missions where diplomatic skills play an important role in promoting our priorities and safeguarding our Nation. The Department remains focused on filling positions in priority staffing 

posts—our embassies and consulates in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya—while ensuring that we adequately staff 

our other posts around the world and advance major initiatives in 

such areas as economic diplomacy, food security, energy security, 

climate change, and nuclear nonproliferation. 

If confirmed, I will work with others in the Department to ensure 

that all employees have the support they need to serve in these 

high-stress assignments and to cope with the pressures such service places on them and their families. 

While the Department’s Foreign Service employees spend most of 

their careers overseas, the Civil Service employees provide the institutional continuity and expertise in Washington, DC, and in offices throughout the United States. The Civil Service has an admirable record of volunteering for service in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and in hard-to-fill positions overseas. 

The Department of State has also expanded its use of limited 

noncareer appointments to meet urgent needs, including unprecedented visa adjudication demand in Brazil and China. Backlogs for 

visas in China and Brazil have been eliminated, facilitating international travel for business and tourism for 1.8 million Brazilians 

who visited in 2005 and nearly 1.5 million Chinese which, according to Department of Commerce calculations, helped create approximately 50,000 new jobs in the United States. 

56 

Our 46,000 locally employed staff represent the largest group of 

employees of the Department of State and an essential component 

of our teams around the world. They often serve under dangerous 

and challenging circumstances with sometimes hyperinflated currencies, and they continue to help advance our Nation’s goals. If 

confirmed, I will continue to build on the concept of one team/one 

mission. 

I was proud to learn from the Partnership for Public Service that 

the State Department placed 4th among 19 large Federal agencies 

in the 2013 Best Places to Work rankings. If confirmed, I will do 

all that I can to make State an even more attractive employer. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity 

to address you and the members of the committee. If confirmed, I 

ask for your help in strengthening the security and prosperity of 

America by leading and building an effective civilian workforce in 

the Department of State. I look forward to helping the Secretary 

to ensure that we are prepared to do just that. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Chacon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT AMBASSADOR ARNOLD A. CHACON

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to 

appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the next Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources for the Department 

of State. I deeply appreciate the confidence the President and Secretary Kerry have 

shown in nominating me for this key position. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to advance American diplomacy through 

strengthening the Department of State workforce. If confirmed, I look forward to 

directing the recruitment, hiring, assignment, welfare, professional development, 

promotion, and retirement processes of the Civil Service, Foreign Service, Locally 

Employed Staff, and other colleagues who work at the Department of State. 

Mr. Chairman, for over 30 years, I have had the pleasure of working with highly 

motivated Department of State employees serving both overseas and domestically. 

I am excited about the prospect of helping to ensure that my colleagues are ready 

and able to meet the diplomatic challenges of today and tomorrow. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to introduce my wife, Alida, who 

is also a career member of the Foreign Service. We have had the privilege of serving 

together with our three children throughout Latin America and Europe, as well as 

in a number of positions in Washington, DC. Growing up in Colorado, I learned 

from my parents the values of justice, compassion, and service to a cause greater 

than myself. My family gave me a moral compass based on love of God and country, 

which has guided my life. My wife and I share these values with our children. As 

a family, we care deeply about promoting U.S. interests abroad and the future of 

the Department and its people. 

The global environment has changed over the past several decades. The world has 

become more interconnected, but also more dangerous. I believe that our approach 

toward managing our workforce also must evolve. Diplomacy today requires flexibility, creativity, and a diversity of ideas that reflect the conscience of America in 

deploying the talents of all of our people to ensure success in an ever more complex 

environment. 

As Secretary Kerry has said, ‘‘Global leadership is a strategic imperative for 

America, not a favor we do for other countries. It amplifies our voice, it extends our 

reach. It is key to jobs, the fulcrum of our influence, and it matters to the daily lives 

of Americans. It matters that we get this moment right for America, and it matters 

that we get it right for the world.’’ 

The Department and its diplomats are, in the words of Secretary Kerry, ‘‘an enormous return on investment. Deploying diplomats and development experts today is 

much cheaper than deploying troops tomorrow.’’ 

Diplomacy and development are ever more important to safeguarding national 

security and the prosperity of our people and the United States, because if we can 

successfully manage or solve problems diplomatically, we save the lives and the 

money that would otherwise have to be spent in dealing with conflict. Today, as the 

57 

United States and the world face great perils and urgent foreign policy challenges, 

we must use all of the diplomatic, economic, political, legal, and cultural tools at 

our disposal, along with military tactics when needed. 

Like Secretary Kerry, I believe that the men and women of the Department of 

State are among the most talented, loyal, and hard-working people I have ever met. 

They and their families deserve the best possible support. If confirmed, I will work 

hard to equip them with the training, tools, and supportive personnel policies they 

need to fulfill our critical mission. 

The increase in personnel through the Diplomacy 3.0 hiring surge over the last 

5 years has had a major, positive impact on diplomatic readiness. First, the midlevel staffing gap, a result of reduced hiring in the 1990s, is shrinking. Our overseas 

vacancy rate has dropped from 16 percent to 10 percent. Second, we have a strong 

commitment to provide training, particularly in foreign languages. In the last fiscal 

year, 79 percent of employees assigned to language-designated positions met or 

exceeded the proficiency requirement. And third, we have been able to support new 

and important initiatives, from Economic Statecraft, which promotes efforts by U.S. 

companies and foreign investment and leads to jobs and opportunities here at home, 

to the empowerment of women politically, socially, and economically around the 

world. 

Our mission has also grown significantly. Our responsibilities overseas continue 

to expand, as does our presence. In recent years, we opened a new Embassy in 

South Sudan, and a new consulate in China; in Brazil, we have plans to open consulates in Belo Horizonte and in Porto Alegre. The Department has also added three 

new domestic bureaus to strengthen our expertise and diplomatic efforts in the 

fields of energy, counterterrorism, and conflict and stabilization operations. If confirmed, I will seek your support for staffing increases that are critical in meeting 

the President’s foreign policy objectives. 

I will continue our hard work to hire, develop, and retain a diverse, skilled, and 

innovative workforce—one that truly represents America. As Secretary Kerry has 

said, ‘‘Our commitment to inclusion must be evident in the face we present to the 

world and in the decisionmaking processes that represent our diplomatic goals.’’ I 

would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude for your unwavering support 

for increasing minority recruitment and retention. As my predecessor before me, I 

pledge to work closely with you to achieve a more diverse workforce. I have personally seen that as our embassy teams engage with foreign audiences, our support of 

the American values of social inclusion and freedom resonates far better when they 

see that we ‘‘walk the talk’’ by employing a workforce that includes people of all cultures, races, and religions, drawn from across the United States. 

The Department’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan provides a useful framework for 

action, but we have a ways to go. We continue to seek ways to reach out toward 

new audiences. After learning that many underrepresented groups rely heavily on 

mobile communications, the Department developed and released ‘‘DOSCareers,’’ a 

mobile app that educates and engages aspiring Foreign Service candidates and others to familiarize them with diplomatic careers. Launched in March and available 

on Google Play and the App Store, this app expands our outreach to these populations and helps candidates link up with our DC-based recruiters, as well as our 

16 Diplomats in Residence at colleges across the United States, learn about upcoming recruitment events, and even practice for the Foreign Service Officer Test. I was 

delighted to learn that in the first few months, DOSCareers had more than 10,000 

downloads. With innovative outreach and bold action, we can make the inroads that 

will help us reach our diversity goals. 

The Foreign Service represents the United States around the world—at embassies, consulates, and, increasingly, at less traditional missions where our diplomatic 

skills play an important role in promoting our priorities and safeguarding our 

Nation. Throughout history, there has always been a need for diplomats, but now, 

as we face issues such as terrorism, violent extremism, and widespread economic 

instability, the need is greater than ever. 

The 14,000 members of the Foreign Service and 11,000 Civil Service employees 

are vital to America’s national security. They play essential roles in: advancing 

peace, security, and freedom across the globe; pursuing economic opportunity overseas; creating jobs at home; and protecting Americans from the dangers posed by 

drug trafficking, weapons proliferation, and environmental degradation. 

Mr. Chairman, operations at our high-threat posts are increasingly demanding 

and changing. The Department remains focused on filling positions in priority staffing posts (PSPs)—our Embassies and consulates in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, 

Yemen, and Libya—while ensuring that we adequately staff our other posts around 

the world and advance major initiatives in such areas as economic statecraft, food 

security, energy security, climate change, and nuclear nonproliferation. The DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
58 

ment expects to fill more than 700 jobs in these five PSP countries in summer 2014. 

Since September 2001, the number of unaccompanied positions overseas has increased from 200 to more than 1,000. We are asking our diplomats to serve in more 

difficult and dangerous places, increasingly without the company and comfort of living with their families. 

If confirmed, I will work with others in the Department to ensure that all employees are fully trained, prepared, and compensated for the mission we have assigned 

them, and that they have the support they need to serve in these high-stress assignments and to cope with the pressures such service places on them and their families. This support must include the requisite staffing, training, and accountability 

to provide our employees the world over with the safest possible working conditions. 

In this regard, full implementation of Foreign Service overseas comparability pay 

continues to be a top priority. 

While the Department’s Foreign Service employees spend most of their careers 

overseas, our Civil Service employees provide the institutional continuity and expertise in Washington, DC, at passport agencies, Diplomatic Security field offices, and 

other offices throughout the United States. 

Civil Service employees contribute to accomplishing all aspects of the Department’s mission, encompassing human rights, counternarcotics, trade, environmental 

issues, consular affairs and other core functions. 

The Department of State is broadening the experience of its Civil Service workforce by offering opportunities to serve in our missions abroad. This flexible 

approach not only helps close the mid-level gaps resulting from the below-attrition 

hiring of the 1990s, it also provides employees with additional development opportunities that expand their knowledge and experience base. The results of such workforce flexibilities have been very positive and we hope to expand these in the future. 

The Civil Service has an admirable record of volunteering for service in Iraq and 

Afghanistan and in hard-to-fill positions overseas. If confirmed, I will continue to 

build on the concept of ‘‘one team, one mission,’’ to ensure that Civil Service employees are well trained, and that we benefit fully from their skills. 

The Department of State has also expanded its use of limited noncareer appointments (LNAs) to meet unprecedented visa adjudication demand in Brazil, and 

China. Backlogs for visas in China and Brazil have been eliminated, facilitating 

international travel for business and tourism that in turn will help boost our economy. In fact, according to the Department of Commerce, every additional 65 international visitors to the United States generate enough exports to support an additional travel and tourism-related job. As a result of our increased staffing in Brazil 

and China, nearly 1.5 million Chinese and 1.8 million Brazilians visited in 2012, 

helping to create approximately 50,000 new jobs in the United States. 

Our 46,000 Locally Employed (LE) Staff represent the largest group of employees 

in the Department of State and are an essential component of our 275 embassy and 

consulate teams around the world. LE Staff fulfill many functions critical to our 

overseas operations, and we could not accomplish our mission without them. Our 

LE Staff often serve under dangerous and challenging circumstances, with sometimes hyperinflated currencies, and they continue to help advance our Nation’s 

goals, even as they have endured the same 3-year pay freeze as American Federal 

Government workers. We want to provide them with the very best support. If confirmed, I will strive to properly recognize their contributions to our missions and 

U.S. interests by ensuring, to the extent that our budget allows, that their compensation keeps up with market trends and attracts the best and the brightest. 

I was proud to learn that Washingtonian magazine just named the State Department as one of the ‘‘Great Places to Work’’ for 2013, noting that ‘‘employees at the 

State Department feel that their work makes a difference in foreign affairs, helping 

to make the world more secure.’’ We also ranked in the top five in the Partnership 

for Public Service’s 2013 ‘‘Best Places to Work in the Federal Government’’ survey, 

placing fourth overall and second in strategic management among the 19 large Federal agencies. A poll of liberal arts undergraduates placed State among the top three 

ideal employers because we provide the opportunity to do challenging work, make 

a positive difference in people’s lives, and develop skills. If confirmed, I will do all 

that I can to make State an even more attractive employer. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address you 

and the members of the committee. If confirmed, I ask for your help in strengthening the security and prosperity of America by leading and building an effective 

civilian workforce in the Department of State. I look forward to helping the Secretary to ensure that we are prepared to do just that. 

Thank you. I respectfully request that my full statement be entered into the 

record, and I look forward to your questions. 

59 

The CHAIRMAN Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL BENNETT SMITH, OF VIRGINIA, 

TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND RESEARCH 

Ambassador SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great 

honor for me to appear before you today as President Obama’s 

nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. I am deeply grateful to the President and to 

Secretary of State Kerry for their confidence in nominating me for 

this position, as well as to the Director of National Intelligence, 

James Clapper, for his support of my nomination. 

I want to thank my wife, Diane, for joining me here today. My 

three sons could not be here. 

Mr. Chairman, INR is a unique and invaluable asset both to the 

Department of State and to the Intelligence Community, of which 

it is part. The Bureau has a long and celebrated history in providing information and in-depth, all-source analysis that have 

helped to guide our Nation’s foreign policy. INR’s strong reputation 

derives not from the size of its staff or its budget, but from the tremendous expertise and skills of its personnel. Indeed, the Bureau 

has some of the greatest regional and subject-matter expertise anywhere in the United States Government. 

Mr. Chairman, it is less well known but INR also plays a critical 

role and function in ensuring that intelligence and sensitive intelligence-related law enforcement activities are consistent with and 

support our foreign policy and national security objectives. 

Throughout the course of my 30 years as a Foreign Service officer, I have worked closely with members of the Intelligence Community, overseen and coordinated intelligence and law enforcement 

activities, and witnessed firsthand the role that intelligence and 

analysis can and should play in the formulation of foreign policy. 

Like many professionals within INR, I also have a strong academic 

background and appreciate very much the importance of drawing 

on the insights and expertise found in our Nation’s outstanding 

academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. As a leader in the Department and as a chief of mission abroad, I have also worked hard to enhance interagency cooperation, to improve communication and information sharing, and 

to ensure that we are all working together to advance our national 

security. 

If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will work tirelessly to ensure that 

INR continues to make its unique analytical contribution, as well 

as continues to ensure that our intelligence activities support our 

foreign policy and national security objectives. 

I thank you for having me here today and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL BENNETT SMITH

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today as President Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for the 

Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). I am deeply grateful to the President 

and to Secretary of State Kerry for their confidence in nominating me for this posiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
60 

tion, as well as to the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, for his support of my nomination. 

INR is a unique and invaluable asset both to the Department of State and to the 

Intelligence Community, of which it is part. The Bureau has a long and celebrated 

history in providing information and in-depth, all-source analysis that have helped 

to guide our Nation’s foreign policy. INR’s strong reputation derives not from the 

size of its staff or budget, but from the tremendous expertise and skills of its personnel. Indeed, the Bureau has some of the greatest regional and subject matter 

expertise anywhere in the U.S. Government. INR has approximately 200 analysts 

who have an average of 13 years of government and nongovernmental professional 

experience directly related to their current INR portfolio. If confirmed, I will work 

hard to ensure that INR continues to recruit and retain the highest quality staff 

and provides them with the training, professional development opportunities, and 

overseas experience they need to ensure the best possible analysis. Equally important, I will vigorously defend the integrity of the analytical process to ensure the 

independence and unbiased analysis for which INR is justly famous. 

Mr. Chairman, it is less well known but INR also plays a critical function in 

assuring that intelligence and sensitive intelligence-related law enforcement activities are consistent with, and support, our foreign policy and national security objectives. The Bureau has a dedicated staff of professionals with significant expertise 

in this area, which encompasses many highly technical issues as well as practical 

ones. They help define the Department’s intelligence requirements, seek cleared language for use in diplomatic communications, ensure that Department policymakers 

understand and can evaluate proposed intelligence activities with potential foreign 

policy consequences, and support our chiefs of mission overseas. 

I myself have direct experience in this regard, and, if confirmed, I look forward 

to helping the Bureau support the Secretary of State and the State Department in 

assuring that foreign policy concerns are taken fully into consideration in the decisions and activities of the Intelligence Community. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I believe I will bring extensive experience and relevant skills to the position of Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research. I 

have served successfully in a variety of demanding leadership positions both in 

Washington and overseas, including most recently as Executive Secretary of the 

State Department and as Ambassador to Greece. I know firsthand the challenges 

facing senior policymakers as well as the incredible demands on their time and 

attention. I thus appreciate the critical contribution that INR has made and can 

continue to make in providing the President, the Secretary of State, and other senior policymakers with timely, independent and well-focused analysis on a broad 

range of regional and global challenges. 

Throughout the course of my 30 years as a Foreign Service officer, I have worked 

closely with members of the Intelligence Community, overseen and coordinated 

intelligence and law enforcement activities, and witnessed firsthand the role that 

intelligence and analysis can and should play in the formulation of foreign policy. 

Like many of the professionals within INR, I also have a strong academic background and appreciate very much the importance of drawing on the insights and 

expertise found in our Nation’s outstanding academic institutions, nongovernmental 

organizations, and the private sector. As a leader in the Department and as a chief 

of mission abroad, I have also worked hard to enhance interagency cooperation, to 

improve communication and information-sharing, and to ensure that we are all 

working together to advance our national security. 

If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will work tirelessly to ensure that INR continues 

to make its unique analytical contribution as well as continues to ensure that our 

intelligence activities support our foreign policy and national security objectives. 

Thank you for having me here today. I look forward to answering your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN Well, thank you both very much. Welcome to your 

families. As I said earlier, service of those in the Foreign Service, 

particularly our ambassadors and other positions, is also a family 

commitment. I know that you will be here in D.C., but nonetheless, 

it is still a commitment. So I appreciate their willingness to share 

you with the country. 

Ambassador Chacon, we are very proud of your service to date, 

and I would expect that the service that you have had will now be 

reflected in this new position. 

As you and I had an opportunity to discuss yesterday, there are 

some things that I am concerned about with the State Department. 

61 

It is a concern that has lasted 21 years since I first came to the 

Congress and the House of Representatives and has transcended 

various administrations and still does not seem to be getting it 

right. And that is the nature of diversity in the Foreign Service and 

in the overall presence in the State Department, of which—I am 

concerned about it all, but one of the worst elements of the State 

Department is the Hispanic workforce at State, which would have 

to grow exponentially in order to fairly reflect the Hispanic component of the overall U.S. population. Yet, this is a goal that has 

proven elusive even when the Department had the resources to 

conduct large-scale hiring programs. 

For example, in fiscal year 2011, the State Department was one 

of only five Federal agencies that saw a decline by percentage in 

the number of Hispanic employees. And your immediate predecessor, Director General Greenfield, made a genuine effort to address this issue and worked with my office in making minority 

communities aware of opportunities at State and in the Foreign 

Service. This is something that I raise with Heather Higginbottom 

in her role in management. 

And I think why we have not achieved in this goal is because it 

is my belief that State needs direct guidance from the top that this 

is a priority. If you do not establish from the top, from the Secretary to the Under Secretary, throughout this whole effort to say 

part of how you will be evaluated is whether or not you are working to diversify within your field the workforce of the State Department and the Foreign Service. Then it will not be carried out because unless people know that it is part of their overall review— 

this is an important equation—it will be maybe for another 20 

years aspirational. 

And this is not just about doing the right thing from my perspective, although it is. This is also about a powerful message across 

the world. When I was in China—we just had our nominee for the 

Ambassador to China—I was meeting with human rights activists 

and lawyers who are struggling to represent a nascent effort to create change for basic human rights inside of China with a bunch of 

lawyers and human rights activists and dissidents. And the member of our team from our Embassy who was leading this effort in 

this group, in terms of engaging them and having set up the meeting for many who did not come because they were threatened not 

to come by the state security, was an African American. And the 

powerful message that was being sent to these human rights activists and political dissidents as someone who expressed some of the 

history of the United States and the change for basic human rights 

and dignity of African Americans in this country and now representing the United States of America in a country in which they 

were going through similar challenges cannot be measured. So this 

is not just simply about doing the right thing. It is a powerful message, the same powerful message when you have been able to represent our country in different parts of the world. 

And so what I want to hear from you is, one, a commitment to 

me about making this a priority as the Director General and, two, 

what is the plan. I do not expect you to give me the 10–15 point 

plan right now, but I do want to hear some—you must have given 

62 

this some thought. I do want to hear some outlines of what you envision having to happen in order to change these dynamics. 

Do you believe you have a commitment from the Secretary to 

change this reality? Because I have been doing this for 20 years, 

trying to change the course of events in this particular regard, and 

I really consider it one of those things that I have not been very 

successful at. The difference is 20 years ago I was not the chairman. 

Ambassador CHACON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by saying you most definitely have my commitment, and we most definitely have the commitment from the Secretary. As a matter of fact, I met with the Secretary yesterday. We 

talked about this in preparation for my coming here, and he wanted me to reiterate yet again, as he has told me personally on a 

number of occasions, his commitment to diversity that extends to 

his entire top staff, including Deputy Secretary Higginbottom that 

will be leading a second review of our Quadrennial Diplomacy and 

Development Review. And I want to say as a member of the Foreign Service, a proud member with over 30 years of experience 

there, I have seen the culture change. We can do a much better job 

clearly. 

I personally am not satisfied but I am very impressed with the 

steady progress that we have made. And it is my team that will 

be working very hard because this is an important imperative and 

priority. 

We are doing some novel things like a mobile app to be able to 

communicate with underrepresented populations to be able to 

demystify, if you will, what the Foreign Service is. 

My personal case is somewhat emblematic. I come from Colorado, 

New Mexico, 350 years, never really did much international travel 

in my youth, did not know anything about the Foreign Service, 

happened to run into a recruiter on campus who talked about it. 

When I did volunteer work overseas in Latin America, I became engaged with talking to Foreign Service officers, felt instantly smitten with this. And it helped me prepare better and pursue this career. 

And that is what I hope to do is to take this story outside the 

traditional stream and to go to areas where we have people that 

are genuinely interested in public service and that have major contributions to make. 

We hope to launch this spring as well a Foreign Service exam online that gives immediate feedback to people that are taking it. It 

guides them in areas where they can improve their score. We have 

diplomats in residence at over 16 universities, many of those serving historic institutions that serve Hispanics or African Americans. 

And again, their mandate is to go out and to find these people, not 

just to do it by chance. 

It is an exciting career. I know that we have people interested 

in second careers, accomplished people. I have observed some of the 

examination process. We have bankers and lawyers that want to 

start in public service, and I would like to tap into underrepresented groups and minority professional organizations to be able 

to tell this story and to bring in those talents. 

63 

So we have a lot of work to do, but I think it is exciting because 

we are all working as a team. The Secretary has some innovative 

programs in terms of outreach to veterans. I would like to look at 

public-private partnerships to sponsor more internships like our 

Rangel and Pickering fellowships because it is a process. It is getting access to this lifestyle and understanding it so that they can 

compete on a level playing field when they do take the exam. 

The CHAIRMAN Well, I appreciate that answer. The one thing I 

might disagree with you on is progress. I guess progress is all relative. But certainly we have not had the type of progress over two 

decades that I think is commensurate with the growth in this country of a critical part of the population. So I will look forward to 

having a more in-depth opportunity to work with you. 

I am going to tell you four points that I think are essential to 

any plan. 

First of all, it starts with measurement, making sure that at the 

very top it is very clear that the process by which those who are 

going to be reviewed will have as one of the measurements what 

they have done to promote this diversity. 

Secondly is if we continue to recruit at the traditional places that 

we recruit at, we are not going to get a diverse pool. So I can bring 

you to New Jersey and some great schools that are very diverse, 

but that recruiting does not take place there. And that is just by 

way of one example. Now, if we go to the Fletcher School of Diplomacy, which is a fantastic school, or ISIS or others, we are going 

to get some really talented people, but we are not going to necessarily get the most diverse pool. So we need to diversify where 

we send these recruiters. 

Thirdly, we need to actually engage, if we really want to make 

this happen, to not only recruit those individuals but to lead them 

in some process that prepares them for the written exam and then 

the oral exam. 

And then lastly, I continuously am concerned about an oral exam 

that is very subjective and in which some people have said you can 

communicate effectively orally and others cannot. Obviously, oral 

communication is incredibly important in this job, but with all due 

respect, I have had those appear before this committee and I have 

met others who evidently must have passed the oral exam, and I 

have known others who have been rejected who, from my point of 

view, are equally competent in their ability to orally express themselves. So we need a less subjective and more objective standard so 

that we actually get the cadre that we want. 

So we will look forward to working with you on this. This is 

something that I am actually considering looking at something that 

we have not done in this committee for some time, which is a State 

Department authorization bill so that we can lay out this, among 

many other elements, of course—there are many important elements that we have not been able to do. And I think it is time for 

the committee to consider doing that. I know the challenges with 

it but I think it is important. 

Finally, I would hope that as we deal—something that I have 

taken to heart since I became the chairman, something that began 

with the tragedy of Benghazi, something that the ARB has laid out 

a roadmap on, that we are looking at the staffing necessary in fulVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
64 

filling the human capital needs and language requirements and 

other critical elements to make sure that our embassies abroad, 

which are particularly in high-threat, high-risk positions, have the 

staff necessary to be able to meet those challenges. Is that something that you are committed to as we move forward here? 

Ambassador CHACON. I certainly am, Senator, and we have 

taken those recommendations of the ARB to heart and have created 150 new security positions. We have created language proficiency programs for security personnel, in particular in Arabic. 

We are looking at using all of our hiring authorities to bring on immediately qualified personnel, for instance, that are retired or family members or other experts that can immediately begin contributing to this. It is our highest priority and one of my top goals, of 

course, is ensuring that we have the staff necessary for the 720 positions in the five priority staffing areas which include Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya. So, yes, you do have my 

commitment there. And we have gone a long way but we certainly 

can do a much better job. 

The CHAIRMAN Mr. Smith, I do not want you to feel left out of 

the conversation. Let me ask you, can you describe for me how INR 

participates in the formulation of threat assessment against U.S. 

posts by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security? You know, one of the 

things that came out was looking at threats in a different way than 

we had where it was not just a question of immediate actionable 

intelligence where we had a specific threat, but an environment 

that could have created—from which a threat could arise from. 

Could you give me a little sense of how INR goes about that and 

how you will, as the Assistant Secretary, upon confirmation, look 

at that issue? 

Ambassador SMITH. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

INR works closely with our colleagues in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as well as in the regional bureaus and elsewhere 

in the Department, to ensure that they have access to the intelligence and information they need to make assessments about the 

security and safety of our personnel on the ground in a given position or a given place. 

One of the things I want to do, if I am confirmed, Senator, is 

make sure that we are working as collaboratively as possible, that 

they have access, as I understand, to all the information they need, 

but also that INR is providing the broader intelligence assessment 

and analysis to put these things in a broader context. I think you 

are absolutely right that in many cases we need to see the bigger 

picture sometimes and to step back, and I think INR’s contribution 

can be significant in that regard. 

The CHAIRMAN Let me ask you, if you were to be confirmed, 

would you, in essence, become the Secretary’s chief intelligence 

briefer? 

Ambassador SMITH. I am the Secretary’s representative to the Intelligence Community, and I will ensure that the Secretary has access to the information that he needs, but also that the Intelligence 

Community is focused on the priorities of the Secretary and the 

State Department. 

The CHAIRMAN So that does not mean that you are necessarily 

the chief intelligence briefer. You would be his representative in 

65 

the Intelligence Community to try to rivet their attention on things 

the State Department cares about. But how does that play back to 

the Secretary? Any Secretary, this one or any other. How does that 

play back to the Secretary? In what role do you interface with the 

Secretary in that regard? 

Ambassador SMITH. Well, I will, if confirmed, be attending the 

Secretary’s senior staff meetings and other events in order to provide information but also to take back information to INR and to 

the Intelligence Community on the priorities and concerns of the 

Secretary on an ongoing basis. I think one of the strengths of INR 

as an institution is that proximity to the Secretary of State and to 

other policymakers in the State Department to provide an ongoing 

dialogue in order to anticipate their needs and to provide feedback 

to the Intelligence Community about priorities and objectives. 

The CHAIRMAN To what extent does INR engage in personnel rotations with other agencies of the Intelligence Community and vice 

versa with them and INR? 

Ambassador SMITH. INR is a small organization, as you know, 

Senator. We have about 200 analysts, about 360 positions in INR, 

but we, within those constraints of being a small organization, I 

think try our best to ensure that our analysts, our employees have 

opportunities within the Intelligence Community at large, whether 

it is serving and being detailed to other parts of the Intelligence 

Community, but also that they can take advantage of opportunities 

abroad. One of the things I think that enhances our value and certainly enhances the insights and experience of our analysts is to be 

able to serve abroad. We look for TDY assignments and other opportunities so that they can spend time abroad. 

The CHAIRMAN I got your answer on how many people you have, 

and I recognize the size of it compared to the challenge. 

Can you quantify it for me? Do you have an understanding of the 

component? Is it 10 percent or 5 percent or 2 percent that rotate 

into other intelligence agencies or other intelligence agencies that 

rotate into INR? 

Ambassador SMITH. Well, I would say, on hand—I do not know 

the exact statistics, Senator, but I would say that we have a substantial number of detailees. I know, at any given time, perhaps as 

many as 5 to 10 percent of the Bureau are detailees from other Intelligence Community organizations and institutions. We try to, as 

I say, make available our staff and allow them to do rotations within the Intelligence Community as much as possible. I do not know 

at any given time how many it is. Last year we had, in terms of 

overseas assignments though I know, seven who were out, enabled 

to go out on TDY’s of our employees. 

The CHAIRMAN Would you, for the record, get us an answer as 

to what is the nature of the rotations? Because it seems to me that 

it would be valuable for all concerned by getting exposure to and 

experience, and the responsibilities, the tradecraft, and the organizational cultures of other agencies that would help your specific 

task within the Department be enriched. So if you could get us an 

answer on that, I would appreciate it. 

Ambassador SMITH. I would be delighted, Mr. Chairman, but I 

give you my commitment as well, if confirmed, that is going to be 

one of my priorities, to ensure those opportunities. 

66 

The CHAIRMAN Well, thank you both for your appearance. 

Seeing no other members, this record will remain open until 

noon tomorrow. If you have questions submitted to you for the 

record, I would urge you to respond to them expeditiously so that 

the chair can consider your nominations at the next business meeting. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF MAX BAUCUS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What do you view as the biggest challenges to the relationship? I am 

very concerned about Chinese actions and current trend lines on a range of security 

issues in the Asia-Pacific region. On Japan, China appears to be trying to use its 

differences with Japan as a wedge between the United States and an important ally 

and is increasingly aggressive in its rhetoric and behavior toward the Senkakus, 

including with its recent Air Defense Identification Zone declaration. What is our 

proper response? In the South China Sea, China appears to be continuing to drag 

its feet on the negotiation of a Code of Conduct, recently announced that it was 

going to enforce a whole host of fisheries regulations in the South China Sea, including in areas under dispute with other nations, and seems intent on trying to coerce 

the nations of the region—including the Philippines and Vietnam—to force a resolution of these issues in a way favorable to PRC interests. What role should the 

United States play on these issues? Given China’s new assertiveness, is our carefully calibrated balance between ‘‘cooperation and competition’’ still the right 

approach? Should we be putting ‘‘a little more hair’’ on the competition side? 

Answer. The U.S.-China relationship contains elements of both cooperation and 

competition. The United States should continue to make clear and promote our values, interests and principles, work with China to manage our differences, and seek 

to build a cooperative partnership across the range of bilateral, regional, and global 

issues that confront us today. If confirmed, I would speak clearly to Beijing regarding not only issues of shared interest, but also our differences, and faithfully represent the values we hold dear as Americans—including respect for international 

law and the freedom of navigation. I am clear-eyed about the growing U.S. and 

regional concerns regarding Chinese behavior with its neighbors over territorial and 

maritime matters. 

China’s announcement of an ‘‘East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone 

(ADIZ)’’ caused deep concerns in the region. China announced the ADIZ without 

prior consultations, even though the newly announced ADIZ overlaps with longstanding Flight Information Regions (FIRs) and other ADIZs and includes airspace 

and territory administered by others. If confirmed, I would remind the Chinese that 

the United States does not recognize and does not accept the ADIZ, which we 

believe should not be implemented. I would make clear to China that it should refrain from taking similar actions elsewhere in the region. I would also encourage 

China to work with other countries, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, to 

address the dangers its recent declaration has created and to deescalate tensions. 

In the South China Sea, the past 2 years have witnessed a troubling trend of provocative and unilateral activities, including Chinese restrictions toward long-held 

fishing practices at Scarborough Reef and its update of the Hainan provincial fishing regulations that purport to cover vast areas of the South China Sea. The United 

States has pressed China and ASEAN to rapidly agree on a meaningful Code of 

Conduct in the South China Sea to manage incidents when they arise, and I will 

continue to do so, if confirmed. 

Question. What kind of dialogue do we currently have with the Chinese on cyber 

theft? What will you do as Ambassador to deepen this dialogue? What actions could 

we take if we discover state-directed theft of corporate or national secrets? 

Answer. Cyber security is one of the administration’s top priorities. Administration officials have repeatedly raised concerns about Chinese state-sponsored cyberenabled theft of trade secrets and confidential business information at the highest 

levels with senior Chinese officials, including in the military, and will continue to 

do so. The United States engaged China on this and other key cyber-related issues 

67 

during the Strategic Security Dialogue (SSD)—including during the January 23 

interim round of the SSD—and through the first two meetings of the U.S.-China 

Cyber Working Group (CWG), conducted in July and December 2013. The two sides 

have agreed to schedule the next meeting in the first half of 2014. 

The United States and China are among the world’s largest cyber actors, and it 

is vital that we continue a sustained, meaningful dialogue and work together to 

develop an understanding of acceptable behavior in cyber space. Through the CWG, 

the United States will continue to emphasize U.S. cyber policy objectives, including 

the applicability of international law to state behavior, the importance of norms of 

responsible state behavior, concerns about cyber activities that can lead to instability, the role of transparency in domestic civilian and military cyber policy, and 

the importance of practical cooperative measures to prevent crises in cyber space. 

If confirmed, I am committed to making the advancement of these issues a high 

priority. 

Question. A 2013 American Chamber of Commerce China survey found that 72 

percent of respondents said that China’s IPR enforcement was either ineffective or 

totally ineffective. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that U.S. 

intellectual property-intensive firms that conducted business in China lost $48.2 billion in sales, royalties, and license fees in 2009 because of IPR violations there. In 

certain sectors, such as wind power, where American Superconductor has been 

severely harmed by IP theft by its Chinese ‘‘partner,’’ Sinovel, the damage to U.S. 

businesses has been particularly acute. It also estimated that an effective IPR 

enforcement regime in China that was comparable to U.S. levels could increase 

employment by IP-intensive firms in the United States by 923,000 jobs. 

♦ Where does intellectual property protection rank on your list of priorities as 

Ambassador? 

Answer. I am very concerned by high levels of trade secrets theft and violations 

of intellectual property rights in China. If confirmed, I will advocate forcefully on 

behalf of U.S. rights holders for greater protection and enforcement of their intellectual property, trade secrets, and commercially sensitive information. I will seek to 

ensure that this critical issue is addressed at the highest levels between our two 

governments. U.S. companies derive tremendous value and competitive advantage 

from the billions of dollars they invest in research and development, and intellectual 

property is part of the bedrock of our economy. It is critical for American innovators 

to know their intellectual property and trade secrets are being protected. 

If confirmed, I will also make it a top priority to work closely with U.S. rights 

holders, innovators, and entrepreneurs to make sure that they fully understand the 

risks and take appropriate measures to protect their intellectual property doing 

business with China. I will also work with other foreign governments to underscore 

the need for the Chinese Government to take stronger measures to protect intellectual property in China. 

Question. It’s not at all clear that the new Chinese leadership is as welcoming to 

foreign investment as its predecessors have been for over two decades. In your 

chairmanship of the Finance Committee and for many years here in the Senate, 

you’ve pushed for open markets and export opportunities for U.S. firms. 

♦ Do we face a fundamental change in how the Chinese Government views the 

role of foreigner companies, and what can you, as Ambassador, do about that? 

Answer. There is no doubt that two-way trade and investment have benefited both 

the United States and China enormously, and both countries expect that they will 

continue to contribute to economic growth and prosperity. China has committed 

itself to an ambitious set of reforms, including in the area of investment, but this 

reform process is in early stages. The United States needs to continue to use bilateral dialogues and other engagements to press for continued reform, including calling on China to further liberalize its market and to establish a level playing field 

for foreign companies relative to domestic companies. 

In a positive development, China announced at the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in July 2013 that it would negotiate a bilateral investment 

treaty (BIT) with the United States that, for the first time in China’s treaty practice, will cover all phases of investment, including market access, and all sectors of 

the Chinese economy (except for any limited and transparent negotiated exceptions). 

The BIT will mark an important step in opening China’s economy to U.S. investors 

and leveling the playing field for American businesses. China also committed at 

S&ED to open up further to foreign investment in services, including through the 

establishment of the Shanghai Free Trade Zone pilot. 

If confirmed, I would seek to make further progress on a BIT while emphasizing 

the need for China to make simultaneous headway on market access and other priVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
68 

ority issues in the short term, including through ongoing reform efforts such as in 

the Shanghai Free Trade Zone. 

Question. What do you hope to accomplish during your tenure in Beijing? What 

do you see as the proper role of the Ambassador? How will you work to get real 

influence on U.S. policy? 

Answer. Engaging in frank discussions while seeking to collaborate and narrow 

our differences with China is essential to having a healthy bilateral relationship. 

My primary job as Ambassador, if confirmed, will be to continue expanding cooperation where U.S.-China consensus and shared interests exist—such as on environmental issues—and to narrow our differences to promote common goals and interests, such as agreeing to a rules-based framework for our economic relationship that 

establishes a level playing field for healthy competition and innovation. 

If confirmed, I would continue to work with China on important regional and 

global security issues, such as the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the 

importance of a nuclear-weapons-free Iran, and achieving a stable and prosperous 

Afghanistan. Equally important, I would seek to advance important U.S. interests 

on more contentious concerns, such as human rights and maritime security issues. 

Question. Is there a threat to the interests of the United States and our allies and 

friends from a militarily strong China that seems to be pushing others around as 

its military modernization proceeds and capabilities increase? 

Answer. The United States seeks a healthy, stable, reliable, and continuous military-to-military relationship with China. If confirmed, I would support the continued 

development of military-to-military relations as a key component of the U.S.-China 

bilateral relationship. Deeper cooperation is necessary to further reduce mistrust 

and the risk of miscalculation between the U.S. and Chinese militaries. We urge 

China to resolve regional issues peacefully through dialogue. We oppose unilateral 

actions that raise tensions or could result in miscalculations that would undermine 

peace, security, and economic growth in this vital part of the world. The U.S.-China 

relationship is not zero-sum, and we continue to pursue greater cooperation and 

engagement on our common interests. 

If confirmed, I would encourage China to exhibit greater transparency with 

respect to its capabilities and intentions and to use its military capabilities in a 

manner conducive to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific 

region. I would reiterate that the United States has national interests in the 

Asia-Pacific region, including an interest in preserving the freedom of the seas and 

airspace. 

Question. How do we get America’s message (who we are, what our values are) 

across to the Chinese public in ways that transcend the filters the leadership has 

constructed to block us? Are there particular human rights issues that you intend 

to champion as Ambassador? 

Answer. The best way for us to get America’s message across to the Chinese public is through public diplomacy outreach programs and U.S.-China people-to-people 

exchanges. Fortunately, our Embassy and consulates in Mission China have a 

robust public diplomacy outreach strategy and one of their primary objectives is to 

strengthen engagement with the next generation of Chinese leaders. They achieve 

this objective through English-language training programs for teachers throughout 

China, partnerships with U.S. universities that are working with universities in 

China, as well as academic, cultural, sports, and professional exchanges. The U.S.- 

China Consultation on People-to-People Exchange, an annual high-level dialogue, is 

a prime example of how the United States and China are working together to forge 

stronger ties between their peoples. 

Mission China also has an extensive social media outreach program, utilizing local 

Chinese social media platforms, with over 4 million followers, throughout China. 

Mission China continues to look for innovative ways to reach our target audiences 

through social media and new technology. 

One of the most effective ways for the Chinese public to understand who we are 

and what we value is to experience our culture firsthand as a student. According 

to the 2013 Open Doors Report, there are over 235,000 Chinese students in the 

United States. Through the EducationUSA program, Mission China is reaching out 

to students throughout China to provide timely and accurate information so students can find the best fit for their study abroad program. Also, through President 

Obama’s 100,000 Strong Initiative, we focused on increasing the number of Americans studying in China. In fact, the U.S. Department of State funds more Americans 

to study in China than in any other country. Approximately 900 students, scholars, 

and teachers will conduct research, teach or study Chinese through Fulbright and 

our other exchange programs. The exchanges we sponsor bridge language barriers, 

69 

open lines of communication, and connect people in the United States and China 

in immediate and lasting ways. 

Human rights are integral to U.S. foreign policy. If confirmed, I would use my 

position as the U.S. Ambassador to urge China’s leaders to respect the human rights 

and fundamental freedoms of all citizens, particularly the freedoms of expression, 

assembly, association, and religion, and would communicate our support for these 

principles directly to the Chinese people. 

I would raise our human rights concerns with Chinese officials at the highest levels and would raise specific cases of Chinese citizens who are being persecuted for 

the peaceful expression of their political or religious views. I would also make clear 

to China that the United States considers China’s upholding its international 

human rights commitments to be vital to our bilateral relationship. I strongly 

believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in China are in our 

national interest and should be an integral part of every high-level conversation we 

have with Chinese officials. 

If confirmed, I would plan to continue outreach to Chinese citizens, including 

activists and public interest lawyers, as well as ethnic minorities and religious 

groups in China, and will urge the Chinese Government to cease restrictions on religious practice and to address the counterproductive policies in minority areas that 

have fostered grievances and have prevented long-term stability. 

Question. April 10, 2014, will mark the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the 

Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which was passed by the United States Congress and 

signed into law in 1979. This legislation provides an institutional framework and 

legal basis for our continued relations with Taiwan after the end of formal diplomatic ties. The 35th anniversary not only represents an important milestone in our 

longstanding relationship with Taiwan, it also consolidates the foundation on which 

our bilateral security, economic, and trade relations will continue to grow and flourish and reassures our commitment to maintain peace and stability in the region. 

In my view, the Taiwan Relations Act, just as much as our One China Policy or 

the Three Joint Communiques, forms the basis of our successful policy toward China 

and is critical to maintaining cross-strait stability. 

♦ What is your view of the Taiwan Relations Act? 

Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will continue to underscore the commitment to the U.S. one-China policy based on the three Joint Communiques and the 

Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The TRA has provided the basis for Taiwan’s unofficial 

but stable, friendly, and robust relations with the United States since 1979, allowing 

Taiwan to be an important economic and security partner in the Asia-Pacific region. 

The TRA allows the United States to continue to provide Taiwan with the means 

to develop a sufficient self-defense capability, which contributes to stability in the 

region and gives Taiwan confidence to engage China. Maintenance of cross-strait 

stability is essential to promoting peace and prosperity in the entire Asia-Pacific 

region. 

If confirmed, I will encourage continued constructive cross-strait dialogue, which 

has led to significant improvements in the cross-strait relationship, at a pace acceptable to people on both sides. 

Question. How do you assess China’s cooperation with the United States on Iran, 

including sanctions enforcement? 

Answer. China is an important partner in the P5+1 process and in the implementation of the Joint Plan of Action. The United States and China share the goal of 

preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. If confirmed, I would work to ensure there is continued and close cooperation between our two countries. As Ambassador, I would work with China to ensure we continue to address the international 

community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program in the P5+1 and press China 

to prevent proliferation-related transfers to Iran. If confirmed, I would work with 

China as we pursue a long-term comprehensive settlement with Iran. I would urge 

China to keep Iranian oil imports flat, instruct Chinese companies to refrain from 

sanctionable transactions with Iran, and boost its efforts to prevent illicit transfers 

of proliferation-sensitive technology to Iran. 

Question. How can we get China to work more closely with responsible members 

of the international community on North Korea? Is there a future for the six-party 

talks? 

Answer. The United States remains open to authentic and credible negotiations 

to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and to 

bring North Korea into compliance with applicable Security Council resolutions 

through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. The United States shares 

70 

with China a common goal of achieving a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, which 

is essential to both regional stability and broader international security. China is 

a vital partner with a unique role to play due to its longstanding economic, diplomatic, and historical ties with North Korea. The administration continues to work 

with all U.N. member states, including China, to ensure the full and transparent 

implementation of UNSC sanctions. 

As Ambassador, if confirmed, I would urge China to use its influence to convince 

North Korea that it has no choice but to denuclearize. The United States and China 

need to continue to work together to hold the DPRK to its commitments and its 

international obligations, including those to abandon its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. One important way to do this continues to be robust PRC implementation of U.N. Security 

Council sanctions and other measures. 

If confirmed, I would continue to encourage Beijing to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N. Security Council sanctions targeting North Korea’s 

nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destructionrelated programs. 

Question. The Chinese Government is demonstrating increasing determination 

and sophistication at using the law as a means to compel citizens to either support 

government policies on an ever wider range of issues, or to remain silent (and compliant). This trend is accelerating and is especially noticeable across the terrain of 

fundamental human rights. We routinely hear Chinese Government officials dismiss 

foreign accusations that they disregard the freedoms of speech, association, assembly, and religion by asserting that government actions are ‘‘according to the law.’’ 

♦ As Ambassador to China, how will you work to champion the function of law 

to protect citizens’ freedoms, instead of protecting the government’s ability to 

suppress those rights? 

Answer. Human rights are integral to U.S. foreign policy. If confirmed, I would 

use my position as the U.S. Ambassador to urge China’s leaders to respect the 

human rights and fundamental freedoms of all citizens and would communicate our 

support for these principles directly to the Chinese people. Promoting respect for 

universal human rights and the rule of law is integral to U.S. foreign policy. If confirmed, I would urge China’s leaders to undertake key legal reforms and respect the 

rule of law and underscore the importance of an independent judiciary, a robust 

civil society and the free flow of information to China’s prosperity and stability. I 

would also strongly support the annual U.S.-China Legal Experts Dialogue, which 

provides an important channel to discuss our concerns about the rule of law and 

specifically the role of lawyers in Chinese society by bringing together judges, legal 

scholars, lawyers and prosecutors to discuss key legal issues. 

If confirmed, I would continue outreach to ethnic minorities and religious groups, 

including members of house churches, in China. I would also continue outreach to 

legal scholars and universities to emphasize the importance of rule of law and an 

independent judiciary. Such outreach would be conducted in a way that is effective 

and promotes our values. 

If confirmed, I would raise our human rights concerns with Chinese officials at 

the highest levels and would raise specific cases of Chinese citizens who are being 

persecuted for the peaceful expression of their political views or religious beliefs. I 

would also make clear to China that the United States considers China’s upholding 

its international human rights commitments to be vital to our bilateral relationship. 

I strongly believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in China are 

in our national interest and should be an integral part of every high-level conversation we have with Chinese officials. 

Question. How should the United States respond to Chinese security officials’ 

recent detention of Uyghur scholar, Ilham Tohti, who has given a voice to Uyghurs’ 

concerns over inequality and discrimination and who has sought to foster understanding between Uyghurs and China’s dominant Han population? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would urge China’s leaders to immediately release Uighur 

scholar, Ilham Tohti, remove all restrictions on his freedom of movement, and guarantee him the protections and freedoms to which he is entitled under China’s international human rights commitments. I would ensure that our Embassy continues 

to be in close communication with Tohti’s family members and supporters. I would 

also work closely with other embassies in China to ensure that China hears a consistent message from the international community on his case. 

I am deeply concerned by ongoing reports of discrimination against and restrictions on Uighurs and other Muslims and, if confirmed, would urge the Chinese 

Government to cease restrictions on religious practice. I would also press Chinese 

71 

officials to address the counterproductive policies in Xinjiang that have fostered 

grievances and have prevented long-term stability. 

Question. Human rights is often considered a separate issue from our trading 

relationship with China. But in many ways, they are interconnected. For example, 

a free press and vibrant civil society are essential to holding the Chinese Government accountable on issues such as food and product safety, and the right to organize independent unions is key to ensuring workers in China are not exploited at 

the expense of American workers. 

♦ How will you ensure that human rights concerns are integrated with our trade 

and economic discussions with China? 

Answer. Promotion and protection of human and labor rights in China are in our 

national interest in all facets of the bilateral relationship, including our trade, economic, and development interests with China. If confirmed, I would use my position 

as the U.S. Ambassador to urge China’s leaders to respect the human rights and 

fundamental freedoms of all citizens, including the freedoms of expression, peaceful 

assembly, and association. I would make the case to China that the rule of law, an 

independent judiciary, and a robust civil society will help China address challenges 

such as food safety and food and nutrition security, while enabling it to continue 

its economic growth and maintain stability. I believe that the free flow of ideas, on 

all topics, is essential for fostering creativity and building the kind of innovative 

economy that will help China continue to reduce poverty and improve the standard 

of living. 

I would raise our human rights concerns with Chinese officials at the highest levels and make clear that the United States considers China upholding its international human rights commitments vital to our bilateral relationship. I strongly 

believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in China are in our 

national interest and should be an integral part of high-level conversation with Chinese officials. 

If confirmed, I would engage regularly with companies in both countries, as well 

as with labor and civil society organizations, to promote responsible business conduct and to focus on sustainable development. Companies can further our efforts by 

encouraging broad respect for human and labor rights and leading efforts to improve 

transparency, while reducing their own reputational risk, leveling the playing field, 

and improving the overall business environment. 

RESPONSES OF ARNOLD CHACON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. The Department has increased personnel significantly within the last 

decade. Today, more than 50 percent of the Foreign Service joined within the last 

10 years. What does this mean for career paths, promotion numbers, and workforce 

development? Please describe the Department’s workforce planning and efforts to 

create career paths for these new employees. 

Answer. The Department is committed to an orderly, predictable flow of talent 

through the Foreign Service ranks. In our up-or-out system, promotion opportunities 

depend on the number of employees who separate (e.g., retire or resign) as well as 

the overall number of positions at each grade. Under the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative and Diplomacy 3.0, the Department hired a large number of entry-level officers (ELOs), helping to narrow a previous deficit in Foreign Service employees. As 

more and more of these employees move into the mid-levels, we have undertaken 

efforts to increase mid-level positions, in line with our mission requirements, which 

should alleviate some of the projected slowdown in promotion rates and increase in 

time in class for this cohort. Moreover, to meet mid-level staffing and assignment 

gaps, many of those employees progressed in grade at faster than historic rates. 

While we expect to now be able to return to earlier rates, we are acutely cognizant 

that building experience and managing expectations for our recently hired employees is a priority. We are also concerned that with the current less than attrition 

hiring, our flow-through will once again be disrupted, likely recreating the staffing 

gaps that DRI and Diplomacy 3.0 were meant to close and impacting our new staff 

as well as we strive to defend U.S. interests abroad. 

The Department takes an active interest in the development of its most important 

resource, its people. Since 2005, the Department has used Career Development 

Plans (CDPs) for Foreign Service Generalists and, more recently, Specialists, as a 

tool for mapping career development and developing skills needed at the senior 

ranks. The CDP builds on four principles to meet the Department’s mission: operational effectiveness, including breadth of experience over several regions and funcVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
72 

tions; leadership and management effectiveness; sustained professional language 

and technical proficiency; and responsiveness to Service needs. Mandatory requirements and a menu of electives help guide employees in developing the skills and 

experience to demonstrate their readiness for the senior ranks. 

The CDP also reinforces the importance of excellence in foreign languages, fundamental to the work of the Foreign Service. Professional foreign language use is also 

highly valued in considerations for promotion, across all grades and skills. Longterm language training does generally slow promotion while the student is enrolled, 

but makes promotion more likely later on. Every 3 years, the Department updates 

the criteria for assigning a language designation to a position. The next triennial 

review should be completed by July 2014. The number of overseas languagedesignated positions (LDPs) grows every year; for FY 2013, it was 2,241. 

The Department is committed to developing the wider skills for today’s diplomacy. 

In addition to tradecraft skills, we are also focused on the leadership and management skills critical to the Department, both internally and in an increasingly interagency overseas environment. In recent years, for example, we instituted mandatory 

leadership training as a prerequisite for promotion at each rank and, in 2014, we 

expect to launch a new program of mandatory supervisory training for all new 

supervisors. 

Question. In the 21st-century it is critical that America has a professional, innovative, and diverse workforce. I understand that the Department has established 

recruitment programs targeting individuals with in-demand language skills, but 

once hired they may be prevented from serving in those countries due to assignment 

restrictions and preclusions. Please describe efforts currently underway to improve 

the Department’s assignment restriction and preclusion program—which may be 

disparately impacting certain ethnicities—including the introduction of a robust 

appeals mechanism and increased internal reporting and oversight. 

Answer. The Department of State hires all Foreign Service officers and Specialists 

to be worldwide available, and we have worked diligently to maintain a diverse 

workforce. One way to reduce the risk of possible exploitation by a foreign intelligence service is to restrict an individual from assignment in that specific country. 

This is by no means punitive, but rather it serves to protect both the national security and the individual. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary of 

Diplomatic Security to bring a common sense review of restrictions, and provide an 

outreach initiative so all personnel understand the rationale for these crucial security decisions. 

Question. The Hispanic workforce at State will have to grow exponentially in 

order to fairly reflect the Hispanic component of the overall U.S. population, yet this 

goal has proven elusive—even when the Department has had the resources to conduct large-scale hiring programs. 

♦ If confirmed will you make minority recruitment and retention a top priority? 

What is your plan? How will you make the Department’s staff reflective of our 

rich cultural and ethnic diversity? 

♦ If confirmed will you put together a high-level team to develop a specific proposal and plan—in consultation with this committee—to improve minority 

retention, recruitment and hiring? 

Answer. In order to represent the United States to the world, the Department of 

State must have a workforce that reflects the rich composition of its citizenry. We 

recognize that we can, and must do, more to improve minority hiring. If confirmed, 

you have my personal commitment to redouble the Department’s efforts to ensure 

that we represent the full cross-section of America. I look forward to working with 

you, as well as other members of the committee and community leaders, to do so. 

At the same time, I would like to point out the efforts already underway in this 

area, and what has thus far been accomplished. The culture of the Department has 

changed dramatically in the past few decades; when Congress passed the Foreign 

Service Act of 1980, more than 80 percent of FS generalists and specialists were 

male, and close to 75 percent were white males. Now females constitute 35 percent 

and minorities over 22 percent. To echo the testimony of Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Heather Higginbottom, diversity is now a central Department commitment, and the Secretary has told me personally that he considers it 

a high priority. In the past 11 years, FS generalist minority hiring increased from 

12.3 percent in 2002 to 28.7 percent in 2013. Furthermore, minority hires for FS 

generalists are up from last year: Hispanic, from 8.5 percent to 11 percent; AsianAmerican, from 8 percent to 11 percent; and African-American from 6 percent to 

over 10 percent. This represents important if insufficient progress as we continue 

73 

to strive to ensure the face of the FS and Civil Service (CS) includes people of all 

cultures, races, and religions, drawn from across the United States. 

The Bureau of Human Resources (HR) promotes diversity through a wide-range 

of plans, programs, and initiatives through its Diversity and Inclusion Strategic 

Plan (DISP). Beginning its third year of implementation, the DISP identifies practices to recruit, hire, train, develop, promote, and retain a diverse and inclusive 

workforce. Significant recruitment, outreach, and improvement activities include: 

• Assigned 16 senior and mid-level Foreign Service officers as Diplomats in Residences (DIRs) to college campuses around the United States to recruit for student programs and careers. Of which: 

Æ Four went to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs, University of New Mexico, Florida International University, University of Houston and City College of New York); 

Æ Three assigned to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs, 

Howard, Spellman/Morehouse and Florida A&M). 

• Dedicated a second Washington-based recruiter to Hispanic outreach and 

another (also a second) recruiter to African-American recruitment; 

• Hosted or attended nearly 700 events, coast to coast, and beyond, including 

Puerto Rico and Hawaii; 

• Targeted minority communities through Diversity Career Networking Events 

aimed at reaching professional communities in regions where the Department 

is less well-known; 

• Signed an MOU with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to access the 

Veterans’ Resume Database, searchable pool of veteran candidates for civil service direct hire using special hiring authorities; 

Æ Resulted in seven requests for veteran referrals where four veterans 

received offer letters. 

• Increased hiring of persons with disabilities through the Disability and Reasonable Accommodations Division, which aids in the recruitment, assignment, and 

support of applicants and employees with disabilities; 

Æ Provides over 4,500 reasonable accommodations annually, with the majority for sign language interpretation services for one overseas and 20 domestic employees; 

Æ Operates a Computer Accommodations and Technology Center, where 

employees requiring reasonable accommodation may be assessed for technological solutions. 

• Launched DOSCareers iPhone mobile app to reach underrepresented groups 

and educate them about careers in the Foreign Service (FS) and practice taking 

the FS exam; 

• Enhanced the ‘‘I am Diplomacy, I am America’’ diversity recruitment campaign 

so that future prospects may envision themselves as potential representatives 

of the Department; 

• Evaluated the overall program effectiveness for two of the largest premier diversity scholarship programs, the Thomas R. Pickering and Charles B. Rangel Fellowship student programs, where approximately 60 graduate and undergraduate fellows are selected to participate in each year. There have been 612 

Pickering Fellows and 163 Rangel Fellows since the programs began. Of this 

number, 387 Pickering Fellows and 114 Rangel Fellows—totaling 501 Fellows— 

are currently in the Foreign Service. A number of them have risen to significant 

positions, such as Deputy Chiefs of Mission, while others have received prestigious awards and/or public recognition for their outstanding service. 

As a result of these efforts, we have realized steady gains in diversity, although we 

agree that we still must do more to reach our goals. 

We are also working to improve diversity among the Senior Executive Staff (SES) 

of the Civil Service through a number of measures planned for 2014, including: 

• On-board a new Diversity Program Manager to promote the development and 

implementation of diversity and inclusion in the SES and senior leadership 

equivalent talent pools across the Department; 

• Analyze a GS–14/15 SES Interest survey that we conducted to help develop 

diverse SES talent for future leaders; 

• Revise SES Merit Staffing processes to ensure diversity among SES Qualification Review Panel members and mandatory interviews for all SES candidates 

referred; 

• Invite key diversity offices and affinity workgroups to share ideas about 

improvements to our existing DISP metrics, measures, and strategies; 

74 

• Focus efforts on activities to strengthen workplace inclusion and sustainability 

goals and simultaneously update the existing plan metrics, measures, and strategies. 

It is worth noting that factors beyond agency control, including potential decrease 

in Federal spending due to sequestration, limited/delayed hiring, reduced travel/ 

awards/pay freezes, are all circumstances that could potentially hinder or weaken 

our ability to meet our diversity goals. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goal of 

enhanced diversity in the Department’s ranks. We would like to invite you to accompany me or one of our recruiters at an event in your state. 

RESPONSES OF MAX BAUCUS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. Our relationship with China is one of the most complex and increasingly 

significant bilateral relationships globally. How do you propose to navigate the complexities of the bilateral relationship, including balancing our mutual desire to 

expand economic opportunities for our respective commercial interests, while simultaneously making clear our expectations that Beijing adhere to international norms, 

including in the maritime domain? 

Answer. The U.S.-China relationship contains elements of both cooperation and 

competition. The United States should continue to make clear and promote our values, interests and principles, work with China to manage our differences, and seek 

to build a cooperative partnership across the range of bilateral, regional, and global 

issues that confront us today. If confirmed, I would speak clearly to Beijing regarding not only issues of shared interest, but also our differences, and faithfully represent the values we hold dear as Americans—respect for the rule of law, the promotion of universal values and human rights, guaranteeing a level playing field for 

healthy economic competition, ensuring the free flow of information, and respect for 

international law, including freedom of navigation. 

Question. Beijing has been critical of the administration’s rebalancing or ‘‘pivot’’ 

to Asia, accusing the United States of pursuing a policy to contain China. 

♦ (a) How do you intend to explain the administration’s Asia-Pacific ‘‘pivot’’ to the 

Chinese public? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would make clear that the rebalance is a multifaceted 

approach that recognizes the importance of the entire Asia-Pacific region to America’s long-term prosperity and security. A key element of the rebalance is our pursuit of a positive, comprehensive, and cooperative relationship with China; the 

rebalance is not a strategy to contain China. 

If confirmed, I would use the public diplomacy tools at my disposal, including use 

of social media and public events, to communicate to the Chinese public that the 

United States welcomes the rise of a stable and prosperous China that assumes the 

responsibilities of a great power, respects the rights of its people, and plays a key 

role in world affairs. By pursuing a robust program of bilateral dialogue and 

exchange, I would, if confirmed, work to advance cooperation in areas of common 

interest to demonstrate that the United States has a stake in China’s success, just 

as China has a stake in ours. 

♦ (b) What areas do you see as having the most potential for improvement in our 

relationship with China, and how do you personally plan to approach them? 

What are your top priorities for your time in China? 

Answer. Engaging in frank discussions while seeking to collaborate and narrow 

our differences with China is essential to having a healthy bilateral relationship. 

If confirmed, I would work to continue expanding cooperation where U.S.-China consensus and shared interests exist—such as on environmental issues—and to narrow 

our differences to promote common goals and interests, such as agreeing to a rulesbased framework for our economic relationship that establishes a level playing field 

for healthy competition and innovation. 

If confirmed, I would continue to work with China on important regional and 

global security issues, such as the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the 

importance of a nuclear weapons-free Iran, and a stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Equally important, I would seek to advance important U.S. interests on more 

contentious concerns, such as human rights and maritime issues. 

♦ (c) What, if any, opportunities exist for the United States and China to work 

together to address North Korea’s destabilizing behavior? As Ambassador, how 

75 

will you persuade China to assert greater economic and political pressure on the 

North Korean regime to abandon its nuclear weapons programs? 

Answer. The United States and China share a common goal of achieving a 

denuclearized Korean Peninsula, which is essential to both regional stability and 

international security. China is a vital partner with a unique role to play due to 

its long-standing economic, diplomatic, and historical ties with North Korea. The 

administration continues to work with all U.N. member states, including China, to 

ensure the full and transparent implementation of UNSC sanctions. 

As Ambassador, if confirmed, I would urge China to use its influence to convince 

North Korea that it has no choice but to denuclearize. The United States and China 

need to continue to work together to hold the DPRK to its commitments and its 

international obligations, including those to abandon its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. One important way to do this continues to be robust PRC implementation of U.N. Security 

Council sanctions and other measures. 

If confirmed, I would continue to encourage Beijing to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N. Security Council sanctions targeting North Korea’s 

nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destructionrelated programs. 

Question. Since the political transition last year, Beijing has engaged in a widespread crackdown on dissent and introduced a series of new controls on the media, 

undermining China’s international human rights commitments. Several peaceful 

dissidents have been arrested and imprisoned, including a 4-year prison sentence 

handed down this past Sunday for Xu Zhiyong for organizing a series of protests 

against corruption last year in Beijing. 

♦ As Ambassador, how will you promote U.S. core human rights values and interests in our bilateral relationship with China? Do we need to reevaluate our 

approach to the U.S.-China human rights dialogue? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would use my position as the U.S. Ambassador to urge 

China’s leaders to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all 

Chinese citizens and raise specific cases of concern, including that of legal scholar 

Xu Zhiyong and other individuals associated with the New Citizens Movement that 

have been detained, harassed and prosecuted by Chinese authorities. I strongly 

believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in China are in our 

national interest and, as such, should be an integral part of every high-level conversation we have with Chinese officials. I would continue the Embassy’s strong 

record of meeting regularly with a wide range of human rights activists and their 

family members to gain a better understanding of their concerns and to express our 

support for respect for human rights in China. 

I would also continue to work closely with other embassies in China in order to 

ensure that China hears a consistent message from the international community on 

human rights. 

The promotion and protection of human rights are critical components of U.S. foreign policy, and the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue (HRD) is an important part 

of the United States overall human rights effort regarding China. The HRD presents an opportunity to engage Chinese officials in an extended, in-depth discussion 

of key human rights concerns and individual cases. It is not, however, a substitute 

for consistent high-level engagement from across the U.S. Government. I strongly 

believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in China are in our 

national interest and, as such, should be an integral part of every high-level conversation we have with Chinese officials. The rule of law, an independent judiciary, 

a robust civil society, the free flow of information and respect for universal human 

rights and fundamental freedoms are key to China’s ability to deal with domestic 

and global challenges and improve its standing as a reliable international partner. 

Question. Foreign journalists working in China have come under increased 

scrutiny and pressure. China has withheld visas and threatened local staff working 

with foreign journalists to deter publication of stories critical of Chinese policies or 

officials. In addition, China has blocked the Web sites of several U.S.-owned 

publications. 

♦ How should the United States address China’s media censorship and discriminatory practices? 

Answer. I am deeply concerned that foreign journalists in China continue to face 

restrictions that impede their ability to do their jobs, including extended delays in 

processing journalist visas, restrictions on travel to certain locations deemed ‘‘sensitive’’ by Chinese authorities and, in some cases, violence at the hands of local 

authorities. These restrictions and treatment are not consistent with freedom of the 

76 

press—and stand in stark contrast with U.S. treatment of Chinese and other foreign 

journalists. 

I was disappointed that New York Times reporter, Austin Ramzy, was required 

to leave China because of processing delays for his press credentials. Mr. Ramzy and 

several other U.S. journalists have waited months, and in some cases years, for a 

decision on their press credentials and visa applications. 

If confirmed, I would urge China to commit to timely visa and credentialing decisions for foreign journalists, unblock international media Web sites, and eliminate 

other restrictions that impede the ability of journalists to practice their profession. 

I firmly believe that our two countries should be expanding media exchanges to 

enhance mutual understanding and trust, not restricting the ability of journalists 

to do their work. 

Question. As you know, the United States and China are currently negotiating a 

bilateral investment treaty (BIT). A BIT with China would greatly benefit a broad 

segment of U.S. exporters currently subject to a number of ownership restrictions 

in China. With an ambitious treaty, we could eliminate many of these restrictions 

and help U.S. companies to compete fairly with Chinese companies. Both U.S. and 

Chinese Government officials have publicly expressed strong support for a BIT. 

The BIT negotiations could represent an important opportunity, as many observers believe President Xi views the BIT as a mechanism to push through important 

domestic economic reforms that were rolled out at last year’s Third Plenum. This 

could be one of the more significant developments in the bilateral economic relationship since China’s accession to the WTO in 2002. 

♦ Will you make completing a BIT with China a high priority during your tenure 

as Ambassador to China? 

♦ As U.S. Ambassador to China, would you commit to pursuing a high-standard 

Bilateral Investment Treaty with China, ensure that there are no restrictions 

in businesses data flows, and bring down the competitive barriers for our companies so they can compete fairly with state-owned enterprises? 

Answer. A high-standard U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) would 

play a significant role in addressing key concerns of U.S. and other foreign investors, including the need to level the playing field and ensure that U.S. companies 

do not suffer from unfair disadvantages. The United States is taking an ambitious 

approach in the BIT negotiations with China, and one of our top priorities is to seek 

disciplines to help level the playing field between American companies and their 

Chinese competitors, including state-owned enterprises and national champions. 

The United States is also seeking to address other top-priority concerns in the 

China market, including protecting trade secrets from forced transfer and enhancing 

transparency and the rule of law. Negotiations are at an early stage, and I know 

the U.S. Government will continue to address these important issues as negotiations 

proceed. If confirmed, I am committed to making the advancement of these negotiations a high priority. 

Question. The Chinese Government in 2013 committed to resume bilateral investment treaty negotiations with the United States using the U.S. approach to BITs— 

one based on preestablishment, using a negative list. This is a significant change 

in approach, which China has not used before in this type of negotiation. 

As you know, the BIT will ultimately be considered by the Senate under our 

advise and consent process. We will be looking for a strong agreement with significant market openings for American companies. As part of our process, though, we 

will also evaluate China’s actions to implement such openings in the immediate 

term rather than waiting for the BIT to be implemented. A delay in taking good 

faith steps to implement changes could be interpreted by some as a lack of commitment by China to making the changes that the BIT will require. 

♦ What are your plans to advance the BIT negotiations and push China’s Government to act on market openings now rather than only after implementation of 

the BIT has begun? 

♦ And will you work to ensure that this committee, which must approve all treaties negotiated by the United States, is fully consulted and apprised on your 

progress on this important issue? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to make further progress on a BIT while 

emphasizing the need for China to make simultaneous headway on market access 

and other priority issues in the near term. The administration looks forward to consulting with this committee and other key congressional committees as negotiations 

continue. 

77 

Question. China has stated its intention of becoming an innovative economy by 

2020. This policy is being aggressively pursued by high-level political commitments, 

substantial financial support and strategic policies. China’s Government is using a 

variety of policy tools to implement these policies to reduce a perceived dependence 

on foreign intellectual property and to protect and promote national champions. I 

am concerned these policies will have a negative effect on U.S. companies and U.S. 

competitiveness. 

♦ If confirmed, what are your plans to combat these market access barriers that 

are adversely affecting U.S. companies? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would continue our high-level engagement to press the 

case that discriminatory and retaliatory practices and regulations are unacceptable 

and harm not only U.S. companies but also China’s own competitiveness and development goals. The U.S. economy is one of the most open in the world, and I would 

encourage China to recognize our openness as one of our key strengths. U.S. companies introduce international best practices and high-quality goods and services into 

the global market, and it is in China’s interest to allow our firms to participate on 

a level playing field, with appropriate protections for intellectual property, in China’s growing domestic market. Chinese companies are also beginning to devote significant resources to develop new products and technologies, and many of these companies have their own growing concerns about others in China illegally copying 

their ideas and technology. It is important that a technologically advancing China 

realize that robust IP protection and enforcement are critical for innovation. 

In addition to pushing China both bilaterally and multilaterally to increase its 

regulatory transparency and to adhere to international economic rules-based norms 

and standards, if confirmed, I also intend to engage the U.S. business community 

in China and advocate on behalf of U.S. firms, workers, farmers, and ranchers so 

that unacceptable trade, investment, and market access barriers do not stand in the 

way of their participation in the Chinese market. 

Question. The Chinese Government’s newly announced indigenous innovation policies are particularly concerning. They appear designed to provide a clear advantage 

to Chinese domestic champions and create an unbalanced playing field for foreign 

companies in China. 

♦ If confirmed, will addressing China’s indigenous innovation and strategic emerging industries policies be a priority for you? How will you plan to tackle these 

competitiveness challenges facing U.S. companies? 

Answer. If confirmed, one of my highest priorities will be to ensure U.S. companies can compete on a level playing field in China by addressing China’s indigenous 

innovation and strategic emerging industries policies as well as other market barriers for U.S. companies. 

If confirmed, I will advocate forcefully on behalf of U.S. companies by leveraging 

our high-level engagements with China on how to align its policies on innovation, 

including standards and technology transfer, with global best practices. The U.S.- 

China Innovation Dialogue, which the administration established in 2010 immediately after China launched discriminatory ‘‘indigenous innovation’’ policies, has 

been an important mechanism for raising innovation concerns with the Chinese. 

If confirmed, I will continue U.S. Government engagement through the Innovation 

Dialogue, through other bilateral and multilateral channels, including bilateral 

investment treaty negotiations, and through the efforts of our mission in China, 

which has worked closely as an interagency team to press China to make tangible 

progress eliminating the discriminatory aspects of its indigenous innovation policies. 

RESPONSES OF ARNOLD CHACON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. Please explain what concrete steps you intend to take, as Director 

General of the Foreign Service, to ensure that language training is expanded to a 

greater pool of Foreign Service officers and other embassy personnel, and to change 

or recalibrate the Foreign Service Institute’s overall approaches to language training? 

Answer. Foreign language proficiency is a hallmark of the professional Foreign 

Service employee. It enhances an employee’s ability to improve the U.S. national 

image abroad, advocate foreign policy objectives, and engage foreign audiences in 

discourse on a broad range of subjects. For this reason, foreign language proficiency 

is integrated into the Foreign Service Career Development Program as a requirement for tenure and entry into the Senior Foreign Service. A multibureau Language 

78 

Policy Working Group is dedicated to ensuring that the Department’s employees 

have the language skills to meet our policy needs. 

In accordance with the Department’s strategic plan for foreign language capabilities, the Department conducts a review of all language designated positions every 

3 years to align language proficiency designations with foreign policy goals. The 

Language Policy Working Group is overseeing the triennial review that began in 

November 2013 and will be completed by midsummer 2014. The group recently 

revamped Language Incentive Programs to encourage officers to use and improve 

their skills in critically needed languages and is overhauling the Department’s language training strategy and updating training delivery methods. We are regularly 

increasing the number of Language Designated Positions (LDPs) at our posts; as of 

January 2014, there were 4,498 LDPs total worldwide. Among officers assigned to 

LDP positions in FY 2013, 80 percent fully met, and 13 percent partially met, the 

designated language proficiency requirement. 

The Department created Career Development Plans (CDPs) for Foreign Service 

members to map their long-term professional growth and acquire the skills the 

Department needs at the senior ranks. The CDPs reinforce the importance of foreign 

language proficiency for all Foreign Service members and require that generalists 

seeking promotion into the Senior Foreign Service have current foreign language 

skills. 

The Foreign Service Institute’s model for foreign language instruction emphasizes 

communicative skills, with professional tradecraft training that prepares Foreign 

Service personnel to perform on the job. FSI also invests significantly in language 

learning technology, in professional development of instructional staff, and providing resources for continuous learning after formal training. If confirmed, I will 

make it my priority to work closely with FSI to ensure that all FSOs receive the 

language training that they need to do the best job possible. 

Question. Will you seek to change the Foreign Service application criteria to permit applicants with preexisting language skills to receive an admissions edge? 

Answer. The Department has for years used the tool of additional points for a candidate’s score on the Register of eligible candidates for demonstrated language 

skills. Candidates who have a verified level of fluency in any one of the 69 languages used in the Foreign Service receive extra consideration in the hiring process. 

Those who have competency in the eight priority languages, (Arabic, Mandarin 

Chinese, Hindi, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, and Korean) receive additional consideration. Responding to the Accountability Review Board’s suggestions after the 

Benghazi attack, the Department instituted lump-sum hiring bonuses of 10–20 percent of base salary for Foreign Service specialists with proficiency in Arabic. 

Recruitment of candidates with language skills is an integral part of our outreach. 

We use paid and unpaid advertising on educational, recruitment, and social media 

sites to target U.S. citizen speakers of priority languages. Our 10 DC-based recruiters and 16 Diplomats-in-Residence at universities around the country reach out to 

potential candidates with proficiency in priority languages. Under the Department’s 

Recruitment Language Program (RLP), applicants who receive additional consideration for speaking one of the eight priority languages agree to a one- or two-tour 

commitment, depending on the level of fluency and consideration received in the hiring process, to serve in a position requiring those skills. These priority languages 

are reviewed periodically depending on strategic policy goals. 

Question. Please explain specific steps you intend to take, as Director General of 

the Foreign Service, to reduce the attrition rate of the Foreign Service. 

Answer. The Department has one of the lowest attrition rates in government and 

Foreign Service attrition has remained fairly stable over the years with no significant spikes. While attrition numbers may have gone up due to hiring increases over 

the past 10 years, the relative percentage has actually declined in recent years (generalist rates remain under 4 percent), which keeps FS attrition stable. We have seen 

no difference between the ‘‘Diplomacy 3.0’’ and Diplomatic Readiness Initiative 

cohorts’ attrition rate and our historical averages. 

We are nevertheless cognizant of the need to maintain a reasonable and stable 

attrition rate, while at the same time ensuring we do not lose good talent prematurely. With that in mind, if confirmed I will work to ensure that the Human 

Resource Bureau continues to: 

• Evaluate employee viewpoint surveys, and other surveys, to gauge and address 

employee concerns. (Note: In the 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, the 

Department of State ranked fourth overall among the 19 large federal agencies, 

and is only federal agency to remain in the top 10 since 2005.) 

79 

• Administer the FS promotion and compensation systems transparently and 

fairly. • Improve communication with employees to enhance understanding of mission 

needs, necessary policy changes, and new requirements as well as manage 

expectations. • Improve HR services to employees through automation of HR systems and a 

fully implemented tiered services delivery system. 

RESPONSES OF DANIEL BENNETT SMITH TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. The recently released, bipartisan SSCI Benghazi report found it ‘‘unsettling’’ that INR failed to disseminate any independent analysis regarding the 

Benghazi attacks a full year after the incident. INR officials, during interviews, 

stated that unless INR has something unique to add, they merely repeat what the 

rest of the intelligence community has to say about it. However, INR should always 

have something unique to add, especially when it involves the Department, as the 

Bureau has access to Department information and perspectives that the rest of the 

IC does not have. 

♦ Do you agree with the SSCI finding that the lack of independent analysis from 

INR is unsettling? 

♦ What will you do to ensure INR is not irrelevant in times of crisis such as the 

aftermath of the Benghazi attacks? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure not only that we are providing real 

time access to the intelligence information and analysis that our colleagues in Diplomatic Security and elsewhere need to do their jobs, but that we are also providing 

the broader perspective on overall trends and developments that only INR can 

provide. 

In the aftermath of the tragic events in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of 

four of our colleagues, there were a number of efforts made to look back at what 

happened and draw lessons learned. The primary focus in this regard was the work 

of the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board, in addition to the law 

enforcement-focused analysis and investigation of the attacks led by the FBI. While 

it would not have been appropriate for INR to duplicate these efforts or conduct a 

separate investigation looking back at the attack itself, I understand that INR 

played a critical role through its coordination of and contribution to a number of 

intelligence community products in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks that 

sought to shed light on developments on the ground and the ongoing political and 

security environment. INR actively coordinated with Diplomatic Security, State 

Department Principals, and the IC not only to ensure that State Department perspectives were accurately portrayed in vital intelligence products, but also that the 

flow of intelligence to State Department policymakers, security professionals, and 

others remained smooth and effective. 

I agree that INR provides a unique perspective and that we need to ensure our 

voice is heard. In particular, INR’s analysis of the broader political and economic 

context in which our missions operate can help inform the more operational focus 

of our colleagues in the Bureaus of Diplomatic Security and Counterterrorism, and 

elsewhere in the State Department, on immediate and near-term threats to our missions and personnel. We ensure this perspective is reflected through our coordination of intelligence community products, the publication of independent INR written 

products, and frequent oral briefings and consultations with Department policymakers and interagency partners. 

♦ Are you committed to ensure the SSCI recommendations are carried out—to (1) 

have an independent audit of how quickly and effectively INR shares intelligence within the Department and (2) have DNI and State carry out a joint 

review of INR in order to make the Bureau more timely and responsive to world 

events? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to engage early with DNI Clapper and INR’s State 

Department customers—including those responsible for security—to review how we 

are sharing intelligence and intelligence products, the timeliness and responsiveness 

of INR products to world events, and what improvements we might make. I understand that INR already conducts yearly customer surveys based on rigorous polling 

methodology to determine the timeliness, quality, and relevance of its analytical 

products and intelligence support, including the flow of intelligence originating elsewhere in the intelligence community. I intend to build on these efforts. In 2013, the 

survey was executed by an independent outside firm, ensuring even further rigor. 

80 

Those surveys, which are shared with ODNI, indicate a high degree of confidence 

in INR products and intelligence support services, and appreciation for their outstanding quality, timeliness, and insight into world events. Other reviews have also 

indicated that INR is quickly and effectively sharing intelligence with its customers 

throughout the Department. 

♦ The Benghazi attack was seen by many as a failure to properly appreciate and 

act on intelligence. As the chief intelligence office for the Department of State, 

how would you learn from these intelligence failures and prevent them in the 

future? 

Answer. The independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board and the SSCI 

Benghazi Report confirmed that there was never a specific warning that the attack 

was coming, only a general understanding that the security situation was difficult. 

The challenge for all of us is to determine whether, even in the absence of a specific 

‘‘tactical warning,’’ there are indicators that should trigger additional security measures or other actions to reduce our vulnerability. That is something the State 

Department must do, and does, every day, but we must always strive to improve. 

We owe that to the diplomats and development experts who are advancing America’s interests abroad everyday—often in dangerous places. 

INR’s role in this regard is to ensure not only that policymakers and colleagues 

in Diplomatic Security have real time access to all the relevant intelligence, but also 

to provide our analysis of the broader context in which our missions are operating. 

As I noted, if confirmed, I will review with ODNI the timeliness and responsiveness 

of INR products to ensure we are doing just that. 

♦ In your opinion, how can the intelligence community more effectively manage 

the massive amount of intelligence data being reported to ensure that crucial 

intelligence is emphasized and appreciated? 

Answer. This is a central role that INR plays for the Department of State’s leadership and policymakers. Our job is not only to provide timely access to intelligence 

data, but also to highlight for busy policymakers key pieces of intelligence and analysis. A key part of this is ensuring that INR’s analysts and staff have access to 

training and professional development opportunities to further develop their skills, 

as well as ensuring that analysts are provided with robust analytic IT tools. If confirmed, I will work hard to ensure that INR continues to effectively ‘‘push’’ crucial 

intelligence to policymakers, including in Diplomatic Security, in a timely fashion 

and that analysts have access to training and IT tools they need. 

RESPONSES OF MAX BAUCUS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. U.S. Embassy Air Pollution Monitoring: The U.S. Embassy in Beijing 

provides daily air quality monitoring to measure particulates (PM 2.5) as an indication of the air quality in the city. 

♦ As Ambassador to China, will you continue to ensure this data is available 

through social media and other means? What can be done to expand this monitoring to other U.S. State Department consulates and diplomatic missions 

throughout China? 

Answer. U.S. Embassy Beijing and the U.S. consulates in China provide air quality data and additional information on their public Web sites and through their 

Twitter feeds as part of the administration’s commitment to protect U.S. citizens. 

This information allows the mission community and American citizens living in 

China to make informed decisions to decrease exposure to air pollution. During hazardous air situations—such as the January 2013 air episode—the U.S. Embassy 

issues messages to U.S. citizens to address the high levels of pollution indicated by 

air quality indexes and to provide U.S. citizens information resources on air quality 

and protective measures. If confirmed, I will ensure that air quality data and messages continue to be released and updated in a timely fashion. 

Question. Promotion of U.S. Environmental Technologies: In a January 27, 2014, 

study published in the ‘‘Proceedings of the National Academies of Science,’’ researchers from China and the United States quantified the effects of air pollution from 

Chinese industrial sources used to manufactured goods exported to the United 

States. The study found that the air pollution attributable to export-related Chinese 

activities amounted to up to 10 percent of annual average surface sulfate concentrations (a pollutant that leads to the formation of dangerous fine particulate matter 

and acid rain) and 1.5 percent of ozone over the Western United States in 2006. 

81 

♦ As U.S. Ambassador to China, will you make opening Chinese markets to American air pollution control equipment and other environmental technologies a 

priority? 

Answer. The United States has long recognized that air pollution can be transported over long distances and that China, as a major industrial player, has high 

emissions of air pollutants. Those emissions affect air quality in the United States 

and other countries downwind of China. What was new in the article was that the 

authors quantified how much air pollution from Chinese manufacturing is transported to the United States. The information contained in the January 27 article 

reinforces how important it is for the United States to work with China to mitigate 

emissions of air pollutants, whether that is through cleaner production processes, 

pollution prevention, end-of-pipe technologies, or other mitigation measures. Air pollution is clearly a concern for China’s Government and its citizens, and if confirmed, 

I will work with the Chinese to improve air quality in both our countries. 

China’s air pollution problems will invariably trigger commercial opportunities. 

U.S. air quality monitoring equipment is well received and is often considered highquality in terms of data accuracy, timeliness, and product lifecycle. In order to seize 

these emerging opportunities, U.S. companies should develop suitable market-entry 

and pricing strategies. If confirmed, I will work with the U.S. Commercial Service 

at Embassy Beijing and the Consulates General in Shenyang, Shanghai, 

Guangzhou, Wuhan, and Chengdu to help U.S. exporters interested in exploring the 

Chinese market. 

Question. As you know, the continued detention of political prisoners is one of the 

most pressing human rights challenges in China. Tragically, the situation remains 

unchanged for many Chinese prisoners of conscience—including Nobel Peace Prize 

Laureate Liu Xiaobo and his wife Liu Xia, and prominent rights lawyer Gao 

Zhisheng. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you work to change the status quo for Chinese prisoners 

of conscience and other victims of human rights abuses in China? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would use my position as Ambassador to urge China’s 

leaders to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Chinese citizens and raise specific cases of concern, including those of Nobel laureate Liu 

Xiaobo, his wife Liu Xia, rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, and the many others who 

have been detained and imprisoned for peacefully exercising their universal human 

rights. I strongly believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in 

China are in our national interest and, as such, should be an integral part of every 

high-level conversation we have with Chinese officials. I would continue the Embassy’s strong record of meeting regularly with a wide range of human rights activists 

and their family members to gain a better understanding of their concerns and to 

express our support for human rights in China. I would also coordinate with likeminded countries to raise individual cases to ensure that China hears a consistent 

message from the international community about human rights in China. 

Question. I am deeply concerned about the continued detention of Chinese lawyer 

and human rights activist, Gao Zhisheng. As you know, he has been arrested and 

detained numerous times. According to his wife and human rights advocates, he has 

also been brutally tortured. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you encourage the Chinese Government to immediately 

and unconditionally release Gao Zhisheng? If confirmed, what steps will you 

take to ensure that Gao Zhisheng is allowed to reunite with his family in the 

United States if he is released? 

Answer. I strongly believe that China has an obligation to abide by the 2011 decision by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that judged rights lawyer 

Gao Zhisheng’s imprisonment to be in contravention of the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights and called for his immediate release. If confirmed, I would urge 

China’s leaders to immediately release Gao Zhisheng, remove all restrictions on his 

freedom of movement, and guarantee him the protections and freedoms to which he 

is entitled under China’s international human rights commitments. I would ensure 

that our Embassy continues to be in close communication with Gao’s family members and supporters. I would also continue to work closely with other embassies in 

China in order to ensure that China hears a consistent message from the international community on Gao’s case. 

82 

RESPONSES OF MAX BAUCUS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. On December 5, 2013, the USS Cowpens had been lawfully operating 

in international waters in the South China Sea, when a PLA Navy vessel crossed 

its bow at a distance of less than 500 yards and stopped in the water, forcing the 

USS Cowpens to take evasive action to avoid a collision. This is only the latest in 

about a dozen U.S.-China incidents at sea in the last decade. 

♦ (a) Do you agree that the actions of the PLA Navy ship in the USS Cowpens 

incident, as publicly reported, violate China’s obligations under the October 

1972 multilateral convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea (also known as the COLREGs or the ‘‘rules of the road’’), to which 

both China and the United States are parties? 

♦ (b) Can you describe Chinese attitude toward the framework of bilateral (U.S.- 

Chinese) dialogue enshrined in the 1998 Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA)? 

♦ (c) Do you agree that Chinese respect to the 1972 ‘‘rules of the road’’ and behavior in the MMCA framework should have implications on the administration’s 

expectations about the value of a binding Code of Conduct between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China for the South China Sea? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will support the continued development of military-to-military relations as a key component of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. Deeper 

cooperation is necessary to further reduce mistrust and the risk of miscalculation 

between the two militaries. The U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) is an important forum for the discussion of maritime safety issues 

in general. 

While the December 5 USS COWPENS incident underscored concerns about 

China’s efforts to restrict freedom of navigation at sea, it also highlighted important 

recent progress we have seen in bridge-to-bridge communication between the United 

States and PLA Navies. In a complex tactical environment, bridge-to-bridge communication was instrumental in defusing the situation and preventing a collision. 

In order to minimize the potential for an unintentional accident or incident at sea, 

it is important that the United States and China share a common understanding 

of the same rules for operational air or maritime interactions. From the U.S. perspective, an existing body of international rules, norms, and guidelines—including 

the 1972 COLREGs—are sufficient to ensure the safety of navigation between U.S. 

forces and the forces of other countries, including China. If confirmed, I will continue to make clear to Beijing that these existing rules, including the COLREGS, 

form the basis for our common understanding of air and maritime behavior, and 

encourage China to incorporate these rules into ongoing conflict management tools. 

We have pressed China and ASEAN to agree to a rapid, meaningful Code of Conduct in the South China Sea to manage incidents when they arise, and I will continue to do so if confirmed. I will also support the further development of the MMCA 

and press China to agree to other tools that manage interactions at sea or in the 

air. 

Question. Since the first meeting of the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group in July 

2013, has cyber theft originating from China decreased or continued? Has the working group affected the People’s Liberation Army, and how has the PLA participated 

in the working group? 

Answer. Cyber security is one of the administration’s top priorities. Administration officials have repeatedly raised concerns about Chinese state-sponsored cyber 

enabled theft of trade secrets and confidential business information at the highest 

levels with senior Chinese officials, including in the military, and will continue to 

do so. The State Department, including the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs 

(EAP) and the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Affairs (S/CCI), plays a key role 

in these discussions, including by leading the Cyber Working Group (CWG). The 

United States and China sent interagency delegations, which included military representatives, to both CWG meetings. 

The United States and China are among the world’s largest cyber actors, and it 

is vital that we continue a sustained, meaningful dialogue and work together to 

develop an understanding of acceptable behavior in cyber space. Through the CWG, 

the United States will continue to emphasize U.S. cyber policy objectives, including 

the applicability of international law to state behavior, the importance of norms of 

responsible state behavior, concerns about cyber activities that can lead to instability, the role of transparency in domestic civilian and military cyber policy, and 

the importance of practical cooperative measures to prevent crises in cyber space. 

83 

Question. The late Ambassador Mark Palmer, in his book ‘‘Breaking the Real Axis 

of Evil,’’ argued that U.S. Ambassadors in places like China should be ‘‘freedom 

fighters’’ and U.S. embassies ‘‘islands of freedom’’ open to all those who share the 

values of freedom, human rights, and democracy. 

♦ Do you agree that the U.S. Embassy in China should be an ‘‘island of freedom’’ 

and that one of your primary jobs should be demonstrating to China’s peaceful 

advocates of reform and democracy that the United States stands firmly with 

them? 

Answer. Human rights are integral to U.S. foreign policy. If confirmed, I would 

use my position as the U.S. Ambassador to urge China’s leaders to respect the 

human rights and fundamental freedoms of all citizens and would communicate our 

support for these principles directly to the Chinese people. 

I would raise our human rights concerns with Chinese officials at the highest levels and would raise specific cases of Chinese citizens who are being persecuted for 

the peaceful expression of their political or religious views. I would also make clear 

to China that the United States considers upholding its international human rights 

commitments to be vital to our bilateral relationship. I strongly believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in China are in our national interest and 

should be an integral part of every high-level conversation we have with Chinese 

officials. 

If confirmed, I would plan to continue outreach to ethnic minorities and religious 

groups, including members of house churches, in China. Such outreach would be 

conducted in a way that is effective and promotes our values. 

I would also continue to work closely with other embassies in China concerned 

with China’s worsening human rights record in order to ensure that China hears 

a consistent message from the international community. 

Question. On January 25, the State Department’s spokesperson issued a statement expressing ‘‘deep disappointment’’ about the conviction of Mr. Xu Zhiyong, a 

leading advocate for fiscal transparency and fighting official corruption. The spokesperson described Mr. Xu’s prosecution as ‘‘retribution for his public campaign to 

expose corruption and for the peaceful expression of his views.’’ This is just the latest in an ongoing crackdown by Chinese authorities against activists. 

♦ If confirmed, what steps would you take to highlight the plight of these activists 

and elevate their cases with the Chinese Government? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would use my position as the U.S. Ambassador to urge 

China’s leaders to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all 

Chinese citizens and raise specific cases of concern, including that of legal scholar 

Xu Zhiyong and other individuals associated with the New Citizens Movement that 

have been detained, harassed and prosecuted by Chinese authorities. I strongly 

believe that the promotion and protection of human rights in China are in our 

national interest and, as such, should be an integral part of every high-level conversation we have with Chinese officials. I would continue the Embassy’s strong 

record of meeting regularly with a wide range of human rights activists and their 

family members to gain a better understanding of their concerns and to express our 

support for respect for human rights in China. 

I would also continue to work closely with other embassies in China in order to 

ensure that China hears a consistent message from the international community on 

human rights. 

Question. As you know, there is an effort under way in the Senate to impose visa 

and financial sanctions on individuals responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, 

or other gross violations of human rights in any foreign country. I have been concerned that in some authoritarian countries, there is a growing tendency to use 

selective justice and government institutions to prosecute human rights advocates 

and critics. 

♦ Would you support the application of visa and financial sanctions on individuals 

responsible for the use of selective justice to prosecute anticorruption and 

human rights advocates in China? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would support using a variety of mechanisms to encourage 

greater respect for human rights in China. There is a range of statutory and policybased grounds for denying visas to, and barring entry of, human rights violators. 

I would take our role seriously in not permitting entry to those who are ineligible 

due to direct involvement in human rights abuses, such as the enforcement of forced 

abortion and sterilization. I am particularly concerned by the recent crackdown on 

anticorruption activists, and, if confirmed, would make progress on human rights 

and rule of law a top priority during my tenure in Beijing. 

84 

Question. The United States has designated China as a Country of Particular 

Concern, or CPC, since 1999 for its systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of 

freedom of religion or belief. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has recommended that, in addition to designating China as a CPC, additional 

measures should be taken to encourage Beijing to respect this fundamental freedom. 

♦ How would you use the CPC designation to strengthen human rights and religious freedom diplomacy as part of the bilateral relationship? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would use my position as the U.S. Ambassador to urge 

China’s leaders to respect human rights, including religious freedom. The Chinese 

Government’s respect for, and protection of, the right to religious freedom fall well 

short of its international human rights obligations. As Ambassador, I would support 

efforts by the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom to explore 

new and innovative ways to encourage China to improve its record on religious freedom. I would stress to Chinese leaders that China will remain a CPC until it implements fundamental reforms to allow all people freely to practice their faith, without 

restrictions such as requiring registration with the Chinese Government. 

China’s CPC designation is an important part of our efforts to urge China to fulfill 

its international commitments to protect and respect religious freedom, along with 

our ‘‘International Religious Freedom Report,’’ high-level dialogues such as the 

Human Rights Dialogue, exchange programs among our citizens, and grants to organizations working to improve religious freedom. 

Question. According to the United States Commission on International Religious 

Freedom, the Chinese Government has detained over a thousand so-called ‘‘unregistered’’ Christians in the past year, closed ‘‘illegal’’ meeting points, and prohibited 

public worship activities. Additionally, unregistered Catholic clergy remain in detention or disappeared. 

♦ If confirmed, would you commit to raise awareness of this situation in China 

by outreaching to this beleaguered community and attending a worship service 

in an ‘‘unregistered’’ Catholic or Protestant church in China? 

Answer. Promoting religious freedom is a core objective of U.S. foreign policy, 

including in our relationship with China. If confirmed, I would use my position as 

the U.S. Ambassador to urge China’s leaders to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people and encourage China to permit everyone to worship, regardless of whether they affiliate with a government-recognized religious 

association. Freedom of religion is critical to a peaceful, inclusive, and stable society. 

If confirmed, I would continue outreach to both registered and unregistered religious groups, including members of house churches and the Catholic community, in 

China. Such outreach would be conducted in a way that is effective and promotes 

our values. 

Question. China recently announced that it would abolish the reeducation through 

labor penal system which allowed people to be held up to 4 years without a judicial 

hearing. UNHCR estimated up to 190,000 people were held in these camps. However, human rights activists worry that the closure of these forced labor camps is 

merely cosmetic and they have been relabeled as drug rehabilitation centers. 

♦ What is the status of the closures of the forced labor camps? Since the beginning of the closure of the camps, has there been an increase in people committed to drug rehabilitation centers in China? 

Answer. While we welcome China’s December 28, 2013, announcement that it 

would abolish the ‘‘reeducation through labor’’ system as a positive step if it results 

in the shutdown of an abusive system that allows Chinese authorities to imprison 

individuals without due process, the ongoing use of arbitrary administrative detention, extralegal detention in black jails, and other forms of forced labor remains a 

concern. If confirmed, I would urge Chinese officials to ensure that reeducation 

through labor is not replaced by other forms of arbitrary detention or ‘‘rehabilitation’’ that deprive citizens of their rights. I would emphasize that we believe that 

respect for rule of law and protection of human rights will benefit the long-term stability and prosperity of China. 

If confirmed, I will also work closely with my interagency colleagues, particularly 

the Department of Homeland Security, to ensure that we are taking all necessary 

steps to ensure that products of forced and prison labor are not entering the United 

States. 

Question. The Chinese Government recently announced a limited relaxation of 

their longstanding ‘‘One Child Policy’’ for Chinese couples in which at least one parent is an only child. However, this change to the ‘‘One-Child Policy’’ does not apply 

85 

to all couples and circumstances, and reports of government-approved forced abortions continue to arise. 

♦ How will you engage with Chinese officials on the issue of government-sanctioned forced abortions in China? 

Answer. I strongly oppose all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, 

including forced abortion and sterilization. If confirmed, I would urge China’s leaders frequently and at all levels to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Chinese citizens and to end the one-child policy immediately. 

RESPONSES OF ARNOLD CHACON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. A group of former Ambassadors recently underlined the shrinking proportion of Foreign Service officers (FSOs) in senior positions at the State Department relative to Civil Service or political appointees, and observed an accompanying 

diminution of Foreign Service input into the foreign policy process and management 

of the Department. 

♦ How does this administration compare to previous ones regarding the nomination of political appointees to senior positions at the State Department? 

♦ How does this situation impact the morale of FSOs? 

♦ What impact does this situation have on the need to improve the professional 

skills of FSOs? 

Answer. The Department benefits from the strengths of a diverse workforce: Civil 

Service, Foreign Service, and political appointees. Each brings unique experience, 

skills, and perspectives. There are career employees in many senior leadership positions domestically and overseas, including the Deputy Secretary, the Counselor, and 

a number of Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries. The majority of ambassador positions are filled by career FSOs. The ratio has been fairly consistent over 

the course of multiple Presidential administrations: approximately 70 percent 

career, 30 percent noncareer. The Foreign Service Act of 1980 recognizes the value 

of appointment of qualified noncareer individuals as COM. 

Regarding morale, it is to be expected that a diversity of opinion regarding internal policies will be represented among employees. It would not be possible to guarantee 100 percent acceptance of any Department policy. I would note, however, that 

in the 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, the Department of State ranked 

fourth overall among the 19 large federal agencies, and is only federal agency to remain in the top 10 since 2005. Please see my answers below regarding the Department’s work to improve the professional skills of FSOs. 

Question. As you know, the 2010 QDDR acknowledge State’s shortage of key skills 

necessary for modern-day diplomacy. 

♦ What steps, if any, has the administration taken to institute a Professional Diplomatic Education Program to systematically develop the professional skills of 

FSOs? 

♦ If so, what particular skills does the program seek to enhance? 

♦ To what extent is participation in such programs a prerequisite for FSOs’ promotions? 

Answer. The Department takes an active interest in the development and training 

of its most important resource, its people. The skills demanded of a diplomat are 

always shifting, and never more so than now in the 21st century. Showing the 

priority we place on training our officers, the Department strives to maintain a 

training complement sufficient to ensure that officers may acquire necessary skills, 

without leaving important overseas positions vacant. The assistance of Congress in 

providing us with the necessary resources for this complement is greatly appreciated. 

The primary locus of education for the foreign affairs community is the Foreign 

Service Institute (FSI), which develops the men and women our Nation requires to 

fulfill our leadership role in world affairs and to advance and defend U.S. interests. 

Created in 1947, FSI provides more than 700 classroom courses, including some 70 

foreign languages. In addition, 270 custom-developed distance learning products and 

about 2,700 commercial distance learning courses are available worldwide 24/7 

through the Internet. Annual course completions currently exceed 104,500. These 

courses are designed to promote successful performance in each assignment, to ease 

the adjustment to other countries and culture, and to enhance the leadership and 

management capabilities of the U.S. foreign affairs community. Customers include 

State and 47 other USG entities. 

86 

Since 2005, the Department has used Career Development Plans (CDPs) for Foreign Service Generalists and, more recently, Specialists, as a tool for mapping career 

development and developing skills needed at the senior ranks. Certain requirements 

must be met before an employee can elect to compete for the senior ranks. The CDP 

builds on four principles to meet the Department’s mission, all critical to meet 

today’s diplomatic requirements: operational effectiveness, including breadth of 

experience over several regions and functions; leadership and management effectiveness; sustained professional language and technical proficiency; and responsiveness 

to Service needs. Mandatory requirements and a menu of electives help guide 

employees in developing the skills and experience to demonstrate their readiness for 

the senior ranks. FSI also launched a Training Continuum in 2005 which allowed 

officers of different career tracks to tailor their training to meet the needs of their 

particular specialty. 

The CDP also reinforces the importance of excellence in foreign languages, fundamental to the work of the Foreign Service. Professional foreign language use is also 

highly valued in considerations for promotion, across all grades and skills. Longterm language training does generally slow promotion while the student is enrolled, 

but makes promotion more likely later on. 

The Department is committed to developing the wider skills for today’s diplomacy. 

In addition to tradecraft skills, much of which is assignment-specific, we are also 

focused on the leadership and management skills critical to the Department, both 

internally and in an increasingly interagency overseas environment. In recent years, 

for example, we instituted mandatory leadership training as a prerequisite for promotion at each rank and, in 2014, we expect to launch a new program of mandatory 

supervisory training for all new supervisors. 

Question. Are there any efforts underway to facilitate the attendance of mid-level 

FSOs to one of our military’s Professional Military Education Programs? Would such 

a cross-service education be valuable the modern FSOs? 

Answer. We have long, productive relationships with our Nation’s military educational institutions, both the War College and Commands. In this academic year, 

for example, 24 mid-level employees at the FS–02 and FS–03 levels are enrolled in 

the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA; Army Command and Staff College in 

Ft. Leavenworth, KS; Naval Command and Staff College in Newport, RI; Air Command and Staff College in Montgomery, AL; Marine Corps War College in Quantico, 

VA; Inter-American Defense College in Washington, DC; and National Intelligence 

University (NIU) in Washington, DC. The Department has a close and longstanding 

relationship with the National Defense University (NDU), where our officers can 

both study and teach. In one NDU program, an FSO at the 01 rank serves under 

the general direction of the Commandant as Associate Professor and State Chair at 

the Joint Forces Staff College. The JFSC prepares 1,300 selected field-grade officers 

and civilians each year for command and staff responsibilities in multinational, governmental, and joint national security jobs. Students come from all branches of the 

armed services (including international military students), the Department of State, 

and other U.S. civilian agencies. The College has several schools that offer joint professional military education mandated by Congress, including a master’s degree program in Joint Advanced Warfare. 

The Foreign Service Institute also manages an online Army War College Master 

of Strategic Studies Distance Education Program for FS–01 and FS–02 employees 

that awards a Master of Strategic Studies. 

These highly competitive training opportunities are considered career-enhancing 

for Foreign Service personnel, offering opportunities for professional growth and the 

development of skills and knowledge critical to working and leading in the interagency environment. 

Question. Consular activities are vitally important, but they draw a lot of manpower from within the State Department ranks. What can be done to buttress our 

consular activities overseas in order to shift additional personnel to staffing shortfalls in other areas? 

Answer. Many of our consular positions are entry-level officer (ELO) positions, 

focused on immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. The number of visa adjudication 

positions needed overseas is influenced by visa demand which, in turn, is impacted 

by frequently changing country-specific and worldwide political, economic, social, 

and national security conditions. Our ability to meet those needs through traditional 

methods, i.e., ELOs, is dependent on the Department’s budget and the ability to 

hire. 

Unfortunately, in today’s resource-constrained environment with attrition or less 

hiring and continuing growth in demand for visas, we estimate that by FY15 ELO 

87 

hiring will be unable to provide enough officers to fill entry level consular positions. 

Consular staffing shortfalls are projected to exceed 400 by FY17. 

To support the economic growth that foreign visitors foster in the United States, 

we are expanding existing programs for our career Civil Service employees, including Passport Adjudicators, to serve overseas in Foreign Service Limited Non-Career 

Appointments (LNA). We have also developed other innovative LNA hiring programs to meet these urgent, specific mission-critical needs that cannot be met by 

the Foreign Service (FS), including a pilot program to bring in noncareer, highly 

qualified, language ready Consular Adjudicator LNAs to fill entry-level nonimmigrant visa adjudicator positions in China, Brazil, and several Spanish-speaking 

countries. Additionally, we are expanding opportunities for fully qualified appointment-eligible family members to serve in entry-level consular positions overseas. 

We are using these programs to buttress our vitally important and growing consular responsibilities but with at attrition or below hiring, entry-level officers will 

continue to be needed to complete that critical task. 

RESPONSES OF MAX BAUCUS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Question. Conservationists estimate that some 62 percent of the elephant population in central Africa has been slaughtered in the past decade to satisfy the resurgent demand for ivory. Experts agree that the demand for ivory is fueled by China— 

where the nation’s economic expansion has made the treasured product accessible 

to a growing middle class. Not only does this demand create a market that is leading to the decimation of the African elephant, it also undermines U.S. military and 

development objectives in Africa by fueling armed conflict and violence. Murderous 

bands of thugs like the Lord’s Resistance Army and terrorist group al-Shabaab have 

turned to ivory to fund their reigns of terror. 

♦ How can the United States work with China to reduce its demand for ivory that 

is helping fuel such horrific violence? 

Answer. The United States is engaging China to reduce demand for illegally 

traded wildlife and wildlife products. Recently the United States and China each 

destroyed more than six tons of illegal ivory stockpiles seized through law enforcement action. I understand the United States plans to continue efforts to raise global 

awareness, including in China, of this pernicious trade and its devastating effects 

on wildlife. U.S. law enforcement agencies are working with Chinese authorities to 

improve wildlife law enforcement. At the 2013 U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on 

Law Enforcement Cooperation, the U.S. cochairs proposed that the United States 

and China explore ways to cooperate further on wildlife trafficking. Law enforcement entities of the United States have joined with China, and other countries, 

including several African nations, in collaborating and exchanging information 

through Operation COBRA 2, a follow-on operation to the highly successful Operation COBRA 1 in 2013, which targets wildlife traffickers at all points in the trade 

chain. In addition, the United States continues to encourage China, as APEC 2014 

chair, to support the ongoing work of the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts 

Task Force on combating corruption and illicit trade, including wildlife trafficking, 

and to join U.S. workshops focusing on demand reduction under APEC’s aegis. 

Question. China is investing in Africa by the billions—building large-scale roads 

and infrastructure projects. It uses concessional financing and other favorable loan 

and grant terms to undercut American companies, making it very difficult for our 

businesses to compete. This is leaving a continent with 7 of the 10 fastest-growing 

economies and with huge potential to grow jobs in the United States largely inaccessible to American investors and companies. For its part, China gains access to natural resources and gains political and diplomatic influence. African consumers are 

subject to inferior Chinese products, as well as weak labor, governance, and environmental standards. 

♦ How can the United States do more to help American businesses compete in 

Africa, particularly against aggressive Chinese tactics? 

Answer. Foreign investment is essential to Africa’s economic development, and 

there is room for both the United States and China to engage in public and private 

investment opportunities. The United States offers a compelling narrative for Africa. 

Our firms introduce international best practices, export top-quality products, provide employment opportunities, and promote economic growth in Africa, while also 

generating benefits for the U.S. economy. 

China will continue to seek a role in Africa and elsewhere, and we must maintain 

our engagement with China in this regard. The United States has pressed China 

88 

to adhere to international labor, human rights, transparency, and economic standards as China pursues investment and development projects globally. 

If confirmed, I would press China not to undermine local and international efforts 

to promote healthy competition, good governance, transparency, and responsible 

natural resource management in Africa and elsewhere. I would welcome Chinese 

investment that is consistent with international standards, that promotes good governance and sustainable development, and that maintains a level playing field for 

all companies, and I would urge my Chinese counterparts to ensure that China’s 

engagement plays this positive role. 

RESPONSES OF MAX BAUCUS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

Question. China has some of the most unique natural features in the world, from 

the mountains of the Tibetan Plateau to the Indus, Mekong and Yellow Rivers that 

flow from it and sustain all of Asia. Yet China is now famous for having some of 

the worst air quality on the planet. The Chinese people are increasingly pushing 

back through activism accelerated by new social media tools and aided by the realtime air quality data provided by the U.S. Embassy. 

How will you advance collaboration between China, the American private sector, 

and U.S. agencies such as the EPA to reduce pollution there? 

Answer. Growing environmental awareness in China, driven partly by episodes of 

severe air pollution, has increased Chinese interest in enhanced cooperation on air 

pollution, climate, and clean energy. Air pollution does not stop at the border; by 

working with China, the United States can improve air quality in both our countries. To promote cooperation, the United States developed an Air Action Plan under 

the Ten-Year Framework for Energy and Environment Cooperation (TYF). Collaboration on air quality is also included in the memorandum of understanding between 

the U.S. EPA and China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and was expanded 

in 2013 through a U.S. Trade and Development Agency-funded cooperative project. 

Our two nations also boast significant bilateral climate cooperation, including 

through seven clean-energy initiatives launched in 2009—including the U.S.-China 

Clean Energy Research Center—and the five new initiatives of the Climate Change 

Working Group (CCWG). The TYF and CCWG in particular are State Departmentorganized platforms for cooperation that bring U.S. agencies, including DOE, EPA, 

USTDA, DOT, and FERC, together with their Chinese counterparts. 

If confirmed, I would work to support these existing programs and encourage 

their expansion. For example, at the next Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 

China, we are working to include new partners—including American industry participants—into the EcoPartnership Program. EcoPartnerships bring together U.S. 

and Chinese organizations—local governments, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and/or companies—to conduct innovative projects that promote U.S. priorities on energy security, economic growth, and environmental sustainability, including addressing air pollution. 

Question. If confirmed, what measures will you take to protect the health of the 

hundreds of Americans who serve at Embassy Beijing and consulates around the 

country? 

Answer. U.S. Embassy Beijing and the U.S. consulates in China provide air quality data and additional information on their public Web sites as part of the administration’s commitment to protect U.S. citizens. This information allows the mission 

community and U.S. citizens living in China to make informed decisions to decrease 

exposure to air pollution. During hazardous air situations—such as the January 

2013 air episode—the U.S. Embassy issues messages to U.S. citizens to address the 

high levels of pollution indicated by air quality indexes and to provide U.S. citizens 

information resources on air quality and protective measures. 

If confirmed, I would ensure that air quality data and these messages continue 

to be released and updated in a timely fashion. In addition, embassy and consulate 

residences have been provided multiple room air cleaners, resulting in significant 

reductions in particulate levels indoors. 

Mission China makes influenza vaccines (aka ‘‘flu shots’’) available for Embassy 

and consulate personnel and dependents in accordance with standard State Department policies. 

Question. Like many of my fellow Senators, I am appalled by the recent surge in 

the ivory trade, especially the increased demand in China leading to the growth in 

elephant killings in Africa. 

89 

♦ How will you address this issue with the Chinese, and what can the United 

States do to help China tighten its exports rules and punishments for acquiring 

illegal ivory in order to dissuade would-be buyers? 

Answer. The United States is engaging China to reduce demand for illegally 

traded wildlife and wildlife products. Recently the United States and China each 

destroyed more than 6 tons of illegal ivory stockpiles seized through law enforcement action. I understand the United States plans to continue efforts to raise global 

awareness, including in China, of this pernicious trade and its devastating effects 

on wildlife. U.S. law enforcement agencies are working with Chinese authorities to 

improve wildlife law enforcement. At the 2013 U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on 

Law Enforcement Cooperation, the U.S. cochairs proposed that the United States 

and China explore ways to cooperate further on wildlife trafficking. Law enforcement entities of the United States have joined with China and other countries, 

including several African nations, in collaborating and exchanging information 

through Operation COBRA 2, a follow-on operation to the highly successful Operation COBRA 1 in 2013, which targets wildlife traffickers at all points in the trade 

chain. In addition, the United States continues to encourage China, as APEC 2014 

chair, to support the ongoing work of the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts 

Task Force on combating corruption and illicit trade, including wildlife trafficking, 

and to join U.S. workshops focusing on demand reduction under APEC’s aegis. 

Question. I think it is fair to say that we have seen an increasingly active Chinese 

Navy attempting to assert authority in sea-lanes that have been open for navigation 

for all countries for years. This behavior increases the risk of confrontation between 

countries in the region. 

♦ What will you do to send a message to the Chinese that the international community and the United States, in support of its allies, will continue to support 

freedom of navigation in the region and how will you work specifically to deescalate tensions and improve military to military communication between the 

United States and China and our partners and allies in the region? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage China to exhibit greater transparency with 

respect to its capabilities and intentions, and to use its military capabilities in a 

manner conducive to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific 

region. I will reiterate that the United States has national interests in the AsiaPacific region, including an interest in preserving the freedom of the seas and airspace. For over three decades, the U.S. Government has maintained a Freedom of 

Navigation Policy and Program. The U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program aims to 

preserve all of the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace for the 

United States and all nations by demonstrating that the United States does not 

accept maritime claims of other nations, including China, that are inconsistent with 

international law and impinge on the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea that 

belong to all nations. The U.S. FON Program is global and is not directed at any 

single country. The U.S. FON Program is a multiagency effort, including both diplomatic activity and operational activity. As part of that diplomatic activity, I will do 

my part to encourage China to conform its maritime claims to international law, 

and encourage China to fully respect all of the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea 

and airspace by other nations, including the United States. When appropriate, I will 

communicate to China the lawfulness of and need for the activities of U.S. military 

forces to preserve those rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea and airspace in the 

Asia-Pacific region. 

If confirmed, I will support the continued development of military-to-military relations as a key component of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. Deeper cooperation is necessary to further reduce mistrust and the risk of miscalculation between 

the U.S. and Chinese militaries. 

Question. It is well known that China is hard at work conducting industrial espionage and attempting to acquire information on U.S. defense systems in order to 

both counter U.S. systems, but also to attempt to catch up to the U.S. military’s 

technological superiority. 

♦ What will you do as Ambassador to work with and send a message to the Chinese, that these export violations are unacceptable, and how will you work with 

U.S. companies doing business in China to ensure that they are following all 

applicable export laws meant to protect sensitive U.S. military and dual use 

technology when doing business with Chinese companies? 

Answer. The United States is committed to facilitating normal trade with China 

for commercial items for civilian end-uses and end-users. Export controls, which affect only a very small amount of total bilateral trade (less than 1 percent), are not 

just an economic issue, but also a national security issue. China remains a proVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
90 

scribed destination under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the federal 

regulation that implements the Arms Export Control Act, and is also the subject of 

separate statutory restrictions commonly referred to as ‘‘Tiananmen sanctions,’’ 

requiring a Presidential waiver prior to the issuance of any export license to China 

for any defense article on the United States Munitions List. China’s status in this 

regard is firmly established and well-known to U.S. and foreign defense companies 

engaged in legitimate and authorized defense trade. 

The United States will continue to engage China on export control issues through 

the High Technology and Strategic Trade Working Group (HTWG), as reflected in 

the July 2013 Strategic and Economic Dialogue joint outcome statement. The 

HTWG is a longstanding dialogue under the Joint Committee on Commerce and 

Trade designed to further cooperation on export controls and high technology trade 

issues. 

If confirmed, I would reinforce U.S. policy on export controls in discussions with 

Chinese officials and in meetings with U.S. businesses as appropriate. I would also 

raise export issues and cases of export violations as they arise. 

RESPONSES OF MAX BAUCUS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

Question. What leverage does the U.S. Government have to promote the development of human rights and rule of law in China? Are sanctions effective in encouraging China to comply with human rights standards? Are sanctions useful in persuading China to develop the rule of law? If confirmed, what actions will you take 

to help end the Government of China’s policies of oppression and support the rights 

and freedom of the people of China? How do you plan to balance the engagement 

of China on economic issues with demonstrating serious concerns about China’s 

human rights violations? 

Answer. The greatest leverage we have is China’s own desire to achieve greater 

international respect, a more innovative economy, and a prosperous and stable society. Our consistent message to China’s leaders, and to the Chinese people, is that 

greater respect for universal human rights is key to achieving these goals. The 

United States does not hesitate to speak out when we believe that China is engaging in policies and practices, such as in Tibet or Xinjiang, that contravene China’s 

international human rights commitments. The United States public advocacy for 

human rights causes no small amount of friction with the Chinese leadership. However, it is important that we continue to speak out, as we have with respect to the 

continued imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, the recent sentencing of legal activist Xu Zhiyong, the disappearance of lawyer Gao Zhisheng, and 

ongoing repression in Tibet and Xinjiang. 

If confirmed, I will not hesitate to speak out and advocate for the respect for universal human rights and rule of law, but the use of economic sanctions to attempt 

to bring about human rights improvements is not likely to be effective with China. 

I believe economic sanctions would alienate us from the majority of Chinese people 

who have benefited from China’s economic reform and integration into the global 

economy. 

Promoting respect for universal human rights and the rule of law is integral to 

U.S. foreign policy. If confirmed, I would urge China’s leaders to undertake key legal 

reforms and respect the rule of law and underscore the importance of an independent judiciary, a robust civil society and the free flow of information to China’s 

prosperity and stability. I would also strongly support the annual U.S.-China Legal 

Experts Dialogue which provides an important channel to discuss our concerns 

about the rule of law and specifically the role of lawyers in Chinese society by bringing together judges, legal scholars, lawyers and prosecutors to discuss key legal 

issues. 

If confirmed, I would raise our human rights concerns with Chinese officials at 

the highest levels and would raise specific cases of Chinese citizens who are being 

persecuted for the peaceful expression of their political or religious views. I would 

also make clear to China that the United States considers upholding its international human rights commitments to be vital to our bilateral relationship. 

Question. What is the total cost of China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property to 

the U.S. economy each year? Why hasn’t the Government of China been able to 

establish an effective intellectual property rights enforcement regime? Is it based 

upon a lack of desire or ability on the part of the Government of China? 

Answer. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in 

China are critical to maintaining a mutually beneficial trade relationship. According 

91 

to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, China remains the leading source of counterfeit 

and pirated goods coming into the United States. My understanding is that China 

has taken some positive actions to improve IP legislation and enforcement in recent 

years; however, piracy and counterfeiting levels in China remain unacceptably high, 

and stronger enforcement mechanisms are needed. As the Commerce Department 

has reported, IP-intensive industries support at least 40 million U.S. jobs and annually account for approximately $5 trillion in the U.S. economy. 

If I am confirmed, one of the top priorities for the U.S. mission in China will continue to be to advocate for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 

rights that are so critical for U.S. businesses. 

Question. What role should the United States play in the territorial disputes in 

the East China Sea? In November, the U.S. Air Force flew two bombers through 

the East China Sea without notification after China declared an air defense identification zone. Do you support additional U.S. military operations that assert freedom of movement and show support to U.S. allies in the region? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would speak clearly to Beijing regarding not only issues 

of shared interest, but also our differences, and faithfully represent the values, 

interests, and principles of the United States—including respect for international 

law and the freedom of navigation. I am clear-eyed about Chinese behavior vis-avis its neighbors over territorial and maritime matters. 

China’s announcement of an ‘‘East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone 

(ADIZ)’’ caused deep concerns in the region. If confirmed, I would remind the Chinese that the United States does not recognize and does not accept the ADIZ, which 

we believe should not be implemented. I would make clear to China that it should 

refrain from taking similar actions elsewhere in the region. I would also encourage 

China to work with other countries, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, to 

address the dangers its recent declaration has created and to deescalate tensions. 

If confirmed, I would reiterate that the United States has national interests in 

the Asia-Pacific region, including an interest in preserving the freedom of the seas 

and airspace. Where appropriate, I would communicate to China the lawfulness of, 

and need for, the activities of U.S. military forces to preserve those rights, freedoms, 

and uses of the sea and airspace in the Asia-Pacific region. For over three decades, 

the U.S. Government has maintained a Freedom of Navigation Policy and Program. 

If confirmed, I would support the continued development of military-to-military relations as a key component of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. Deeper cooperation is necessary to further reduce mistrust and the risk of miscalculation between 

the U.S. and Chinese militaries. 

Question. Do you believe that Taiwan should be invited to participate in U.S.-led 

military exercises? Do you support arm sales to Taiwan? 

Answer. Taiwan and the United States enjoy unofficial but robust economic and 

cultural relations, and Taiwan is an important security partner to the United 

States. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the United States one-China 

policy, the United States makes available to Taiwan defense articles and services 

necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. 

Taiwan does not formally participate in international coalitions or exercises. However, Taiwan does regularly train on weapons or platforms bought from the United 

States, which increases not only Taiwan’s deterrence but also its humanitarian 

assistance capacity. Taiwan plays an increasingly significant role in disaster relief 

enterprises, such as relief to Palau and the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan in 

November 2013. 

If I am confirmed, my job will be to express to Chinese officials and people continuing U.S. support for improving cross-strait relations at a pace acceptable to people of both sides of the strait and to make clear the United States abiding interest 

in peace and stability across the strait. 

Question. How would you characterize China’s political and economic relationship 

with North Korea? What type of policy changes and actions would you like to see 

from China regarding North Korea? In what ways can the United States work with 

China to pressure North Korea on denuclearization? 

Answer. The United States shares with China a common goal of achieving a 

denuclearized Korean Peninsula, which is essential to both regional stability and 

broader international security. China is a vital partner with a unique role to play 

due to its longstanding economic, diplomatic, and historical ties with North Korea. 

The administration continues to work with all U.N. member states, including China, 

to ensure the full and transparent implementation of UNSC sanctions. 

As Ambassador, if confirmed, I would urge China to use its influence to convince 

North Korea that it has no choice but to denuclearize. The United States and China 

92 

need to continue to work together to hold the DPRK to its commitments and its 

international obligations, including those to abandon its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. If confirmed, I would continue to encourage Beijing to ensure the full and transparent 

implementation of U.N. Security Council sanctions targeting North Korea’s nuclearrelated, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programs. 

Question. If confirmed, what policies will you support to address Internet censorship and promote media freedom in China? 

Answer. I am concerned that Internet restrictions in China have worsened. It is 

troublesome to see the blocking of so many Web sites due to the ‘‘Great Firewall,’’ 

which limits access to information, including international media Web sites; new 

restrictions on social media, including a crackdown on what the Chinese Government terms ‘‘online rumors’’; and the censorship of Internet search engine results. 

If confirmed, I would raise objections over the blocking of media and social media 

Web sites with Chinese counterparts, making clear that these actions are inconsistent with China’s international commitment to respect freedom of expression. If 

confirmed, I would express to Chinese officials that obstructing the free flow of 

information undermines the kind of open environment for free debate and discussion 

that supports innovation and economic dynamism. 

I am deeply concerned that foreign journalists in China continue to face restrictions that impede their ability to do their jobs, including extended delays in processing journalist visas and press credentials, restrictions on travel to certain locations deemed ‘‘sensitive’’ by Chinese authorities and, in some cases, violence at the 

hands of local authorities. These restrictions and treatment stand in stark contrast 

with U.S. treatment of Chinese and other foreign journalists. 

If confirmed, I would urge China to commit to timely visa and credentialing decisions for foreign journalists, unblock international websites, and eliminate other 

restrictions that impede the ability of journalists to practice their profession. 

(93) 

NOMINATIONS BATHSHEBA CROCKER, 

MICHAEL LAWSON, AND ROBERT WOOD 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Bathsheba Nell Crocker, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs 

Michael Anderson Lawson, of California, for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as Representative on the 

Council of the International Civilian Aviation Organization 

Robert A. Wood, of New York, for the rank of Ambassador during 

his tenure of service as U.S. Representative to the Conference 

on Disarmament 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in Room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Markey and Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hearing in the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Today, we will hear from three highly qualified nominees who 

will represent our country’s interests before international organizations. 

The first is Mr. Michael Lawson, the United States Representative on the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is headquartered in Montreal. This is an intergovernmental organization that oversees the safety, security, and economic sustainability and environmental impact of civilian air travel. 

Air navigation, the safety of air travel, and the security from terrorist attack have been the focuses of this organization for many 

years. More recently, environmental and energy issues have become a priority, especially aviation’s contribution to climate 

change. Air travel is currently responsible for 2 percent of carbon 

dioxide pollution worldwide and about 13 percent of all transportation-sector carbon dioxide. As air travel increases, especially in 

rapidly developing economies, emissions are projected to grow in 

the coming years. 

94 

In early October 2013, it was agreed upon that the goal of— 

should create a global market-based system to curb airline pollution emissions by 2016. Mr. Lawson is extremely well qualified to 

represent the United States in these discussions. He received his 

J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1978. He has over 31 years of experience practicing law, most of it as a partner at the firm of 

Skadden Arps, here in Washington and around the world. Since 

2005, Mr. Lawson has served on the Board of Airport Commissioners for the four airports of the L.A. area, including Los Angeles 

International Airport. He was president of that board from 2010 to 

2013. While on the board, he helped manage major improvements 

to the LAX, including a new terminal. 

Our next nominee is Bathsheba Nell Crocker, President Obama’s 

nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. She will be responsible for overseeing and advising 

Secretary Kerry about the U.S. Government’s relationships with 

the United Nations—U.N. agencies, such as the IAEA, peacekeeping missions, UNICEF, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and a number of other international agencies and organizations. 

Ms. Crocker’s expertise on foreign policy and her dedication to 

public service are truly impressive. She has over 15 years of relevant experience at the State Department, the United Nations, and 

the private sector. At the State Department, she is now the Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Policy Planning. At the 

United Nations, she worked as the Special Assistant on the 

Peacebuilding Issues and as the Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office 

of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, former President Bill 

Clinton. 

In the private sector, she has served as a senior policy advisor 

for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and as a fellow at the 

Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Council on 

Foreign Relations. 

Her credentials are impressive in their own right, but she is also 

carrying on a family tradition. With us here today is her father, 

Chester Crocker, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under President Reagan. 

Could you please stand, Mr.—right over here? Thank you so 

much for being here. 

Could we give him a round of applause for his tremendous service to our country? [Applause.] 

We thank you. 

He served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs 

under President Reagan, and helped lead the negotiations that led 

to independence for Namibia and the withdrawal of Cuban troops 

from Angola. 

Mr. Crocker, thank you for your service to our country. 

I am told that when Ms. Crocker is confirmed, you will be the 

first father-daughter pair to serve as Assistant Secretaries of State 

in our country’s history. 

Our third nominee is Robert Wood, nominated to represent the 

United States to the Conference on Disarmament, the international 

agency responsible for negotiating arms treaties. Mr. Wood is a 25- 

year veteran of the Foreign Service who has served in Mexico, NiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
95 

geria, Pakistan, and South Africa. Recently, he served as Charge ́

d’affaires in the U.S. Mission to the International Atomic Energy 

Agency, where he defended American interests and tried to help 

prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile material. He was 

also the Deputy Spokesman of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, a position he began the day after the September 11th attacks. 

If confirmed, one of Mr. Wood’s most pressing responsibilities 

would be a preparatory conference this April for the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Mr. Wood will be an essential 

spokesman, explaining and defending our country’s significant efforts to create a world in which nuclear weapons no longer exist. 

Also, Mr. Wood has the opportunity to start serious negotiations 

on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty which would ban the production 

of nuclear materials for use in nuclear weapons. 

And we thank each of you for your service, and we thank each 

of you for everything that you are going to do for our country. 

And I will begin by recognizing you, Ms. Crocker, in order to lay 

out your case to become our representative. 

STATEMENT OF BATHSHEBA NELL CROCKER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 

AFFAIRS 

Ms. CROCKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to appear before 

you as President Obama’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of State 

for International Organization Affairs. 

More than 30 years ago, as you have noted, my father appeared 

in front of this committee as President Reagan’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. I have learned a great 

deal from my father’s remarkable career about the importance of 

public service, the art of American diplomacy, and the promise of 

American leadership. It would be an honor of a lifetime to carry 

these lessons forward and help advance American interests and 

values at the United Nations and beyond. 

I have also learned a great deal from my mother, who is also 

here with us today, a woman who proved that you could have a 

successful career and be an extraordinary mother. I am so pleased 

they could both be here today. 

I also want to recognize my husband, Milan, my daughters, Asha 

and Farrin, who are here. I owe them more than I could ever say. 

And I have a number of other family members here, as well, today: 

my sister, Rennie Anderson; my brother-in-law, Kai Anderson; my 

nieces, Tala and Avey; my nephew, Caleb; my brother-in-law, 

Anand Vaishnav; and my cousin, John Putnam. 

I began my public service—— 

Senator MARKEY. May I say that your mother is the first woman 

to ever be the wife of, and the mother of, an Assistant Secretary 

of State—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY [continuing]. Which I think is also a distinction. 

That might actually be the hypotenuse in this whole story. [Laughter.] 

96 

Ms. CROCKER. Well said. 

I began my public service career as an attorney advisor at the 

State Department more than 15 years ago. I have seen firsthand 

how ably our diplomats represent our country. I have seen their 

courage on the front lines of conflict, their resilience and strength 

in the aftermath of natural disasters, and their steadfast commitment to standing up to injustice all over the world. I have also seen 

firsthand the same determinations and skill in the peacekeepers, 

development professionals, humanitarian workers, and health practitioners I worked with during my time helping lead the U.N. Asia 

tsunami recovery efforts and peace-building programs. That is why 

I share President Obama’s conviction that America’s national interests are best served by a robust, responsive, and responsible international system. The challenges of today, from terrorism to nuclear 

proliferation, and climate change to development and food security, 

cannot be solved by any one country on its own. And in an age of 

fiscal austerity, we need to work harder than ever to ensure that 

international organizations are able and willing to meet today’s 

many global challenges. 

Thanks to the administration’s efforts, the United States today 

is a more engaged, effective, and successful leader in international 

and multilateral organizations than it has been in a very long time. 

If confirmed, I pledge to work with this committee to identify and 

pursue new opportunities to advance our interests throughout the 

U.N. system. In particular, I will focus on three major priorities: 

efficiency, effectiveness, and evolution. 

First, safeguarding and maximizing U.S. taxpayers’ investment 

in International Organization will be my unflagging preoccupation. 

There is no question that, despite progress, there are continuing 

challenges with management and oversight at the United Nations. 

As the largest contributor to the U.N., we have a special obligation 

and influence to promote reform throughout the U.N. system. 

Second, I will work to increase the effectiveness of multilateral 

institutions. In so many of our foreign policy priorities, from our 

sanctions on al-Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea, to our efforts to support political transitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, to preventing 

atrocities and building peace in war-torn countries, to sounding the 

alarm on human rights abuses, the U.N. and international organizations play a vital role. But, all too often, political posturing by 

states leads to political paralysis and inaction, sometimes with devastating consequences. If confirmed, I will push other governments 

to ensure these organizations can deliver on their promise. 

Finally, just as the international landscape continues to evolve, 

so our international institutions, and the United States should 

shape that evolution. It is time for the U.N. system to do away 

with preoccupations and processes whose days have long past, especially the disproportionate and unjust attention paid to Israel. In 

the U.N. General Assembly, at the U.N. Human Rights Council 

and elsewhere, Israel is subject to one-sided resolutions and politically motivated investigations. If confirmed, I will fight bias 

against Israel whenever and wherever possible. At the same time, 

I will continue the administration’s efforts to promote full and 

equal Israeli participation in international bodies and support its 

positive contributions to the U.N. 

97 

All over the world, people’s lives depend on the system of international organizations that the United States helped conceive and 

lead. In the Philippines, the U.N. is directing the global humanitarian response effort to Typhoon Haiyan. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, U.N. Blue Helmets are helping secure the peace 

and rekindle the hopes of tens of millions in the Great Lakes region. And in schools, health clinics, and refugee camps all over the 

world, the U.N. is making sure that future generations will know 

a more peaceful and prosperous world. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a deep stake in shaping the continual renewal of the system of international cooperation and making sure 

it is as efficient and effective as possible. I look forward to working 

together with you and with this committee to sustain our leadership in international organizations and our promotion of U.S. foreign policy priorities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Crocker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BATHSHEBA N. CROCKER

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. I am 

honored to appear before you as President Obama’s nominee for Assistant Secretary 

of State for International Organization Affairs. More than three decades ago, my father appeared in front of this committee as President Reagan’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. I have learned a great deal from my 

father’s remarkable career about the importance of public service, the art of American diplomacy, and the promise of American leadership. It would be an honor of 

a lifetime to carry these lessons forward and help advance American interests and 

values at the United Nations and beyond. 

I have also learned a great deal from my mother—a woman who proved that you 

could have an extraordinary career and be an extraordinary mother. I could not ask 

for better role models than my parents and I am thrilled that they could both be 

here today. I also want to recognize my husband, Milan, and my daughters, Asha 

and Farrin. I owe them more than I could ever say. 

I began my public service career as an Attorney-Adviser at the State Department 

more than 15 years ago. I have seen first-hand how ably our diplomats—Civil and 

Foreign Service officers alike—represent our country. I have seen their courage on 

the front lines of conflict. I have seen their resilience and strength in the aftermath 

of natural disasters. And I have seen their steadfast commitment to standing up to 

injustice all over the world. 

I have also seen firsthand the same determination and skill in the peacekeepers, 

development professionals, humanitarian workers, and health practitioners I 

worked with during my time helping lead the U.N.’s Asia tsunami recovery efforts 

and peacebuilding programs. 

This is why I share President Obama’s conviction that America’s national interests are best served by a robust, responsive, and responsible international system— 

and by strong and sustained U.S. multilateral engagement and leadership. The 

challenges of the 21st century—from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, and climate 

change to development and food security—cannot be solved by any one country on 

its own. And in an age of fiscal austerity, we will need to work harder than ever 

to ensure that international organizations are able and willing to meet today’s many 

global challenges. 

Thanks to the administration’s efforts, the United States today is a more engaged, 

more effective, and more successful leader in international and multilateral organizations than it has been in a very long time. If confirmed, I pledge to work with 

this committee to identify and pursue new opportunities to advance our interests 

throughout the U.N. system. In particular, I will focus on three major priorities: efficiency, effectiveness, and evolution. 

First, safeguarding and maximizing U.S. taxpayers’ investment in international 

organizations will be my unflagging preoccupation. There is no question that, 

despite progress, there are continuing challenges with management and oversight 

at the United Nations. But these challenges should not lead us to disengage. 

Instead, they should lead us to redouble our efforts to improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability throughout the U.N. system. As the largest contributor 

98 

to the U.N., we have a special obligation and influence to promote reform. And if 

confirmed, I will continue to voice our concerns and lead reform efforts. 

Second, I will work to increase the effectiveness of multilateral institutions. In so 

many of our foreign policy priorities—from our sanctions on al-Qaeda, Iran, and 

North Korea, to our efforts to support political transitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

to preventing atrocities and building peace in war-torn countries—the U.N. and 

international organizations play a vital role. They prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They prevent war and keep the peace. They sound the 

alarm on human rights abuses. And they promote global commerce and universal 

values we hold dear. But all too often, political posturing by states leads to political 

paralysis and inaction—sometimes with devastating consequences. If confirmed, I 

will push other governments to ensure these organizations can deliver on their 

promise. 

We need active and sustained diplomatic efforts at the International Atomic 

Energy Agency to maintain the integrity of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. We 

need to continue our active engagement at the Human Rights Council to hold 

regimes accountable for the violation of human rights. We need to continue the 

progress made to improve U.N. peacekeeping. We need to work with partners and 

institutions to shape the Post-2015 Development Agenda. And we need to continue 

to push U.N. humanitarian aid agencies to provide more flexible, timely, and coordinated responses to humanitarian emergencies. American leadership in these and 

other bodies of international cooperation is essential to achieving our broader policy 

objectives. 

Finally, just as the international landscape continues to evolve, so are international institutions. The United States should shape that evolution, working with 

allies and partners to define a shared vision of international norms and cooperation 

for this century. 

It is time for the U.N. system to do away with processes and preoccupations 

whose days have long past—especially the disproportionate and unjust attention 

paid to Israel. In the U.N. General Assembly, at the U.N. Human Rights Council, 

and elsewhere, Israel is subject to one-sided resolutions and politically motivated 

investigations. We cannot allow these counterproductive actions by member states 

to undermine the institutions themselves. If confirmed, I will fight bias against 

Israel whenever and wherever possible. At the same time, I will continue the administration’s efforts to promote full and equal Israeli participation in international bodies and support its proactive and positive contributions to the U.N. 

All over the world, people’s lives depend on the system of international organizations that the United States helped conceive and lead. In the Philippines, the U.N. 

is directing the global humanitarian response effort to Typhoon Haiyan. In the 

Democratic Republic of Congo, U.N. blue helmets helped secure the peace and rekindle the hopes of tens of millions in the Great Lakes region. And in schools, health 

clinics, and refugee camps all over the world, the U.N. is making sure that future 

generations will know a more peaceful and prosperous world. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a deep stake in shaping the continual renewal of the system of international cooperation and making sure it is as efficient and effective as 

possible. I look forward to working together with you and with this committee to 

sustain our leadership in international organizations and our promotion of U.S. foreign policy priorities. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much. 

Our inability—Shakespeare said that the will is infinite, but the 

execution is confined. So, I would like to continue the hearing right 

now, but they have called a rollcall on the floor of the Senate. And 

so, I have 5 minutes to run over to make the rollcall, and I will 

return as quickly as possible, and then we will recommence this 

hearing. 

So, this hearing stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Well, thank you so much for your 

patience in dealing with the floor votes. I just passed Senator Markey. He was on his way to the floor; I was on my way back here. 

He said that he had been through the opening statements and the 

comments, so he suggested I just go ahead, in the interest of your 

time. 

99 

And so, if I could, I just wanted to congratulate all of you on the 

appointments, welcome each of you and family members who are 

here with you. I appreciate you taking time to be with us to answer 

the questions. And, should you serve our Nation in these important 

positions, it is important that each of you provide strong stewardship of American taxpayer resources, demonstrate professionalism 

and good judgment, and vigorously work to advance the priorities 

of the United States. I hope you will lay out your vision and goals 

in each of these positions, and what your plan is to achieving them. 

So, I thank the chairman, and I thank the President for nominating you. 

If I could, Ms. Crocker, start with you—oh, OK, sorry. Well, I 

wanted, perhaps, Mr.—I am happy to hear your testimony, at this 

point, Mr. Lawson. I do not—and I do not want to shortchange the 

chairman from hearing that testimony. So, you have already spoken? 

Ms. CROCKER. I have already provided my opening statement, 

yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. All right. So, perhaps if I could just ask you 

a few question, and then, as the chairman returns, finish, and then 

I will add my questions to that if I—thank you. 

I want to talk about Israel and U.N. Human Rights Council, 

the—in your testimony, you talked about the—Israel being subjected to one-sided resolutions, political investigations, and U.N. 

Human Rights Council. In September 2013, Senator Gillibrand and 

I sent a bipartisan letter to Secretary Kerry about the pervasive 

anti-Israel bias that we see at the United Nations. I think item 7 

of the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Standing Agenda is used to attack Israel. It is the only permanent agenda item that is exclusively reserved for an individual member state. While terrible 

atrocities are being committed in Syria, human rights abuses are 

taking place in Iran; the Council will be neglecting serious issues 

while, I believe, wasting hours singling out Israel. 

So, could you just talk a little bit about your views on agenda 

item No. 7, what steps you would take to accomplish its removal 

from the agenda? 

Ms. CROCKER. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And, as you 

note and as I indicated, fighting for the full and equal participation 

of Israel throughout U.N. bodies will be one of my top priorities. 

As you note, Israel continues to be subject, among other things, 

to agenda item 7 at the Human Rights Council. And this is something that the administration has taken great steps so far to try 

to get rid of, and we will continue to do so, and I will, as well, 

should I be confirmed. 

At the same time, I think, over the last 4 years that the administration—that the United States has been a member of the Human 

Rights Council, we have been able to make some good progress in 

battling back against the bias against Israel at the Human Rights 

Council, but also, importantly, making sure that the Council turn 

its attention to other important issues, including a Commission of 

Inquiry that has been set up on Syria and that is collecting valuable evidence on Syria; a Special Rapporteur on the human rights 

situation in Iran; a Special Rapporteur on Belarus, on Eritrea, on 

Sudan; a Commission of Inquiry on Libya; and other issues. We 

100 

have been able to run two resolutions successfully on the situation 

in Sri Lanka. 

So, while there still remains a disproportionate focus on Israel at 

the Council, we have really been able to reduce that focus. And I 

think it is one of the important—one of those signs that—of why 

it is so important for the United States to be an active and engaged 

member at the Human Rights Council. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. During the confirmation hearing for Secretary Kerry, you know, I asked specifically about his views on the 

need for management reform at the United Nations. He stated— 

he said, ‘‘In an era of fiscal crisis and austerity, the U.N. must 

learn to do more with less.’’ 

In your testimony, you expressed your commitment to safeguarding and maximizing U.S. taxpayers’ investment. I made a reference to that in my opening statement. Could you talk a little bit 

about your plans to ensure the United Nations limits growth in 

U.N. regular budget and is making more efficient use of existing 

resources? 

Ms. CROCKER. As you know, Senator, that has been a special 

focus of the administration. And, if confirmed, I will certainly do 

my part to try to continue that focus. 

We have been able to make some good progress over the last 5 

years, in terms of management reform, including budget reform at 

the United Nations; and including, most recently, in the budget 

discussions about the 2014–2015 budget, we were able to successfully reverse the decades-long trend of annual growth in the U.N. 

regular budget. 

That said, it remains a continuing conversation, and it is a difficult one up there. Among other things that we were able to accomplish this time around was a 2-percent staff reduction, which 

is obviously an important accomplishment. It is not enough, but it 

is a start. 

At the same time, we have been able to make good progress on 

other important management reforms, such as financial disclosure 

requirements, audits being publicly available online for most of the 

U.N. funds in specialized agencies. We have clamped down on some 

of the abuses in the travel budget of the U.N., including overuse 

and misuse of business-class travel by U.N. staff. We have remained focused, and, if confirmed, I will be particularly focused on, 

on trying to constrain the growth in the budget. And a lot of that 

will be a focus on constraining the growth in staff costs, which, as 

I indicated, we have had some success on so far, but more work remains to be done. 

Senator BARRASSO. Agreed. 

Mr. Lawson, just waiting for the chairman to return, I just have 

a couple of questions, if it is all right with you if I could proceed—— 

Mr. LAWSON. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO [continuing]. With those. 

I want to ask you a little about carbon trading. The European 

Union established, in a missions trading scheme that applies to all 

flights arriving and departing from European Union airspace. In 

September 2012, the Senate unanimously passed S. 1956, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act, at that 

101 

time. It was signed into law by the President, November 2012. The 

law provides the Secretary of Transportation the authority to ensure that U.S. aircraft operators are not penalized, or are not 

harmed, by the Emissions Trading Scheme unilaterally created by 

the European Union. 

Can I—I just—what you believe is the appropriate role for the 

International Civil Aviation Organization to play on the issue of 

dealing with this, reducing emissions in the aviation sector. 

Mr. LAWSON. Well, thank you for that question. 

ICAO is at the center of this issue right now. In the last Assembly, September 2013, we successfully—and we worked very hard to 

help this happen, but they—the Assembly passed a resolution that 

established a framework for ICAO to put together a comprehensive 

scheme for dealing with emissions trading worldwide. The goal is 

to have a complete scheme put together—not scheme, rather, but 

program put together for the 2016 Assembly, that is coming up, 

that would include dealing with, not only a market-based measure 

worldwide, a global market-based measure, but also dealing with 

issues such as alternative fuels, dealing with operation efficiencies, 

and other matters that will reduce the amount of emissions generated by the aviation industry. The goal is to have this approved 

in 2016, in place for 2020, and to work with respect to 2005 levels, 

if at all possible. 

The framework—the procedural framework for doing that is in 

place—is not in place now, but is in the process of being put together. And so, if I am confirmed, I will work diligently to make 

sure that—to help us meet that goal. And it is a very aggressive 

goal, especially for an organization with 191 members, 36 member 

councils that are going to be working very hard to make that happen. 

So, yes, ICAO is in the—is right in the center of that. If we are 

successful, it will be a tremendous accomplishment to have a global 

market-based measure—structure that the entire aviation industry 

will abide by. And, in the meantime, the issue with respect to the 

EUETS is that we are—the resolution that was passed did not prohibit organizations like the EU from setting up some sort of regional or national market-based system, but we are concerned 

about exactly what the Europeans are trying to put together right 

now. 

It is unclear as to what exactly is going to come out of the legislative activities. The Commission has proposed an air-based system. There is not unanimity among the Council and Parliament 

and the Commission as to what exactly should be done. We are 

doing what we can to engage in our—with our counterparts in Europe to, hopefully, come up with something that does not create a 

distraction to what ICAO is trying to do. And we will sees what 

happens. 

If they do not come up with legislation, unfortunately what 

would happen in April 2014 is that the current stop-the-clock legislation would expire and the legislation that the EU had passed 

some years ago that would have imposed an ETS—Emissions Trading Scheme—on the totality of flights going in and out of Europe 

would come into play. And that is the type of legislation that the 

Thune bill, that you mentioned, was designed to give us the ability 

102 

to protect our airlines against. We do not know whether that is 

going to happen. We hope that it does not happen. As a matter of 

fact, there is optimism that that will not happen. But, ICAO is in 

the center of that, and, if I am confirmed, I will work diligently to 

make sure that we get that done. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Lawson. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MARKEY [presiding]. Thank the gentleman very much. 

And, Mr. Lawson, I am now going to recognize you for an opening statement, although, for the purposes of your opening statement, you should feel free to delete anything that was just used as 

material in response to Senator Barrasso’s questions. [Laughter.] 

And that way we can save some time. So, please go forward for 

up to 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ANDERSON LAWSON, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINEE FOR THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS REPRESENTATIVE ON THE 

COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVILIAN AVIATION ORGANIZATION 

Mr. LAWSON. Well, thank you. 

Much of my opening statement, actually you gave. [Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Feel free to delete that, too. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LAWSON. But, I do want to take a few minutes to welcome 

members of my family who are here: Kisha and John Lewis, 

Marcus Mason, and my wife of 34 years, Mattie McFadden Lawson. 

My sons could not make it, but I am told that they are watching. 

But, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as 

President Obama’s nominee to be the Representative of the United 

States at the International Civil Aviation Organization. I am honored to be here and am grateful to President Obama for the trust 

and confidence he has shown in nominating me for this important 

position, and for the opportunity to serve my country as a Permanent Representative to ICAO. 

From the time of the negotiations in the United States at the end 

of World War II that resulted in the Chicago Convention and the 

creation of ICAO as a specialized agency of the United Nations devoted to civil aviation, the United States and ICAO have enjoyed 

an extraordinarily close and mutually beneficial relationship. ICAO 

is the only forum in which global standards can be set for all aspects of international civil aviation. Whatever the new developments or challenges in the areas of civil aviation—safety, security, 

and the environment—ICAO provides the mechanisms and the opportunity to address them effectively through the cooperation of 

member states. 

If confirmed, I will bring the cumulative skills and the totality 

of my professional experience to this role. And, as suggested, I will 

skip the part of my resume that you effective described. 

As a direct result of my experiences on the Board of Commissioners—Board of Airport Commissioners for Los Angeles, I am 

keenly aware of the many challenges associated with ensuring the 

safety and security of airline passengers. For this reason, I am 

proud to have been actively involved in the selection of the excellent team providing on-the-ground leadership at LAX, including exVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
103 

ecutive director Gina Marie Lindsay and the current chief of Airport Police Department, Chief Patrick Cannon. That team was tested on November 1, 2013, when a gunman entered Terminal 3 of 

LAX, with the apparent intent of attacking and killing TSA employees. While I have no official insights into the tragic events of 

that day, it is clear to me that the exceptional professionalism and 

integration I saw among the various Federal and local law enforcement agencies that are present at LAX saved many lives. 

Senator Markey and members of the committee, if confirmed, I 

believe that the experience I have gained as a member and president of the Board of Commissioners, as well as the skills accrued 

over three decades in the legal profession, will prove relevant and 

valuable in representing the United States as Permanent Representative to ICAO. 

Throughout its history, ICAO has principally devoted its attention to activities involving air safety and air navigation issues. The 

recent events at LAX only underscore that aviation security is an 

unceasing task. If confirmed, I will work diligently to advance 

America’s priorities at ICAO and ensure that ICAO continues to 

play an active and leading role in developing and implementing 

international aviation security standards. 

My experience has also made me keenly aware of the environmental impact of air travel. ICAO has already undertaken a great 

deal of work in this regard. Technical groups are developing noise 

and efficiency standards for aircraft and are beginning to work on 

the development of a global-market-based measure for international aviation CO2 emissions. 

If confirmed, I will also be committed to bringing continued attention to good governance and increased efficiency at ICAO. I will 

actively pursue the U.S. Government’s goals with respect to budget 

discipline, transparency, and accountability in all areas, including 

ethics rules, fair procurement practices, financial disclosure for senior officials, and whistleblower protection. 

The agenda of the United States and ICAO is extensive and vitally important. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with 

this committee to advance our Nation’s interests. 

And thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT MICHAEL A. LAWSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the Representative of 

the United States to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). I am 

honored to be here and am grateful to President Obama for the trust and confidence 

he has shown in nominating me for this important position and for the opportunity 

to serve my country at ICAO. 

From the time of the negotiations in the United States at the end of World War 

II that resulted in the Chicago Convention and the creation of ICAO as the specialized agency of the United Nations devoted to civil aviation, the United States and 

ICAO have enjoyed an extraordinarily close and mutually beneficial relationship. 

ICAO is the only forum in which global standards can be set for all aspects of international civil aviation. Whatever the new developments or challenges in the areas 

of civil aviation safety, security, and the environment, ICAO provides the mechanisms and the opportunity to address them effectively through the cooperation of 

member states. 

104 

If confirmed, I will bring the cumulative skills and totality of my professional 

experiences to this role. I have spent the majority of my professional career as a 

transactional attorney at the international law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate 

Meagher & Flom LLP where I served for 31 years. 

In addition to that experience, I have served since 2005 on the seven-member 

Board of Airport Commissioners of the Los Angeles World Airports, which oversees 

the operations of Los Angeles International Airport, Van Nuys General Aviation Airport; Ontario International Airport; and Palmdale Airport. In December 2010, I was 

asked to serve as the President of the Board, a position in which I remained until 

August 2013. 

The Board of Airport Commissioners is responsible for promoting the safety and 

security of the more than 60 million passengers who travel through its airports on 

an annual basis. Those responsibilities extend to the efficient and effective day-today operations of the airports, including environmental sustainability issues. 

I am proud to say that during my tenure on the Board, we initiated the largest 

public works project in the history of the city of Los Angeles—a $6 billion capital 

improvement program designed to return LAX to a world class status worthy of the 

third-busiest airport in the country and the sixth-busiest airport in the world. Those 

improvements include a new international terminal, 19 new gates, and upgrades 

designed to accommodate the next generation of large passenger aircraft. Given the 

program’s enormous and complex scale, I take particular pride in highlighting the 

responsible, efficient, and transparent manner in which it has been managed. 

As a direct result of my experiences on the Board of Commissioners, I am keenly 

aware of the many challenges associated with ensuring the safety and security of 

airline passengers. For this reason, I am proud to have been actively involved in 

the selection of the excellent team providing on the ground leadership, including 

executive director, Ms. Gina Marie Lindsay and the current chief of the airport 

police department, Chief Patrick Gannon. That team was tested on November 1 

when a gunman entered Terminal 3 of LAX with the apparent intent of attacking 

and killing TSA employees. While I have no formal insights into the tragic events 

of that day, it is clear to me that the exceptional professionalism and integration 

I saw among the various federal and law enforcement agencies that are present at 

LAX saved many lives. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I believe the experience I have gained as a member and president of the Board of Commissioners as 

well as the skills accrued over three decades in the legal profession will prove relevant and valuable in representing the United States as the permanent representative to ICAO. 

Throughout its history, ICAO has principally devoted its attention to activities 

involving air safety and air navigation issues. The recent events at LAX only underscore that aviation security is an unceasing task. If confirmed, I will work diligently 

to advance America’s priorities at ICAO, and ensure that ICAO continues to play 

an active and leading role in developing and implementing international aviation 

security standards. 

My experience has also made me keenly aware of the environmental impact of air 

travel. ICAO is already undertaking a great deal of work in this regard. Technical 

groups are developing noise and efficiency standards for aircraft, and are beginning 

work on the development of a global market-based measure for international aviation CO2 emissions. If confirmed, I will continue my predecessor’s focus on ensuring 

that ICAO’s environmental standards are technologically feasible, environmentally 

beneficial, and economically sustainable with continued expansion of international 

aviation. 

If confirmed, I am also committed to bringing continued attention to good governance and increased efficiency at ICAO. I will actively pursue the U.S. Government’s 

goals with regard to budget discipline, transparency, and accountability in all areas, 

including ethics rules, fair procurement practices, financial disclosure for senior officials, and whistleblower protection. 

The agenda of the United States in ICAO is extensive and vitally important. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee to advance our 

Nation’s interests. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to any 

questions you may have. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Lawson—in 3 minutes and 50 

seconds. Excellent. 

Mr. Wood, welcome. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

105 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. WOOD, OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE 

FOR THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF 

SERVICE AS U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CONFERENCE 

ON DISARMAMENT 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

It is a great honor to appear before you as the President’s nominee to be the U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, or CD, in Geneva. I am also grateful to Secretary Kerry 

and Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller for their support and for 

giving me this new opportunity to serve our country. 

I also wish to thank my wife, Gita, and son, Jonathan, for their 

love and support. 

Five years ago in Prague, President Obama committed the 

United States to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal he reaffirmed last June in Berlin. The President emphasized that achieving this goal will not be easy and may 

well take many more years of effort. Step by step, practical multilateral arms control is an essential part of this process in which the 

CD has a valuable role to play. 

Throughout its history, the CD and its predecessor bodies have 

made significant contributions to global arms control and nonproliferation efforts. The Outer Space Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical 

Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 

Treaty all were negotiated there on the basis of consensus and with 

the benefit of American leadership. 

The U.S. priority for the CD continues to be the negotiation of 

a treaty banning the further production of fissile material for use 

in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the so-called 

Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, or FMCT. An FMCT is in the national security interests of the United States because it would end 

the production of weapons-grade fissile material needed to create 

nuclear weapons in the states where it is still ongoing with capped 

stockpiles worldwide and provide the basis for future reductions in 

nuclear arsenals. For these reasons, an FMCT is one of the President’s arms-control priorities and the logical next step in the multilateral nuclear disarmament process. 

While fellow CD member state Pakistan has resisted efforts to 

begin FMCT negotiations, the United States continues to discuss 

with Pakistan and others possible ways to break the longstanding 

CD impasse. Moving forward on an FMCT will not be easy, but, if 

confirmed, I look forward to using my many years of multilateral 

diplomatic experience to achieve this important U.S. objective. 

As part of my disarmament portfolio, if confirmed, I will also 

play a role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, review 

process. Specifically, I will have responsibility for issues related to 

the NPT’s article 6, which addresses nuclear disarmament. 

This spring, a preparatory meeting will set the stage for the 

NPT’s next 5-year review conference, in 2015. If confirmed by the 

time of this meeting, I will remind our partners and friends around 

the world of the enduring United States commitment to our arms 

control and nonproliferation obligations, and explain our strong 

record of accomplishment in this regard. I will also make clear that 

106 

the road to a nuclear-weapons-free world is only possible through 

a realistic, step-by-step approach, with each step building on the 

last and supported with strong verification measures. 

This distinguished committee has a long and successful history 

of supporting such arms-control efforts, on a bipartisan basis, 

which has made the world a much safer place. 

In working to achieve this long-term nuclear disarmament objective, the CD remains an essential multilateral institution. If confirmed, I will do all that I can to make the CD an active contributor to international peace and security. 

If confirmed, I plan to consult closely with this committee and 

other Members of Congress, as well as their staffs. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to come before you today. 

I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. WOOD

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is a great honor to appear before 

you as the President’s nominee to be the U.S. Representative to the Conference on 

Disarmament, or CD, in Geneva. 

I am also grateful to Secretary Kerry and Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller 

for their support and for giving me this new opportunity to serve our country. I also 

wish to thank my wife, Gita, and son, Jonathan, for their love and support. 

Five years ago in Prague, President Obama committed the United States to seek 

the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal he reaffirmed last 

June in Berlin. 

The President emphasized that achieving this goal will not be easy and may well 

take many more years of effort. Step by step, practical multilateral arms control is 

an essential part of this process, in which the CD has a valuable role to play. 

Throughout its history, the CD and its predecessor bodies have made significant 

contributions to global arms control and nonproliferation efforts. The Outer Space 

Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, 

the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban 

Treaty all were negotiated there, on the basis of consensus, and with the benefit 

of American leadership. 

The U.S. priority for the CD continues to be the negotiation of a treaty banning 

the further production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear 

explosive devices, the so-called Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty or FMCT. 

An FMCT is in the national security interests of the United States because it 

would end the production of weapons-grade fissile material needed to create nuclear 

weapons in the states where it is still ongoing, cap stockpiles worldwide, and provide the basis for future reductions in nuclear arsenals. For these reasons, an FMCT 

is one of the President’s arms control priorities and the logical next step in the 

multilateral nuclear disarmament process. 

While fellow CD member state Pakistan has resisted efforts to begin FMCT negotiations, the United States continues to discuss with Pakistan and others possible 

ways to break the longstanding CD impasse. 

Moving forward on an FMCT will not be easy, but if confirmed, I look forward 

to using my many years of multilateral diplomatic experience to achieve this important U.S. objective. 

As part of my disarmament portfolio if confirmed, I will also play a role in the 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, review process. Specifically, I will have 

responsibility for issues related to the NPT’s Article VI, which addresses nuclear 

disarmament. 

This spring, a preparatory meeting will set the stage for the NPT’s next 5 year 

Review Conference in 2015. If confirmed by the time of this meeting, I will remind 

our partners and friends around the world of the enduring United States commitment to our arms control and nonproliferation obligations, and explain our strong 

record of accomplishment in this regard. I will also make clear that the road to a 

nuclear weapons-free world is only possible through a realistic, step-by-step approach, with each step building on the last and supported with strong verification 

measures. This distinguished committee has a long and successful history of supVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
107 

porting such arms control efforts on a bipartisan basis, which has made the world 

a safer place. 

In working to achieve this long-term nuclear disarmament objective, the CD 

remains an essential multilateral institution. If confirmed, I will do all that I can 

to make the CD an active contributor to international peace and security. 

If confirmed, I plan to consult closely with this committee and other members of 

Congress, as well as their staffs. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to come before you today. I look forward 

to any questions you may have. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Wood, very much. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will finish up. 

Mr. Lawson, I would like to visit just a little about Taiwan. June 

of last year, the House and the Senate unanimously passed a bill 

to require the development of a strategy to obtain observer status, 

as you know, for Taiwan at the Triennial International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly. It was signed. And then, in October, 

this past October, Taiwan attended the 38th Assembly meeting as 

a guest. This was welcome news, but, again, Taiwan was only invited as a guest, and only for that specific meeting. 

So, I would ask if you support Taiwan joining the International 

Civil Aviation Organization Assembly and Council as an observer, 

and, if so, what is your strategy to obtain that status? 

Mr. LAWSON. Thank you for that question. The answer is ‘‘yes,’’ 

we are absolutely committed to taking whatever steps, within my 

power, to achieve that goal. 

By way of background, it is United States policy to support membership status in any organization in which Taiwan—in which 

statehood is not a prerequisite, and to support meaningful participation in any organization in which statehood is a prerequisite. 

Statehood is a prerequisite at the U.N., and ICAO is an agency 

of the U.N. Taiwan does not have observer status at the U.N. Assembly. It can have observer status at the Council. Because of 

some arcane—‘‘arcane’’ is probably not the right word—because of 

some rule, issues with respect to the Assembly, it may be difficult 

for Taiwan to obtain observer status at the Assembly. I believe that 

it is possible for Taiwan to obtain observer status at the Council 

level. But, in each case, it depends on the consensus of the Council 

and the Assembly. The reason they only got—they were—only 

would get guest status was an issue with respect to the consensus. 

We will work diligently to counter that and make sure that they 

get observer status. 

It is very important—Taiwan’s participation in the global airspace is highly important, and it is important that they get access 

to the information that the typical committees and bureaus at 

ICAO have available, on a timely basis. 

So, yes, a short answer, we will do all that we can to ensure that 

they get that. 

Senator BARRASSO. All right. And that will include asking other 

nations to cooperate and support and—— 

Mr. LAWSON. Absolutely. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lawson. 

Mr. Wood, just a couple of quick questions. Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. In your written testimony, you testified that the treaty 

108 

is in the national security interest of the United States. And I am 

just going to ask you how you—how will this treaty prevent countries, like North Korea, from producing more weapons-grade fissile 

material? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you for your question, Senator. 

This treaty, if we are able to reach a Fissile Material Cutoff 

Treaty, would halt the production of this very sensitive technology. 

And we think that is very important and in the national security 

interests of not only the United States, but other countries around 

the world. It is the first step, and it is the next logical step, frankly, in the Conference on Disarmament, in terms of our nonproliferation and arms control and disarmament objectives. 

So, we do think that this treaty will be very useful, in terms of 

meeting our national security interests. We hope to be able to get 

these negotiations going, but, as I mentioned in my statement, 

Pakistan has opposed starting negotiations in the CD. We hope to 

be able to try to persuade Pakistan to change its view. And, if confirmed, that will be one of my priority missions when I am in Geneva, because we think, again, as I said, that this treaty is in the 

best interests of the—the national interests of the United States, 

and it is the next logical step in moving forward. 

Senator BARRASSO. I know you briefly mentioned President 

Obama’s speech in Prague, I think in 2009, in your—at the time, 

he promised to get rid of the world—rid the world of nuclear weapons. During his remarks, the President also proclaimed, he said, 

‘‘Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must 

mean something.’’ And I—as you nod your head, I assume you are 

in agreement with that, as we are. 

So, given the New York Times article last week that documented 

Russia’s clear violation of its arms-control obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, why would we continue 

to negotiate nuclear arms reductions with Russia if we agree with 

the President’s statement that the rules must be binding and armscontrol treaty violations must be punished? I mean, it was a, you 

know, distressing, I think, news for many, the report last week. 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you for this question. 

The issue of the INF Treaty is something that is not in my portfolio, but let me just say that issues of compliance, or noncompliance, are something that the United States Government takes very, 

very seriously. And it is important to have, you know, that trust 

and ability to be able to know that, when you enter into an agreement, that it is going to be abided by. 

But, you know, with regard to specific questions of compliance, 

I would have to refer for—you to the Annual Compliance Report 

that the Department compiles. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MARKEY. The Chair will recognize himself. 

Mr. Lawson, last year, I led a bipartisan effort in Congress to 

prevent the TSA from allowing passengers to carry knives onto airplanes. The TSA had proposed a plan to allow knives back on passenger planes in the United States. And that legislation passed on 

the floor of the House of Representatives, but the TSA decided they 

changed their mind on that issue. And I think they made the wise 

decision. 

109 

The TSA has proposed a plan, in part to harmonize, now, U.S. 

standards with that of Europe, which has a more lenient carry-on 

security standard. Are you committed to ensuring that the U.S. 

maintains its tougher security and that all planes traveling to 

American soil from abroad abide by our higher standards? And we 

can use knives on planes as a good example. 

Mr. LAWSON. Thank you for that question. 

The short answer is, ‘‘yes,’’ I am in favor of the more stringent 

standard. 

Just to be clear, by way of background, ICAO, as a body, sets 

minimum standards for safety and security worldwide. Countries 

such as the United States can set standards that exceed the minimum standards that ICAO sets. And so, the United States is still 

free to impose the no-small-knives standard on flights departing 

from, or entering into, the United States, and should continue to 

do so. 

I understand the theoretical benefit of harmonizing the standards worldwide. It makes—there are some efficiencies involved in 

that. There are some issues that cannot be denied in this context, 

and one of them is that one of the aspects of safety and security 

is the perception of the passengers. And I believe that the United 

States citizens are still kind of reeling from 9/11, and one of the 

issues that we have to consider is their perception of their own 

safety during this period of time. So, I have no problem with the 

United States continuing with a higher standard. 

Whether we should impose that higher standard on flights that 

are not coming into the United States or leaving the United States, 

I defer on that question. I am not sure that there is a U.S. interest 

in doing so, other than, again, to harmonize and make it more efficient worldwide. But, our goal is to protect U.S. citizens, wherever 

they are. And so, it is one issue that I will look into, and I will give 

further thought to it. 

Senator MARKEY. Please. Thank you. 

The United States—you do agree, though, that the United States 

does have the authority to impose safety, security, and environmental requirements in U.S. airspace. Is that correct? 

Mr. LAWSON. Absolutely, the United States has the authority to 

so—— 

Senator MARKEY. And—— 

Mr. LAWSON [continuing]. With one caveat with respect to environmental issues. Under the—we have the—it is kind of a threepart question—we have the absolute authority to so, under domestic law, but we are also—under the Chicago Convention, we are 

bound to uphold the standards set by ICAO. And, in this regard, 

it is important to note that the standards that are set by ICAO oftentimes give us a leeway to set more stringent standards. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. So, responding to concerns from the 

United States and other countries about exerting authority beyond 

European airspace, the European Union is now proposing to include only aviation emissions from portions of flights within their 

airspace within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This has not 

satisfied all the critics of the EU’s pollution reduction efforts. Even 

as ICAO works towards a global climate solution for aviation, if the 

United States were to support new efforts to limit the EU’s authorVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
110 

ity over their own airspace, would we not put at risk our authority 

over our own airspace? 

Mr. LAWSON. Not at all. The issue here is, in part, the interpretation of the resolution that was passed in September 2013 by the 

Assembly. That resolution does not prohibit national or regionalbased—market-based measures established by any particular country. But, the resolution does say that each country—or each region 

that does this should negotiate or—with the other countries that 

may be impacted by their market-based measures, to get agreement. It does not say ‘‘shall,’’ it says ‘‘should.’’ 

And so, the resolution itself does not, in and of itself, prevent the 

EU from establishing an airspace standard. On the other hand, establishing that airspace standard will act as a distraction from 

what the—what ICAO is bound to do, has, under this resolution, 

said that it will do by 2016. 

And the resolution also does not—so, it does not—the resolution 

does not endorse the airspace structure that the Commission has 

proposed. And, by the way, this is not—as you say, there are some 

factions that do not think they are going far enough, some factions 

in the EU that think that they are going too far. So, the ultimate 

resolution is not quite set just yet. But, the fact of the matter is 

that the way the resolution is drafted, we—by diplomatically and 

politically trying to get the EU to pull back from its airspace position—does not preclude us, and does not preclude anyone, from 

moving forward, because the resolution does not mandate that 

these things not happen. 

Senator MARKEY. OK, great, thank you. 

My time is expired. Any other questions? 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yea, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Crocker, the testimony you stated we need to continue our 

active engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council to hold regimes accountable for violation of human rights. Over the years, 

the Council has lacked some action on a number of serious human 

rights crises, and disproportionally criticized Israel. The U.N. General Assembly has recently elected China, Cuba, and Russia to be 

new Council members in November. 

In response to—Ambassador Power stated, ‘‘Fourteen countries 

were elected to the Human Rights Council today, including some 

that commit significant violations of the rights the Council is designated to advance and protect.’’ 

In your opinion, does the election of these countries hurt the 

credibility of the Council? And please identify, perhaps, some examples of how the U.N. Human Rights Council has held regimes accountable for violations against human rights. 

Ms. CROCKER. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

The administration was obviously disappointed with the reelection of these members to the Council last November, with good reason. The United States has fought to ensure that countries with 

stellar human rights records, or at least good human rights 

records, get elected to membership on the Council, and not otherwise. 

That having been said, again, this is an example of why it is so 

important for the United States to be engaged as an active member 

111 

on the Council, because we have dealt with these countries being 

on the Council before. They were on the Council when we joined, 

in 2009. And, in fact, we have shown that, by virtue of our being 

an active participant, we have been able to battle back against 

some of the influence of these countries. 

So, as an example, when Cuba was last on the Council, they 

fought hard against a lot of the things that the United States 

wanted to put in place. And they lost. We were able to get some 

of the things that I referenced earlier—the Commission of Inquiry 

on Syria, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran, the 

Special Rapporteurs on Belarus, on Eritrea, on Sudan, the Commission of Inquiry on Libya, the creation, for the first time in 17 

years, of a Special Rapporteur on a functional issue, which is on 

freedom of assembly and the importance of civil society organizations. All of these things were things that Cuba tried to defeat, and 

they were not able to defeat, by virtue of the United States successfully working, diplomatically, actively across regional groupings in 

the Council. And we fully expect that, going forward, we will similarly be able to limit the influence of these countries. 

We also work hard behind the scenes to ensure that the countries with the worst human rights records hopefully do not get 

elected onto the Council. And we were able, for example, last time 

around, to just persuade Iran not to run in its bid for membership 

on the Council. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks. 

Mr. Wood, kind of following—you mentioned Iran. I would visit 

a question there. And I think you said you have a role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review process in your—it raises a 

question for me about the issues of Iran as a party to the Nuclear 

Non-Proliferation Treaty. The interim deal related to Iran’s nuclear 

program seems to have conceded a very major point, in that it references a future uranium enrichment program in Iran. So, does 

Iran really have a right to uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing technology, in your opinion, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically, or the nonproliferation regime, you 

know, just in general? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

I know that Under Secretary Sherman was before the committee 

earlier today, and I know she addressed that issue. But, let me just 

say, with regard to the question of the right to enrich, the right to 

enrich is not explicitly—not stated explicitly in the NPT. 

Senator BARRASSO. And your opinion on that? 

Mr. WOOD. Having read the NPT document, I would agree with 

that, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Wood, I have been a longtime advocate for the policy goals 

of the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, and I am glad that you mentioned this treaty will be a priority for you. I also believe the best 

way to achieve this goal is to stop the spread of the dangerous 

technologies that can create fissile material. 

Do you agree that stopping the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology would help the goals of that treaty? 

112 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you for your question, Senator. 

The United States, as you know, has a longstanding policy of trying to prevent the proliferation of these sensitive technologies; specifically, enrichment and reprocessing technologies. I would just 

point out that, when the U.S. engages in bilateral negotiations with 

countries concerning civil cooperation agreements, we insist that 

these agreements, without question, have the most stringent nonproliferation conditions that are possible. And, in fact, I would submit that the United States, in terms of our civil nuclear cooperation agreements with other countries, have the most stringent, in 

terms of nonproliferation conditions, of any country. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, hopefully, that will turn out to be the 

case in the Iranian negotiations we are about to have, because I 

think it is going to send quite a signal, going forward. And, as you 

know, unfortunately, in the United Arab Emirate agreement for 

the transfer of nuclear technology, there is an ability, in the UAE, 

to enrich uranium as part of the agreement. So, I think that is a 

problem that we are going to have, going forward. 

But, at the end of the day, uniformity, consistency, that is what 

we are going to have to have on nuclear nonproliferation policy if 

we are going to be successful. 

So, again, I think all three of you are eminently well qualified 

for your position. Let me ask each of you to give us one minute, 

in summary, of what it is that you hope to accomplish—one 

minute—during the time that you will have this incredible privilege to represent our country in the positions that you will be confirmed for. 

So, we will begin with you, Mr. Wood, and we will come down 

the table. 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of my primary objectives, if confirmed in my job at the CD, 

is to revive it. It has been 17 years since a treaty has been negotiated at the CD in Geneva. And, as I said in my statement to the 

committee, that the issue of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty is the 

priority for me, you know, if confirmed. 

The CD has a lot of potential. As I mentioned also in my statement, there have been a number of agreements, significant agreements, that have been negotiated there, and I think we can still 

do very, very important work there. And what I hope to do, as I 

said, is to try to revitalize that institution, because it does have a 

very important role to play in—you know, for U.S. national security 

interests. 

Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Lawson. 

Mr. LAWSON. Thank you. 

I think that the one thing that—well, there are two things that 

I think are highest on my agenda. 

The first is getting the market-based measure and the environmental issues on the table and ready for approval by the Assembly 

in 2016. That is job one. It is not going to be easy, and it is going 

to take all of our efforts to get that done in the period of time that 

we have allotted to do it. It is a tremendous task, it is an important 

task, and that is going to be job one. 

113 

Job number two will be making sure that I do my part to deal 

with management issues at ICAO, and make sure that they are fiscally responsible for—with the monies that the taxpayers are putting into this organization. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Crocker. 

Ms. CROCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a few priorities that I will list, and they all lead up to sort 

of one thing, which I will mention briefly at the end. 

The first would be budget and general management reform 

issues at the United Nations. These are things that have been a 

major priority for the administration, and that, if confirmed, I will 

continue to push on. I have worked inside the U.N. system; I have 

seen the great things about it, and I have seen what needs to be 

fixed; and I am committed to continuing to work on that. 

The second, as I also mentioned in my testimony, will be the defense and the promotion and support of Israel throughout the U.N. 

system. 

I also want to take a hard look at what we are doing on the 

peacekeeping front, and ensure that we are making the best uses 

we can out of that tool, which is increasingly important for U.S. national security interests around the world. 

I want to keep up an active dialogue with this committee on all 

issues related to the U.N. and the issues that will fall under my 

purview, and I look forward to an active conversation on that. 

And, most importantly, I want to make sure that the United 

States and the administration are continuing to use the full gamut 

of U.N. organizations, agencies, funds, and programs to the best effect that we can to promote and defend U.S. interests and U.S. foreign—U.S. national security interests around the world. 

Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Corker. And thank you for 

mentioning Israel specifically, as well. 

We want to thank each of you for your testimony, your willingness to serve our country. I am proud to support all of your nominations. I hope we can quickly confirm all three of these extremely 

well-qualified individuals. 

As amazing as our troops are, they cannot go everywhere or respond to every crisis in the world, they cannot defend us against 

a warming climate or the worsening natural disasters that will result if the world fails to act. They cannot force other countries to 

dismantle and ultimately abolish nuclear weapons. The State Department plays a crucial role in defending and advancing the interests of our country. And Secretary Kerry needs his team in place 

to do his job, as well. 

I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

Members of the committee will have until the close of business 

Wednesday, February 5, to submit questions for the record, with 

the request to the witnesses that they respond in writing to the 

committee in a timely fashion. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

114 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL ANDERSON LAWSON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER MURPHY

Question. ICAO’s effort to craft a strong and effective global market-based mechanism for airline emissions will falter without strong, robust efforts on the part of 

the U.S. representative to ICAO. 

♦ What specific steps will your office take to rally like-minded nations to consistently push for a strong emissions-capping system at the 2016 ICAO Assembly? 

Answer. The United States worked closely with likeminded countries leading up 

to the 2013 Assembly to adopt an important climate change resolution that committed, among other things, to developing a global market-based measure. If confirmed, I intend to continue to work with likeminded countries directly through 

their representatives at ICAO and through such regional organizations as the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), the African Civil Aviation Commission 

(AFCAC), the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC), and key Asia 

partners. In the context of this outreach, I will continue to seek the input of the 

U.S. airline industry in the structure and design of any market-based measure that 

would be proposed at the 2016 ICAO Assembly, and I will work diligently to ensure 

that whatever is ultimately adopted will not adversely affect the U.S. airline industry or otherwise put the U.S. airline industry at a competitive disadvantage as compared with other airlines around the world—including airlines of developing member states. 

Question. Further, will you actively pursue an agreement that caps emissions at 

2020 levels, and will you push for more ambitious targets in the out years? 

Answer. We support the ICAO goal of carbon neutral growth from 2020 that is 

also supported by the international aviation industry. The United States also has 

a more ambitious domestic target of achieving carbon neutral growth by 2020 compared to the 2005 baseline. With respect to more ambitious targets in the out years, 

we plan to review targets for the out years, but are not yet at a point of proposing 

new targets. 

Question. What benchmarks should we judge your progress by? 

Answer. The benchmark by which we should judge is performance—actually 

reducing fuel burn and CO2 emissions. ICAO is tracking fuel-burn information for 

contracting states. The United States has had a great record of reducing fuel-burn 

and CO2 emissions, and we will continue to track our performance in efficiency 

improvements and CO2 reductions. 

RESPONSES OF BATHSHEBA CROCKER TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Question. How can the United States try to advance its priorities and respond to 

crises through the United Nations system when the Security Council is paralyzed? 

What role does your office play in such situations? 

Answer. U.S. engagement throughout the United Nations system allows us to 

leverage both resources and influence with other like-minded nations toward common goals and to advance American values around the world. Our engagement at 

the U.N. touches on almost every issue of importance to U.S. national security including maintaining international peace and security, preventing the proliferation 

of WMDs, responding to humanitarian crises, and addressing threats to global 

health and stability. The U.N., through the Security Council and other bodies such 

as the Human Rights Council, is a primary partner in addressing crises of international concern from Syria to the Central African Republic to Haiti to North Korea 

and many other issues of paramount concern to the United States. 

At the Security Council, the United States has differing perspectives with Russia 

on Syria, for example, but we share an interest in reducing violence; securing chemical weapons; and trying to create a political settlement on the basis of the Geneva 

Communique. This enabled us to work with Russia in the Security Council to 

impose on Syria responsibilities and a timeline for the destruction of its chemical 

weapons. We will continue to use these common interests as the basis for collaboration toward a resolution of the Syrian crisis. 

While the Council has struggled to achieve agreement on Syria, it has been highly 

effective in addressing other issues of importance to the United States. The Security 

Council has imposed strong sanctions on both Iran and North Korea, built robust 

115 

peacekeeping missions in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 

helped strengthen fragile states from Afghanistan to Somalia. In 2011, the United 

States worked with our partners on the Security Council to prevent a massacre in 

Libya and help the Libyan people begin a transition to democracy after 40 years 

of brutal dictatorship. In Mali, U.N. peacekeepers have been critical to our efforts 

to restore stability, which will help prevent the creation of an al-Qaeda safe haven 

in the Sahel region. 

The United States also relies on the U.N. system to help address humanitarian 

crises that are too big for any one country to face alone. Organizations such as the 

World Food Programme, the World Health Organization, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and UNICEF have the expertise, capacity, and networks to reach refugees and conflict victims in highly insecure areas. For example, 

the U.N. has played a critical role in coordinating and delivering humanitarian 

assistance to millions of people affected by the violence in Syria, as well as over 2.4 

million refugees from Syria who have fled to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and 

Egypt. Similarly, U.N. agencies play a critical role in U.S. and international efforts 

to strengthen global pandemic preparedness, fight infectious disease, improve food 

security, and promote development to alleviate poverty in the world’s poorest 

regions. 

Finally, U.S. engagement in the U.N. helps advance human rights and fundamental American values including freedom of speech, assembly, and association, 

protection of minorities and the rights of women and children. Through the Human 

Rights Council, the United States has helped shine a spotlight on the worst human 

rights abusers, including North Korea, Syria, and Iran. We were also instrumental 

in helping to pass the U.N.’s first-ever resolution on the human rights of LGBT 

persons. 

The International Organization Affairs Bureau works within the U.N. system to 

promote U.S. interests, address international crises, and improve the effectiveness 

of the U.N. system to carry out its mandates. We work with U.N. members in all 

bodies to advance our mutual interests, engage in frank discussion of our policy differences, and firmly stand by our principles, our partners, and our allies. If confirmed, I will continue both our engagement with the U.N. in pursuit of U.S. interests, and our efforts to make the U.N. a stronger, more effective organization. 

Question. Short of a security council resolution, is there anything that can be done 

to reform United Nations rules that restrict agencies from delivering humanitarian 

aid and vaccinating children in rebel-held regions where the Syrian Government has 

tried to deny access? 

Answer. We commend the U.N. for carrying out aid deliveries across conflict lines 

in Syria and continue to urge all parties to allow unhindered humanitarian access 

so the U.N. can scale up aid for besieged and difficult-to-reach areas. The lack of 

humanitarian access to many areas in Syria is appalling and most of the blame lies 

with the Syrian regime. 

Despite access problems, humanitarian assistance provided by the U.N. and the 

International Committee of the Red Cross, funded by the United States, is reaching 

more than 4.2 million people in Syria, including opposition/contested areas. But 

these organizations do not have unfettered access to communities in need. This is 

not acceptable, and the United States, the U.N. and others have been pressing the 

regime to facilitate the implementation of humanitarian assistance, consistent with 

Syria’s primary responsibility to provide and care for populations in need within its 

territory. 

We continue to engage with the Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian 

Affairs to coordinate on how to best improve humanitarian access in Syria, and we 

are engaged in intensive bilateral and multilateral diplomacy with Russia and other 

key actors to seek a breakthrough in gaining access to those beyond the current 

reach of humanitarian organizations. 

Unfortunately, the Syrian regime has imposed undue restrictions on the U.N. and 

other humanitarian organizations, thereby severely curtailing their access to many 

communities in need. The Syrian regime bears the primary responsibility to protect 

and provide for its citizens, either directly or by giving humanitarian organizations 

access to help all those in need. At this time, the regime is failing to uphold such 

responsibilities. On the contrary, it is blocking access to some of the hardest-hit 

communities, including Al Hajar Al-Aswad, East Ghouta, Mouadhamiyah, Yarmouk 

Camp, as well as the Old City of Homs, and thereby preventing more than 250,000 

people from accessing humanitarian assistance. The U.N.’s reach is also hampered 

by ongoing violence, shifting battle lines, and in negotiating for access with multiple 

armed factions. 

116 

Question. If confirmed, will you work to discourage international bodies from upgrading the Palestinian Authority to full member state status outside a peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel? 

Answer. Yes. The administration has been absolutely clear that we will continue 

to oppose firmly any and all unilateral actions in international bodies or treaties 

that circumvent or prejudge the very outcomes that can only be negotiated between 

the parties, including Palestinian statehood. And, we will continue to stand up to 

efforts that seek to delegitimize Israel or undermine its security. 

We will continue to make clear, both with the parties and with international partners, that the only path for the Palestinians to realize their aspiration of statehood 

is direct negotiations, and that Palestinian efforts to pursue endorsements of statehood claims through the U.N. system outside of a negotiated settlement are counterproductive. The international community cannot impose a solution. A viable and 

sustainable peace agreement can come only from mutual agreement by the parties. 

We remain vigilant on this matter and work in extremely close coordination with 

the Israeli Government and our other international partners. 

Question. Many close allies of the U.S. support anti-Israel resolutions in the U.N. 

General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. Do you believe the United States 

can do more to leverage our global relationships to reduce anti-Israel activity at the 

U.N.? 

Answer. This administration has fought hard for fair and equal treatment for 

Israel across the U.N. system, including lobbying the member states of the U.N. to 

vote against biased anti-Israel resolutions at the General Assembly, Human Rights 

Council, and other U.N. fora. We continue to oppose anti-Israel statements, resolutions, and efforts to delegitimize Israel whenever and wherever raised in international organizations. As President Obama and Secretary Kerry have made clear, 

the United States believes that Middle East peace can only be resolved through 

direct negotiations between the parties, not through one-sided and provocative statements and resolutions against Israel at the United Nations. 

Despite concerted diplomatic efforts at U.N. fora, and in capitals around the globe, 

we have seen little change in the vote counts on Israel-related resolutions. But we 

have made some progress in reducing the number of those resolutions. For example, 

prior to American membership, over half of all of the country-specific resolutions the 

HRC adopted concerned Israel. This number has been reduced to well under onethird since the United States joined the Council. In bodies including the General 

Assembly and Human Rights Council, we will continue to use the U.S. voice and 

vote against anti-Israel resolutions, and in the HRC we use our influence to ensure 

that these resolutions do not pass by consensus. 

We will continue to engage foreign governments and coordinate closely with Israel 

and other like-minded states to work to shift the vote dynamics on anti-Israel resolutions and to improve Israel’s status in various U.N. fora. Israel’s recent admission 

to the Western European and Others Group in Geneva, which the United States lobbied aggressively for, and their subsequent reengagement with the Human Rights 

Council, will help to create a more positive atmosphere throughout the U.N. system. 

We will continue to work closely with Israel in this regard on continued efforts to 

improve their status at the United Nations. 

Question. I was disappointed that the government shutdown last fall forced the 

United States Government to reschedule its appearance before the U.N. Human 

Rights Committee on its Compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty ratified under President George H.W. Bush that 

protects core freedoms. Could you describe the role your office will play in preparing 

for the upcoming review in March, and what other parts of the State Department 

have responsibilities for preparing for the ICCPR review? 

Answer. Preparation for the U.S. Government’s presentation of its Fourth Periodic 

Report on its implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights (ICCPR) is a collaborative interagency effort. The Office of the Legal Adviser 

(L) has primary responsibility for preparing the report (submitted in December 

2011), and for coordinating an interagency delegation to respond to the committee’s 

questions during the upcoming March presentation. That office coordinates with 

many different U.S. Government agencies and bureaus within the State Department, such as the Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO), the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), the Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT), 

the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), and the Office to Monitor 

and Combat Trafficking in Persons (J/TIP), among others, to update the committee 

on developments since the 2011 report and prepare delegation members for questions that are most likely to arise. The IO Bureau also provides, through the U.S. 

117 

Mission in Geneva, critical on-the-ground support for the U.S. presentation and 

related events, including a consultation with civil society organizations on the U.S. 

report. The IO Bureau will also participate in the delegation that appears before the 

Committee. 

Question. Will you continue the work of your predecessors to highlight in international forums Iran’s gross human rights violations and Tehran’s support for terrorist organizations? 

Answer. Yes. The United States is committed to continuing our efforts to hold 

Iran accountable for its egregious human rights record and state sponsorship of terrorism at the United Nations. 

The United States led efforts with Sweden in the U.N. Human Rights Council in 

March 2011 to create a Special Rapporteur on Iran, the first country-specific human 

rights rapporteur created since the HRC was established in 2006. Special 

Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed, a former Foreign Minister of the Maldives and respected human rights advocate, serves as an independent and credible voice to highlight human rights violations and abuses in Iran. Each year, the United States 

works to increase the vote margins on resolutions to renew Special Rapporteur 

Shaheed’s mandate. These actions are more than symbolic, as the Iranian Government has released some prisoners and taken certain other positive steps when it 

comes under pressure from the United Nations and in other international fora. 

Additionally, every year the United States works with Canada on an annual U.N. 

General Assembly resolution condemning human rights violations and abuses in 

Iran. The United States plans to work closely with Canada and other allies to 

secure another strong condemnation of violations and abuses of human rights in 

Iran at this year’s General Assembly. It is resolutions such as these that deepen 

the Iranian regime’s isolation and underscore the international community’s condemnation of Iran’s abhorrent behavior against its own people, its concern for the 

rights of all Iranians, and its call for Iranian authorities to respect their government’s international obligations. 

In the U.N., we will also continue to call attention to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and work to maintain sanctions pressure on the regime in Tehran. Engagement at the United Nations has been an essential part of creating the toughest, 

most comprehensive sanctions to date on the Iranian regime. Our U.N. efforts, 

which include adoption of four U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Iran 

under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter since 2006, have resulted in strong international measures to counter Iran’s illicit activities. The Iran Sanctions Committee, 

with the assistance of the Iran Sanctions Panel of Experts, has investigated and 

published detailed reports on Iranian noncompliance with its UNSC obligations and 

its attempts to evade the sanctions imposed on it. It has also outlined for member 

states through ‘‘Implementation Assistance Notices’’ published on its Web site a 

number of evasion techniques used by Iran to circumvent sanctions, and made 

observations regarding member state obligations for implementing the sanctions. 

Question. Is there anything that can be done to address situations where countries serve on international bodies while violating the fundamental goals of those 

organizations—e.g., Iran or North Korea chairing international bodies on disarmament, or one-party dictatorships serving on the U.N. Human Rights Council? 

Answer. The United States remains very concerned about such situations. In the 

case of the HRC, the United States actively encourages countries with strong 

records to seek seats and promotes competitive elections for the HRC. Elections to 

the Council are done by secret ballot among all 193 members of the General Assembly. The United States has worked behind the scenes with other countries to successfully oppose the election of some of the worst human rights violators to the 

Human Rights Council and other important U.N. bodies on numerous occasions in 

the past, including efforts last year to pressure Iran to drop its HRC bid, which Iran 

did. The United States will continue to do so. 

In the Conference on Disarmament, the presidency of the CD serves to facilitate 

discussion among the CD member states and rotates among all members of the CD 

every 4 weeks. Because the CD operates by consensus, no decision can be taken by 

the CD president without the approval of the United States and other CD member 

states. While the presidency of the CD is largely ceremonial and involves no substantive responsibilities, the United States has taken appropriate action when a 

country’s policies and actions contravene the fundamental goals of the Conference. 

For example, during Iran’s presidency from May 28–June 24, 2013, the United 

States was not represented at the ambassadorial level during any meeting presided 

over by Iran, did not meet with the Iranian President during his 4-week term, and 

continued to call for Iran to comply fully and without delay with all of its obligations 

118 

under the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and to meet its obligations 

under its safeguards agreement. During North Korea’s rotation to the CD presidency in July 2011, the United States also was not represented at the ambassadorial level, did not meet with the DPRK president during the 4 weeks of his term, 

and called on the DPRK to comply fully with U.N. Security Council resolutions, 

safeguards obligations, and its commitments under the September 19, 2005 Joint 

Statement. 

(119) 

NOMINATIONS OF LUIS MORENO, JOHN 

ESTRADA, AND NOAH MAMET 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Luis G. Moreno, of Texas, to be Ambassador to Jamaica 

John L. Estrada, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Trinidad and Tobago 

Noah Bryson Mamet, of California, to be Ambassador to the Argentine Republic 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room SD– 

419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez and Rubio. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee will come to order. 

Thank you for your patience. As I think some of you may know, 

we were on the floor voting, including voting for the next U.S. Ambassador to China. So we appreciate your forbearance. 

We have three nominees before us. They are Luis Moreno to be 

Ambassador to Jamaica; John Estrada, nominated to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago; and Noah Bryson 

Mamet to be Ambassador to the Argentine Republic. 

Mr. Moreno is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, 

class of minister counselor, as the Deputy Chief of Mission of the 

U.S. embassy in Madrid, Spain. From 2010 to 2011, he served as 

Political Military Affairs Minister Counselor, as well as Force Strategic Engagement Cell Director, at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad 

in Iraq. He has also served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Tel Aviv, 

Israel; Counselor General Principle Officer in Monterey, Mexico; 

Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince, 

Haiti; and a list of other experiences. And we appreciate your service. 

John Estrada is senior manager for Lockheed Martin Training 

Solutions, Incorporated. Prior to this career in the private sector, 

Sergeant Major Estrada served in the United States Marine Corps 

for 34 years, rising to become the 15th sergeant major of the 

120 

United States Marine Corps, the Nation’s highest ranking enlisted 

marine. And so we are pleased to have you here, Sergeant Major, 

to be the President’s nominee as Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago. 

Our third nominee is Noah Bryson Mamet. Mr. Mamet is founder 

and president of Noah Mamet and Associates. He serves as a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, the American 

Council of Young Political Leaders. He also sits on the boards of 

the Los Angeles-based Green Dot Public Schools and NatureBridge. 

And we appreciate having him here as well. 

We welcome you all to the committee. We welcome any family, 

friends who may be joining us today to offer their support. And we 

know how proud you all must be. We also recognize the sacrifice 

of families who are willing to share their loved one in the service 

of the Nation, and we understand that it is an equal sacrifice to 

them as well. So we thank you for your support and your service. 

I understand that our distinguished colleague from Colorado is 

here to join in the introduction of Mr. Mamet, and I would like to 

recognize him at this time. Senator Bennet? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a privilege 

to be here with these nominees. And congratulations to you and the 

committee on the successful vote on our next Ambassador to China. 

It is also a privilege to introduce Noah Mamet, the President’s 

nominee to serve as the Ambassador to the Argentine Republic. I 

have known Noah for a number of years, and I enthusiastically 

support his nomination. 

Throughout his career, Noah has worked to build democracy 

abroad and support international economic development. He represented the National Democratic Institute in monitoring the first 

democratic elections in Sierra Leone since the country’s civil war. 

Noah was instrumental in helping to establish the Clinton Foundation. His work was critical in developing and producing the first 

Clinton Global Initiative, which has convened leaders from across 

the globe to create and implement practical, innovative solutions to 

some of the most pressing challenges our world faces. 

Noah’s involvement with the U.S. Institute of Peace has helped 

bolster that organization’s ability and reach its mission to help 

manage and resolve international conflicts through nonviolent 

means. 

He is also a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy. This association’s focus on addressing global transformation 

from an eastern Pacific Ocean perspective I think will serve Noah 

well in this new role. 

These experiences have given him a deep understanding and appreciation of our Nation’s role in the world and the challenges that 

we face abroad. 

Just another small point, but Noah also shares my commitment 

on the question of education and the need to improve outcomes for 

children living in poverty in this country. He has served on the 

board of the largest and most prominent public charter school operator in the country, Green Dot Public Schools. 

121 

And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I can say I think we will be very 

well served by Noah Mamet. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bennet. I appreciate you 

making the introduction before the committee. 

I know your schedule, so please feel free to be excused at any 

time. 

Your full statements will be included in the record, without objection. I would ask you to summarize your statement in about 5 

minutes or so so that the members of the committee can engage in 

a dialogue with you. We will start off with Mr. Moreno and then 

Mr. Estrada, as I introduced you, and Mr. Mamet. 

Mr. Moreno. 

STATEMENT OF LUIS G. MORENO, OF TEXAS, 

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO JAMAICA 

Mr. MORENO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio. Thank 

you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am honored to be 

the President’s nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica. I want to express my gratitude to the President and Secretary Kerry, as well as to Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson, 

for their trust and confidence. 

Please allow me the opportunity to introduce my wife, Gloria, 

who is here with me. Without her patience, unconditional support, 

and loving understanding, I certainly would not be sitting here in 

front of you. My oldest daughter, Sabina, is following online from 

Florida and my youngest daughter, Denise, along with my friends 

and colleagues from the Embassy, are also following online from 

Spain. 

As I acknowledge the support of my family, I would be remiss 

not to mention my parents, both deceased, who played a major role 

in my choice of career. My dad was a refugee, a medical doctor who 

fled the political violence in his native born Colombia and found 

refuge in New York City. His medical degree was not recognized 

and he did not speak a word of English. What followed was a classic American success story. During his career, he became the head 

of orthopedic surgery at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital and 

helped develop the artificial hip replacement. With my mom, a 

nursing student born in Cuba, he raised two boys in the United 

States, both of whom ended up in the senior ranks of the Department of State and in whom he ingrained a passion for service to 

their country. My brother Ed recently retired after 25 years of service from Diplomatic Security where he last served as the Assistant 

Director for Diplomatic Security, Domestic Operations. I know that 

both our parents would be very proud of the service of both of their 

sons if they were here today. 

I have been privileged to serve my country for 31 years in postings in the Western Hemisphere, the Middle East, Europe, and 

Washington, including three postings as Deputy Chief of Mission in 

Port-au-Prince, Tel Aviv, and most recently and presently in Madrid. In fact, in my 28 years of overseas postings, Madrid has been 

my only nondanger, nonhardship post. I have covered a wide range 

of issues throughout my career: narcotics and law enforcement, refugee issues in Haiti, and Kurds from northern Iraq that were reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
122 

settled in the United States via Guam, political-military and transitional issues in Iraq, as well as playing a small role in the Middle 

East peace process while in Israel. 

While my assignments have afforded me a diverse and multifaceted background, there is a clear commonality among most of 

my assignments. I work toward team-building and finding solutions to challenges in tough places. If confirmed as Ambassador, it 

will be along those same lines that I will lead our mission in Jamaica. I will lead the Embassy team to find solutions to the toughest problems this close friend and neighbor is currently experiencing. 

The United States and Jamaica enjoy a strong, cooperative relationship that crosses many spheres, including citizen security, law 

enforcement, strengthening democratic institutions, the rule of law, 

respect for human rights, energy, climate change, and economic development. Jamaica has a well-earned reputation as a tourist destination, hosting over 2 million American visitors every year. The 

safety and security of these visitors and the 40,000 Americans who 

currently live in Jamaica will be my highest priority. 

Despite this reputation as a tropical paradise, a well-earned one, 

Jamaica, a mere 51 years after independence, is facing severe challenges which could have a long-lasting impact if we do not help Jamaica mitigate them now. I would like to highlight two of the most 

daunting challenges we have: the economic reform Jamaica has 

agreed to undertake as of last year, and ensuring the safety and 

security of both our nations and citizens. Jamaica, along with much 

of the Caribbean, is particularly vulnerable not only to these manmade risks but also to natural disasters such as devastating hurricanes or earthquakes. 

Mr. Chairman, ensuring stability abroad, both in terms of citizen 

security and economic development, in countries like Jamaica increases our own security at home. Our current assistance to Jamaica, including through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative 

and USAID’s bilateral assistance, seeks to partner with Jamaica to 

address shared regional challenges that affect the everyday concerns of Jamaica’s citizens. If confirmed, I will work as Ambassador 

to most efficiently use the available resources to ensure Jamaica 

continues on the path of sustainable economic and social development. This is in the interest of both Jamaica and the United 

States. 

Last May, Jamaica signed an economic reform package with the 

IMF, the International Monetary Fund, to help tackle its huge public debt, almost 11⁄2 times its annual gross domestic product, one 

of the highest ratios in the world. This package, together with 

loans from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development 

Bank, adds up to nearly $2 billion. Approximately 3 years of this 

agreement remain for Jamaica to get its financial house in order 

and to begin to grow its economy, something it has not been able 

to do in three decades. If confirmed—most likely I will be there for 

the majority of that time—let me reassure you that this issue will 

be among my highest priorities. I will work with our Jamaican 

partners to encourage them through the difficult economic times 

that will, no doubt, take place while reminding them about the enduring and sustainable benefits of partnership with the United 

123 

States and prospects that will emerge as a result of reform and 

more economic stability. 

I will skip ahead to the end, Senator, in the interest of time. 

This is a historic opportunity for Jamaicans to build a stronger, 

more prosperous country. If confirmed, I pledge to serve our country, just as I have for the past three decades, and to work with our 

Jamaican friends to continue to strengthen the partnership between our two countries. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today, and I certainly welcome your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moreno follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUIS G. MORENO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to 

appear before you today. I am honored to be President Obama’s nominee to be the 

next United States Ambassador to Jamaica. I want to express my gratitude to President Obama and Secretary Kerry, as well as to Assistant Secretary Roberta 

Jacobson for their trust and confidence. 

Please allow me the opportunity to introduce my wife, Gloria, who is here with 

me today. Without her patience, unconditional support and understanding, I would 

not be sitting here in front of you. My oldest daughter, Sabina, is following online 

from Florida and my youngest daughter, Denise, along with my friends and colleagues from the Embassy are also following online from Spain. As I acknowledge 

the support of my family, I would be remiss not to mention my parents, both 

deceased, and who played a major role in my choice of career. My dad was a refugee, 

a medical doctor who fled the political violence in his native born Colombia and 

found refuge in New York City. Naturally, his medical degree was not recognized 

and he did not speak a word of English. What followed was a classic American success story. During his career he became the head of orthopedic surgery at Columbia 

Presbyterian Hospital and helped develop the artificial hip replacement procedures. 

With my mom, a nursing student born in Cuba, he raised two boys born in the 

United States, both of whom ended up in the senior ranks of the Department of 

State, and in whom he ingrained a passion for service to their country. My brother, 

Ed recently retired after 25 years of service from Diplomatic Security where he last 

served as the Assistant Director of DS for Domestic Operations. I know our parents 

would be very proud of the service of both their sons if they were here today. 

I have been privileged to serve my country for 31 years in postings in the Western 

Hemisphere, the Middle East, Europe, and in Washington, including three postings 

as Deputy Chief of Mission in Port-au-Prince, Tel Aviv, and most recently, Madrid. 

In fact, in my 28 years of overseas postings, Madrid has been my only nondanger, 

nonhardship posting. I have covered a wide range of issues throughout my career: 

narcotics and law enforcement in Colombia, Peru, and Panama; refugee issues in 

Haiti and with Kurds from Northern Iraq that were resettled in the U.S. via Guam; 

political-military, and transitional issues in Iraq, as well as playing a small role in 

the Middle East peace process while in Israel. While my assignments have afforded 

me a diverse and multifaceted background, there is a clear commonality among 

most of my assignments—I work toward team-building and finding solutions to 

challenges in tough places. If confirmed as Ambassador, it will be along those same 

lines that I will lead our mission in Jamaica. I will lead the Embassy team to find 

solutions to the toughest problems this close friend and neighbor is currently 

experiencing. 

The United States and Jamaica enjoy a strong, cooperative relationship that 

crosses many spheres, including citizen security, law enforcement, strengthening 

democratic institutions, the rule of law, respect for human rights, energy, climate 

change, and economic development. Jamaica has a well-earned reputation as a tourist destination, hosting over 2 million American visitors every year. The safety and 

security of these visitors and the 40,000 Americans who currently live in Jamaica, 

will be my highest priority. Despite this reputation as a tropical paradise for tourists, Jamaica, a mere 51 years after independence, is facing severe challenges which 

could have a long-lasting impact if we don’t act to help Jamaica mitigate them now. 

I would like to highlight two of the most daunting challenges: the economic reform 

Jamaica agreed to undertake last year ensuring the security of both our nations and 

our citizens. Jamaica, along with much of the Caribbean, is particularly vulnerable 

124 

to not only these man-made risks but also to natural disasters such as devastating 

hurricanes or earthquakes. 

Mr. Chairman, since 9/11 the U.S. has emphasized the need to strengthen our 

borders. The Caribbean is our third border. Ensuring stability abroad, both in terms 

of citizen security and economic development in countries like Jamaica, increases 

our own security at home. Our current assistance to Jamaica, including through the 

Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) and USAID’s bilateral assistance, seeks 

to partner with Jamaica to address shared regional challenges that affect the everyday concerns of Jamaica’s citizens. If confirmed, I will work as Ambassador to most 

efficiently use the available resources to ensure Jamaica continues on the path of 

sustainable economic and social development. This is in the interest of both Jamaica 

and the United States. 

Last May, Jamaica signed an economic reform package with the International 

Monetary Fund to help tackle its huge public debt—almost 11⁄2 times its annual 

Gross Domestic Product, one of the highest ratios in the world. This package, 

together with loans from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development 

Bank, adds up to almost $2 billion. Approximately 3 years of this agreement remain 

for Jamaica to get its financial house in order and begin to grow its economy—something it hasn’t been able to do in nearly three decades. If confirmed, I will likely 

be there during most of that time. Let me reassure you that this issue will be 

among my highest priorities. I will work with our Jamaican partners to encourage 

them through the difficult economic times that will no doubt take place, while 

reminding them about the enduring and sustainable benefits of partnership with 

the U.S. and the prospects that will emerge as a result of reform and more economic 

stability. The ingredients for success are evident. For example, through a USAID 

activity supporting Jamaica’s Tax Administration, the Government of Jamaica has 

identified and recouped over $100 million in unpaid taxes, thereby increasing its 

revenue base and creating a foundation for sound, transparent, and self-sustaining 

revenue forecasting and collections. 

This is a historic opportunity for Jamaicans to build a stronger, more prosperous 

country. If confirmed, I pledge to serve our country just as I have been doing for 

the past three decades and to work with our Jamaican friends to continue to 

strengthen the partnership between our two countries. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. I welcome your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Let me, before I turn to Mr. Estrada, recognize the former 

United States Ambassador to Haiti and Croatia, James Foley. I appreciate you being here, Mr. Ambassador. I understand Mr. Moreno 

was your Deputy Chief of Mission in Haiti. So you are still backing 

him up here. So I appreciate it. 

Mr. Estrada. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. ESTRADA, OF FLORIDA, TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 

Mr. ESTRADA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, good afternoon. 

It is an honor to appear before you today. I want to express my 

gratitude to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust 

and confidence they have placed in me with this nomination to represent my country as the next Ambassador to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. 

Please allow me the opportunity to introduce my wife, Dr. Elizabeth Cote Estrada, who is here with me today. 

I am particularly thrilled at the prospect of representing the 

United States in the country of my birth, if confirmed. I was born 

in Trinidad and Tobago, and at age 14, I immigrated to the United 

States to forge a new life. I brought with me a respect for diversity 

and an inherent sense of the equal value of all people. I served 

with honor in the United States Marine Corps, attaining the Corps’ 

highest enlisted rank, 15th Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. 

After retiring from the Marine Corps, I continued service to my 

125 

country as a presidential appointed commissioner on the American 

Battle Monuments Commission and as a committee member on the 

Defense Advisory Committee for Women in the Services. In the private sector, I led Lockheed Martin Training Solutions, Incorporated, a company specializing in flight training and logistics solutions for our military. 

I firmly believe that one of the greatest aspirations of all free 

people is to live their lives to the fullest without limitations based 

on their ethnicity, class, race, gender, or sexual orientation. If confirmed as Ambassador, with that ideal as my guide, I would seek 

to strengthen the ties between the citizens and elected representatives of our two great nations. 

Trinidad and Tobago is an important Caribbean partner of the 

United States. The relationship between our countries rests on a 

strong foundation. We share a common language and a firm commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law, and a free market system. 

The United States mission to Trinidad and Tobago has three 

strategic objectives. On security, the mission works with the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to improve the capacity of 

Trinidadian law enforcement and just sector institutions to reduce 

violent crime and illicit trafficking, safeguard human rights, and 

create safer communities. The mission promotes increased commerce and a transparent investment climate to enhance our mutual prosperity. On social inclusion, the mission conducts extensive 

outreach and encourages regional leadership by Trinidad and Tobago to protect vulnerable populations, including at-risk youth. If 

confirmed, I look forward to leading our efforts in these crucial 

areas. 

The United States and Caribbean partners have developed the 

Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, an ongoing, multifaceted citizen security initiative for the Caribbean, of which Trinidad and 

Tobago is a key player. In creating the Caribbean Basin Security 

Initiative, the United States and Caribbean partners prioritized 

three pillars: substantially reducing illicit trafficking of narcotics 

and arms, increasing public safety and security, and promoting social justice. I will do my utmost, if confirmed, to increase cooperation and encourage Trinidad and Tobago to become a leader in security in the Caribbean. 

As a resource-rich country, Trinidad and Tobago is full of opportunities for energy companies. The United States works closely 

with Trinidad and Tobago to develop new avenues for regional energy and conservation. I am excited Trinidad and Tobago is playing 

a growing role in the region and promoting business relationships 

in the hemisphere. If confirmed, I would advocate on behalf of U.S. 

companies and commercial interests to assure a level playing field 

and support their engagement with Trinidad and Tobago. 

I firmly believe that my service in the Marine Corps and my experience in the private sector, coupled with my personal history, 

have prepared me to represent the government and the people of 

the United States to the government and the people of Trinidad 

and Tobago. 

126 

If confirmed, it would be my great honor to work closely with this 

committee and others in Congress to advance our objectives in the 

Caribbean. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before this 

distinguished committee. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Estrada follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY JOHN LEARIE ESTRADA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, good afternoon. It 

is an honor to appear before you today. I want to express my gratitude to President 

Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust and confidence they have placed in me 

with this nomination to represent my country as the next Ambassador to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. 

Please allow me the opportunity to introduce my wife, Elizabeth Anne Cote ́

Estrada, who is with me here today. 

I am particularly thrilled at the prospect of representing the United States in the 

country of my birth, if confirmed. I was born in Trinidad and Tobago, and at age 

14, I immigrated to the United States to forge a new life. I brought with me a 

respect for diversity and an inherent sense of the equal value of all people. I served 

with honor in the U.S. Marine Corps—attaining the Corps’ highest enlisted rank as 

the 15th Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. After retiring from the Marine Corps, 

I continued serving my country as a Presidential-appointed Commission member of 

the American Battle Monuments Commission and as a committee member on the 

Defense Advisory Committee for Women in the Services. In the private sector, I led 

Lockheed Martin Training Solutions, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary company specializing in flight training and logistics solutions. 

I firmly believe that one of the greatest aspirations of all free people is to live 

their lives to the fullest without limitations based on their ethnicity, class, race, 

gender, or sexual orientation. If confirmed as Ambassador, with that ideal as my 

guide, I would seek to strengthen the ties between the citizens and elected representatives of our two great nations. 

Trinidad and Tobago is an important Caribbean partner of the United States. The 

relationship between our countries rests on a strong foundation. We share a common language and a firm commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law, and 

a free market system. 

The U.S. Mission to Trinidad and Tobago has three strategic objectives: On security, the Mission works with the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to improve the 

capacity of Trinidadian law enforcement and justice sector institutions to reduce violent crime and illicit trafficking, safeguard human rights, and create safer communities. The Mission promotes increased commerce and a transparent investment climate to enhance our mutual prosperity. On social inclusion, the Mission conducts 

extensive outreach and encourages regional leadership by Trinidad and Tobago to 

protect vulnerable populations, including at-risk youth. If confirmed, I look forward 

to leading our efforts in these crucial areas. 

The United States and Caribbean partners have developed the Caribbean Basin 

Security Initiative (CBSI), an ongoing, multifaceted citizen security initiative for the 

Caribbean, of which Trinidad and Tobago is a key player. In creating CBSI, the 

United States and Caribbean partners prioritized three pillars: substantially reducing illicit trafficking of narcotics and arms, increasing public safety and security, 

and promoting social justice. I will do my utmost, if confirmed, to increase cooperation and encourage Trinidad and Tobago to become a leader in security in the 

Caribbean. 

As a resource-rich country, Trinidad and Tobago is full of opportunity for energy 

companies. The United States works cooperatively with Trinidad and Tobago to 

develop new avenues for regional energy security and conservation. I am excited 

Trinidad and Tobago is playing a growing role in regional integration and promoting 

business relationships in the hemisphere, including by hosting the upcoming 2014 

Americas Competitiveness Forum. The United States welcomes and supports Trinidad and Tobago’s membership in and chairmanship of the Pathways to Prosperity 

initiative. If confirmed, I would advocate on behalf of U.S. companies and commercial interests to assure a level playing field and support their engagement with 

Trinidad and Tobago. 

Education is the foundation for economic growth. If confirmed, I will work with 

the government of Trinidad and Tobago to explore ways in which we can provide 

127 

at-risk youth and other vulnerable populations with tools that can help them 

succeed. 

I firmly believe that my service in the Marine Corps and my experience in the 

private sector, coupled with my personal history, have prepared me to represent the 

government and people of the United States to the government and people of Trinidad and Tobago. 

If confirmed, it would be my great honor to work closely with this committee and 

others in Congress to advance our objectives in the Caribbean.Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee. I look forward to answering your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Estrada. I am thankful that you 

did not put us through a Marine Corps drill. [Laughter.] 

That is a plus. 

Mr. Mamet. 

STATEMENT OF NOAH BRYSON MAMET, OF CALIFORNIA, 

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC 

Mr. MAMET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, and 

members of the committee. 

It is a privilege and an honor to be here today as the President’s 

nominee to be the Ambassador of the United States to the Argentine Republic. I am deeply grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their confidence and trust and for sending my 

name to the Senate for your consideration. If confirmed, it will be 

my privilege to work closely with you, Mr. Chairman, this committee, and your distinguished colleagues on our partnership with 

Argentina. 

I would like to thank Senator Bennet for his kind introduction. 

I believe he is one of the great public servants in the country today. 

On a personal note, growing up in California, I was fortunate 

enough to have two wonderful and supportive parents, Bryan and 

Millie, who instilled in me the values of hard work, dedication, and 

love of country. I am thrilled that my mother was able to fly here 

today and is visiting the U.S. Senate for the very first time. 

Although my father is no longer with us, he would be proud beyond belief that I am here today in front of this distinguished committee. Rather uniquely, both my father and grandfather volunteered and served as enlisted men together in World War II. In 

fact, I believe my grandfather was one of the oldest enlisted men 

in the Navy at one point. Through them, I was raised to believe 

that public service in any capacity is the highest calling, so I am 

deeply honored to be here today. 

After spending many years in Washington, I founded my own 

company a decade ago. I have built a successful business, consulting for many companies, organizations, and NGOs, including 

the Clinton Global Initiative, the National Democratic Institute, as 

well as numerous national political leaders such as President Clinton and Secretary Albright. This experience has taught me the 

power of partnership, that no one sector alone can be as effective 

as the combined efforts of the public sector, the private sector, and 

civil society. If confirmed, I look forward to putting all of my experience into furthering our bilateral relationship with Argentina. 

The people of the United States and Argentina have a long history of friendship and close collaboration that stretches back nearly 

two centuries. The guiding principles for today’s relationship are 

based on core democratic values, shared interests, and a natural afVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
128 

finity between two societies. If confirmed, I will work to expand cooperation with Argentina on mutually important issues, including 

energy, human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, and educational exchanges. 

Considering that nearly half of Argentina’s population is under 

the age of 35, I will be committed to expanding educational exchange programs for students from both Argentina as well as the 

United States. If confirmed, I look forward to drawing on my extensive experience working with NGOs in the United States to 

strengthen our current relationships and build new ones with a vibrant Argentine civil society. 

Expanding scientific discovery and technological innovations is 

another promising area for greater cooperation. Our two countries 

have more than 60 joint projects underway in energy, health, 

science, and technology. In fact, a successful trip to Argentina by 

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden highlighted our longstanding 

cooperation on earth observation satellites. 

In addition to our bilateral partnership, the United States has a 

strong cooperation with Argentina in multilateral fora such as the 

U.N. and the IAEA, where Argentina is a strong voice in support 

of human rights and nuclear nonproliferation. 

Argentina’s highly educated population and diversified industrial 

base have attracted more than 500 U.S. companies. The United 

States is strongly committed to working with Argentina to increase 

two-way trade that creates jobs in both countries. However, the 

United States and other governments remain concerned over some 

protectionist policies. If confirmed, I will continue the administration’s efforts to address these concerns. I will also urge Argentine 

officials at the highest levels to resolve such economic legacy issues 

as Argentina’s Paris Club arrears and to normalize relations with 

all of its creditors, both public and private. 

Although there are some challenges, I am optimistic that the future of our relationship with Argentina is bright. As Secretary 

Kerry has expressed, the United States has a vested and shared interest in a vibrant, strong, and prosperous Argentina. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working with the Argentine Government, their officials, as well as the private sector and civil society, as we further 

our bilateral relationship and strengthen longstanding ties between 

our two great nations. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, 

and your distinguished colleagues and staff to advance U.S. interests in Argentina. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mamet follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NOAH B. MAMET

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege and an honor to 

be here today, as the President’s nominee to be the Ambassador of the United 

States to the Argentine Republic. I am deeply grateful to President Obama and 

Secretary Kerry for their confidence and trust, and for sending my name to the Senate for your consideration. If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work closely with 

this committee and with your distinguished colleagues on our partnership with 

Argentina. 

I’d like to thank Senator Bennet for his kind introduction. On a personal note, 

growing up in California, I was lucky to have two wonderful and supportive parents, 

Bryan and Millie, who instilled in me the values of hard work, dedication, and love 

129 

of country. I’m thrilled my mother was able to fly here today and is visiting the U.S. 

Senate for the first time. Although my father is no longer with us, he would be 

proud beyond belief that I am here today in front of this distinguished committee. 

Rather uniquely, both my father and grandfather volunteered and served together 

as enlisted servicemen in WWII at the same time. In fact, I believe my grandfather 

was one of the oldest enlisted men in the Navy at one point. Through them, I was 

raised to believe that public service, in any capacity, is the highest calling, so I am 

deeply honored to be here today. 

After spending many years in Washington, I founded my own company a decade 

ago. During these years, I’ve built a successful business, consulting for many companies and leaders in various sectors. I’ve also worked with many NGOs including the 

Clinton Global Initiative and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), as well as 

with numerous national and international political leaders, including President Bill 

Clinton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of State Madeleine 

Albright. This experience has taught me the power of partnership, the truth that 

no one sector alone can be as effective as the combined efforts of the public sector, 

the private sector, and civil society. If confirmed, I look forward to putting all of 

my experience into furthering our bilateral relationship with Argentina. 

The people of the United States and Argentina have a long history of friendship 

and close collaboration that stretches back nearly two centuries. The guiding principles for today’s relationship are based on core democratic values, shared interests, 

and natural affinity between two societies. In fact, just over a month ago, Argentina 

celebrated the 30th anniversary of its return to democracy, a very important milestone for the people of Argentina. If confirmed, I will work to expand cooperation 

with Argentina on mutually important issues, including energy, human rights, 

nuclear nonproliferation, and educational exchanges. 

I have always believed in the importance of public diplomacy and people-to-people 

relationships. Like much of the world, many Argentines maintain a great interest 

in American culture, and if confirmed, I look forward to drawing on my extensive 

experience working with NGOs in the United States to strengthen current relationships and build new ones with a vibrant Argentine civil society. 

Considering that nearly half of Argentina’s population is under the age of 35, I 

will be committed to expanding educational exchange programs for students from 

both Argentina and the United States. If confirmed, I will broaden our ties through 

our 14 Binational Centers, English language programs, and exchanges. 

Expanding scientific discovery and technological innovations is another promising 

area for greater cooperation. Our two countries have more than 60 joint projects 

under way in energy, health, science, and technology. In fact, a successful trip to 

Argentina by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden highlighted our longstanding 

cooperation on earth observation satellites. 

In addition to our bilateral partnership, the United States has strong cooperation 

with Argentina in multilateral fora such as the U.N. and the International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA), where Argentina is a strong voice in support of human 

rights and nuclear nonproliferation. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing 

cooperation with Argentina on these critical issues of mutual concern. 

Argentina’s highly educated population and diversified industrial base have 

attracted more than 500 U.S. companies. The United States is strongly committed 

to working with Argentina to increase two-way trade that creates jobs in both countries. However, the United States and other governments remain concerned over 

some protectionist policies. If confirmed, I will continue the administration’s efforts 

to address these concerns. I will also urge Argentine officials at the highest levels 

to resolve such economic legacy issues as Argentina’s Paris Club arrears and its 

remaining debts to U.S. bondholders. 

Although there are some challenges that have been well documented in the media 

recently, I am optimistic and confident that the future of our relationship with 

Argentina is bright. As Secretary Kerry has expressed, the United States has a vested and shared interest in a vibrant, strong, and prosperous Argentina. If confirmed, 

I look forward to a productive dialogue with Argentine Government officials, as well 

as the private sector and civil society as we seek to further our bilateral relationship 

and strengthen the longstanding ties between our two great nations. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your distinguished colleagues and staff to advance U.S. objectives in Argentina. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you all. 

Let me start off with a question I ask of all of our nominees, and 

I would like each of you to answer simply yes or no, if you can. If 

130 

you feel you have to equivocate, we will start off on a difficult process. 

Do each of you commit to this committee that, if confirmed, you 

will be responsive to inquiries and questions that the committee 

poses as you are in your posts? 

Mr. Estrada. 

Mr. ESTRADA. Mr. Chairman, most definitely. I look forward to 

working very closely with this committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moreno. 

Mr. MORENO. Unequivocally, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mamet. 

Mr. MAMET. Absolutely, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. So we are starting off well. [Laughter.] 

In recent years, Mr. Moreno, there has been a high level of concern about the increasing use of the Caribbean as a drug transit 

zone. According to the Department of State in its 2013 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Jamaica is the Caribbean’s largest supplier of marijuana to the United States and reportedly an emerging transit point for cocaine passing through 

Central America destined to the United States. 

What is your assessment—I know you are not in post yet, but I 

am sure you have had discussions with the State Department—of 

the Jamaican Government’s cooperation with the United States on 

antinarcotic efforts? And if confirmed, will you make this one of 

your significant issues at your post? 

Mr. MORENO. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. With my background, it 

is kind of a natural that it would be one of my priorities. 

I think that there is increasing analytical and anecdotal evidence 

that, in fact, as a transshipment point, the Jamaican corridor has 

really picked up. That is due, in a way, to the success we have had 

with the Merida Initiative, the success we have had in Colombia, 

and as you know, the balloon effect is now branching out. 

I want to take a very close look at resource allocation on our side 

as well. I want to make sure that we have the right resources 

pointed in the right direction and doing the right thing. We have 

a very big INL program, which is bolstered by funding from the 

Caribbean Basin Security Initiative. We work with the constabulary force. We work with the Jamaican defense forces. We have an 

FMF program that works on small ships and patrol boats that the 

Jamaican Coast Guard and Navy use. 

The cooperation has been good. We are seeing an increase of 

quite a high percentage, almost double the amount of cocaine 

seized in 2013 versus 2012, and I think they are probably at a 

record-setting margin this year. 

As you know, from my service in Colombia and Mexico, I have 

personally witnessed the damage that drug trafficking does to societies. Corruption including—as a matter of fact, many Jamaican 

politicians and leaders recognize that corruption perhaps is the 

most destructive facet of drug trafficking, and we are seeing that. 

But we are seeing the Jamaican Government address that. We 

have seen a commitment on their part to move with us. We work 

with the anticorruption force and the constabulary force. We work, 

along with the British and with the Canadians. We work with the 

major organized crime task force. We even set up a 1–800 corrupt 

131 

cop number that INL pays for. We are also really urging the Jamaicans to move forward and create an independent commission 

that addresses corruption specifically. 

So we are engaged and the Jamaicans are engaged, but it is a 

tough battle and one which, as we can see what happened in Mexico, as we see the struggles that Colombia went through, that this 

is a very serious issue. And I think we need to address it and we 

need to look at resources and the way we allocate them. 

The CHAIRMAN. And in that regard, the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative that you alluded to—we have spent about $35 million 

in Jamaica in that respect. I hope that you will look at how Jamaica has used that money and what our evaluation of it is. 

One of the things that I am concerned about is law enforcement 

capacity-building. The other thing is ports and the security at ports 

and the screening and scanning, I should say, at ports because ultimately we trade with these countries, but they have access to our 

ports and those drugs end up here. 

Mr. MORENO. Yes, sir, absolutely. As a matter of fact, we are 

using antiterrorist funds administered by the Diplomatic Security 

to work with the port security program in Jamaica. I started the 

port security program in Cartagena, Colombia and in Barranquilla. 

So I am pretty familiar with how port security programs should 

work. 

We are addressing that, and the Caribbean, as you know, Basin 

Security Initiative, $263 million in total, of which Jamaica, as you 

mentioned—I am really anxious, if confirmed, to get down on the 

ground and see, as I said, about how resources are being allocated, 

how the Jamaicans have used their resources, and how we can continue to be more effective and more efficient in this because this 

is the kind of problem that once it starts—you will recall back in 

the 1980s and early 1990s when we put the above-the-horizon radars in and then we forced the traffickers again to go through the 

Central America-Mexico route, and we are seeing the consequences 

of that now. Now, as we apply pressure, I think we have to really 

pay close attention to that and really take a look at our resource 

allocation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. I am very concerned as 

we squeeze elsewhere that the Caribbean becomes an increasingly 

large traffic point. 

And so that brings me to Mr. Estrada. With Venezuela increasingly becoming a primary transit point for the trafficking of drugs 

to markets in Europe and the United States, do you have a sense— 

and I recognize again you are not in post. But do you have a sense 

of what Trinidad and Tobago’s proximity to the Venezuelan coast 

has made it vulnerable to trafficking operations? 

Mr. ESTRADA. Senator, I definitely agree because of the proximity. As you know, the closest point is about 7 miles off the coast 

of Venezuela. It has become a transshipment point. Just last 

month, there was a large cocaine bust in the port of Norfolk that 

originated in Trinidad and Tobago being transported in juice cans. 

So it shows that they do have a key challenge, and we are 

partnering with them to address this issue. We will continue to engage. And if confirmed, I will continue to lead our efforts in supVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
132 

porting the improvement of the Trinidad and Tobago law enforcement capacity to address this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, your example, an example of why I care so 

much about port security, is an example of how drugs end up on 

the streets of our community. And having the largest port in the 

Northeast, the Port of Elizabeth in Newark, I can see what, in fact, 

happens in our communities. 

Let me ask you. Also according to U.N. statistics, more than 

13,000 people in Trinidad and Tobago are estimated to be living 

with HIV. In an effort to combat that, the country has received assistance under the President’s PEPFAR program, which we recently reauthorized. How would you assess these efforts and the 

support the United States has provided to Trinidad and Tobago? 

Mr. ESTRADA. Senator, thank you for the question. 

The assistance that Trinidad has received thus far—a lot of it 

has to do with their prevention, strengthening their laboratory efforts, public outreach. And the CDC is on the ground in Trinidad 

and Tobago. Yes, there is a 1.5-percent prevalence in adult HIV 

rate. And this program thus far—again, through this assistance, it 

does seem to be working and with the embassy doing the outreach 

via social media and through other avenues that are available. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then finally, I will have questions for Mr. 

Mamet, but my time has expired. So I am going to turn to Senator 

Rubio. 

How is it going to feel to go back as the United States Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago which was originally your native 

country? 

Mr. ESTRADA. Senator, a great question, and I am glad you 

asked. As you very well know, I left as a 14-year-old. 

The CHAIRMAN. We only ask great questions. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ESTRADA. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. At least members here think so. 

Mr. ESTRADA. I have been back to Trinidad probably four times 

since I left in March 1970. The first time I went back to Trinidad 

was in 2004 as a guest speaker for the Marine Corps Ball. I was 

a sitting sergeant major for the Marine Corps then. So I had not 

been. 

Yes, I do have family members—small family members still in 

the country. I respect Trinidad. It is a beautiful country. I look forward to working with the government and the people of Trinidad 

and Tobago and getting to know them very well. Obviously, I do 

not know them as much as I did when I left as a 14-year-old. 

My loyalty with my distinguished service in the United States 

Marine Corps—there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind where 

it stands. I am American and I represent the United States of 

America’s interests. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have no doubt about that. I just wanted to 

have the emotional element of it. 

Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. Thanks to the chairman. 

Thank you all for being here, particularly Mr. Estrada and 

Moreno for your longtime service to our country. We are very grateful for that, and we are sure you will do a great job at these posts. 

133 

Let me just overlay my questions with a general observation that 

in the Western Hemisphere in general there is this emerging trend, 

which I find as a direct threat, and that is the growing 

authoritarianism that really poses a risk to both free markets and 

the democratic consensus that we find throughout the region. One 

of the countries that will be discussed here today, unfortunately— 

Argentina—perhaps falls in that camp. 

I thought that situation, by the way, was on full display in Havana a few weeks ago when all these heads of state met under the 

auspices of the sole totalitarian regime and state sponsor of terrorism in our hemisphere and which yesterday, by the way, arrested, as you know, Mr. Chairman, a well-known dissident. We 

call him Antunez who had actually met with us. He traveled here 

to Washington. He was arrested, along with his wife I believe, yesterday. 

So for anyone who has fantasies about what Cuba is and to these 

heads of state that travel there, particularly the President of Argentina about 2 weeks ago, to gain advice from Fidel and Raul Castro, well, I am not sure what you are going to get advice in unless 

you are looking to become a totalitarian government because that 

is the only thing they are good at. 

And by the way, it is a tremendous hypocrisy. The only head of 

state in the Western Hemisphere that had the dignity to meet with 

members of the beleaguered democratic opposition was the President of Chile, Pinera—and I wanted to publicly acknowledge that— 

as he has done many times in the past as well. 

I am also concerned—and I am no longer the ranking member 

of this subcommittee, but I am glad I am here today—by what best 

can be characterized as an indifferent foreign policy—and both parties are guilty of this—toward the hemisphere and its issues and 

at worst is quite frankly negligence, this rising tide of 

authoritarianism that we find in the region. 

There are some issues as well largely focused on Argentina in the 

time that is permitted here today. 

But I did want to ask you, Mr. Moreno. You are an expert in 

counternarcotics. Jamaica is believed to be potentially the largest 

Caribbean supplier of marijuana to the United States. Is there any 

evidence that recent efforts to legalize the use of marijuana in certain States here have had an impact on the situation? 

Mr. MORENO. In fact, it has had an impact. There had been 

movement both in the Jamaican Parliament and in the press to 

argue for either legalization for medical reasons, religious reasons, 

or to decriminalize personal possession of small quantities. We 

have been very clear on what our position is, that marijuana is considered a category 3 dangerous drug and as such, we will continue 

to enforce all Federal statutes involving marijuana. 

Also, the Embassy has been instructed to—and they followed up 

magnificently in reporting all these developments. 

There is a pending piece of legislation in the Jamaican parliament—we are not sure how far that could possibly go—that 

would decriminalize certain aspects of possession of marijuana. 

They make the argument that, oh, that is going to improve tourism, that it is going to help the small farmer, et cetera, et cetera. 

We, of course, reject those arguments and we maintain that mariVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
134 

juana is still a dangerous drug and we are going to enforce our 

Federal statutes. 

Senator RUBIO. Marijuana-improved tourism. Will that be in 

their promotion material? 

Mr. MORENO. Not my argument, Senator. 

Senator RUBIO. No, I understand. I know that is their argument. 

Anyway, more in the form of a statement than a question, the 

2003 reporting period for the Trafficking in Persons report found 

that the Government of Jamaica did not convict any trafficking offenders or any officials complicit in human trafficking. And I would 

just encourage you, when you are in that post, to be a strong voice 

on behalf of those victims because Jamaica, I believe it is Tier 2. 

But in any event, there is a human trafficking problem there as 

there is here. And I hope that you will be a strong voice. 

Mr. MORENO. Absolutely. As a veteran Foreign Service officer I 

am well aware of how important that is. In the many posts that 

I have served, it has become a very serious issue. 

Senator RUBIO. And then, Mr. Estrada, on the issue of Trinidad 

and Tobago, there was a citizen from there that was convicted and 

received a life sentence in U.S. Federal court for a 2007 plot to 

bomb a jet fuel pipeline at John F. Kennedy International Airport. 

The individual had ties to Trinidad’s militant group that attempted 

to overthrow the government there back in the 1990s. 

By the way, the individual has also been linked by Argentina’s 

special prosecutor to the 1994 terrorist attack that many believe 

Iran was behind. In fact, there is strong evidence that Iran was behind it. 

So my question is, do we have concerns that Islamic radicalism 

is a problem in Trinidad and Tobago? 

Mr. ESTRADA. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

The United States Government considers the Government of 

Trinidad and Tobago to be a committed partner in combating terrorism in the Caribbean and preventing terrorist attacks against 

the United States. If confirmed, I will continue to work the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to strengthen this partnership. 

As of now, there are no known indigenous terrorist groups based 

in Trinidad and Tobago, but we continue to monitor the situation. 

Senator RUBIO. Along the lines of the statement that I made just 

a moment ago, in the same Trafficking in Persons report, Trinidad 

and Tobago is a Tier 2 Watch List country for trafficking. It means 

it is a destination and a transit country for adults and children 

that are subjected to both forced labor and to sex trafficking. There 

has been information that public officials there have been complicit 

in trafficking-related incidents. In fact, the 2013 report states that 

although the government had infrastructure to screen for trafficking victims, law enforcement officials repeatedly treated victims 

as criminals and charged them with solicitation charges. 

There has also been, by the way, certain public officials that have 

been identified as severely hampering the government’s efforts to 

combat trafficking. 

So I would hope that—and I expect that you will, when you are 

in that post, be a strong voice on behalf of those victims and be 

willing to—I know it makes the operating space uncomfortable, but 

to be willing to be a forceful voice in condemning these actions to 

135 

the extent that there is the unwillingness of these government officials to address this very serious human tragedy. 

Mr. ESTRADA. Senator, I fully concur. Like all countries, Trinidad 

and Tobago does face some challenges, but they have shown the 

will to try to address this issue. We will continue to partner with 

them. I will lead our efforts. I will be a strong advocate on behalf 

of human rights for all people in that area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mamet, let me ask you. What is our national 

interest in Argentina? 

Mr. MAMET. Thank you, Senator. 

I think we have a number of national interests. As you know, 

number one, there are over 500 U.S. companies that are doing 

business in Argentina. Some have been there for nearly a century. 

They have, by all accounts, continued to do relatively well, but they 

have had issues I mentioned in my opening statement on regulation, on import-export controls, and other areas around that. 

I think it is very important to note, as you well know, that they 

are on the U.N. Security Council. They are at the IAEA and they 

have been a good, constructive partner with us on nuclear nonproliferation, as well as human rights, antihuman trafficking. So 

there is, I think, a range of international issues we work well on. 

There are a number of issues that we do not have the best relationship with, but as Ambassador, Senator, if I can work with you, 

work with this committee, and have the full force of the White 

House behind me, I will bring tough messages, when needed, to allies. I think that it is important to tell the truth. And we obviously 

have some irritants in our relationship largely around a number of 

economic issues and financial issues. 

The administration has strongly urged the Argentine Government to clear its arrears, both public and private, as well as to normalize its relations with the international financial community, as 

well as its creditors and investors. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would have wanted to hear from you, although you alluded to it at the end there, that part of our national 

interest is having a country that meets its Paris Club debt, of 

which we hold a significant amount, that we have a series of bondholders that have not been paid and they have done nothing to not 

merit payment, that we have a real concern about judicial independence and press freedom in Argentina. So I think our national 

interests are broader, and I hope that you will think about it in 

that context. 

You know, last week, referring to mounting challenges stemming 

from currency depreciation, rising inflation, recent nationalizations 

and broader signs of macroeconomic instability, a New York Times 

editorial stated that Argentina was facing a financial crisis caused 

largely by misguided government policies. And a Washington Post 

editorial stated that Argentina is headed for another stretch of economic and perhaps political turmoil. 

Do you agree with that assessment? 

Mr. MAMET. Well, Senator, as you know, the administration follows very closely economic activity in the country. The Department 

of the Treasury obviously monitors this very closely. 

I agree with what you say. There are a number of issues that are 

irritants in our relationship. I think they have made some 

136 

progress, not nearly as much as we would hope, on a number of 

fronts, whether that is presenting at least an outline of a payment 

plan to the Paris Club, which I think just last night, the Paris Club 

came back and said they want to have those negotiations and have 

those discussions. It has been a long time coming. No question 

about it, but that is one of the issues that we have pushed the government on, and I think it is too early. I do not want to prejudge 

how that comes out. We will see. 

I think later this month the Argentine Government is going to 

present to the IMF a new inflation index, a new CPI, and so obviously, we need to see how that plays out as well. 

The ICSID agreements, which you know are the final arbitral 

ICSID awards that they paid—I believe it was $667 million to 

three American companies. 

So those are, I think, at least positive steps in the right direction. 

There is a lot more to do. And although I know the Spanish company Repsol is not a U.S. company, that has been an issue on the 

docket that we have talked to them about. We have urged them, 

as other governments have as well, because unfortunately when 

they nationalized that, they did not deal with it for a long time. 

But now it does look like they are in final stages of a deal with 

that company. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know you mentioned the Paris Club. The offer 

to negotiate its Paris Club debt—is that any different than past offers? They have made past offers, but they have not followed 

through. 

Mr. MAMET. That is exactly why I said I did not want to prejudge 

yet to see what happens. I think we are right in the middle of that. 

I completely agree, Senator. It is an ongoing issue, as I called it 

an irritant in our relationship, that we need to deal with. I think 

that is exactly why we need to have an ambassador there to dialogue at the highest levels and deliver those tough messages. 

The CHAIRMAN. How does Argentina’s default on U.S. Government debt affect other aspects of U.S. relations with the country? 

Mr. MAMET. On the Paris Club, among other things? 

I think there is that basket of issues, IMF, Paris Club. The 

ICSID agreements I think did actually move forward the relationship a little bit. But, unfortunately, I think we have to be vigilant 

and keep an eye every single day on what is going on. I think these 

import controls, export controls, some of the regulation I think has 

made it a very difficult place at times to do business, although U.S. 

businesses, as I understand it, Chairman, are doing OK. But at the 

same time, I think we really need to be engaged with the country 

every single day, have the full force of this committee and the 

White House pushing Argentina to do what is in their own best interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. How do you see Argentina aligned within that 

Western Hemisphere? 

Mr. MAMET. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, they are the 

third-largest economy in Latin America. They obviously are a 

major player on all sorts of issues. Internationally, as I said, they 

work pretty well with us on a number of issues, nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, antihuman trafficking. So they are a 

137 

major country with a major economy that we work with at the 

U.N., the IAEA, and a number of other multilateral fora. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, to piggyback on Senator Rubio, not only in 

Cuba, but President Kirchner has taken the country in alliance 

with those in many respects who do not share our values with Venezuela, with Bolivia, with Ecuador. It seems to be aligned in the 

universe of those who are willing to change their constitutions in 

order to perpetuate their existence in government and reelection 

even beyond the constitutional mandate. So they arbitrarily and capriciously change constitutions. As a matter of fact, is it not true 

that President Kirchner was looking to do exactly that in Argentina? 

Mr. MAMET. Well, Senator, in regards to Cuba, if I can just say 

that the administration, as you know, respects the rights of all 

countries to have their own bilateral relations, but this is a very 

important point. As you know, in my background, I have worked 

on democracy issues. This is something that is very important to 

me personally. 

And working with this committee, I think that we need to continue to encourage Argentina to show a strong commitment to democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, and to hold their 

partners and their neighbors in the region accountable to the same 

basic standards that they believe in. As you know, they just had 

a 30th anniversary of return to democracy. They know, as well as 

anybody I think, the benefits of democracy, but we have to hold 

them accountable to make sure they push their neighbors, push 

their partners on those issues that we cherish that I personally 

hold dear and I know you do as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, beyond Cuba, certainly the countries they 

are engaging with and seem to align themselves with are generally 

not within the universe of U.S. national interests. 

I also get concerned at someone who is willing to change the constitution and may have only been thwarted because they did not 

win the majorities necessary in the Congress to ultimately change 

the constitution. Otherwise they likely would have. 

And then I look at last year’s leading human rights organizations 

such as Human Rights Watch and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on 

the independence of judges, which expressed deep concern about reforms passed by the Argentine Congress and moves taken by the 

Kirchner administration that pose a risk to the independence of the 

judiciary in Argentina. 

And then I see what has happened with press freedom in Argentina with the Clarin, which is one of the few media outlets to challenge Ms. Fernandez’s policies, being besieged by the Kirchner administration. 

So I have a larger view about what is happening in Argentina. 

And just a rosy view that we have business, yes, we have business 

there, but we have bondholders who do not get paid. We have debt 

to the United States that they keep playing with by saying we are 

going to renegotiate and never get to that renegotiation. We have 

judges that are being interfered with. We have freedom of the press 

that is being violated. And we have a currency crisis that is going 

on. So our national interest universe here is much broader. 

Senator Rubio. 

138 

Senator RUBIO. I just wanted to take off on that point and say— 

I think you have stated it accurately, Mr. Chairman. Here is what 

I would add. Mr. Mamet, have you been to Argentina? 

Mr. MAMET. Senator, I have not had the opportunity yet to be 

there. I have traveled pretty extensively around the world, but I 

have not yet had a chance. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, here is why I ask—and this is with all due 

respect. You have an impressive resume of work and so forth, and 

obviously, we are very interested in your testimony and what we 

learn in the days to come leading up to your nomination. I think 

this is a very significant post because I think Argentina is right 

where the chairman is describing. We have this trend in Latin 

America of people who get elected but then do not govern democratically, and Argentina is an example of this. Now, are they 

where Venezuela is? Cuba did not even try to have elections. But 

Venezuela or Nicaragua or Bolivia or Ecuador? That is where they 

are headed and that is who they align with. 

The chairman talked for a moment about the government-sanctioned censorship that you are seeing going on there. For example, 

Kirchner has replaced independent media regulators with a board 

charged with overseeing the distribution of media licenses. This 

was put in effect basically in order to repress opposition media outlets by imposing ridiculous restrictions upon them. You have an 

antiterrorism law passed in 2011 that now holds the media liable 

for reporting on issues that could, ‘‘terrorize the public.’’ This is a 

trend throughout the region, and now Argentina is at the forefront 

of these sorts of things. 

I will bring another point up to you. In January 2013, the President of Argentina announced a memorandum of understanding 

with Iran to create what she calls a truth commission to reinvestigate the 1994 terrorist attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual 

Association. This understanding is a reversal of years of work and 

of exhaustive reporting on that attack by a special prosecutor, 

whom I have met, Alberto Nisman, who concluded that the attacks 

were approved by the Supreme Leader of Iran himself and by senior officials in the Iranian Government. 

Again, these are things that are very concerning to us, and I 

bring these things to light because in your answer to the chairman’s question a moment ago, you identified Argentina as an ally. 

Is Argentina truly an ally? I should not say the people of Argentina 

or even the nation. Is this government under this President in Argentina—is that country an ally of the United States? 

Mr. MAMET. Senator, in my perspective, they are an ally who we 

disagree with and have fundamental disagreements about certain 

policies. I think mature democracies can disagree and do it very directly and forcefully when needed, either publicly or privately. And 

I think that is all the more reason that we need to engage. We 

need to be down there talking to them at the very highest levels. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, again, I do not disagree that we should not 

talk at the highest levels, but again, I take issue with the idea that 

Argentina is a mature democracy. Mature democracies do not target newspaper and media outlets. Mature democracies do not interfere with the judicial branch. Mature democracies do not take the 

sort of actions that they are taking. They certainly have elections. 

139 

I am not disputing they have elections. But elections alone do not 

make you a democracy. 

Let me give you another example. The Argentine-United States 

security cooperation between our countries is virtually nonexistent 

and it is nonexistent because of their unwillingness to work with 

us. And as I am sure you are aware, even in the agreements that 

we had with them in the past—I think it was 3 years ago—led by 

the Foreign Minister himself—they seized American equipment. 

Those are not the actions of an ally. I do not recall the last time 

that Canada seized our equipment. I do not recall the last time 

that Mexico seized our equipment. I do not recall the last time 

Israel, South Korea, Japan, or any of our other real allies seized 

our equipment. 

Again, this is not a reflection on the people of Argentina or even 

on the national character of a country that I do believe has strong 

affinities to our shared culture. But I do take issue with this government who I do not consider an ally of the United States, nor an 

enemy either. But they need to make a decision about who they are 

and where they are headed government-wise. And I can just tell 

you that these signals that we are getting are not the signals of 

a mature democracy and they are not the actions of an ally. 

I did want to raise one more point in particular, and I know the 

chairman has already raised it, but I have people in Florida that 

have been impacted by this. And that is, for more than a decade, 

they have refused to honor their bond obligations. They have repeatedly defied U.S. courts, and they refuse to negotiate in good 

faith with its foreign stakeholders, including U.S. creditors who 

hold bonds with a face value of $8.7 billion at the time of the 2001 

default. 

And by the way, it looks like they are headed for another default 

because all the actions they are taking today seem to be designed 

to avoid a short-term default. But long term, their structural problems are extraordinary, which is that I anticipate, quite frankly, 

that there is a very high likelihood that, if you are confirmed, while 

you are in that post, you are going to have another similar collapse 

in Argentina to what you saw economically just a decade ago. This 

is a very serious problem. 

So let me ask you. If you are confirmed as an Ambassador, will 

you send a clear message to that government in Argentina that it 

must engage? If it wants to be an ally, if it wants to have a better 

relationship with the United States, it must engage in good faith 

negotiations with its creditors, and it must honor its international 

financial obligations. 

Mr. MAMET. Absolutely, Senator, I will do that, and I will have 

the backing of this committee, this chairman, and the White House 

as we go in and we talk about the exact issues that you mentioned. 

The JCET incident from a couple years ago obviously was—it was 

a very difficult part in our relationship—a very difficult time in our 

relationship between the two countries. They have been, though— 

Argentina has twice been a victim of a major terrorist attack. They 

understand. They are committed to fighting terrorism, and the administration does stand ready to increase cooperation on a number 

of fronts, if asked. So I think absolutely we need to be engaged. If 

140 

you want, we can talk about the AMIA bombing or Iran. There are 

a lot of other things I know you brought up. 

But the answer to your question, whether it is debt to U.S. bondholders or the debt to the Paris Club or whether it is incidents like 

the JCET incident that you referenced, I think we absolutely have 

to have a frank and tough discussion. But I think allies can disagree, but at the same time, we need to be in there fighting for our 

interests. And if confirmed, Senator, that will be my top priority, 

working with you, to absolutely fight for our interests and, at the 

same time, look for those areas that we can cooperate on. 

Senator RUBIO. This is the most unique ally I think we have in 

the world then because Argentina is an ally that, according to what 

you have said, Argentina is an ally that does not pay American 

bondholders the money they owe them, does not cooperate with our 

military, and basically is open to reinvestigating and in my opinion 

potentially reinterpreting the fact that a terrorist attack authorized—according to their own special prosecutor who found this evidence—authorized by the Supreme Leader of Iran was carried out 

against the Jewish community in Buenos Aires. I mean, if it was 

not Iran, who else was behind it? And the evidence is pretty compelling. And instead of taking the advice of their own special prosecutor, this ally of ours has now decided to reopen it in the hopes 

of reinterpreting it. These are, in my opinion, not the actions of an 

ally. It could change. There could be a new President and a new 

direction for their government. 

But last but not least, I would just say that the antidemocratic 

direction that Argentina is going reminds me a lot more of Ecuador 

and Bolivia and Venezuela than it does of Mexico and Chile and 

Peru and Colombia. Those are allies. I think the Argentinean Government needs to make up its mind what they are toward the 

United States. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. One final set of questions. 

This assignment for which you have been nominated is a big 

country in terms of the access of—with all due respect to the other 

two nominees, those are important countries as well. But this is a 

big to-do about, in my opinion as someone who has followed the 

hemisphere for 21 years, where the hemisphere goes. 

How would you define Argentina’s positions vis-a-vis intellectual 

property and narcotics trafficking and money laundering? 

Mr. MAMET. Well, Senator, as I mentioned earlier, we have had 

a good relationship over the years working with them on a number 

of fronts. Ever since the JCET incident, we have scaled back and 

there is little cooperation on whether it is defense-related training 

exercises or other issues. The administration stands ready to increase cooperation, if asked, on that particular note. 

The CHAIRMAN. And on intellectual property rights? 

Mr. MAMET. Senator, on that, I do not have a full answer on 

that, but I would be happy to—because you deserve a full, complete 

answer on intellectual property. Obviously, it is very important for 

our companies that are doing business down there. And if I may 

get back to you on intellectual property, I would be happy to do 

that. 

141 

[The written response submitted by Mr. Mamet to the requested 

information follows:] 

The United States carefully monitors intellectual property rights protection in 

Argentina and presses for more effective enforcement. Areas of concern include 

counterfeiting, online piracy, and the unfair commercial use and unauthorized disclosure of data submitted to regulatory agencies to obtain approval for the sale of 

pharmaceuticals. In these and related matters, Argentine courts have not provided 

adequate protection. Argentina also does not efficiently address patent issues and 

applications. For these and other reasons, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative includes Argentina on its Priority Watch List. 

Argentina is making progress to better protect intellectual property rights, albeit 

slowly. In 2012, the number of enforcement raids increased and regulatory officials 

improved cooperation with industry actors. The judiciary granted a civil injunction 

related to the online distribution of pirated content, though criminal action has been 

lacking. We urge Argentina to devote more attention and investigative and prosecutorial resources to this issue. As a consultant to corporations that operate overseas, 

I recognize the vital role the U.S. Government plays in advocating for the protection 

of U.S. intellectual property. If confirmed, I would be a vigorous advocate for U.S. 

companies in Argentina, working closely with the local American Chamber of Commerce to identify and address the most serious intellectual property concerns. 

Argentina also should do more to curtail money laundering, which facilitates narcotics trafficking, corruption, and tax evasion. The United States is not alone in 

making this observation; since 2009, the Financial Action Task Force has been 

working with Argentina to address deficiencies in its legal framework and enforcement approach. 

I recognize the challenge Argentine authorities face in a country where cash is 

commonly used for transactions and a high percentage of economic activity occurs 

in the informal sector. Argentina has made progress implementing legislation and 

building its capacity to address technical deficiencies. 

Nevertheless, problems persist. If confirmed, I would urge Argentine officials to 

pay greater attention to this issue, improve regulatory coordination, and ensure that 

the appropriate laws and regulations are established and enforced. The Financial 

Action Task Force recommends that, in addition to technical compliance, effectiveness must be considered when evaluating a national antimoney laundering strategy. 

Argentina is an important transit zone for South American cocaine being shipped 

to Europe. Argentina is also seeing increased domestic consumption and, with it, a 

rise in violent crime. In my work in impoverished neighborhoods in Los Angeles, I 

have seen the awful consequences of illegal drugs on communities, particularly on 

youth, and I support Argentina’s efforts to address trafficking and addiction. 

Argentina has focused its efforts in Greater Buenos Aires and in vulnerable, lowincome communities. It has made new investments in demand reduction. Improved 

coordination among its federal and provincial law enforcement agencies and deployments in the country’s north of additional equipment and personnel would bolster 

operational capacity. Additionally, Argentine courts face backlogs in drug cases that 

limit their ability to bring narcotics traffickers to justice and allow their punishments to serve as a deterrent. 

Argentina and the United States share an important interest in confronting this 

alarming increase in illicit drug trafficking. If confirmed, I would urge Argentina to 

resume the more robust level of information-sharing and case coordination that 

occurred before Argentina seized a U.S. military plane and cargo in 2011 and subsequently reduced its security cooperation with the United States. Argentina’s Ministry of Security reactivated some cooperation with U.S. authorities, including the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, in 2012. These limited joint efforts led to significant arrests, most notably of Colombian national Henry Lo ́pez London ̃ o in Buenos 

Aires in October 2012. However, far greater collaboration is possible given the scope 

of the challenge and, if confirmed, I would make this a priority. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me inform you a little bit. Argentina 

has been on the special 301 priority list of the United States for 

a number of years because of its deficiencies in intellectual property rights enforcement. 

And with reference to drug trafficking and money laundering, it 

is pretty outrageous that our bilateral cooperation on counternarcotics issues has decreased dramatically following Argentina’s 

February 2011 seizure at the Buenos Aires airport of U.S. military 

142 

cargo and training materials, materials for an exercise that had 

been approved by the Argentine Government. 

So this is why we have some real concerns about what this relationship is and what our nominee will do in this country because 

we love the Argentinean people. We think they deserve better, and 

we think that Americans who ultimately invest in Argentina deserve much better than what they have experienced. 

With no other members before the committee and with our 

thanks to all of you for your testimony, the record will remain open 

until the close of business tomorrow. 

I would urge the nominees, if they receive questions from the 

committee members who may not have been here today but will 

submit questions for the record, for you to answer them expeditiously. The sooner you answer them, the more likely we can consider you for a business meeting. 

And seeing no other member wishing to ask questions, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF LUIS G. MORENO TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What is your assessment of the Jamaican Government’s cooperation 

with the U.S. on antinarcotics efforts? If confirmed, what efforts will you take to 

deepen this cooperation? 

Answer. The United States has a history of close and fruitful law enforcement 

cooperation with the Jamaican Government. If confirmed, I would continue this 

partnership with the Jamaican Government, working closely with the many U.S. 

agencies represented in our Embassy, and Jamaican counterparts focused on counterterrorism and counternarcotics activities. I would support Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) funding for programs focusing on capacity-building for security 

forces and the criminal justice system. 

Our joint efforts through the CBSI to counter the growing threat posed by narcotics and weapons trafficking to the security of our citizens and our economies have 

resulted in the arrest of lottery scammers, the extraditions of drug traffickers, and 

the seizure of illegal drugs and contraband. In 2013, Jamaican authorities, with 

U.S. support, seized 1,230 kg of cocaine, compared to 338 kg in 2012. 

U.S. relationships with the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) and Jamaica 

Defense Force (JDF) are excellent. Ship container and airport interdiction initiatives 

have proven beneficial in seizing drugs, identifying targets, and developing leads to 

the United States and other countries. The Embassy is working to assemble joint 

training for Jamaicans customs and select law enforcement groups, coordinated by 

U.S. and British law enforcement/security agencies, particularly in the area of drug 

interdiction. 

Question. What accounts for Jamaica’s increased homicide rate in the past year? 

What is the Jamaican Government doing to curb violence? What role can U.S. assistance play? 

Answer. Jamaica recorded 1,197 murders in CY 2013, a 9-percent increase over 

2012. Jamaican officials, including National Security Minister Peter Bunting, attributed the 2013 spike in homicides to increased use of violence in robberies, the recent 

prison releases of alleged gang leaders, a general increase in intragang battles, and 

a return to Caribbean drug routes—owing to law enforcement efforts in Mexico and 

Central America that brought with it an increase in weapons and drug trafficking. 

To curb this violence, the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) launched Operation 

Resilience in October 2013, an antigang measure that resulted in hundreds of 

arrests and seized weapons. The Jamaican Government is building capacity by 

increasing the JCF’s budget, and improving its organized crime and anticorruption 

task forces and its forensic capabilities. 

143 

Jamaica is a partner in the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI), through 

which the U.S. Government has been working in Jamaica since 2010 to increase the 

capacity of its rule of law institutions as well as address the root causes of crime. 

USAID’s CBSI-funded Community Based Policing project provided a standard curriculum and training for every member of the JCF on improved interaction with 

community members and a partnership approach to policing. Other USAID CBSI activities focus on intervening with at-risk youth, who are highly susceptible to choosing a life of crime and violence and providing them with life and job skills training. 

CBSI also provides nonlethal equipment and training, institutionalizes community-based policing, and supports the JCF’s Anti-Corruption Branch. In 2012, with 

the assistance of INL-provided equipment the National Forensics Sciences Laboratory’s ability to analyze and process ballistic evidence for the prosecution of gun 

crimes increased by 62 percent; firearms account for 70 percent of all murders in 

Jamaica. 

Question. How would you assess the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative in 

Jamaica? In your opinion, is this assistance having an impact? 

Answer. The Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) is positively contributing 

to improved Jamaican law enforcement responses to increasing transnational criminal activity throughout the region. 

As a member of the Caribbean-U.S. Joint Working Group, Jamaica played a key 

role in developing this initiative and plays a critical leadership role in the region. 

The initiative is improving the safety of the United States and improving the security of all countries in the region. USAID’s CBSI-funded Community Based Policing 

(CBP) project provides a standard curriculum and training for every member of the 

Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) on improved interaction with community members and a partnership approach to policing. The CBP project has also been used 

as a template for other countries within the region to develop their own CBP activities. The next phase of the CBP project will improve community safety by increasing 

the capacity of communities, police, and other stakeholders to address the root 

causes of crime and insecurity. USAID is working with Jamaica’s at-risk communities to ensure they play an active role in the fight against crime and violence. 

Other CBSI activities focus on intervening with at-risk youth who are highly susceptible to choosing a life of crime and violence, and providing them with life and 

job skills training. CBSI funding focused on law enforcement professionalization has 

provided 6,000 frontline JCF officers with nonlethal force equipment and training 

and supported the JCF internal affairs division. 

Question. How would you assess U.S assistance to Jamaica’s efforts to combat 

HIV/AIDS? What progress has Jamaica made in combating the HIV/AIDS epidemic? 

Answer. The Government of Jamaica has been a robust partner with the United 

States in combating the HIV/AIDS epidemic. While the President’s Emergency Plan 

for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program began in FY 2008, Jamaica was making investments with its own limited resources to address HIV/AIDs as far back as FY 2000. 

However, Jamaica has one of the highest levels of HIV prevalence in the Caribbean. 

Still, there are fewer deaths due to HIV/AIDS in recent years due to universal 

access to antiretroviral drugs and the increase in treatment sites. 

In 1999, the rate in the general population was 0.7 percent. In the 2012 Global 

AIDS response report, the figure is 1.7 percent. There has been significant underreporting because it is estimated that 50 percent of the people living with HIV do 

not know their status as they are reluctant to be tested, even though testing is 

widely available in Jamaica. Stigma and discrimination of people living with HIV/ 

AIDS drives the epidemic underground and there are challenges to ensure people 

adhere to the treatment program. 

The U.S. interagency PEPFAR team, along with UNAIDS, Global Fund, and the 

EU, consults with the Government of Jamaica to discuss strategy and avoid duplication of efforts. USAID works closely with the Ministry of Health to improve the 

capacity of civil society to respond to the epidemic and to enhance the sustainability 

of services and programs. The majority of resources and technical inputs have been 

in HIV prevention through behavioral changes targeting key populations (sex workers and out-of-school youth). The Jamaican Ministry of Health and key nongovernmental organizations are encouraging testing and counseling of the general population as well as supporting the reduction of stigma and discrimination among 

people living with HIV/AIDS and key populations. 

Question. Jamaica has a law that in effect criminalizes homosexuality, and according to Jamaican human rights groups, LGBT people in Jamaica have been singled 

out and killed because of their sexual orientation. The Guardian newspaper reported 

that the British honorary consul in Montego Bay was found dead in 2009, with a 

144 

note on his body reading ‘‘This is what will happen to all gays.’’ What specific steps 

will you take as the next U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica to promote greater tolerance 

and acceptance of LGBT rights? And, what specific U.S. programs and assistance 

will you prioritize to counter anti-LGBT sentiment in Jamaica and to support individuals and organizations working to build a safer environment for the Jamaican 

LGBT community? 

Answer. U.S. support for protecting the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

and transgender (LGBT) persons is grounded in our commitment to ‘‘the equal and 

unalienable’’ human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

and reflected in our Constitution. If confirmed, I would work closely with our 

Embassy team and Jamaican partners to advance LGBT rights. 

Embassy Kingston maintains excellent access and strong relations with Jamaican 

officials, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and community 

leaders. If comfirmed I will continue to engage with the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Justice on human rights issues, including issues of specific concern to the 

LGBT community. 

U.S. programs and activities seek to enhance and expand understanding and 

appreciation for the human rights of LGBT individuals through internal discussion 

and dialogue. One important aspect of embassy activity is to meet regularly with 

local NGOs that engage on LGBT issues to gain insight on issues of discrimination 

and discuss opportunities for greater U.S. involvement. 

Priority programs include funding for ‘‘Panos Caribbean’’ that works to strengthen 

and improve the livelihoods of those in the gay community through public awareness campaigns. The program promotes tolerance and accountability for those impacted by HIV/AIDS. The Embassy also funded a ‘‘Respect and Tolerance’’ program 

with a local university that supports activities that promote a culture of respect and 

social tolerance for diversity. 

If confirmed, I will speak out on the needs of LGBT youth, women, and racial and 

ethnic minorities who often face multiple forms of discrimination. I will also maintain regular contact with academic institutions to stay informed on LGBT issues; 

ensure that the Embassy’s Law Enforcement Working Group addresses LGBT issues 

in the criminal justice system; and work with other diplomatic missions in Kingston 

to promote respect for LGBT persons. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN L. ESTRADA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. To what extent can Trinidad and Tobago supply its regional neighbors 

with natural gas and decrease the Caribbean’s reliance on using oil and diesel for 

electricity generation? To what extent does Trinidad and Tobago have energy efficiency or renewable energy programs to improve environmental outcomes and free 

up more natural gas for export? 

Answer. Trinidad provides significant energy resources, mostly oil, to its Caribbean neighbors and it will continue to play an important role. While oil can be 

shipped without significant capital investment, the same is not true for natural gas. 

The capital cost to develop the infrastructure to transport natural gas is an important factor in the Eastern Caribbean energy market. The administration is advocating on behalf of a U.S. company that is working with partners from Trinidad and 

Tobago to develop a pipeline to Barbados and the neighboring French islands. If feasible, this project could increase energy security in the Eastern Caribbean. As a 

result of the shale gas revolution in the United States, Trinidad, and Tobago has 

already shifted its export market for its gas from the United States to Latin America and Asia. 

While Trinidad and Tobago is rich in oil and gas resources, its leaders recognize 

that renewable energy is critical to environmental protection and economic sustainability. They are considering how to expand renewables locally. Trinidad and Tobago 

has committed itself to renewable energy for the Caribbean region by signing a 

memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Government to launch a regional 

renewable energy center under the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas. 

Question. How would you assess Trinidad and Tobago’s cooperation with the 

United States on counternarcotics programs and what steps would you take as our 

Ambassador to strengthen this collaboration? To what degree has Trinidad and 

Tobago’s proximity to the Venezuelan coast made it vulnerable to trafficking operations? 

145 

Answer. Trinidad and Tobago is an important partner in Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs from South America. 

Through CBSI, the United States has instituted a comprehensive interagency 

anticrime and counternarcotics strategy aimed at assisting local law enforcement 

agencies to detect and interdict narcotics and to develop the skills to effectively 

prosecute these crimes. In Trinidad and Tobago, the government has struggled to 

coordinate and adequately fund its counternarcotics efforts; seizures in 2012 were 

down from 2011. If confirmed, I would bolster our CBSI programs and those initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration to disrupt the flow of narcotics to the 

United States and would work with Trinidad and Tobago to strengthen its capacity 

to fight transnational criminals. I would also work to support its efforts to convince 

its youth to turn their backs on the false promise of the drug trade. 

Question. What factors account for the high level of violence in Trinidad and 

Tobago? How is the Trinidadian Government responding to the high murder rate? 

What steps would you take as U.S. Ambassador to help the Government of Trinidad 

and Tobago address violence in its country. 

Answer. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago recognizes violent crime as a 

key challenge and is seeking taking steps to address it, including to procuring the 

necessary equipment, training, and personnel to address it. I understand that 

through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI), the United States provides 

assistance to help the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to address the root 

causes of crime, which include the destabilizing effects of the illicit narcotics trade 

and lack of economic opportunity, and also by providing support to demand-reduction programs. 

There is no greater priority for a U.S. Embassy than protecting its citizens, including from crime. The U.S. Government has focused its efforts to combat crime 

by building Trinidad and Tobago’s law enforcement capacity. If confirmed, I would 

seek to bolster the existing U.S. Government interagency efforts to combat crime 

and build Trinidad and Tobago’s law enforcement capacity. Law enforcement efforts 

targeting other specific types of crime have resulted in a marked decrease in some 

of those categories of crime, such as kidnappings for ransom. If confirmed, I would 

promote these existing programs and work for their expansion. 

Question. According to U.N. statistics, more than 13,000 people in Trinidad and 

Tobago are estimated to be living with HIV and the adult prevalence rate in the 

country is 1.5 percent. In an effort to combat HIV/AIDS, Trinidad and Tobago 

receives assistance under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 

(PEPFAR). How would you assess these efforts and the support that the United 

States has provided to Trinidad and Tobago to reduce the incidence and limit the 

spread of HIV/AIDS? 

Answer. Trinidad and Tobago has implemented a national program to combat 

HIV/AIDS. The country has a 1.5 percent adult HIV prevalence rate, with significantly higher rates among those engaged in high-risk behaviors. 

Trinidad and Tobago, along with 11 partnering Caribbean countries, signed the 

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Partnership Framework in 

April 2010. The Framework guides the collaboration among the U.S. Government’s 

PEPFAR implementing agencies and the participating host government partners. In 

Trinidad and Tobago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has the 

most active role of the U.S. Government’s implementing agencies. CDC’s programming focuses on improved data collection, prevention strategies, laboratory strengthening, and building public health capacity. 

RESPONSES OF NOAH MAMET TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. A recent New York Times editorial stated that Argentina is ‘‘facing a 

financial crisis caused largely by misguided government policies’’ and a Washington 

Post editorial stated that Argentina is ‘‘headed for another stretch of economic and 

perhaps political turmoil.’’ Do you agree with these assessments? Does the current 

economic situation in Argentina have the ability to potential to affect economies 

throughout the region? 

Answer. A stable and prosperous Argentina is in the best interest of Argentina, 

the United States, and the region. Encouraging sound economic policies is one of 

the key U.S. objectives in Argentina, and it would be one of my top priorities if confirmed as Ambassador. I believe strongly in the power of free and fair rules-based 

trade and the importance of a market-led economy for economic development. 

146 

From 2003 to 2007, Argentina was buoyed by high demand and high prices for 

its agricultural exports. Government policies helped bring about fiscal and current 

account surpluses and the accumulation of international reserves. Recently, however, growth has slowed and Argentina has experienced imbalances in its fiscal and 

current accounts, due in part to increasing subsidies for energy. Many informed 

observers both inside and outside Argentina believe these imbalances must be 

addressed to put Argentina on a sustainable and prosperous trajectory. 

If confirmed, I will encourage the maintenance of a stable, transparent, and predictable investment climate that promotes investment and fair and open competition. I would also ensure that the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires continues to serve 

as a strong advocate for the fair treatment of U.S. companies and investors. 

Question. What are the United States primary national interests in its bilateral 

relationship with Argentina with regard to trade, investment, energy, military, and 

counternarcotics issues. 

Answer. Notwithstanding important areas of disagreement in recent years, including Argentina’s failure to honor its international obligations to public and private 

creditors and its inconsistent security cooperation, the United States and Argentina 

have a long history of cooperation. If confirmed, I will strongly advocate for U.S. interests in areas where our governments have not found common ground and in 

areas where we continue to cooperate. 

Our countries share many values that provide the foundation for collaboration on 

peacekeeping, human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, counterterrorism, education, 

and science. We do not always agree with Argentina’s positions in international 

fora, but it has been a constructive partner at the International Atomic Energy 

Agency and the U.N. Human Rights Council. If confirmed, I will highlight the interests and values Americans and Argentines share, as well as the potential benefits 

of closer cooperation between our countries on the regional and global stages. 

My emphasis on cooperation should not be mistaken for reluctance to engage in 

areas of disagreement. Argentina’s 2011 seizure of classified U.S. cargo brought into 

Argentina by a U.S. Army Joint Combined Exercise Training team was completely 

unjustified and unacceptable. Since this regrettable incident, we have been working 

to restore the level of trust necessary for more fulsome cooperation on security and 

counternarcotics. 

If confirmed, I will continue the administration’s efforts to highlight Argentina’s 

responsibility to meet its international trade and financial obligations, including by 

removing trade barriers in accordance with WTO rules and addressing other impediments to business and investment. 

Despite frustrations and difficulties, our economic relationship with Argentina is 

significant and mutually beneficial. More than 500 U.S. companies operate in 

Argentina and employ more than 170,000 Argentines. The United States is Argentina’s largest foreign direct investor. The U.S. trade surplus with Argentina was 

$9.4 billion in 2012. Given Argentina’s educated workforce and natural resources, 

there is room for investment and trade to expand dramatically to the benefit of both 

economies. 

If confirmed, I will strongly encourage Argentina to take all appropriate steps to 

strengthen our economic ties. 

Question. What is your assessment of Argentina’s participation in the Mercosur 

trade bloc and do you see Mercosur as an effective platform for economic integration 

and growth in South America? 

Answer. The administration welcomes all efforts at regional integration that aim 

to reduce obstacles to trade, further economic development, and increase shared 

prosperity. We appreciate that support for democracy is enshrined in Mercosur’s 

foundational documents, and its implicit commitment to promote those values in the 

region. 

If confirmed, I would work to increase trade and investment with Argentina and 

ease market access for U.S. businesses. 

Question. In your opinion, who are Argentina’s major political allies in Latin 

America? What is your assessment of relations between Argentina and Chile? And, 

what is your view on Argentina’s closeness with the ALBA countries (Venezuela, 

Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba). 

Answer. Argentina is active in a variety of regional multilateral bodies, including 

the Organization of American States, and it participates in the Summits of the 

Americas. It is also an active member of the Union of South American Nations and 

the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). 

Argentina’s relationship with neighboring Chile is cooperative, including participation in joint military exercises to coordinate potential joint peacekeeping deployVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
147 

ments. Argentina and Chile are demonstrating their regional leadership on nonproliferation by organizing this year a joint exercise on response and mitigation to 

a potential terrorist attack involving the release of radioactive material. 

The Argentine Government maintains close ties to Venezuela, whose President, 

Nicolas Maduro, visited Argentina in May 2013. Although not a member of the 

Bolivarian alliance, Argentina has at times associated itself with the group’s positions and objectives. 

Argentina and Cuba have had bilateral relations since 1973. In 2009, Argentine 

President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner visited Cuba and signed a range of 

agreements. She returned to Havana last month to participate in a CELAC summit. 

Like any country, Argentina is free to choose its bilateral partners. That said, if confirmed, I would urge Argentina to take a stronger and more consistent position 

internationally on behalf of democratic values and fundamental human rights, consistent with its own national history. 

Question. What is your assessment as to why Argentina has been slow to settle 

its outstanding debts? As Ambassador, what tools will you have at your disposal to 

encourage the Argentine Government to settle its outstanding debts? Will you urge 

the Argentine Government to negotiate in good faith with its private creditors? 

Answer. Resolution of Argentina’s legacy debt issues has dragged on for more 

than a decade, tarnishing Argentina’s reputation among current and potential investors, damaging its international relationships, and resulting in certain restrictions 

to U.S. assistance. 

If confirmed, I will strongly urge Argentina to clear its arrears and normalize 

relations with all of its creditors, both public and private. 

In my outreach to senior Argentine officials, I will strongly emphasize that the 

settlement of these longstanding financial disputes is in Argentina’s interest, as it 

would send a strong signal that Argentina is a reliable and attractive destination 

for foreign and domestic investment. 

Question. What is your assessment of Argentina’s most recent offer to renegotiate 

its outstanding Paris Club arrears? How does Argentina’s default on U.S. Government debt affect other aspects of U.S. relations with the country? 

Answer. Argentina’s unpaid debt to the U.S. Government is a chronic source of tension in our relationship. If confirmed, I will urge Argentina to clear its $9 billion 

in outstanding arrears to the United States and other members of the Paris Club, 

and press Argentine officials to normalize relations with all of its creditors. 

Argentina’s failure to pay its Paris Club debt has had consequences. The impasse 

has tarnished Argentina’s reputation among current and potential investors, damaged its international relationships, resulted in certain restrictions to U.S. assistance, and a change in U.S. policies toward Argentina at the multilateral development banks and at the Export-Import Bank of the United States. For these reasons, 

the U.S. and other members of the Paris Club regarded the restarting of negotiations with Argentina as a positive step and a basis for further discussion. 

If confirmed, I will urge Argentina to reach an agreement with the Paris Club 

that brings about the prompt and full repayment of its debts. 

Question. Do you believe that judicial independence is under threat in Argentina? 

What message would you deliver to the Argentine Government regarding the links 

between upholding judicial independence and its ability to attract international investment and resolve financial challenges in the country? 

Answer. The separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and 

the protection of their independence, are fundamental components of democratic 

governance. The administration follows this issue closely throughout the hemisphere, including in Argentina. 

In 2013, the Argentine Government took steps to alter the size and selection process of the country’s Council of Magistrates, which oversees the judiciary. It also 

sought to limit the use of judicial injunctions against the government, and to establish new appellate courts. The proposals prompted concerns about judicial independence, and provoked criticism from Human Rights Watch and the U.N.’s Special 

Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. Argentina’s Supreme 

Court ultimately struck down as unconstitutional the controversial election process 

of the Council of Magistrates proposed by the executive branch and approved by the 

legislature. 

In the Human Rights Report in 2011 and 2012, the United States cited risks to 

judicial independence in Argentina, noting in particular political pressure on judges 

to shape judicial outcomes. If confirmed, I will be steadfast in my defense of judicial 

independence, and emphasize that any future attempts at judicial reform not undermine its independence and the separation of powers. 

148 

Question. Do you believe that the Kirchner administration is taking steps to 

undermine press freedom in Argentina? If confirmed, will you make issues of press 

freedom and the defense of internationally recognized democratic principles one of 

your priorities? What message would you have for the Argentine Government regarding its actions against Grupo Clarin? 

Answer. Freedom of expression, including for members of the press, is a fundamental right, and in the words of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, an 

‘‘essential component’’ of a functioning democracy. Argentines enjoy a diverse media 

environment, which facilitates vibrant policy debates across the ideological and partisan spectrums. Journalists generally operate free of intimidation or violence. Criticism of the government is common in the most widely viewed print and electronic 

media. 

In recent years, however, this media environment has come under threat, and 

journalism advocates have raised concerns about government actions that they believe pose a threat to free expression. A 2009 media law that reduced the concentration of TV and radio ownership was accompanied by a highly polarizing and intensified conflict between the government and certain private media groups, including 

Clarin. In 2011, counterterrorism legislation also raised concerns about potential 

constraints to the free exercise of journalism. The Argentine Government has defied 

local court orders to equitably distribute official advertising across all media outlets, 

instead favoring those sympathetic to government views. In 2013, the Argentine 

Government pressured major supermarkets and electronics retailers to cease advertising in certain newspapers, depriving critical outlets of an important revenue 

source. These and other actions led Freedom House to classify Argentina’s media environment as only ‘‘partly free’’ in its 2013 report. The organization warned that the 

government had ‘‘hampered the public’s ability to access unbiased information.’’ 

If confirmed, I will speak out both publicly and privately about the importance 

of free expression and the right of citizens to benefit from an independent and 

diverse media that operates without government interference. 

Question. Is the Argentine Government adequately addressing the underlying 

causes of macroeconomic instability? Are you concerned how the current environment could impact U.S. investment, particularly U.S. companies already invested in 

Argentina? 

Answer. The Obama administration closely monitors Argentina’s economy and its 

macroeconomic policies, including actions related to the country’s currency regime. 

In recent months, Argentina experienced rising inflation and a loss of reserves driven by imbalances in its fiscal and current accounts. As the third-largest economy 

in Latin America, its economic stability is critically important to the region. It is 

also important to the many U.S. companies with investments in Argentina; in 2012, 

two-way trade in goods and services totaled $23 billion, and the U.S. trade surplus 

with Argentina was $10.4 billion. 

If confirmed, I will encourage the Argentine Government to adopt policies that 

will contribute to economic stability, including policies that promote a stable investment climate to encourage investment, both foreign and domestic. A stable and 

growing Argentine economy will help bring about shared prosperity in Argentina, 

while strengthening the 500 U.S. businesses that operate in the country. 

Question. What is your understanding of the progress of negotiations between the 

Argentine Government and Spanish oil company Repsol? Do you believe that the 

nationalization of Repsol assets in Argentina has implications for U.S. companies 

seeking to invest in the country? 

Answer. The Obama administration has repeatedly expressed its concerns about 

Argentina’s nationalization of Repsol-YPF, which proceeded initially without fair 

compensation. The administration called it a ‘‘negative development’’ that dampened 

the investment climate in Argentina. 

The administration has noted developments indicating that YPF and Repsol 

agreed in principle on a mutually satisfactory compensation arrangement. That 

appears to be a positive step for Argentina. Without question, an open and competitive market for commodities has proved the most successful path to modern, efficient, and innovative development of energy resources across the globe. In the 

United States, privately owned energy companies are global leaders that use advanced technologies and methods for energy exploration and production. U.S. firms 

have a lot to offer to countries that present a favorable investment environment. 

In Argentina, oil and natural gas production have been declining in recent years, 

and Argentina has gone from being a net exporter of energy to a net importer. 

Despite these trends, Argentina has enormous potential to help supply world energy 

markets and contribute to global energy security. The Department of Energy estiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
149 

mates that Argentina has some of the world’s largest shale oil and gas resources. 

Attracting private investment, including from U.S. firms, will be essential for Argentina to regain energy self-sufficiency. The Argentine Government has demonstrated 

a clear interest in having U.S. companies act as partners in their efforts to re-invigorate their energy sector; several U.S. firms have begun to make sizable investments, including in Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale oil and shale gas field. 

If confirmed, I will continue to raise the administration’s concern at the highest 

levels of the Government of Argentina about actions that negatively affect the investment climate in Argentina. At the same time, I will seek to build a strong bilateral partnership on energy issues, including through our Bilateral Energy Working 

Group, to advance the common interests of our countries. 

Question. How do you assess Argentina’s IPR enforcement and what are the most 

significant efforts that Argentina could make that would take it off the Special 301 

Priority Watch List? 

Answer. The United States carefully monitors intellectual property rights protection in Argentina and presses for more effective enforcement. Concerns include 

counterfeiting, online piracy, and the unfair commercial use and unauthorized disclosure of data submitted to regulatory agencies to obtain approval for the sale of 

pharmaceuticals. Argentine courts have not provided adequate protection. Argentina 

also does not efficiently address patent issues and applications. For these and other 

reasons, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative includes Argentina on its Priority Watch List. On February 12, 2014, it singled out Argentina in its Notorious 

Markets report, noting that Buenos Aires is home to South America’s ‘‘largest black 

market.’’ 

Argentina is making progress to better protect intellectual property rights, albeit 

slowly. In 2012, the number of enforcement raids increased and regulatory officials 

improved cooperation with industry actors. The judiciary granted a civil injunction 

related to the online distribution of pirated content, though criminal action has been 

lacking. If confirmed, I would urge Argentina to devote more attention and investigative and prosecutorial resources to this important issue. 

Having been a consultant to corporations that operate overseas, I recognize the 

vital role the U.S. Government plays in advocating for the protection of U.S. intellectual property. If confirmed, I would be a vigorous advocate for U.S. companies 

in Argentina, working closely with the local American Chamber of Commerce to 

identify and address the most serious intellectual property concerns. 

Question. What is your assessment of Argentina’s efforts to confront illicit trafficking networks in the Tri-Border area? What is your assessment of U.S.-Argentine 

counternarcotics cooperation? 

Answer. The Tri-Border area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay remains an 

important regional nexus of arms, narcotics, and human smuggling, counterfeiting, 

pirated goods, and money laundering—all potential funding sources for terrorist 

organizations. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue to monitor this region 

closely and maintain close communication with this committee on this important 

issue. 

Argentina recognizes the need for continued to focus on policing its remote northern and northeastern borders—including the Tri-Border area—against such threats 

as illicit drug and human trafficking, contraband smuggling, and other forms of 

transnational crime. In my work in impoverished neighborhoods in Los Angeles, I 

have seen the awful consequences of illegal drugs on communities, particularly on 

youth, and I support Argentina’s efforts to address trafficking and addiction. 

Argentina also focuses on Greater Buenos Aires and vulnerable, low-income communities. It made new investments in demand reduction. Improved coordination 

among its federal and provincial law enforcement agencies and deployments in the 

country’s north of additional equipment and personnel would bolster operational 

capacity. Argentine courts face backlogs in drug cases that limit their ability to 

bring narcotics traffickers to justice and allow their punishments to serve as a 

deterrent. 

Argentina and the United States share an important interest in confronting this 

alarming increase in illicit drug trafficking. The most consistent cooperation to date 

is Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s work with Argentine customs. If confirmed, I would urge Argentina to resume the more robust level of informationsharing and case coordination that occurred before Argentina seized a U.S. military 

plane and cargo in 2011 that resulted in a subsequent reductionin effective security 

and law enforcement cooperation with the United States. Argentina’s Ministry of 

Security reactivated some cooperation with U.S. authorities, including with the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, in 2012. These limited joint efforts led to signifiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
150 

cant arrests, most notably of Colombian national Henry Lopez Londono in Buenos 

Aires in October 2012. However, far greater collaboration is possible given the scope 

of the challenge and, if confirmed, I would make this a priority. 

Question. In your opinion, what are the factors contributing to money laundering 

in Argentina? What is the State Department’s assessment of the extent of this problem and what steps would you take as Ambassador to develop greater bilateral cooperation to address these issues? 

Answer. Argentina should take additional steps to curtail money laundering, 

which facilitates narcotics trafficking, corruption, and tax evasion. We are not alone 

in making this observation; since 2009, the Financial Action Task Force has been 

working with Argentina to address deficiencies in its legal framework and enforcement approach. 

I recognize the challenge Argentine authorities face in a country where cash is 

commonly used for transactions and a high percentage of economic activity occurs 

in the informal sector. Argentina has made progress implementing legislation and 

building its capacity to address money laundering. 

Nevertheless, serious problems persist. If confirmed, I would urge Argentine officials to pay greater attention to this issue, improve the capacity and coordination 

among regulatory, law enforcement and judicial elements to ensure that the appropriate laws and regulations are fully implemented and enforced. The Financial 

Action Task Force recommends that, in addition to technical compliance, effectiveness must be considered when evaluating a national antimoney laundering strategy. 

Question. What is your assessment of special prosecutor Alberto Nisman’s reports 

on Iranian involvement in the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual 

Association? What is the State Department’s position on the Argentina-Iran ‘‘truth 

commission?’’ 

Answer. The U.S. position on the AMIA bombing is clear and consistent. For nearly 20 years, the United States and the international community have joined the 

Argentine Government and victims of this horrific terrorist attack in demanding justice. I am familiar with Special Prosecutor Alberto Nisman’s findings, and I know 

that our Embassy personnel have met with Nisman on a number of occasions. If 

confirmed, I would reach out to Special Prosecutor Nisman as one of my first acts 

as Ambassador. 

The Obama administration is highly skeptical that a solution can be found to the 

AMIA case through the January 2013 Argentina-Iran agreement, which includes the 

establishment of a truth commission. Jewish groups in Argentina share that perspective, and they have expressed concern that Argentina’s cooperation with Iran 

will only cause further delays. In recent months, the Argentine Government itself 

has acknowledged a lack of progress, though it remains committed to the agreement. 

If confirmed, I will ensure the U.S. Government continues to support the AMIA 

investigation so that nearly two decades after the bombing in Buenos Aires killed 

85 people and wounded 300, the perpetrators might finally be held accountable. I 

take this issue extremely seriously, and I will do all I can to help bring justice to 

the victims and their families. 

Question. What is the State Department’s assessment of Argentina’s current 

nuclear power sector? Also, what is your assessment of U.S.-Argentine cooperation 

in the nuclear power sector, including issues of safety and research? 

Answer. Argentina operates two nuclear power reactors capable of generating up 

to 10 percent of Argentina’s total energy production. Argentina is expected to begin 

operating a third reactor this year. Both General Electric and Westinghouse are 

interested in supplying new reactors to Argentina. The United States and Argentina 

coordinate effectively on nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear research and 

development, nuclear safeguards, and nonproliferation through the U.S.-Argentina 

Binational Energy Working Group and the U.S.-Argentina Joint Standing Committee on Nuclear Energy Cooperation, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and at the 

International Atomic Energy Agency, where Argentina has been a constructive and 

like-minded partner on issues related to Iran. 

The United States and Argentina have long cooperated in addressing our shared 

energy needs and economic opportunities in the energy sector, and we continue to 

do so, including at the next meeting of the Joint Standing Committee on Nuclear 

Energy Cooperation, to be held in Argentina later this year. 

Question. What is your assessment of the Kirchner administration’s claims that 

the Falklands are Argentine territory? Should President Kirchner seek to refer this 

151 

case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, what position would you 

recommend that the United States take? 

Answer. The U.S. Government acknowledges that there are conflicting claims of 

sovereignty between Argentina and the United Kingdom. As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States recognizes de facto British administration of the 

islands, but takes no position regarding sovereignty claims of either party. 

If confirmed, I would encourage British and Argentine cooperation on practical 

matters related to the islands, while urging a peaceful resolution to the core issue. 

RESPONSE OF NOAH MAMET TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

Question. The Argentinian Government’s ongoing failure to pay past debts 

remains a significant concern, undermining its credibility in the global marketplace. 

The Republic of Argentina has refused to settle debts owed by Caja National de 

Ahorra Y Seguro (CAJA) to the TIG Insurance Company (TIG) from my home State 

of New Hampshire. I have written a number of letters to the Argentinian authorities urging them to resolve these outstanding debts. The legitimacy of TIG’s claim 

was validated by two final U.S. District Court judgments in 2001 and 2002, and the 

company has made five settlement offers to which the Argentine Government has 

never responded. 

♦ Will you continue to emphasize the importance of resolving outstanding debt 

issues between the Argentinian Government and American debt holders? What 

are we doing to encourage Argentina to settle their obligations, including to 

TIG? 

Answer. If confirmed, resolution of Argentina’s outstanding debt issues will be a 

priority for me, just as it has been for the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires and U.S. 

agencies in Washington, who raise the issue with the Argentine Government at 

every appropriate opportunity. It is in Argentina’s interest to normalize its relationship with the international financial and investment communities by clearing its 

arrears to the U.S. Government and other public and private creditors. Settling its 

disputes with U.S. and foreign firms is an important part of that process, and I 

would strongly urge senior Argentine officials to do so. 

Argentina has taken positive steps in recent months, including the settlement of 

outstanding arbitral awards with three U.S. companies, and the resumption of discussions regarding the payment of Argentina’s debts to Paris Club members. These 

preliminary steps are encouraging, but much more needs to be done. If confirmed, 

I will press Argentina to honor all of its international financial commitments. The 

resolution of long-standing financial disputes would improve Argentina’s investment 

climate and strengthen our bilateral relationship. 

RESPONSES OF NOAH MAMET TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. During your confirmation hearing on February 6, you repeatedly 

described the Government of Argentina as an ally of the United States. Please 

describe the status of our bilateral relations and U.S. interests in Argentina. 

Answer. Notwithstanding important areas of disagreement in recent years, including Argentina’s failure to honor its international obligations to public and private 

creditors, the United States and Argentina have a long history of cooperation. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen that partnership, while strongly advocating for 

U.S. interests in areas where our governments have not found common ground and 

delivering tough messages when necessary. 

Our countries share many values that provide the foundation for important collaboration on areas of mutual interest, such as peacekeeping, human rights, nuclear 

nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and science. We do not always agree with Argentina’s positions in international fora, but they have often been a constructive partner on key issues at bodies like the IAEA in Vienna, and the Human Rights Council 

in Geneva. 

If confirmed, I will highlight the common interests and values Americans and 

Argentines share, as well as the potential benefits of closer cooperation between our 

countries on the regional and global stages. 

People-to-people connections through education, tourism, science, and business are 

strong between our countries. During the 2011–2012 academic year, 1,800 Argentine 

students studied in the United States while 4,500 U.S. students did so in Argentina. 

U.S. tourism to Argentina has grown in recent years, and our consular section in 

152 

Buenos Aires is one of the top visa-issuing posts in the world with more than 

600,000 Argentines having visited the United States in 2012. This interchange 

strengthens the U.S. economy while helping Argentines better understand U.S. 

culture. 

If confirmed, I will seek to bring prominent Americans to Argentina to highlight 

the dynamism, diversity, and openness of our country. It is my hope that through 

these efforts, Argentines will increasingly look to the United States as a partner in 

nurturing a peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable global community. 

My emphasis on cooperation should not be mistaken for reluctance to engage in 

areas of disagreement. Argentina’s 2011 seizure of classified U.S. cargo brought into 

Argentina by a U.S. Army Joint Combined Exercise Training team was completely 

unjustified and should never happen again. If confirmed, I will continue the administration’s efforts to highlight Argentina’s responsibility to meet its international 

financial obligations, as well as its need to remove trade barriers and address related policies. I will aggressively address these and other areas of disagreement, 

while finding opportunities to advance mutual interests. 

Question. How would you characterize the current status of media freedom in 

Argentina? 

Answer. Freedom of expression, including for members of the press, is fundamental and in the words of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, an ‘‘essential 

component’’ of a functioning democracy. I couldn’t agree more. 

Argentines enjoy a diverse and active media environment, which facilitates 

vibrant policy debates across the ideological and partisan spectrums. Journalists 

operate generally free of intimidation or violence. Criticism of the government is 

common in the most widely viewed print and electronic media. 

In recent years, this media environment has come under threat, and journalism 

advocates have raised concerns about government actions that they believe are 

obstacles to free expression. A 2009 law reduced the concentration of TV and radio 

ownership, but was accompanied by a highly polarizing and intensified conflict 

between the government and certain specific private media groups. In 2011, 

counterterrorism legislation raised concerns about potential constraints to journalism. In recent years, the Argentine Government has defied local court orders to 

equitably distribute official advertising across all media outlets, instead favoring 

those more sympathetic to government views. In 2013, the Argentine Government 

pressured major supermarkets and electronics retailers to cease advertising in 

newspapers, thereby depriving critical outlets of yet another important revenue 

source. These and other actions led Freedom House to classify Argentina’s media environment as only ‘‘partly free’’ in its 2013 report. The organization warned that the 

government had ‘‘hampered the public’s ability to access unbiased information.’’ 

If confirmed, I will speak out both publicly and privately about the importance 

of free expression and the right of citizens to benefit from an independent and 

diverse media that operates without government interference. 

Question. What is your view of efforts by the Argentine Government in 2013 to 

provide for the election of magistrates to oversee the judiciary? 

Answer. The separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and 

the protection of their independence, are fundamental components of democratic 

governance. An independent judiciary provides a vital check on the powers of the 

other branches of government, and offers a venue for the peaceful and fair settlement of disputes. The administration follows these issues closely in the hemisphere, 

including in Argentina. 

In 2013, the Argentine Government took steps to alter the size and selection process of the country’s Council of Magistrates, which oversees the judiciary. It also 

sought to limit the use of judicial injunctions against the government, and to establish new appellate courts. The proposals prompted concerns about risks to judicial 

independence, and provoked criticism from Human Rights Watch and the U.N.’s 

Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. Argentina’s 

Supreme Court ultimately struck down as unconstitutional the controversial election 

process of the Council of Magistrates proposed by the executive branch and 

approved by the legislature. 

In the Human Rights Report in 2011 and 2012, the U.S. administration cited the 

risks to judicial independence in Argentina, noting in particular political pressure 

on judges to shape judicial outcomes. If confirmed, I will be steadfast in my defense 

of judicial independence. 

Question. What is your assessment of the current state of democracy in Argentina? 

153 

Answer. Throughout its history, Argentina has experienced episodes of economic 

turbulence and political instability, with only five Presidents completing their terms 

over the past seven decades. 

Encouragingly, in in 2013, Argentina celebrated the 30th anniversary of its return 

to democracy following a tragic period of dictatorship and civil conflict. In the socalled ‘‘dirty war,’’ as many as 30,000 Argentines died at the hands of the country’s 

security forces. That national trauma instilled in Argentines a deep appreciation for 

human rights and democratic norms, such as free and fair elections. Argentina has 

several well-established political parties and movements that hold office at various 

levels and compete vigorously in elections, most recently, in October 2013, Argentina held free and fair national mid-term elections. Argentina’s democratic values 

are also evident in many of its positions the country has taken at international fora 

such as the Organization of American States and the U.N. Human Rights Council. 

As in all democratic societies, maintaining the proper checks and balances 

between among Argentina’s public government institutions requires vigilance. In 

recent years, some executive and legislative actions have been seen as providing 

unfair electoral advantages to the governing party, and in other cases in Argentina 

have threatened the independence of the judiciary. Democracy consists of more than 

holding elections. If confirmed, I will promote strong institutions that provide fair 

and impartial application of national law and citizen rights, supported by appropriate separation of powers that guarantees checks and balances among government 

branches. 

I would also hope that Argentina’s national experience over the past three decades 

with the defense of democratic values would consistently translate into a defense 

of those same values internationally. Unfortunately, Argentina’s foreign policy has 

not always reflected its domestic commitment to democracy. This is most notably 

evident in our hemisphere, where Argentina has steadfastly defended one-party rule 

and the denial of basic human rights for the people of Cuba. It has embraced the 

authoritarian regime in Havana. By expressing solidarity with that government, 

where citizens are denied the right to choose their leaders or express opinions on 

matters of national importance and journalists cannot operate freely, Argentina does 

a disservice to its own historical legacy and interest in strengthening democracy 

worldwide. 

If confirmed, I would promote continued cooperation with Argentina both bilaterally and multilaterally to spread our shared democratic values, while urging 

Argentina to hold its neighbors in the region and countries around the world to the 

same standards for political freedoms and human rights. 

Question. Is the Government of Argentina is following a prudent economic 

model—the ‘‘modelo’’ as it is called? 

Answer. A stable and prosperous Argentina is in the best interest of Argentina, 

the United States, and the entire region. Encouraging sound economic policies is 

one of the key objectives of U.S. policy in Argentina, and it would be one of my top 

priorities if confirmed as Ambassador. I believe strongly in the power of free and 

fair rules-based trade and the importance of a market-led economy for economic 

development. 

From 2003 to 2007, Argentina was buoyed by high demand and high prices for 

its agricultural exports. Government policies helped bring about fiscal and current 

account surpluses and the accumulation of international reserves. Recently, however, growth has slowed and Argentina has experienced imbalances in its fiscal and 

current accounts, due in part to increasing subsidies for energy. Many economists 

believe these imbalances must be addressed to put Argentina on a sustainable and 

prosperous trajectory. 

It is also important that Argentina normalize its relationship with the international financial and investment communities by clearing its arrears to the U.S. 

Government and other public and private creditors. The administration has raised 

these issues at high levels with the Government of Argentina for several years. 

Recently, Argentina has taken positive steps, including paying arbitral awards to 

U.S. companies; working toward implementation of a new consumer price index in 

coordination with the International Monetary Fund to improve its economic data; 

and resuming discussions regarding repaying Argentina’s debts to Paris Club 

members. 

These preliminary steps are encouraging, but if confirmed, I will urge Argentina 

to deepen its efforts to resolve these longstanding irritants in our relationship. I will 

encourage the maintenance of a stable, transparent, and predictable investment climate that promotes investment and fair and open competition. I would also ensure 

that the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires continues to serve as an advocate for the 

fair treatment of U.S. companies and investors. 

154 

Question. What will your message be to the Argentine Government relative to 

their interventionist economic policies and the impact that has had on inflation, 

business, trade, and commerce? 

Answer. In any country, predictable and transparent economic policies offer the 

best environment for broadly inclusive national development and for attracting investment. Business investment, both local and foreign, generates economic opportunity and promotes shared prosperity. 

If confirmed, I will urge the Government of Argentina to adopt transparent and 

predictable policies and regulations that promote fair and open competition. Policies 

that protect intellectual property are an important component of a favorable business climate, as is an independent judiciary. 

The United States has expressed serious concern, both bilaterally and at the 

World Trade Organization (WTO), regarding Argentine measures that restrict imports in an arbitrary and nontransparent manner, including in a WTO complaint 

the United States filed against Argentina in August 2012. 

More than 500 U.S. companies operate in Argentina and employ more than 

170,000 Argentines. The United States is Argentina’s largest foreign-direct investor. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. trade surplus with Argentina in goods and services reached approximately $9.4 billion in 2012. Given Argentina’s workforce and natural resources, 

there is room for this investment and trade to expand dramatically to the benefit 

of both national economies. If confirmed, I will strongly encourage Argentina to take 

all appropriate steps to strengthen our economic relationship. 

Question. Argentina relies heavily on the sale of commodities like soy to support 

their economy. Should there be a decline in soy prices, or the Argentines ability to 

produce soy for soy hungry nations like China, what impact would that have on the 

Argentine economy? 

Answer. Argentina has long benefited from its remarkably fertile and plentiful 

agricultural land. Led by agricultural production, including soy, its exports totaled 

$75.2 billion in 2012. 

Agricultural prices are often volatile, and all economies benefit from diversification in exports and trading partners. A decline in soy prices would have a negative 

impact on Argentina’s revenue collection as well as its balance of payments. That 

said, the Argentine economy exports a range of other products and services, in agriculture, energy, and other sectors. The United States consumes more than 5 percent 

of Argentine exports; in 2012, it imported $411 million in iron and steel products 

from Argentina, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in fresh fruit, wine, and 

aluminum. Argentina also exports oil and natural gas to the United States and 

other trading partners. 

Question. With alarming government expansion into the private market expected 

to continue under President Fernandez de Kirchner, what impact do you foresee on 

the Argentine people and economy? If confirmed, how would you recommend the 

U.S. engage on these issues? 

Answer. Argentines benefit when private economic activity serves as an engine of 

growth, creates jobs, and provides government revenue to address social needs. U.S. 

companies have long identified opportunities in Argentina, and more than 500 operate in that country today. 

Businesses in Argentina, both domestic and foreign, have faced serious obstacles 

in recent years. These include nationalizations without prompt, fair, and effective 

compensation; restrictions on imports; limited access to foreign currency; barriers to 

the repatriation of profits; price controls; and inadequate protection of intellectual 

property. These policies discourage local and foreign investment. 

If confirmed, I will be a tireless champion for the U.S. business community in 

Argentina and urge better cooperation between the private sector and the government. As I learned first-hand during my years working for Members of the U.S. 

Congress and later as a business consultant, an effective partnership between businesses and government is essential for countries to reach their full economic potential. I will work closely with my colleagues throughout the U.S. Government— 

including at the Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Energy, 

Labor, and Justice, and at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. 

Congress—to ensure that our national economic interests are promoted in Argentina 

and that Argentina honors its international obligations. 

Question. In 2012, the Government of Argentina renationalized the country’s largest oil company, YPF, which accounts for 35 percent of Argentina’s oil and gas market. What impact is this likely to have on energy prices and production? 

155 

Answer. The administration has long expressed its concerns about the Government of Argentina’s nationalization of Repsol-YPF, which proceeded initially without 

due compensation. At the time, we called it a ‘‘negative development,’’ and we believe it clearly dampened the investment climate in Argentina. More recently, we 

have noted developments indicating that YPF and Repsol have agreed in principle 

on a mutually satisfactory compensation arrangement. Without question, an open 

and competitive market for energy and other commodities has proved the most successful path to modern, efficient and innovative development of energy resources 

across the globe. 

Oil and natural gas production in Argentina are declining. Argentina has gone 

from being a net exporter of energy to a net importer. Despite these trends, Argentina has enormous potential to help supply world energy markets and contribute to 

global energy security. Attracting private investment will be essential for Argentina 

to regain energy self-sufficiency. The Argentine Government has demonstrated a 

clear interest in having U.S. companies be partners in their efforts to reinvigorate 

their energy sector. 

If confirmed, I will continue to raise the administration’s concern at the highest 

levels of the Government of Argentina about actions that negatively affect the 

investment climate in Argentina. At the same time, I will seek to build a strong 

bilateral partnership on energy issues, based upon the common interests of our 

countries. 

Question. There are several failed models in Latin America of nationalized energy 

firms. How would you work with other agencies of the U.S. Government and American firms to try and prevent Argentina from duplicating mistakes made elsewhere 

in the region? 

Answer. In the United States, privately owned energy companies are global leaders that use advanced technologies and methods for energy exploration and production. U.S. firms have a lot to offer to countries that present a favorable investment 

environment. 

Every country has the sovereign right to decide how to best take advantage of its 

natural resource endowments. All policies need to adhere to requirements under 

local and international law. Regardless of the system, what matters most are transparency, efficiency, accountability, predictability, and responsible business practices. 

If confirmed, I would encourage Argentina to adopt predictable and competitive 

policies to attract the level of investment it needs to meet the country’s vast energy 

potential. I would work with U.S. Government agencies—including the Departments 

of Energy and Interior—to share U.S. best practices with Argentine counterparts on 

environmental and regulatory matters, including through our Bilateral Energy 

Working Group. There are several U.S. companies interested in investing and offering their services to develop Argentina’s shale oil and gas fields, which are among 

the largest in the world. I would consult regularly with these and other U.S. firms 

and when appropriate, advocate with Argentine authorities on their behalf. 

Question. U.S.-Argentine security cooperation, particularly between our militaries, 

has been nonexistent due to Argentine unwillingness to work with us. 

♦ (a) If confirmed, what steps should the Argentine Government take to improve 

military-military relationship? 

♦ (b) Is the Argentine Government a committed U.S. partner in the fight against 

terrorism? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will try to build renewed trust between our governments 

and reestablish a constructive partnership based on mutual interests and mutual 

respect, and I will look for similar intent from the Argentine Government. After all, 

our countries share many security priorities. Defending national borders against the 

flow of illegal narcotics, for example, is a goal of both our nations. Argentina, twice 

a victim of major terrorist attacks in the 1990s, also shares the U.S. commitment 

to combat international terrorism, and cooperation in this area continues. 

Security cooperation with Argentina has been limited since Argentina’s 2011 seizure of classified U.S. cargo brought into Argentina by a U.S. Army Joint Combined 

Exercise Training team. The team had proper prior authorization from Argentine 

authorities, and there was no legitimate reason for the seizure. Differing perspectives in multilateral defense and security fora have further complicated our bilateral 

cooperation. 

While many aspects of our defense relationship today remain challenging, U.S. 

security and defense cooperation and training are important goals for the administration, including for international peacekeeping capacity-building, emergency response preparedness, and for regional counternarcotics efforts. The United States 

engages the Argentine Armed Forces through commercial and foreign military sales. 

156 

Some exchange of students between our militaries also continues, including through 

the International Military Educational and Training program. 

Question. The intelligence relationship between Argentina and the U.S. is important. The Tri-Border region between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay contains a 

large illicit trade and trafficking zone where foreign operators like Hezbollah are 

able to sell counterfeit goods, launder money, and raise funds for Shia groups and 

Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. 

♦ If confirmed, will you pledge to focus on the Tri-Border area and work to commit 

the U.S. to monitor Islamic influence and activities in the Southern Cone and 

work with Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil on this matter? 

Answer. The Tri-Border area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay remains an 

important regional nexus of arms, narcotics, and human smuggling, counterfeiting, 

pirated goods, and money laundering—all potential funding sources for terrorist 

organizations. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we continue to monitor this 

region closely and maintain close communication with this committee on this issue. 

Ideological sympathizers in South America and the Caribbean continue to provide 

financial support to terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia. If confirmed, I will work with my U.S. Government colleagues and the Government of 

Argentina to expose and combat such activity. I will urge Argentine officials to 

improve domestic law enforcement and regulatory coordination, and to establish and 

enforce appropriate laws and regulations to curtail money laundering. I will emphasize to Argentina the importance of working with its neighbors, Brazil and Paraguay, as well as others in the region to adopt complementary measures. 

If confirmed, I will make heightened cooperation a priority. 

Question. In January 2013, President Fernandez de Kirchner announced a memorandum of understanding with Iran to create a so-called ‘‘truth commission’’ to reinvestigate the 1994 terrorist attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association 

(AMIA). 

The MOU is a reversal of years of work and exhaustive reporting on the AMIA 

attack by Special Prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who has concluded that the attack 

was approved by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior officials in the Iranian 

Government. 

♦ (a) What is the U.S. Government’s assessment of the work of Special Prosecutor 

Nisman? 

♦ (b) Are you familiar with his 2006 and 2013 reports? 

♦ (c) What are the administration’s views on this so-called ‘‘truth commission?’’ 

Answer. The U.S. position on the AMIA bombing is clear and consistent. For 20 

years, the United States and the international community have joined the Argentine 

Government and victims of this horrific terrorist attack in demanding justice. I am 

familiar with Special Prosecutor Alberto Nisman’s findings, and I understand that 

our Embassy personnel have met with him on a number of occasions to discuss 

them. 

The Obama administration is highly skeptical that a solution can be found to the 

AMIA case through the January 2013 Argentina-Iran agreement, which includes the 

establishment of a truth commission. Jewish groups in Argentina share that perspective, and they have expressed concern that Argentina’s cooperation with Iran 

will only cause further delays. In recent months, the Argentine Government itself 

has acknowledged a lack of progress, though it remains committed to the agreement. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that the U.S. Government continues to support the 

AMIA investigation so that nearly two decades after the bombing in Buenos Aires 

killed 85 people and wounded 300, the perpetrators might finally be held accountable. I take this issue extremely seriously, and I will do all I can to help bring justice to the victims and their families. 

Question. Argentina is a Tier 2 country for sex and labor trafficking according to 

the 2013 Trafficking in Persons report. Argentine women and children from the 

rural areas are often subjected to trafficking in the urban centers. 

♦ (a) If confirmed, how will you engage with the government on the issue of trafficking? 

♦ (b) What specific steps should the Argentine Government take to prevent the 

trafficking of rural citizens to urban centers? 

Answer. As the Government of Argentina itself has recognized, far too many men, 

women, and children in Argentina are subjected to sex trafficking, forced labor in 

sweatshops and homes, and forced prostitution in cities. In spite of progress made 

157 

by the Government of Argentina in the fight against trafficking in persons during 

the past year, serious challenges remain. 

Notable recent accomplishments include passage of a federal antitrafficking law, 

the conviction of 17 trafficking offenders in 2012, and law enforcement efforts to 

arrest trafficking suspects and rescue victims. 

This has been an area of constructive bilateral engagement in recent years. The 

U.S. Government provided advanced training to national and provincial authorities, 

facilitated by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, to combat trafficking in persons. We have also provided material support to NGOs engaged in 

strengthening the protection and rights of victims of trafficking. 

Argentina remains a Tier 2 country on the U.S. Government’s annual Trafficking 

in Persons report. If confirmed, I will support the Government of Argentina in its 

efforts to strengthen its antitrafficking regime, including prevention activities, 

victim services, and the conviction of criminals who profit from this destructive 

activity. 

(159) 

NOMINATIONS OF MATTHEW TUELLER, 

DOUGLAS SILLIMAN, MARK GILBERT, AND 

JOSEPH WESTPHAL 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Matthew Tueller, of Utah, to be Ambassador of the Republic of 

Yemen 

Douglas Alan Silliman, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the State of 

Kuwait 

Mark Gilbert, of Florida, to be Ambassador to New Zealand and to 

serve concurrently as Ambassador to Samoa 

Joseph William Westphal, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine presiding. 

Present: Senators Kaine, Risch, and Barrasso. 

Also present: Senator Susan M. Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator KAINE. This meeting of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is called to order. I want to thank all 

who are attending on this day, when both the Federal Government 

and the Senate are shut down. But this is an important hearing 

and I am glad we were able to hold it, and I especially appreciate 

my ranking member, Senator Risch’s, willingness to do this hearing 

today. 

The hearing is about ambassadorial nominees to four critical allies and partners of the United States: Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, 

Yemen, and Kuwait. Some of the nominees have waited for a bit 

and so we wanted to make sure that we could do this today, and 

I appreciate everyone making this happen. 

I will make a few introductory comments about each of our four 

nominees today. I will ask Senator Risch as ranking member of the 

Subcommittee on Near East, South and Central Asian Affairs to 

make opening comments as well. At that point, we are fortunate 

160 

to have with us Senator Collins of Maine, who will introduce one 

of our nominees, Secretary Westphal. 

After that introduction—and we would understand if the Senator—everybody is making moves—might need to leave at that 

point. We would certainly understand that. I will ask each of the 

nominees, beginning with Ambassador Tueller and just moving 

across the line, to make opening statements. At that point we will 

move into 7-minute rounds of questions and we may do that for a 

bit. But nevertheless, welcome to all. 

A word about each of the four nominees in no particular order. 

Dr. Westphal, welcome, nominated to be the Ambassador to Saudi 

Arabia, a very, very important partner of the United States in the 

Middle East. Dr. Westphal was appointed Under Secretary of the 

Army in 2009, has quite a bit of experience across the Federal Government both in the Department of Defense and in other agencies, 

including the EPA, as well as an extensive academic background. 

Dr. Westphal’s background as a scholar and public servant will 

come in handy, and especially his work at the DOD will be important in his position with Saudi Arabia, one of our critical military 

partners in terms of so many important issues in the Middle East. 

Dr. Westphal goes to Riyadh at a very critical time, when there 

has been some at least public strain in the narrative or friction in 

the relationship. Dr. Westphal’s skills will help us find ways where 

our countries, who are partners, but who will nevertheless have 

differences, as all partners do, find ways to communicate those differences and continue to work in partnership. Dr. Westphal, we are 

glad to have you with us today. 

Mark Gilbert is the President’s nominee to be Ambassador to 

New Zealand. I said to Mr. Gilbert, who is a friend: You are kind 

of—if they look at the lineup of countries, who does not belong 

here? Well, we have three Middle Eastern countries and New Zealand. But we are rearranging geography because it is important 

that Mark, whose nomination has been up for a while, is here 

today, and we are glad to have you and your family. 

Mark has an interesting background: a long-time business background in the financial sector for a number of companies—Goldman Sachs, currently Barclay’s, where he has done a lot of important economic development work, and with the New Zealand trade 

relationship that will come in handy. But one of the interesting 

things about Mark is he also played pro baseball for the Chicago 

White Sox and other minor league teams, and Mark is somebody 

who has been a very, very good friend and would bring a lot to 

bear. He and his family will be wonderful representatives of the 

country. 

Senator Nelson was going to be here to introduce Mark today 

and was not able to come because of the weather, but submitted 

a statement. The entire statement will be included in the record, 

but let me just read an excerpt from Senator Nelson’s statement: 

‘‘I’m very pleased to introduce to the committee an outstanding Floridian, Mr. Mark Gilbert, to be our next Ambassador to New Zealand. Mark has been a friend of mine for many years and is without a doubt a terrific candidate for this important post. Mark has 

a background in economics, having served as a director of Barclay’s 

Wealth in West Palm Beach, senior vice president of Goldman 

161 

Sachs in Miami, and senior vice president, sales manager, of 

Drexel Burnham Lambert in Boca Raton. Before his successful career in finance, Mark was a professional baseball player for several 

years, even playing in the major leagues with the Chicago White 

Sox in 1985. 

‘‘Mark’s combined skills and professional experience make him 

an excellent nominee to serve as our next U.S. Ambassador to New 

Zealand. A major trade and regional partner, New Zealand will 

continue to pay a crucial role in U.S. efforts. 

‘‘I am so pleased that the President has recognized Mark and 

named him to this important post and I look forward to supporting 

his speedy confirmation by the full Senate.’’ 

The entire statement will be included in the record, but I wanted 

you to know that Senator Nelson thinks so highly of the nomination. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON

INTRODUCING NOMINEE MARK GILBERT

I am very pleased to introduce to the committee an outstanding Floridian—Mr. 

Mark Gilbert—to be our next Ambassador to New Zealand. 

Mark has been a friend of mine for many years and is, without a doubt, a terrific 

candidate for this important post. 

Mark has a background in economics—having served as a director at Barclays 

Wealth in West Palm Beach; senior vice president of Goldman Sachs in Miami; and 

the senior vice president sales manager of Drexel Burnham Lambert in Boca Raton. 

Before his successful career in finance, Mark was a professional baseball player 

for several years—even playing in the major leagues with the Chicago White Sox 

in 1985. 

Mark’s combined skills and professional experiences make him an excellent nominee to serve as our next U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand. 

A major trade and regional partner, New Zealand will continue to play a crucial 

role in U.S. rebalance efforts toward Asia. 

In addition to being a strong economic partner, helping to forge the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership Free Trade Agreement, we have a significant bilateral trade relationship—totaling $11 billion in 2011. 

And while New Zealand is currently our 56th-largest trading partner, I’m certain 

that Mark will help lower that number once he has settled in the post. 

Mark will also represent the United States to a crucial military partner. Like its 

neighbor Australia, New Zealand has fought alongside the United States time and 

again. 

New Zealand’s military commitment in Afghanistan has been vastly importantly. 

Their special forces have been deployed there since 2001, contributing to ISAF headquarters and the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. They’ve also contributed to the 

Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamyan province, strengthening security and 

stability there. 

During the last few years, I’ve been pleased to see a new chapter in our bilateral, 

defense cooperation. Joint operations in the region now include maritime security, 

counterterrorism, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief. 

New Zealand’s participation in recent, multination military exercises has greatly 

increased our interoperability throughout the pacific. 

Our continued security and economic cooperation with New Zealand will continue 

to be very important. I’m certain that as Ambassador, Mark will reinforce and build 

upon this strong and mutually beneficial relationship. 

I’m so pleased that the President has recognized Mark and named him to this 

important post, and I look forward to supporting his speedy confirmation by the full 

Senate. 

Senator KAINE. In Kuwait, the nominee we will hear from today 

is Mr. Doug Silliman of Texas, who has had a superb and an extensive record as a career Foreign Service officer. Both he and the 

next nominee, Ambassador Tueller, have served in very difficult 

162 

and challenging environments, sometimes able to take their families, sometimes not able to take their families. But they relish challenges, and Kuwait is a very important position. 

Mr. Silliman embodies a wonderful tradition within the Foreign 

Service. He speaks Arabic, French, and Turkish and he has years 

of experience in the Middle East. During a time of growing security 

tension across the Middle East and concerns over Iran and Syria, 

our close partnership with Kuwait, formed both in peace and in 

war, is more crucial than ever. 

A career diplomat like Mr. Silliman, who represents the best of 

our Foreign Service, who is just returning from a posting in Baghdad, where he was able to see what a lot of people thought would 

not be possible, the reestablishment and actually formation of very 

strong relations between Iraq and Kuwait, gives him exactly the 

kinds of experiences necessary to handle our important relationship 

with our ally in Kuwait. 

You follow in the footsteps of an illustrious predecessor, the next 

man I will introduce, Ambassador Tueller. Ambassador Tueller is 

just completing service in Kuwait and has been nominated for the 

important, challenging position of U.S. Ambassador to Yemen. Mr. 

Tueller is also a career Foreign Service officer. Actually, he had a 

career before he had a career, because he grew up as the son of 

a Foreign Service officer and served with his family originally as 

a child in Latin America. 

His career in the Foreign Service has been in both Latin America 

and in the Middle East, and he has served with distinction, most 

recently in Kuwait, and is now assuming, upon confirmation, upon 

vote of the Senate, this position in Yemen. 

Every day American diplomats risk their lives around the world 

and nowhere is that more true than Yemen, a country where political and economic normalization is in the direct security interests 

of the United States. Mr. Tueller, who most recently served in Kuwait, was previously posted in Yemen at a time in the early 2000s, 

has familiarity with the country, and brings a great deal of experience to this important task, where there is an ongoing national dialogue about the formation of a new government that might be a 

federal government—these were just announced earlier in the 

week—where there are potential issues from the U.S. security and 

counterintelligence programs to Guantanamo. All impact this mission in Yemen. 

We are pleased to have you here, and all the nominees, congratulations on your recommendations, nominations by the President, 

and we look forward to this hearing today. 

With that, I will turn the meeting over to my ranking member, 

Senator Risch, for his comments as well. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. From what 

I can tell, this must be an extremely important hearing, inasmuch 

from what I can tell everybody left in Washington, DC, is in this 

room. [Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH. Thank you for holding the hearing. Certainly 

some of these countries are real challenges. I look forward to hearVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
163 

ing the testimony of the three nominees and I suspect we will have 

some exhilarating questions after that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. I also appreciate Senator Barrasso 

for joining us today. 

Senator Collins is here, Senator from Maine, to offer a word of 

recommendation about the nominee to be Ambassador to Saudi 

Arabia, Dr. Westphal. Senator Collins, great to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN M. COLLINS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Chairman, I would expect that your two colleagues and I, because 

of the States we come from, would be able to brave this weather 

and think nothing of it. But I am particularly impressed that someone from Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, is able to be 

with us today and to preside over this hearing. So with that, I will 

begin my formal comments. 

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, I am pleased to appear 

before you today to introduce Dr. Joseph Westphal, who has been 

nominated to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia. I have known and worked with Dr. Westphal in two 

different capacities, both here in Washington, where he serves as 

Under Secretary of the Army, and back home in Maine, where he 

was Chancellor of the University of Maine System from 2006 to 

2009. 

Dr. Westphal has a reputation as a talented leader and manager 

in both the Federal and State government. His extensive experience and knowledge of national security policy are just two of the 

essential skills that he will bring to the task of strengthening our 

bilateral relationships with the Saudis during what is a turbulent, 

complicated time in the Middle East. 

Dr. Westphal’s long career in academia and public service began 

when he received his Ph.D. in political science from the University 

of Missouri and then taught for 12 years at Oklahoma State University. His career took a turn toward public policy when he went 

to work for one of our colleagues, Senator Thad Cochran, from 1995 

through 1997. He also served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the Environmental Protection Agency, before becoming an Assistant Secretary of the Army in 1998. In 2001 he served as Acting Secretary 

of the Army, responsible for organizing, training, and equipping the 

1.1 million men and women serving in that branch of our military 

services. 

Since being nominated and confirmed as Under Secretary of the 

Army in 2009, Joe has dedicated his considerable energy to keeping 

our country safe. I have worked very closely with him on several 

issues affecting military readiness and personnel and I can attest 

to his dedication to public service, his pragmatic approach to solving problems, and his unwavering commitment to our troops. 

Secretary Westphal is also a charter member of the Deputy Secretary of Defense Advisory Group, which deals with all matters related to strategy, policy, budgeting, acquisition, personnel, and 

readiness in the Department. This group also provides advice to 

the Secretary of Defense on matters related to Department activities in support of operations in the Middle East and gulf region, 

164 

and it has focused on issues related to Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, 

Yemen, Iran, and other countries in the Central Command area of 

responsibility. 

Secretary Westphal has been heavily involved in this group and 

as a result has a deep understanding of the strategic challenges 

faced by the United States in this region. 

Mr. Chairman, again thank you for this opportunity to introduce 

Dr. Joseph Westphal. I am confident that if confirmed he will carry 

out the duties of this important position with the same commitment and unique set of practical and policy skills that he has 

brought to every position that he has held in his extensive previous 

public service. 

Thank you very much, and I thank the members of this committee. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator Collins. We understand that 

you may need to depart, but we appreciate you being here today 

to offer those words on behalf of Dr. Westphal. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. We will now move into opening statements by 

our nominees. I think we will start with Ambassador Tueller and 

move across the table. Your entire written statement will be included in the record. Iwould like to ask you to make your opening 

comments to about 5 minutes. The entire written statement will be 

included. 

Ambassador Tueller, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MATTHEW TUELLER, OF UTAH, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN 

Ambassador TUELLER. Thank you. Chairman Kaine, Ranking 

Member Risch, members of the committee, let me first extend my 

personal gratitude, and I think I can speak on behalf of all my fellow nominees, for your dedication in ensuring that this hearing 

goes ahead today despite the weather conditions. 

It is an honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s 

nominee to serve as Ambassador to the Republic of Yemen. I am 

grateful to the President for his nomination and to Secretary Kerry 

for his continued trust and confidence. I am sorry that my wife 

Denise and our five children are unable to attend today’s session, 

but thank them for their continued love and support. 

I welcome the opportunity to discuss Yemen today and ask that 

my full testimony be submitted for the record. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed I will 

work to advance critical U.S. foreign policy and national security 

interests in Yemen. My top priorities will be to support the people 

of Yemen in their ongoing transition to democracy, to bolster U.S. 

security cooperation with the Yemeni Government, to foster greater 

regional and global security, and ensure the safety and security of 

U.S. citizens and embassy employees. 

The United States has a strong and growing partnership with 

Yemen. Since the November 2011 signing of Yemen’s transition 

agreement, the people of Yemen have accomplished what many 

thought impossible. Under the leadership of President Hadi, 

Yemen has embarked on a serious reform effort to better meet the 

political, economic, security, and social aspirations of its citizens. 

165 

If confirmed, I will work to promote the various reforms underpinning this transition. A successful transition will also bolster our 

domestic security as the Yemeni Government develops its capacity 

to directly counter the threat of terrorism and root out the underlying causes of violent extremism. 

President Obama underscored last May that AQAP is the most 

active organization plotting against the United States. This threat 

emanates from Yemen. The Yemeni people have borne the brunt of 

AQAP’s vicious attacks. President Hadi and the Yemeni people 

stand strongly committed to stamping out this threat to the peace 

and security of their country. If confirmed, I will work to deepen 

our two nations’ commitment to close coordination in this shared 

fight by continuing strong United States support for programs that 

develop the capability of Yemen’s security forces, counter violent 

extremism, and build the capacity of law enforcement. 

Despite Yemen’s transition accomplishments, significant humanitarian challenges remain. The gains in political and security sector 

reforms have not yet translated into large-scale improvements in 

the daily life of average Yemenis and over half of the population 

is in need of some form of humanitarian assistance. 

Yemen’s transitional government is working to address these 

issues, but the support of the international community will remain 

critical to prevent these acute needs from derailing the transition 

process. If confirmed, I will continue our efforts to address Yemen’s 

most pressing needs while assisting Yemen on its path to sustainability and self-sufficiency through economic reform and development. 

Above all, if confirmed my most important responsibility will be 

to protect our Embassy and our mission staff. We must continue 

to have a strong presence in Yemen despite the threat environment. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving 

as a Foreign Service officer for nearly 30 years now, currently as 

Ambassador to Kuwait. Growing up as the child of a Foreign Service officer, I learned early of both the privileges and responsibilities 

that come from a commitment to service to one’s country. My formative years in North Africa, Europe, and Latin America inspired a 

desire to pursue a career building ties between the United States 

and our partners around the world. My service in Baghdad, Riyadh, Cairo, among other challenging posts, has helped prepare me 

to represent our country in Yemen. 

In October 2000 after the attack on the USS COLE, I was given 

the task of opening and heading a U.S. office in Aden in support 

of the investigation. For me that was an early indicator of the 

pressing need to develop partnerships across the region so that the 

United States could meet the threat posed by violent extremists. It 

is gratifying to see how much progress has been made in this respect in our counterterrorism cooperation with the Government of 

Yemen. If confirmed, I pledge to continue this important work, furthering United States interests in Yemen and in the region. 

Again, I am honored by this nomination and greatly appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Tueller follows:] 

166 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MATTHEW H. TUELLER

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, members of the committee, it is an 

honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as Ambassador to the Republic of Yemen. I am grateful to the President for his nomination 

and to Secretary Kerry for his continued trust and confidence. If confirmed, I will 

work steadfastly to advance critical U.S. foreign policy and national security interests in Yemen. In service of those U.S. interests, my top priorities will be to support 

the people of Yemen in their ongoing transition to democracy, bolster U.S. security 

cooperation with the Yemeni Government to foster greater regional and global stability and combat the threat posed by al-Qaeda, and, of course, ensure the safety 

and security of U.S. citizens and Embassy employees. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has a strong and growing partnership with 

Yemen. Yemen, itself, is in the midst of a historic transition. Since the November 

2011 signing of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)-brokered political transition initiative, the people of Yemen have accomplished what many thought impossible. 

Under the leadership of President Hadi, Yemen has embarked on a serious reform 

effort to better meet the needs of its citizens, facilitate a democratic process, and 

participate more fully as a partner in supporting regional security. If confirmed, I 

will work to expand our broad engagement to continue promoting the various political, economic, and security sector reforms underpinning this transition, which support our U.S. foreign policy and national security interests of a stable, secure, and 

democratic Yemen. The ultimate success of Yemen’s transition will not only impact 

our interests in the region, but also our domestic security as the Yemeni Government develops its capacity to directly counter the significant threat from Al Qaeda 

in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and root out the underlying causes of violent 

extremism, in part, through a bolstered ability to meet Yemeni citizens’ economic, 

humanitarian, and political needs. 

On January 25, the people of Yemen achieved a critical milestone in their ongoing 

transition process, with the conclusion of the National Dialogue Conference. The 

dialogue marked the first time representatives from diverse segments of Yemeni 

society—including political elites, tribal elders, women, youth, civil society, former 

disenfranchised southerners, and religious minorities—met for substantive discussions about the country’s political future. This conversation represented a seachange in Yemeni politics. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that these varied 

groups continue to have a voice in the political process—particularly since it is these 

voices that call most loudly for equality, for prosperity, and for the rights of women, 

children, and other vulnerable groups. In addition to working to ensure that these 

groups have a voice in the political process, I will also work to ensure that the 

rights of women, children, and all individuals in Yemen are respected and protected. 

As Yemen works to shape its future, I will work to guarantee that the United 

States and the international community—particularly Yemen’s GCC neighbors— 

remain firmly supportive of Yemen’s efforts, despite the myriad hot-spots in the 

region. U.S. and international engagement will continue to be essential as Yemen 

moves forward with the next steps in the transition process, including constitutional 

reform, a constitutional referendum, and, ultimately, national elections, expected 

within the next year. 

A democratic, unified, and stable Yemen will also be able to participate more fully 

as a partner in supporting regional security and combating terrorism. Yemen continues to face frequent terrorist attacks by AQAP operating within its borders. 

President Obama underscored in May that AQAP is the most active organization 

plotting against the United States—and that this threat emanates from Yemen. The 

Yemeni people have borne the brunt of AQAP’s vicious attacks. The assault on the 

Ministry of Defense hospital in December 2013 underscored the deplorable tactics 

employed against civilians by this terrorist group. The Yemeni people and the international community were horrified at video footage of terrorists shooting unarmed 

patients in their beds, viciously murdering doctors and nurses, and stalking through 

hallways to kill survivors. President Hadi and the Yemeni people stand strongly 

committed to stamping out this threat to the safety of their families, the peace and 

security of their country, and the citizens of its international partners. 

If confirmed, I will work to deepen our two nations’ commitment to close coordination in this shared fight against terrorism. To this end, our assistance programs to 

Yemen seek to develop the capacity of Yemen’s security forces to conduct counterterrorism operations and to secure maritime and land borders and territorial waters. 

We also support programs to counter violent extremism in Yemen, including a focus 

on the role that civil society can play in speaking out against violence. And we are 

assisting Yemeni efforts to build the capacity of law enforcement to better respond 

to the security concerns of Yemeni communities. The United States will continue to 

167 

employ the full range of counterterrorism tools to support Yemen’s fight against 

AQAP. 

With U.S. support, President Hadi has also taken important steps toward restructuring the military and security services and to enhance the professionalism and 

capacity of Yemen’s Armed Forces. If confirmed, I will encourage the Yemeni Government to continue progress on this important aspect of the transition, which will 

strengthen Yemeni capacity to secure the country against threats and enhance regional security. I will also support international efforts to assist the Yemenis in 

countering the spread of violent extremism. The establishment of a credible, sustainable extremist rehabilitation program would be an important step for the Yemeni Government toward bolstering its counterterrorism capabilities. 

Finally, there still remains the significant challenge posed by the Guantanamo 

Bay detention facility. More than half of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo 

are Yemeni nationals. If confirmed, I will work with the administration and with 

Congress to support efforts to responsibly close the facility while protecting our U.S. 

national security interests. 

Despite Yemen’s transition accomplishments to date, significant challenges 

remain. The gains in political and security sector reform have not yet translated 

into large-scale improvements in the daily life of average Yemenis. Almost 15 million Yemenis—over half the population—are in need of some form of humanitarian 

assistance. More than 13 million do not have access to safe water and sanitation, 

10.5 million are food-insecure, and more than 1 million children do not have access 

to education. As the result of years of conflict, there are also more than 300,000 

internally displaced persons (IDPs) who are in desperate need of assistance. Largescale migration will continue to present humanitarian and security challenges. 

There are nearly a quarter million refugees and 147,500 migrants, mostly from the 

Horn of Africa, many of whom arrive destitute and in poor health. In addition, 

Yemen is now coping with the return of approximately 400,000 Yemeni laborers 

recently deported from Saudi Arabia. 

Yemen’s transitional government is working to address these issues, but the support of the international community will remain critical in the near-term to help 

meet acute needs and prevent them from overwhelming the transition process. If 

confirmed, I will continue our efforts to address Yemen’s most pressing needs to create the space for the transition to succeed, through bilateral assistance and partnership with the international community through the Friends of Yemen and the U.N. 

Humanitarian Response Plan. Focusing on the longer term, I will also work to assist 

Yemen on its path to sustainability and self-sufficiency through economic reform 

and development. 

Economic reform will be an essential underpinning of the ongoing transition’s ultimate success. Without significant structural reform and the development of a sustainable private sector, many of the Yemeni citizens’ key economic demands will not 

be met. These key reforms will include rebalancing government spending priorities, 

transitioning toward a more targeted and efficient social safety net, and increasing 

investments in long-term growth. The development of a robust private sector will 

also be critical to addressing Yemenis’ demands for jobs and economic development. 

I will steadfastly support the President and Secretary’s agenda in bolstering regional economic integration and reform. I will build on my predecessor’s successful 

efforts at expanding ties between the Yemeni and American business communities. 

I will also look for ways to maximize the benefit from Yemen’s WTO accession as 

an opportunity to boost regional economic development cooperation. Economic development and reform will not only help the Yemeni Government meet the needs of 

all Yemeni citizens, but it will also empower Yemenis to build better lives for themselves through private enterprise while developing long-term relationships with 

American and international partners across the fields of science, health, technology, 

and commerce. 

I take seriously our obligation to protect our embassies and embassy staff abroad 

and am satisfied to know that, if confirmed, I would lead an embassy with an excellent security team. We must continue to have a strong presence in Yemen, despite 

the threat environment, and remain firmly committed to our comprehensive partnership with President Hadi and the Yemeni people. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving as a Foreign 

Service officer for nearly 30 years, currently as Ambassador to Kuwait. Growing up 

as the dependent of a Foreign Service officer, I learned early of both the privileges 

and responsibilities that come from a commitment to service to one’s country. My 

formative years growing up in North Africa, Europe, and Latin America inspired a 

strong desire to pursue a career building ties between the United States and partners around the world. Service in Baghdad, Riyadh, and Cairo, among other challenging posts, has helped prepare me to represent our country in Yemen. 

168 

In October 2000 after the attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, I was given 

the task of opening and leading a U.S. Office in Aden in support of the investigation 

into the attack. For me, that was an early indicator of the pressing need to develop 

partnerships across the region so that the U.S. could meet the threat posed by violent extremists. Serving in Riyadh on September 11, 2001, highlighted for me that 

the threat to our interests and our citizens posed by terrorists was a critical foreign 

policy priority and that our ability to counter this threat would be enhanced by the 

extent to which we could engage our partners in the region in standing with us 

against the threat. It is gratifying to see how much progress has been made in this 

respect in our counterterrorism cooperation with the Government of Yemen. I am 

proud to say we enjoy a close partnership with President Hadi and the Yemeni Government, and we share a commitment to a democratic transition and regional security. If confirmed, I pledge to continue this important work in Yemen, furthering 

U.S. interests there and in the region. 

Again, I am honored by this nomination and greatly appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today. I will be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador Tueller. 

Mr. Silliman. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS ALAN SILLIMAN, OF TEXAS, 

NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF KUWAIT 

Mr. SILLIMAN. Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, I am 

honored to appear before the committee today and gratified by the 

trust that the President has placed in me by nominating me as the 

Ambassador to the State of Kuwait. I have submitted my full written testimony to the committee for the record and welcome this opportunity to say a few short words. 

I would like to start by thanking my family for their love and 

support as I have dragged them across North Africa, the Middle 

East, and South Asia over my career. My wife, Catherine, and my 

younger son, Zachary, are here with me. My older son, Benjamin, 

as the chairman knows, is at William and Mary University and 

could not be with us. I also want to thank my father, who supported me in this career from the very beginning, when others had 

some doubts whether this was the right path. 

I also want to acknowledge Ambassador Matt Tueller, sitting 

next to me at the table, for his exemplary service as the Ambassador in Kuwait over the past 21⁄2 years. I hope that I can fill his 

very large shoes. 

If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with this committee and 

with the entire Congress, and I look forward to seeing you and 

your staffs in Kuwait, and to consulting with you and your staffs 

whenever I am back in Washington. 

If confirmed, foremost among my priorities will be the safety of 

American citizens, those in the Embassy, deployed U.S. service 

members, and the many private Americans who live in and visit 

Kuwait. 

Mr. Chairman, there are few U.S. friends or allies as steadfast 

as Kuwait. This strong relationship was forged in the heat of battle 

during the first gulf war as brave Americans and Kuwaitis fought 

to liberate Kuwait from occupation. One of those Americans was 

my father-in-law, Doctor and retired Army Medical Corps Colonel, 

Ted Raia, who led a combat support hospital during the war. 

If confirmed, I will seek to deepen United States-Kuwait cooperation on defense and security. This includes continued strong American support for the defense of Kuwait, for the security of the wider 

region, and the fight against terrorism and terrorism financing. 

169 

Our U.S. military presence in Kuwait is concrete proof of our country’s commitment to these principles. 

The regional security is more than just military relations. As 

President Obama said during the visit of Emir Sheikh Zaballah to 

Washington this past September, Kuwait is one of our most important partners in the region, working together on a whole range of 

economic and social and security issues. In particular, Kuwait has 

led international assistance efforts for Syrian refugees, hosting 

United Nations humanitarian pledging conferences for Syria in 

2013 and 2014 and itself donating $500 million in assistance this 

year alone. 

United States-Kuwait economic and energy ties are strong, but 

can grow stronger. If confirmed, I will vigorously pursue opportunities for United States businesses in Kuwait and work to attract 

Kuwaiti investment into the United States. 

Kuwait has a vibrant political system with strong constitutional 

traditions. Women vote and run for office and currently serve in 

the Kuwaiti Parliament and the Cabinet. If confirmed, I will engage with Kuwaitis to explore how Kuwait might expand human 

rights and protections for vulnerable populations. 

About 60 percent of Kuwaitis are under the age of 30 and the 

United States must stay connected to this new generation, mostly 

born since the liberation of Kuwait. If confirmed, I will prioritize 

outreach to younger Kuwaitis, emphasizing the fundamental American values of education and tolerance. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, Senator Barrasso, I have 

had the privilege of serving the American people as a diplomat for 

nearly three decades. During my career, including as deputy chief 

of mission in Iraq and in Turkey, I have encouraged democracy and 

human rights, defended the homeland and my posts against terrorism, advocated for American companies, developed the professional skills of my staff, promoted entrepreneurship, and even 

sponsored the teaching of American jazz. And through it all I have 

done my best to shepherd American taxpayers’ dollars wisely. 

I am confident that I have the skills necessary to succeed as our 

next Ambassador to Kuwait and I hope that this committee and 

the full Senate concur. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to be here 

today, especially under these conditions. I would be very pleased to 

answer any questions the committee has. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Silliman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. SILLIMAN

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored to appear before this 

committee today, and gratified by the trust that President Obama and Secretary 

Kerry have shown by nominating me to serve as Ambassador to the State of 

Kuwait. If you will permit me, I would also like to thank my family for their support 

throughout my career. My wife, Catherine, and younger son, Zachary, are here with 

us today. 

I would also like to express my thanks to my friends and to the many colleagues 

across the U.S. Government with whom I have worked during my nearly 30 years 

in the Foreign Service. I particularly want to acknowledge Ambassador Matt 

Tueller, sitting here at the table with me today, for his exemplary service as the 

U.S. Ambassador in Kuwait over the past 21⁄2 years. If confirmed, I will strive to 

follow his example as I pursue U.S. national interests. I also pledge to work closely 

with this committee and others in the Congress to sustain and enhance relations 

170 

with Kuwait, and of course, we would welcome the opportunity to see you and your 

staff in Kuwait. 

There are few U.S. friends or allies in the world as steadfast as Kuwait, particularly in the strategically important and always dynamic Middle East. Of course, the 

strong foundation of this relationship was forged in the heat of battle during the 

first gulf war and in the sacrifices of the brave men and women from the U.S. military and Kuwait who fought to liberate Kuwait from occupation. If confirmed, my 

mission will be to continue to deepen and broaden the strategic U.S.-Kuwait partnership, to include not just military-to-military ties but also substantial academic, 

commercial and cultural relations. 

Foremost among my priorities will be the protection of American citizens in 

Kuwait—those working in the U.S. mission, U.S. military personnel deployed forward, and the numerous private Americans who live in, work in, or visit Kuwait. 

If confirmed, I will also seek to deepen U.S.-Kuwaiti cooperation on defense and 

security. This includes continued strong and concrete American support for the defense of Kuwait and the stability of the wider region, as evidenced by the presence 

of U.S. military personnel in Kuwait. 

Of course, regional security is not only about military-to-military relations but 

also about ensuring strong diplomatic coordination. Fortunately, the United States 

and Kuwait share a very similar outlook on regional developments. During the visit 

of Amir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah to Washington this past September, he 

reviewed with President Obama and Vice President Biden the full range of regional 

issues that affect both of our nations—including Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and efforts 

to secure Middle East peace. The two leaders agreed to continue to pursue shared 

objectives on these issues. Kuwait has also played a globally important role as a 

leading contributor to humanitarian assistance efforts for conflict victims and refugees fleeing the brutal war in Syria: in January it hosted for the second time a U.N. 

assistance conference that raised $2.6 billion in new assistance for the humanitarian 

response, including a new Kuwaiti pledge of $500 million. 

I was fortunate to observe first-hand from Baghdad the courageous steps that 

Iraq and Kuwait took to finally and fully normalize relations, and Kuwait’s rapprochement with Iraq now serves as the model for reintegrating Iraq into the immediate neighborhood, from which it was so long estranged, and the wider Arab world. 

Meanwhile, Kuwait’s financial assistance to Yemen and support for its political 

transition have been important factors in our ongoing efforts to ensure long-term 

stability throughout the region. Significantly, our two governments are also working 

to strengthen our joint efforts to fight against terrorism and terrorism financing 

throughout the region. 

Energy is another important issue in Kuwait. Kuwait holds about 7 percent of the 

world’s proven oil reserves and will remain a significant producer of hydrocarbons 

for many years to come. If confirmed, I will promote U.S. technical assistance as 

an important tool to help Kuwait protect and modernize its oil and gas infrastructure. There are also realizable opportunities to improve Kuwait’s energy efficiency 

through simple steps such as further reducing the flaring of natural gas and increasing the energy efficiency of new buildings. 

These priorities should also provide new commercial opportunities for American 

companies in Kuwait. According to the International Monetary Fund, Kuwait has 

run regular and large budget surpluses for more than a decade—including more 

than $50 billion last year. At the same time, Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund is the 

region’s oldest, controlling more than $400 billion in assets. If confirmed, I will vigorously pursue commercial opportunities for U.S. businesses in Kuwait, particularly 

in Kuwait’s rapidly expanding infrastructure and housing sectors. I will also work 

to attract more Kuwaiti investment into the United States, where Kuwait represents one of our country’s fast growing sources of incoming foreign direct investment. 

Kuwait stands out in the region for its vibrant politics and its outspoken press 

and I look forward to witnessing Kuwaiti politics first hand. The Kuwaiti Constitution remains the framework for political discussion in all its forms, and Kuwait’s 

National Assembly is an empowered legislative body with significant oversight 

authorities. Women have voted and run for office since 2006, and women currently 

sit in both the Cabinet and Parliament. If confirmed, I will continue the regular 

engagement we have long enjoyed with Kuwaiti politicians, opinion leaders and the 

full range of Kuwaitis to highlight democracy in the United States and its impact 

on civil and human rights, increased protection for vulnerable populations, improved 

labor standards and providing better economic opportunities for all. 

I will also devote my attention to Kuwait’s important youth population. With 

nearly half of the country’s population under the age of 25, many Kuwaitis coming 

of age today were not yet born when U.S. forces helped liberate their country. 

171 

Because they are growing up in a fundamentally different world than previous generations, the United States must strive to tell these Kuwaitis our story and continue 

to establish new relationships that will last far into the future. 

That is a task we can accomplish. American culture is as popular among Kuwaiti 

youth as it is elsewhere around the globe. They love to visit the United States, and 

they understand that speaking English and getting an American education teaches 

them how to connect, how to solve problems and how to be a world citizen in the 

new era of globalization. Right now, there are at least 6,500 Kuwaiti students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, with plans to expand their presence, and 

tens of thousands more Kuwaitis visit each year for tourism, medical, and business 

reasons, bringing with them billions of dollars to be injected into the U.S. economy. 

The United States uses exchange programs, English language scholarships, and 

other opportunities to engage the rising generation of Kuwaitis. If confirmed, I will 

prioritize mission engagement with younger Kuwaitis, emphasizing the fundamental 

American values of education, tolerance, and inclusion that are the backbone of U.S. 

success. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving the American 

people as a diplomat for nearly three decades. I began my career adjudicating visas 

in Haiti, where I quickly learned how fortunate we are to be American citizens. My 

time in the Middle East and South Asia taught me how compelling American values 

truly are. Throughout my career I have promoted human rights, countered terrorism, strengthened military-to-military ties and advocated on behalf of U.S. companies. Most recently, I served as the Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq during the 

withdrawal of our troops and scaling-down of our Embassy; prior to that I served 

as Deputy Chief of Mission in Turkey. In these positions I was responsible for thousands of American direct hire personnel and many more thousands of contractors 

and locally engaged staff. Through it all, I have experienced first-hand the strong 

returns of investing in people, ensuring their personal security and that of their 

families, and prioritizing career development and mission morale. I am confident 

that during these past 30 years I have acquired the skills necessary to succeed as 

a chief of mission. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today. I will 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Silliman. 

Mr. Gilbert. 

STATEMENT OF MARK GILBERT, OF FLORIDA, NOMINATED TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO NEW ZEALAND AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AS AMBASSADOR TO SAMOA 

Mr. GILBERT. Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, Senator 

Barrasso, I am honored to appear before you today as President 

Obama’s nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to New 

Zealand and to the independent state of Samoa. I am grateful to 

the President and to Secretary Kerry for their trust and confidence 

in nominating me, and I am equally grateful to receive this committee’s consideration. 

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to introduce my 

wife, Nancy, and daughter, Danielle, who are with me today, and 

also acknowledge my daughter, Elizabeth, who unfortunately because of the weather was not able to be here. They are the driving 

force behind everything that I do. 

Mr. Chairman, I can imagine no higher honor than to be asked 

to serve my country as Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. 

Connected by the Pacific Ocean, we are partners committed to expanding global trade, promoting democratic values, while pursuing 

peace and security. With almost three decades of experience in 

global finance and investment, I appreciate our enduring economic 

ties to New Zealand and the economic opportunities in Samoa and 

the Pacific region as a whole. If confirmed, I will strive to advance 

172 

our Nation’s interests, nurture those economic ties, and build on 

our growing relationships. 

The United States is one of New Zealand’s top trading partners. 

We have collaborated closely on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. If confirmed, I will work to promote an even stronger 

economic link between our countries, capitalizing on opportunities 

to not only increase U.S. investment in New Zealand, but to also 

expand New Zealand investment here at home. 

New Zealand is an active partner in the United Nations, committed to resolving conflict through negotiation. It plays a far larger role on the world stage than the country size would suggest. Its 

Armed Forces have led and participated in numerous peacekeeping 

missions around the globe and have worked side by side with our 

troops in Afghanistan. 

In 2010 our nations signed the Wellington Declaration, pledging 

increased diplomatic ties and regional cooperation. In 2012 we laid 

the foundation for the strengthened defense cooperation in the 

Washington Declaration. 

New Zealand is an integral link in the global effort against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and actively works in the 

Asia-Pacific region on counterterrorism issues as well. As an island 

nation with a culture and an economy deeply rooted in its natural 

resources, New Zealand understands the seriousness of global scientific and public policy challenges, including greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 

Fifty years ago we forged a scientific partnership with New Zealand and Antarctica. Christchurch serves as the U.S. Antarctic program’s gateway for operations, including vital environmental research at McMurdo Station and our South Pole Base. We closely 

cooperate in multilateral settings, working to provide technical assistance to Pacific Island economies in education, in energy policy, 

and the training of the local workforce. 

As the first independent country to be formed out of island territories in the Pacific, Samoa is a leader in security and economic 

stability in the Pacific region. Its commitment to free trade was enhanced by its entry to the World Trade Organization, where it has 

exhibited unique leadership in forging a stronger partnership with 

the Pacific Islands Forum. In our bilateral relationship, the Peace 

Corps has deepened our ties between Samoans and the people of 

the United States by sending volunteers for more than four decades 

to work in communities throughout Samoa. 

Its capital, Apia, is the home of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme, which cooperates with our scientists and researchers on projects like climate change and the protection of vital marine habitats and resources. 

The United States conducted the first exercise of the 2012 

Shiprider Agreement between Samoa and the U.S. Coast Guard to 

achieve sustainable fisheries and to combat illegal fishing. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been incredibly fortunate to have had a diverse and interesting career in business, community engagement, 

and professional athletics. I am humbled to be nominated to represent the United States to countries as diverse as New Zealand 

and Samoa. If confirmed, it will be my great honor to lead a strong 

team of Foreign Service, civil service, military experts, and local 

173 

staff. I also look forward to working closely with this committee 

and other Members of Congress to promote and protect the interests of the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Thank 

you for being here today, and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK GILBERT

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to 

appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the United 

States Ambassador to New Zealand and to the Independent State of Samoa. I am 

grateful to the President and to Secretary Kerry for their trust and confidence in 

nominating me, and I am equally grateful to receive this committee’s consideration. 

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to introduce my family: my wife, 

Nancy, and daughters, Danielle and Elizabeth. They are the driving force behind 

everything I do. I’m so delighted that they are here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I can imagine no higher honor than to be asked to serve my country as Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. Connected by the Pacific Ocean, we 

have partners committed to expanding global trade and promoting democratic values while pursuing peace and security. 

With almost three decades of experience in global finance and investment, I 

appreciate our enduring economic ties to New Zealand and economic opportunities 

in Samoa, and the Pacific region as a whole. If confirmed, I will strive to advance 

our nation’s interests, nurture those economic ties, and build on our growing relationships. 

Our relationship with New Zealand is stronger now than it has been in nearly 

three decades. In 2010, our nations signed the Wellington Declaration, pledging increased diplomatic ties and regional cooperation, and in 2012 laid the foundation for 

strengthened defense cooperation in the Washington Declaration. Over the past few 

years, we have initiated senior-level policy and military dialogues and resumed joint 

military training exercises. Despite being separated by thousands of miles of Pacific 

Ocean, our two countries share the values of democracy, fair economic opportunity, 

and a more open global community. We actively collaborate in advancing those 

shared values. In Wellington, we have a partner committed to expanding global 

trade and promoting democratic values while pursuing peace and security. These 

are exactly the sort of diplomatic relationships we seek to forge around the globe, 

and we will continue to expand our connections to the next generation of New Zealanders of all backgrounds to renew and strengthen our partnership. 

The United States is one of New Zealand’s top trading partners and we have collaborated closely on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. If confirmed, I will 

work to promote an even stronger economic link between our countries—capitalizing 

on opportunities not only to increase U.S. investment in New Zealand, but also to 

expand New Zealand investment here at home. 

New Zealand is an active partner in the United Nations, committed to resolving 

conflict through negotiation. It plays a far larger role on the world stage than the 

country’s size would suggest. Its armed forces have led and participated in numerous peacekeeping missions around the globe and have worked side by side with our 

troops in Afghanistan. 

New Zealand is an integral link in the global effort against the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction, and actively works in the Asia-Pacific region on counterterrorism issues as well. 

As an island nation with a culture and economy deeply rooted in its natural 

resources, New Zealand understands the seriousness of global scientific and public 

policy challenges, including greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 

Fifty years ago we forged a scientific partnership with New Zealand in Antarctica. 

Christchurch serves as the U.S. Antarctic Program’s gateway city for operations— 

conducting vital environmental research at McMurdo Station and our South Pole 

Base. 

And we closely cooperate in multilateral settings—working to provide technical 

assistance to Pacific Island economies—in education, in energy policy, and in training of the local workforce. 

As the first independent country to be formed out of island territories in the 

Pacific, Samoa is a leader in security and economic stability in the Pacific region. 

Its commitment to free trade was enhanced by its entry into the World Trade OrgaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
174 

nization, where it has exhibited unique leadership in forging a stronger partnership 

with the Pacific Islands Forum. In our bilateral relationship, the Peace Corps has 

deepened our ties between Samoans and the people of the United States by sending 

volunteers for more than four decades to work in communities throughout Samoa. 

Its capital, Apia, is the home of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme, which cooperates with our scientists and researchers on projects 

like climate change and the protection of vital marine habitats and resources. 

The United States is committed to engagement with Samoa. Last year, the U.S. 

Navy was in Samoa for 10 days, working with our Samoan and international partners through the Pacific Partnership to provide a range of assistance. And just a 

short time ago, we opened a brand new U.S. funded medical center there. We also 

work closely with Samoa in protecting important natural resources. In fiscal year 

2013, we conducted the first exercise of our 2012 Shiprider Agreement between the 

U.S. Coast Guard and Samoa to achieve sustainable management of Pacific fisheries 

resources and combat illegal fishing. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been fortunate to have had a diverse and interesting career 

in business, community engagement, and professional athletics. I am humbled to be 

nominated to represent the United States to countries as diverse as New Zealand 

and Samoa. If confirmed, it will be my great honor to lead a strong team of Foreign 

Service, civil service, military experts, and local staff. I also look forward to working 

closely with this committee and other Members of Congress to promote and protect 

the interests of the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you might have. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Gilbert. 

Secretary Westphal. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WILLIAM WESTPHAL, PH.D., OF NEW 

YORK, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM 

OF SAUDI ARABIA 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member 

Risch, Senator Risch, thank you for being here. Senator Barrasso, 

thank you for being here. It is a great honor to be here. It is somewhat humbling to sit next to Senator Collins and have her say all 

those really elegant things about me, especially since I had the temerity to ask her to do it a second time. She did it when I was 

nominated to be the Under Secretary of the Army. So I am especially grateful for her. She called me this morning and I thought 

she was in Maine, and I asked her how the weather was in Maine. 

She said: ‘‘Well, I am in Washington and it is probably the same 

as it is in Maine.’’ So I am very grateful to her, and I am very 

grateful to sit with these great three colleagues here who are before you today. 

I am honored to be the President’s nominee to be the next Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and I am also deeply 

thankful to Senator Kerry for his support and confidence that he 

has shown in my nomination. Serving as the Ambassador to Saudi 

Arabia would be a great honor and I am humbled by the opportunity to continue my career of public service. 

If confirmed, I will represent the United States and the American people to the best of my ability, advancing American political, 

security, and economic interests with a key ally in the region, and 

continue to strengthen our strategic relationship. 

I should also, Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues, introduce my 

wife, my wife of 45 years who has put up with all of these different 

positions that I have had. I feel like we have moved so many times 

I should have been in the Army. My wife, Linda, Linda Westphal, 

behind me here. We have four kids and six grandkids and I think 

175 

they are probably all tuning in right now to watch this hearing. I 

thank them for their support and their love. They are all married, 

they all have kids, and they all have jobs, which is really good. 

Most recently I have had the great honor and privilege of working to support our brave men and women in uniform as they serve 

our Nation at home and abroad. In my current position as the 

Under Secretary of the Army and its Chief Management Officer, I 

am responsible for managing one of the world’s largest organizations during a period of significant change, great budget uncertainty, and continued threats to our national security. Managing 

the globally deployed U.S. Army and the large number of our forces 

serving in the Middle East has given me a great insight into the 

complexity of this region’s strategic environment. 

This vital area is beset by change and turmoil, and it is undergoing historical transformations in its social, economic, and political development. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, the United States 

and Saudi Arabia enjoy a long and enduring partnership which, 

contrary to some press reports, continues to be strong and resilient. 

Saudi Arabia is a crucially important partner in the region with 

whom we share important interests in confronting regional challenges. 

The United States is committed to political transition in Syria, 

a new government that is representative of the Syrian people. The 

Saudi Government shares that goal. Saudi Arabia shares our commitment to ensuring that international assistance does not fail— 

does not fall into the hands of violent extremists, including groups 

connected to al-Qaeda. The Saudis have publicly endorsed the 

international efforts to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons in accordance with the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118 and the 

related OPCW Executive Council decision, while emphasizing the 

need to hold the Assad regime accountable for barbarically using 

these weapons against the Syrian people. 

The United States and Saudi Arabia both are committed to ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. We share the 

long-term goal of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. The administration has made clear 

to Saudi Arabia and to our other gulf allies that progress on the 

nuclear issue means a comprehensive solution and the ability to 

verify that Iran will not be able to produce nuclear weapons. In addition, we both recognize Iran’s destabilizing activities in support 

of the Assad regime and terrorist groups in such countries as Iraq, 

Yemen, and Lebanon. 

We continue to engage the Saudi Government on how best to 

build Egypt’s economy, while emphasizing to all parties that 

Egypt’s economic success requires stability that only will be 

achieved by inclusive democratic institutions. In Egypt, we believe 

that the Egyptian people should be represented by an inclusive 

democratically elected civilian government. 

Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, and other senior administration officials continue regular high-level discussions with Saudi 

leaders about how best to influence progress toward this objective. 

On Middle East peace, Secretary Kerry noted recently in meetings with King Abdullah that we value Saudi Arabia’s support for 

176 

continuing negotiations to achieve the administration’s goals of 

ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a permanent status 

agreement and bringing stability to region. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would conclude by 

summarizing that our longstanding friendship with Saudi Arabia 

includes a durable and critically important security and counterterrorism partnership, significant economic and commercial ties, with 

strong interest in maintaining stability of energy markets and 

prices. We are the educational hub for more than 74,000 Saudi students studying in this country, thereby increasing employment and 

development opportunities for young Saudi men and women. 

Finally, we have had a very strong and enduring military and security partnership. Our security assistance efforts to train, advise, 

and assist the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces and the Saudi Arabian 

National Guard are only two large aspects of one of our most robust foreign military sales in the world, valued at approximately 

$97 billion. 

If you confirm me to be our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, I would 

work to strengthen and sustain these important interests, but I 

would also work to promote universal rights, including religious 

freedom and the rights of women. But the first thing I would turn 

upon and I would do upon arriving in country would be to review 

our security procedures and get fully briefed on the security environment from our Embassy team, since my first priority will always be the security and protection of our citizens. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Risch, Ranking Member Risch, Senator 

Barrasso, I commit to keeping the committee and this Congress informed and engaged and seek your counsel in matters important to 

this committee and to the Congress. 

I thank you all for your service to our country and if confirmed 

I thank you for the opportunity to continue to serve. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Westphal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH WESTPHAL

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the committee, I am 

honored by President Obama’s nomination to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the 

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I also would like to thank Secretary Kerry for his support 

and the confidence he has shown in my nomination. Serving as Ambassador to 

Saudi Arabia would be a great honor and I am humbled by the opportunity to continue my career of public service. If confirmed, I will represent the United States 

and the American people to the best of my ability, advancing American political, 

security, and economic interests with a key ally in the region and continue to 

strengthen our strategic relationship. 

I have devoted my career to public service, both in government and academia. 

Most recently, I have had the great honor and privilege of working to support our 

brave men and women in uniform as they serve our Nation at home and abroad. 

In my current position as the Under Secretary of the Army and its Chief Management Officer, I am responsible for managing one of the world’s largest organizations 

during a period of significant change, great budget uncertainty and continued 

threats to our national security. Managing the globally deployed U.S. Army and the 

large number of our forces serving in the Middle East has given me insights into 

the complexity of this strategic region’s environment. This vital area is beset by 

change and turmoil, and is undergoing historical transformations in its social, economic and political development. 

As the Chief of Mission in Saudi Arabia, I will prioritize taking care of our people. 

Only 9 years ago, our consulate general in Jeddah suffered a terrorist attack in 

which five local staff members lost their lives. The safety and security of our mission, its employees and family members in Riyadh, Dhahran, and Jeddah will be 

177 

my top priority, as it is for President Obama and Secretary Kerry. I will work with 

you and my colleagues at the Department to ensure that our mission personnel have 

the correct security posture and necessary resources to do their jobs safely and effectively. To that end, the safety and security of all Americans will be my uncompromising priority. 

The United States and Saudi Arabia have a long and enduring partnership which, 

contrary to some press reports, continues to be strong and resilient. In addition to 

numerous visits by senior administration officials and members of this committee, 

the President now plans a visit in March to reinforce our broad cooperation. If confirmed, I will work across the wide set of our national priorities to advance critical 

U.S. interests through our diplomatic, security, and commercial engagements. 

Saudi Arabia is a crucially important partner in the region. We share important 

interests in confronting regional challenges, including the crisis in Syria, Iran’s 

nuclear program and regional aspirations, and providing support for democratic and 

economic development in Yemen. Saudi Arabia’s important role in the Gulf Cooperation Council and our strong desire to see the Council be ‘‘an anchor for regional stability,’’ as Secretary Hagel stated in his Manama Dialogue speech, means that if I 

am confirmed by the Senate, I will work to reinforce this important multilateral 

framework. 

We also have a critical security partnership; Saudi Arabia is our largest Foreign 

Military Sales (FMS) customer, with 338 active and open cases valued at $96.8 billion dollars, all supporting American skilled manufacturing jobs, while increasing 

interoperability between our forces for training and any potential operations. We 

saw the importance of this as our forces stood together during Operations Desert 

Shield and Desert Storm. On counterterrorism, our countries are very aware 

through tragic experience of the threat posed by al-Qaeda terrorists, and we have 

forged a critical partnership with the Saudis on this issue, which I will discuss 

further. 

Apart from political and security cooperation, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia enjoy 

robust commercial and business relationships, and I look forward to further 

strengthening trade and promoting American exports. On energy, the United States 

and Saudi Arabia share an interest in maintaining stable, reliable sources of oil and 

price stability. We also are committed to working with the Government of Saudi 

Arabia on its efforts to diversify energy sources and reduce domestic oil consumption. If confirmed, I will engage proactively in all aspects of energy policy and sustainability of mutual interest to the United States and Saudi Arabia. 

Secretary Kerry in his speech of January 24 in Davos stated, ‘‘you cannot find another country . . . not one country . . . that is as proactively engaged, that is 

partnering with so many Middle Eastern countries as constructively as we are on 

so many high stake fronts. And, I want to emphasize that last point: partnering.’’ 

I will emulate the Secretary’s active approach in strengthening our partnership with 

Saudi Arabia, engaging Saudi officials and the Saudi people to advance the policy 

objectives of the administration and the Congress. 

Earlier in this statement, I mentioned Saudi Arabia’s importance in regional politics. This is a region beset by change and great turmoil but also great opportunity. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with governmental and nongovernmental entities 

in Saudi Arabia to find constructive and collaborative means to achieve security, 

peace, economic prosperity, and the advancement of human rights. This includes 

expanding opportunities for women to participate fully in society, politics, and the 

economy. I will promote transparency, friendship, and proactive engagement in the 

relationship while working with my colleagues in the region to safeguard U.S. 

interests. 

There are many ways our mutual interests converge and I will briefly explain our 

coordination with the Saudi leadership as we advance U.S. policy priorities. 

First, the United States is committed to political transition in Syria and a new 

government that is representative of the Syrian people. The Saudi Government 

shares this goal and has contributed over a billion dollars to support Syrian civilian 

and refugee needs, while supporting nonextremist opposition groups under the political umbrella of the Syrian National Coalition. The Saudis share our commitment 

to ensuring that international assistance does not fall into the hands of violent extremists, including groups connected to al-Qaeda. We may have tactical differences 

in our approaches to Syria at times, but Saudi Arabia shares our goal of ending the 

horrible violence in Syria through a political transition to a representative government, and has exercised positive influence in Geneva as we strive to achieve common goals. Additionally, the Saudis have publically endorsed the international effort 

to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, in accordance with U.N. Security Council 

Resolution 2118 and the related OPCW Executive Council decision, while emphaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
178 

sizing the need to hold the Assad regime accountable for barbarically using these 

weapons against the Syrian people. 

Similarly, the United States and Saudi Arabia are both committed to ensuring 

that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. We share the long-term goal of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. Saudi Arabia remains as concerned as we are about Iranian activities in the region. The 

administration has made it clear to Saudi Arabia and our other gulf allies that 

progress on the nuclear issue will not lead to a decrease in U.S. concern about, or 

in action to deter and combat, Iran’s destabilizing activities, whether its support for 

the Assad regime in Syria, or its lethal aid and training of militants in Yemen and 

Bahrain. The United States and Saudi Arabia also want to counter Hezbollah’s 

attempts to undermine the Lebanese Government; we both support building up the 

capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces. 

In Egypt, we believe that the Egyptian people should be represented by an inclusive, democratically elected, civilian government. Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel 

and other senior administration officials continue regular high-level discussions with 

Saudi leaders about how best to influence progress toward this objective. In the last 

year, Saudi Arabia has provided Egypt’s interim government with over $2 billion 

in grants, deposits, and energy credits, and billions more in investments, while encouraging large contributions from other Gulf States. We continue to engage the 

Saudi Government on how best to build Egypt’s economy, while emphasizing to all 

parties that Egypt’s economic success requires stability that only will be achieved 

by inclusive democratic institutions. 

On Middle East Peace, as Secretary Kerry noted in recent meetings with King 

Abdullah, we value Saudi Arabia’s support for continuing negotiations to achieve 

the administration’s goal of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a permanent status agreement, and to bring stability to the region. We are counting on 

Saudi Arabia to help build support for our shared efforts, and to continue financial 

assistance to the Palestinian Authority. 

Saudi Arabia also has played a critical role in stabilizing, launching and promoting a successful political transition in Yemen. Saudi Arabia is the largest international assistance contributor to Yemen, and shares our important interest in combating Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and other violent extremists 

groups, while assisting efforts to provide security, support economic development, 

and address critical humanitarian challenges. 

The reemergence of violent extremism in Iraq also is a critical concern for the 

United States, and one for which we believe Saudi Arabia can play a constructive 

role. As Ambassador, I will encourage productive relationships and open dialogue 

between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, including support for Iraq’s efforts to flush the 

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) out of Anbar province—a conflict that 

has broader implications for the region. I will reinforce our message that progress 

on current problems is not gained through rehashing conflicts of the past or drawing 

sectarian lines, but by finding areas of mutual interest, and that violent extremist 

groups are a threat to us all. 

The Syrian crisis, turmoil in Iraq, transition in Yemen, and the role of al-Qaeda 

and other terrorist groups demand stronger, coordinated efforts to combat terrorism 

in the region. The Government of Saudi Arabia values our combined efforts in 

counterterrorism, and sees al-Qaeda as just as much a threat to Saudi Arabia as 

to the United States. I note that the Saudi Government actively discourages its citizens from participating in foreign conflicts, and issued a new law in early February 

that provides for long prison sentences for those who join jihadist groups in Syria 

or elsewhere. If confirmed, I will work diligently through our interagency process 

to strengthen further our counterterrorism cooperation and our overall security 

relationship. 

We have built durable and critically important security and counterterrorism ties 

with Saudi Arabia, with a range of programs that protect the citizens and institutions of both of our countries. These include coordination to stem the abuse of financial and charitable channels that fund terrorism in the region and beyond, and cooperation on combating violent extremist messages. If confirmed, I intend to work 

with the leadership of Saudi Arabia to further build our partnerships in these areas. 

As mentioned, another key priority I will work toward is growing U.S.-Saudi economic and commercial ties. Saudi Arabia is our 10th-largest trading partner; in the 

first three quarters of last year, bilateral trade with Saudi Arabia amounted to 

approximately $52 billion. I will work to expand and diversify our bilateral trade 

and help create new opportunities for American business in Saudi Arabia. 

We also have a significant interest in stable energy markets and prices. Today 

we import approximately about 1.3 million barrels per day of crude oil from Saudi 

Arabia which represents 15 percent of Saudi Arabia’s total global exports. This 

179 

makes Saudi Arabia our second-largest oil supplier, after Canada. As the world’s 

only current oil producer with significant spare production capacity, Saudi Arabia 

plays a critical global role in price stability. The price our trucking companies and 

airlines pay for fuel, and the price the American consumer pays at the pump, are 

heavily influenced by trends in global oil markets. As two of the largest oil producers in the world, the United States and Saudi Arabia have a mutual interest in 

ensuring that energy markets remain sufficiently supplied and support global economic growth. 

Shifting to education, I first observe that the quality of American educational 

institutions is well-known and highly prized among Saudis. I note that over 74,000 

students from Saudi Arabia now study in the United States. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of U.S. education in developing the skills and perceptions 

of the next generation of Saudi leaders. Students will return home with a better 

understanding of the United States and our people, and will bring back American 

ideals that can be an important influence as Saudi society develops. 

Saudi Arabia is a young country, with nearly two-thirds of the population under 

25. Saudi youth expect their leadership to adapt and respond to the whole population’s needs, including the 50 percent that’s female. I believe the Saudi leadership 

understands these challenges. King Abdullah has taken important steps, such as 

scheduling another round of municipal elections for 2015 in which women can vote 

and run as candidates, and decreeing that at least 20 percent of appointees to the 

national consultative council should be women. I look forward to monitoring these 

developments with my team. The Saudi leadership also has expanded scholarship 

opportunities, including for women, and sponsored interreligious dialogue. More 

than 40 percent of students receiving the King Abdullah Scholarship for study 

abroad are women. However, much more needs to be done to ensure expanded 

opportunities for Saudi young people, for women, and to increase citizens’ roles in 

government affairs. I look forward to working with the Saudi leadership to help 

them provide these opportunities. 

If confirmed as Ambassador, I will not shy away from topics where we disagree, 

such as promoting women’s full participation in society, supporting the rights to religious freedom and free association, or encouraging greater respect for labor rights 

and protections for the country’s foreign workers. As Ambassador, I will support 

home-grown reform efforts and will be an advocate for full respect for the basic 

rights of all citizens and residents. I will provide public support for Saudis’ rights 

to freely associate, to report corruption, wrongdoing, or abuse by public officials, and 

to petition their government for redress of grievances. We will make it clear that 

basic human rights are universal and we advocate that Saudi Arabia meet its international commitments. 

Allow me to close by noting that, although American society differs greatly from 

that of Saudi Arabia, we cannot allow our differences to prevent solid continuing 

cooperation on political, security, and economic challenges and opportunities. The 

ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are deep and historic, and serve core American interests. I look forward to strengthening these relationships while maintaining 

frank and productive dialogue for issues where our views do not fully align. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today and I welcome the opportunity to 

answer any questions you may have. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Secretary Westphal. 

We will now begin rounds of questioning. It would be our intent 

to do questions in 7-minute rounds. Because there are four of you, 

we might not get to all of you in the first round. If that happens, 

do not breathe a sigh of relief and do not feel offended because we 

will likely have second rounds because of the number of nominees 

on the panel. 

Senator RISCH. And do not leave. 

Senator KAINE. And do not waive. 

Senator RISCH. Do not leave. 

Senator KAINE. Oh, do not leave. Yes, do not leave. Do not leave. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KAINE. Especially since we have stayed here, do not 

leave. 

To begin, I will start actually. Secretary Westphal, I have some 

questions about Saudi Arabia. This is a very important partnership 

180 

and yet it is a partnership that has some challenges right now. On 

the United States side, we have concerns about the treatment of 

women, we have concerns about the funding of particular elements 

within the Syrian opposition. We have concerns about some human 

rights issues with respect to journalists or freedom of religion. 

On the Saudi Arabia side, they have expressed some concerns 

about actions that we have taken even as they have supported with 

us the role of a nonnuclear Iran. They have expressed concern 

about the degree to which we have communicated with them about 

our strategy. They were concerned about United States action in 

Egypt. They have been concerned about United States action in 

Syria. 

So it is a partnership that has been an important one, but there 

are also a number of rifts, perceived rifts in the partnership. How 

would you as Ambassador try to deal with these issues? Without 

ceding any issue important to us, even on issues where there are 

differences, how would you work to kind of get over the little friction that has been pretty obvious in the relationship in recent 

years? 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Mr. Chairman, I think, first of all, I think within 

the context of the broader strategy that we have, that the President has laid down for this region, to continue to fight the threat 

of violent extremism, counter the proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction, eliminate terrorist networks, and of course keep energy flowing, energy prices stable, important to all our economies, 

in the framework of that context all of these issues are issues of 

policy where generally speaking on the issues of strategy we agree 

on, we may disagree on tactics about some of the solutions to those 

problems. 

On the issues of human rights and religious tolerance, those are 

issues that we will need to continue to engage with the Saudi Government to ensure that they can move forward. 

I think King Abdullah has done a remarkable thing since he 

came the ruler of Saudi Arabia. He has moved this country—I will 

admit that by us it seems like a glacial pace. But he has moved 

this country toward a series of reforms. They are small in scale, 

but they are significant. I mentioned that we had 74,000 students 

studying here from Saudi Arabia on scholarship from him. There 

are almost 100,000 worldwide and I am told that about 40 percent 

of those are women. 

So there is a movement going forward to address this. But I will 

say that our relationship is robust, it is resilient, it is strong. It is 

evidenced by the multiple engagements that we have had just this 

year alone, conversations between the King and the President, the 

visit by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, a number of other leaders who have been there 

recently, visits by them. Muhammed bin Nayef is here right now, 

the Minister of Interior, engaged in very, very important conversations with us on counterterrorism and all the issues you mentioned. 

So I think that is a very strong relationship and partnership. 

They want to be partners with us. We want to be partners with 

them and we will make that relationship continue to work. If I am 

confirmed, I will do my utmost to engage very proactively, very 

181 

openly, with every element of the Saudi Government to address 

these issues that you mentioned. 

Senator KAINE. Secretary Westphal, obviously defense is a leading pillar of the relationship, as you indicated. You come into this 

nomination from the Department of Defense in your role with the 

Army. What do you intend to do to further this particular aspect 

of the relationship, the defense partnership, and what major platforms, if any, do you see Saudi Arabia potentially purchasing in the 

near future, given your background on acquisition issues? 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Senator. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think 

there are a number of things that one can do there. One of the 

most important foreign military sales pieces that we have with 

Saudi Arabia and we have had for a number of years is the training mission. We train their defense forces and we train their national guard. That is a huge, huge undertaking by us because it 

means that we can calibrate the way in which their professionalism, their military, and their security forces can really become more professional and do the jobs that sustain the ability of 

Saudi Arabia to transform itself into a more open society. 

I think we need to fortify that. We need to pay more attention 

to that and engage more deeply with them in how to do that. They 

are looking to do more work on fortifying their facilities, their energy facilities. They are looking to grow, to your question on what 

foreign military sales could be in the future, they are really looking 

to build, strengthen their navy, build a coast guard. 

Those are all areas where we are going to compete with other 

foreign countries. We must be energized. We must work with our 

defense industry. We must work to build support from them to look 

our way, because we think we have the best in the world in all 

these categories. 

Senator KAINE. Last question. Since the Eisenhower administration we have had a partnership with Saudi Arabia very heavily focused on petroleum. There has been some speculation that the 

great developments in the United States domestically produced energy just by themselves really could cause a significant change in 

the relationship with Saudi Arabia. Do you see the growing U.S. 

energy economy as a big game-changer in the relationship with 

Saudi Arabia or is that maybe overplayed a bit? 

Dr. WESTPHAL. I do not see it as a big game-changer, under the 

following conditions. First of all, I think, wisely, the King and the 

Government of Saudi Arabia do see that they need to diversify 

their economic portfolio, that they are consuming too much of their 

own product. So it is very incumbent on us to help them transition 

to other forms of energy, whether it’s solar, wind, and nuclear. 

Nuclear is going to be the next step and we have got lots of opportunities there to help them generate nuclear in a peaceful way 

to sustain their economy. 

That being said, world energy prices are what could become the 

worst problem for us. So we have to be very careful in working 

with them to continue to make sure that the markets are open and 

that they can freely export their oil to keep prices level, because 

for us domestically as we improve our domestic production it is the 

increase in prices that could affect us negatively. So if I am confirmed that is what I would engage in very seriously. 

182 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Westphal—first of all, to all four of you: Thank you for your 

service to America. I think probably one of the most underappreciated functions of the Federal Government is what you people in 

the State Department do in representing Americans all over the 

world. 

Mr. Westphal, I am going to be critical here for a second. I want 

to say this in the kindest and gentlest way. I read your testimony 

very carefully and I have got to tell you I am disappointed in not 

addressing really what I think are some serious, serious fractures 

in the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. 

There is no doubt that your description is a great description of 

what traditionally our relationship has been with Saudi Arabia. 

They have been a great partner, they have been a great friend. We 

have pulled the wagon together. We have serious differences with 

them and have had over the years over issues, particularly women’s rights issues, and they have tolerated us nudging them in the 

direction we think that they ought to go. 

They have become angry with us over the last 6 to 12 months, 

and particularly with this arrangement that the administration has 

chosen to enter into with Iran. I know you are well aware of it. I 

am sure you have read all the things that have come out of Saudi 

Arabia. They have taken action which is adverse to the United 

States. They make no bones about it. They were very public about 

it. 

I was hoping you would address that a bit more. We all hope 

that the agreement that was put on the table as far as Iran is concerned will work, that the people in Iran will change their ways, 

that they will slap themselves on the forehead and say: Gee, we 

have been bad actors over the years, but we are going to change 

our ways. To be honest with you, I do not think that is going to 

happen. I have been very critical of it. Other members of this body 

have been critical of it. The Saudis have been as critical as we 

have, if not more so. As I said, they have taken actions that are 

adverse to us. 

How are you going to handle that? Let us assume for a moment 

that the administration is wrong, Iran does not change its ways, 

that it is the same old same old, that they use us in order to take 

the time to further develop their nuclear ambitions. I do not think 

we will ever get the genie back in the bottle again as far as the 

sanctions are concerned. I hope we do, but I think that is going to 

be very difficult. 

What is going to happen? What are you going to say when you 

have to walk up to the palace and talk to the King and tell him, 

well, this has not worked out? How are you going to handle that? 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, Senator, I think that is going to evolve from 

our decision that what the Iranians are doing is not verifiable, they 

are not committing to the terms of any agreement that we may 

have with them in the near future, that they are simply not abiding by the terms. And the Secretary of State and the President, of 

course, will make that decision to take a different route. 

183 

I think the evidence that the Saudis would like to see this whole 

situation be, the tension be reduced, is marked by their participation in the London 11, by their participation in Geneva. They agree 

with us that Iran should not, cannot have a nuclear weapon. So I 

think we agree on the terms. We agree on the conditions. We agree 

on the end result. The question is will the terms of any agreement 

be verifiable, and that is something that we have to wait to see 

what the administration finds on that. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Westphal, I agree with you that we are, I 

think, in full sync with them as far as the objective. The Saudis 

really, really do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon. 

They agree with us on that objective. 

I think that they were badly offended by, first of all, the process 

and the way they were kept in the loop, or lack of being kept in 

the loop; and secondly was the finality of where we wound up in 

this first step of trusting them to do something and giving them 

something before they performed, as opposed to reversing that. For 

the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would do that 

when you are dealing with the Iranians. But the administration did 

it. 

So you have got your work cut out for you there. You have been 

around long enough that I know that you know that there are serious problems here, and it is going to take substantially more work 

than it has taken in the past, because, again, this relationship is 

drifting in the wrong direction. I hope you are the right guy to 

bring it back. Certainly the President needs to work on that. The 

Saudis are critical partners in the region. 

Thank you for your service and thank you for your willingness 

to do that. 

Dr. WESTPHAL. May I? 

Senator RISCH. Certainly, please. 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Senator, I agree with what you said. And I also 

want to say, and I said this at the end of my remarks and I mean 

this very sincerely, we are a representative democracy, so we ourselves are having a large and broad debate on this issue openly and 

in a very clear fashion. So I do believe that you play a role. I do 

intend to be very connected to this committee and to the Congress 

to understand what your sensibilities are on this, and translate 

that to the Saudi Government. 

But in addition to that, I would say that the relationships, like 

any good relationship, you are going to have disagreements, you 

are going to have issues where perhaps we did not consult them 

early enough, perhaps we did not engage with them in this way 

and that way. But we are very transparent in our conversations 

with them. Everything that I have been briefed about and come to 

know at this point in time—I have not been in these conversations, 

so I cannot tell you exactly what has transpired. But I am confident that from the President on down we are deeply and very seriously and very openly and very, very clear about our direction 

and our policies with them. 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Tueller, on a personal note, will you be taking your family to Yemen, your wife and your five children? 

184 

Ambassador TUELLER. Senator, at the moment we do not have 

accompanied status in Yemen. So employees are there without families. 

Senator RISCH. I appreciate that. It is probably wise under the 

circumstances on the ground. You have your work cut out for you. 

Mr. Gilbert, I am almost out of time. But Mr. Gilbert, I have 

gone all through this, all through the papers you have given me, 

and somehow you missed it. We do not seem to have your lifetime 

batting average here with the Cubs and with the Reds and the 

White Sox. So maybe if you could submit that for the record it 

would be helpful as we move forward on your confirmation. 

Mr. GILBERT. Of course, sir. I could tell you now that in the 

major leagues it was .273. My career average for 8 years playing 

was .284. 

Senator RISCH. Respectable. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. My time is up, and you are going to 

have to excuse me. 

Senator KAINE. Yes, thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up, Mr. Chairman, on some of your comments as well as Senator Risch’s just about the important relationship and partnership with Saudi Arabia, and talk about things that 

are happening there, because it is key to the stability of the region. 

The relationship between our two countries has been strained. In 

the past, I think as you have said, Mr. Westphal, perhaps we did 

not consult them early enough on things. 

I look at this and say King Abdullah’s going to be 90 years old 

this year. At the end of the King’s reign, it is anticipated there is 

going to be a leadership change to the next generation. So in trying 

to get ahead of this, in trying to consult them early enough, can 

you talk about what individuals in the line of succession to the 

King are there, how that next King is going to be selected, and how 

this may play a role as we look to the future? 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, what I know, given my limited insight into 

the inner workings of the royal family, is that there is a crown 

prince and he is the successor to the King. Apart from that, that 

is how we are operating. I think as a government we expect that 

to be the case, and from that will emanate other changes as he 

takes over at some eventual point in time. 

King Abdullah to my knowledge is very engaged, even at his age. 

He is about to receive a visit from our President. I think this is an 

important meeting. I think that the King is very much aware of all 

of the issues that are taking place. So we are operating with that 

government, with that crown prince, and with those ministries as 

they are today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, the reason I ask is that former Ambassador James Smith, who was our Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 

2009 to 2013, he warned that Saudi Arabia may become, as he 

said, a kingdom of different heads and a decentralized monarchy, 

he said, consisting of multiple fiefdoms. That is what makes me 

concerned. 

So I am just wondering, in your analysis of this division of the 

various ministries and the possibility of decentralization, how do 

185 

we deal with that, because it is entirely possible that that would 

happen on your watch. 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Senator, I do know he said that, but I have not 

seen any evidence of that in anything that I have read or anything 

that I have seen from anybody else. So I am loath to speak to that 

because I am assuming that they have a succession plan that right 

now is what it is. If I am confirmed as the Ambassador, I will certainly be very focused on making sure that we are very well connected within all of the ministries and all of the agencies of that 

government, that we are engaged with what we perceive will be future leadership. 

I think people do that when they come to this country. They look 

at who the future leaders of this you will be and engage with them. 

I think that is incumbent for me to do that. 

I appreciate your question. Just I believe that responsibly we 

must deal with the government that we are dealing with today. 

Senator BARRASSO. I have been to the region a couple times in 

the last 3 months. Last year Saudi Arabia was elected to a 2-year 

term as a rotating temporary member of the United Nations Security Council. They then announced that they were rejecting the Security Council seat just this past October, after months of actually 

engaging in the lobbying. As a founding member of the U.N., the 

Kingdom declared it would renounce the Security Council seat. 

I just wonder if you could have a little discussion about what you 

thought the reasons were that they declined the seat in the United 

Nations Security Council, and then how they view their role with 

the international community? 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Senator, a good question. I think part of this is 

going to be my own sort of personal view of this. I think that as 

they looked at the situation in Syria and in other parts of the world 

becoming much more critical, a seat, a permanent seat—excuse 

me—a seat in the Security Council for them would not have been 

a permanent seat, so they would have to be involved in casting 

votes for which they would have no ability to follow through on in 

the future. 

In turn, they took a seat in the U.N. Human Rights Commission. 

I think that is an important, really important seat for them and 

for us for them to hold that seat. I think that means that they are 

looking, and they have made some very positive statements about 

addressing human rights issues. It helps us, I think, to move that 

agenda forward, not just in Saudi Arabia, but with them throughout the world. 

Senator BARRASSO. What do you believe is the greatest threat to 

Saudi Arabian national security today? 

Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, I think certainly terrorism. They are doing 

a great deal. We are working very closely with them to stop the 

movement of their citizens into Syria and into Iraq and other parts, 

into Yemen. They are looking very hard at rehabilitating people 

who come back from those wars. 

But the spillover of terrorist activities into Saudi Arabia is always a great danger that they are concerned with. So one of our 

strongest elements of our relationship with them is counterterrorism. We do not have as strong a relationship with almost any 

other country in the gulf region than with them on this matter. We 

186 

certainly have one very strong in the Middle East with Israel and 

other countries, but with this particular threat we have a great relationship with them. We exchange a great deal of information. 

Again, the Minister was here. He was engaged in conversations 

with our government on these matters. They have done a lot to 

curb the flow of money into Syria and into Iraq. They have the 

banking rules that limit some of that. They are a little bit more advanced, I think, than other gulf countries in prohibiting and limiting and regulating that. We are working closely with them. 

So I think we have all the tools with them to engage in what is 

their biggest threat, but it is also our biggest threat. It is certainly 

in our national interest to ensure that that counterterrorism piece 

is strong and viable and supported. 

Senator BARRASSO. I think it was interesting, Reuters reported 

just a couple days ago a decree by King Abdullah imposing prison 

terms of from 3 to 20 years on Saudis who go abroad to fight, and 

the concerns there. So it is interesting. I think there is a significant 

impact of the conflict in Syria and how it is impacting the security 

in Saudi Arabia. So we will see what happens in terms of shifts in 

the future. 

I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

We will move to a second round of questions. In this and any 

subsequent rounds if necessary, we will move with 5 minutes. 

Secretary Westphal, one last item. Senator Durbin had hoped to 

ask some questions, if here, concerning human rights issues, imprisonment of activists, journalists, folks persecuted under concerns 

around religious freedom. We are going to keep the record open for 

written submission of questions until the end of the day tomorrow, 

and there may be a written question submitted on that issue to you 

about how you would intend to deal with those issues. So I will just 

give you that heads up. 

Mr. Gilbert, with respect to New Zealand, New Zealand has been 

a key supporter of expanded international trade and a partner with 

the United States as we work for the Trans-Pacific Partnership 

process. Obviously, with your financial background and expertise, 

trade and commerce between New Zealand and the United States 

will be a key issue. Talk to me a little bit about what your priorities will be in advancing United States trade interests with New 

Zealand? 

Mr. GILBERT. Thank you, Senator. Next week is the next working 

group and then ministerial group meetings in Singapore regarding 

TPP. The work on TPP done by the U.S. Trade Representative, 

they are trying to get to a final agreement, a high-level, high-quality, very comprehensive agreement between the 12 nations that are 

currently negotiating on TPP. 

Our relationship with New Zealand has been a very strong one 

and has increased with trade. This is an agreement that we believe 

that will benefit not only our two countries, but all 12 countries. 

Earlier today their Trade Minister Groser was speaking to a business group, talking about the predictions for TPP. He quoted the 

Peterson Institute here. He talked about their internal numbers 

and believes that these numbers could be dramatically understated. 

187 

They signed a free trade agreement with China a few years back 

and all the projections there were greatly underestimated. As a 

matter of fact, their trade has grown 10 times faster than they believe that it would. So they have been a great partner in working 

on TPP and if TPP is concluded and if I am confirmed I look forward to working with them in helping execute the agreement. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Gilbert. 

One of the major defense policy adjustments in the last few years 

has been the President’s announcement of the rebalancing, shift, 

pivot, toward Asia. While a lot of people who are not in Asia hear 

that and they get nervous, and particularly maybe some real estate 

for the rest of the panel, New Zealand has been a strong supporter 

of this announced strategy and the reestablishment of military-tomilitary ties with New Zealand has been a real positive during the 

last few years as our bilateral working relationships are increasing. 

Talk a little bit about what you would intend to do in your role 

as Ambassador to further the growing military-to-mil cooperation 

between the United States and New Zealand? 

Mr. GILBERT. Thank you. As I mentioned in my opening statement, on the back of both the Wellington Declaration and the 

Washington Declaration we have seen both our diplomatic and our 

military relationship with New Zealand strengthen. That is something that we believe that will continue. 

Secretary Mabus was just in New Zealand at the beginning of 

this month meeting with his counterparts there. He also, while he 

was there, met with Prime Minister Key and Foreign Affairs 

McCully. We have been doing joint military exercises for the first 

time and the Royal New Zealand Frigate, the TE MANA, is serving 

with a multinational force in the Gulf of Aden and in the Indian 

Ocean on antipiracy patrols. The TE MANA also docked in Guam 

last year and it was the first time that a Royal New Zealand ship 

had docked in a United States port in many decades. 

We believe that this relationship continues to move forward. Secretary of Defense Hagel has already given prepermission for the 

Royal New Zealand Navy to dock at Pearl for the Rim of Pacific 

fleet exercises this summer. So we are seeing more exercises with 

them. We have seen the mil-to-mil relationship grow, and if confirmed I look forward to being part of keeping that momentum 

going. 

Senator KAINE. One last question. My time has expired, but 

there is no one here to stop me, so I am just going to run wild. 

There is an interesting issue about the United States and New Zealand working together to establish a marine-protected reserve in 

the Ross Sea. But that is currently opposed—that proposal is currently opposed by Russia and China. Do you have any thoughts on 

that particular item? I found that interesting. It sounds like a good 

idea to me. 

Mr. GILBERT. I believe that both countries were a little disappointed. They had dramatically reduced the size of the MPA, by 

almost 40 percent, because they thought that that was a number 

that they would do to—actually, to have Russia and the Ukraine 

sign off on the agreement. So they were disappointed, both countries, we were disappointed, New Zealand was disappointed. 

188 

We are continuing to work on that and there will be meetings 

later this fall that will continue that discussion. But it is something 

that the United States and New Zealand both believe is critically 

important. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Gilbert. 

Mr. Silliman, first I just—it is so interesting, you going from 

Baghdad to Kuwait. When we discussed this in my office recently, 

the reestablishment of fairly strong relationships between Iraq and 

Kuwait might have been something that I think I would have and 

others might have predicted would be pretty difficult. Talk a little 

bit about that effort and what that positive relationship does for 

Kuwait at this moment? 

Mr. SILLIMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is in fact one of 

the few things that I have been able to accomplish within my tenure while in the Foreign Service. I have started many projects, but 

this was one that I think we were able to begin and execute fairly 

well. 

At the end of 2011, we at the Embassy in Baghdad, Ambassador 

Tueller in the Embassy in Kuwait, and the United States Mission 

to the United Nations in New York tried to find ways to spark an 

improved relationship between Iraq and Kuwait. It was actually 

the visit of the Kuwaiti emir, Sheikh Sabah, to the Arab League 

summit in Baghdad in early 2012 that really broke this open. It 

started a chain of events that permitted us, in coordination with 

the U.N., to demarcate the border, work through claims on air 

transport and airlines going back to the 1990s, and to work 

through the last pieces of the U.N. Security Council structure that 

was meant to protect Kuwait and make sure that all of the bad effects of the war were addressed. 

We were able last June to get through the Security Council a Security Council resolution essentially closing the chapter on most of 

the parts of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. All that remains 

is Iraqi payment of some war reparations, which they have been 

doing regularly. This has opened up a Kuwaiti Embassy in Baghdad, possibly Kuwaiti consulates in other parts of the country, and 

the possibility of new trade and cooperation in the region. 

Kuwait has been in some ways a bridge between Iraq and other 

countries in the region, and one of the best results of this has been 

the resumption of air flights between Kuwait City and Baghdad 

last year. So it has been very positive for regional security. 

Senator KAINE. We have been having a number of hearings about 

the destabilizing or sort of decreasing security situation in Iraq. 

But as I gather from our discussion so far, that has not really affected the Iraq-Kuwait relationship or border issues in north Kuwait? 

Mr. SILLIMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It really has 

not had any impact on Kuwait. I think they watch nervously the 

developments in their much larger neighbors in all directions, but 

they have been very careful to maintain an excellent relationship 

with the Iraqi Government and have been consulting closely. We 

have been consulting closely with them as well, and thus far there 

has been no spillover into Kuwait, and we frankly do not expect 

any spillover into Kuwait. 

189 

Senator KAINE. It appears that domestic political unrest in Kuwait has quieted in recent months. Some of that may be economic 

in nature. Those of us working on budget issues were envious when 

we saw that Kuwait was announcing a surplus that was 40 percent 

of its GDP, a budgetary surplus. But what do you think the future 

is of political system reform in Kuwait going forward? 

Mr. SILLIMAN. Senator, that is an excellent question and this is 

a question on which there is a very lively debate in Kuwait itself. 

Kuwait already has a political system that stands out in the region. 

As I said, women are full participants in the political system. There 

is a very lively press. There is very lively participation in social 

media, although with some controls from the government that we 

wish they did not try to impose. 

I believe that it is the openness of the political system that 

makes it possible for Kuwaitis to move forward more rationally and 

calmly than many other countries that do not have such an open 

system. It is one of the great benefits of democracy that we have 

here and I think Kuwait benefits from that. 

We will continue, I will continue if confirmed, to encourage expanded freedom of expression, freedom of association and other 

ways, so that Kuwaitis themselves can have open discussions and 

decide what their political future ought to be. 

Senator KAINE. One of the issues we also frequently discuss in 

both Foreign Relations and Armed Services is sort of the growing 

sectarian nature of conflict in this region between Sunni and Shia 

Islamic populations. Yet Kuwait has been a little bit immune from 

that, and I wonder if you would talk about why? 

Mr. SILLIMAN. Certainly, Senator. Kuwait is fortunate in the region in that they do not have the same social or economic differences tied to sect or religion that other countries in the region 

do. About 30 percent of the Kuwaiti population is Shia. It is a minority, but it is very well integrated socially and economically. Kuwait Shia to my understanding do not feel themselves second-class 

citizens. They participate fully in political life and in social life. So 

I think this is one of the reasons that you have not seen spillover 

from other sectarian conflicts in the region. 

Again, if confirmed we will watch this very carefully. But I think 

that the situation in Kuwait is much more optimistic, or I am more 

optimistic about the situation in Kuwait than in many other places 

in the region. 

Senator KAINE. One last question. What is the current state of 

the Kuwaiti reaction to the United States-Iran negotiations, the 

P5+1 discussions? 

Mr. SILLIMAN. An excellent question. The Kuwaiti has publicly 

welcomed the joint plan of action and said also that they hope that 

the joint plan of action leads to a permanent agreement that will 

resolve the nuclear issues of Iran, because they believe it will increase regional security in this region and other parts of the world. 

That said, they are still nervous about some of the other activities 

of Iran that we too are nervous about, support of terrorism and 

revolutionary movements elsewhere in the region and the world. 

So the Kuwaitis are not being Pollyannish when they are in 

favor of the joint plan of action. But thus far they have been supportive, and we have consulted with them closely. 

190 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Silliman. 

Ambassador Tueller, in news of the week there was news this 

week about Yemen considering or on the path to adopt a six-region 

federal structure. Based on your experience, including your earlier 

posting in Yemen, do you think this structure make sense and will 

hold? Is there lingering possibility that southerners will not see 

this as a viable structure? What has been the initial kind of response to this in Yemen and what are your thoughts about it? 

Ambassador TUELLER. Senator, that is an important step that 

has taken place in this continuing process that began with the 

GCC initiative. The national dialogue brought together representatives from political elites, from different regions of the country, the 

different parties, included women, representatives of broad swaths 

of society, including of course southerners. In the process of the national dialogue, of course these issues were discussed. There were 

recommendations made. 

It is clear that there is still a need for further discussion on this. 

But the national dialogue concluded quite recently, January 25. 

The next phase of the process called for a study and the recommendations for a federal system, devolution of power from the 

center. So the recommendations that have come out for a six-region 

federal system are consistent with the national dialogue process. 

The issues are still very much alive. We expect that President 

Hadi is going to have to continue to exercise the type of leadership 

that he has over the course of this process as the country moves 

to the next phases of drafting the constitution, having a referendum to approve the constitution. I expect that there will be 

challenges and we will have to be continuously engaged along with 

other partners to ensure that the process is not derailed or spoiled 

by those who would like to oppose it. 

Senator KAINE. Just on that point, there has been an ongoing 

Houthi rebellion in a portion of Yemen and that rebellion has received, revolt has received support from Iran and has been a serious threat to security in Yemen. Is the political process as it is 

working sort of responding to grievances and dampening them, or 

is there likely to be an effort by this revolt to unwind or attack the 

political process that is ongoing? 

Ambassador TUELLER. Senator, first on the question of the 

Houthi rebellion. There are legitimate grievances. The Houthis participated in the national dialogue, so that was a positive step. 

Nonetheless, the conflict continues. 

As you mention, there is strong evidence that Iran has been providing support to the elements of the Houthi rebellion, including 

last year Yemen seized a dhow with weapons, referred the case to 

the U.N., and the U.N. concluded that Iran was likely behind the 

shipment of weapons to the Houthis. 

We and Yemen share a strong interest in preventing Iran from 

meddling in and exerting its influence inside Yemen. So if confirmed one of my major efforts will be to assist the Yemeni Government both in addressing on the political, social, and economic level 

grievances that will allow the rebellion to be fought back, but also 

in preventing Iran from exploiting those tensions inside Yemen. 

Senator KAINE. You testified a bit about AQAP and how it has 

been such a significant challenge. One of the issues really raised 

191 

as you dig into this is the success of counterterrorism in one country can create problems in a neighbor. So much of the AQAP membership has been Saudi natives who, because of Saudi efforts to 

crack down on terrorism, have found it easier to move across borders into Yemen and created problems in Yemen. 

Talk a little bit about the current status of the Yemen-Saudi security cooperation in dealing with AQAP and what the United 

States is doing to try to help facilitate that? 

Ambassador TUELLER. Senator, you have touched exactly on the 

issue behind AQAP’s growth. It of course was formed in 2009 as 

a result of the unification, putting one banner over both the alQaeda elements in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, with Yemen providing, because of ungoverned spaces and weak central government 

authority, the opportunity for elements of Saudi Arabia to take root 

inside Yemen. 

The question of how we combat that, of course, really goes to creating conditions where the Government in Yemen can begin to 

exert control in those ungoverned spaces, that it can begin to 

counter extremism, and that it can, with our assistance and the assistance of others, have the type of law enforcement security services that can counter the threat posed by terrorists. 

Saudi Arabia has actually played a very, very constructive role 

in Yemen. It played a very important part in bringing about the 

GCC initiative that brought the country back from the brink of 

civil war. So we believe also that continued involvement with Saudi 

Arabia as a partner in addressing the issues in Yemen is going to 

be important to the success of our efforts there. 

Senator KAINE. In the aftermath of the horrific bombing of the 

hospital in Yemen in December, AQAP took the unusual step of 

apologizing and saying they had made a mistake and that there 

was sort of a really just acknowledging that they had done wrong. 

Has the horrific nature of that particular crime weakened any attachment or support that they would receive from elements within 

the Yemeni population? 

Ambassador TUELLER. Sir, again and again the primary victims 

of AQAP have been Yemenis. They have attacked Yemeni civilians, 

Yemeni infrastructure. The attack on the hospital and I believe the 

statement that you are referring to afterward is indicative of the 

type of challenge we face in countering their propaganda efforts. To 

carry out that sort of vicious attack and then come out afterward 

and try to apologize, while that may have some appeal to some people, I believe that we will be able to counter that and, with the help 

of the government that is engaged in the fight with us, to make 

sure that that extremist message, the lies they tell, do not take 

hold amongst the Yemeni people. 

Senator KAINE. Talk a little bit about the security challenge for 

your personnel in Yemen. I think Senator Risch’s question to you 

about would your family be attending was getting at that issue. 

Yemen might be one of the most challenging assignments in the 

United States Foreign Service because of security. I understand all 

the employees of the Embassy, U.S. employees, live in a single 

building that is a converted hotel. If you would just talk a bit about 

the security challenges and how you will tackle them when you are 

there. 

192 

Ambassador TUELLER. Yes, Senator. It is something that, it is a 

dynamic situation, one that I believe we constantly have to evaluate, look and see what the nature of the threat is, what are effective countermeasures, what is the nature of the footprint on the 

ground, are we doing everything possible. 

Senator, if confirmed I will spend every morning and every 

evening giving serious thought to whether we are doing the things 

in Yemen that make sense, that we have got the right mix of people there, that we are taking all the appropriate countermeasures. 

I am confident with the experience that we have gained and continue to gain that we are putting in place best practices to protect 

our facilities and our people. But I am not going to rest for one moment and feel complacent about the steps in place and will be constantly evaluating whether we are doing the right thing. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Ambassador, I was struck when we talked 

privately, based on your experiences in being in Yemen earlier, but 

you pointed out that in the Arab world, in this part of the world, 

Yemen is the poorest country. So in terms of resources to deal with 

the challenges, from a physical resource standpoint, they are very, 

very stressed. And yet you really seem to convey that, given the 

level of resources they have, there are reasons for optimism about 

how they are handling the challenges that they face, with AQAP 

notwithstanding. Have I fairly characterized your thoughts? 

Ambassador TUELLER. Yes, Senator, I do feel optimistic about 

that. I think the level of economic assistance that we are providing 

is enabling the Yemeni Government to begin to improve its ability 

to deliver services, to exert its influence into ungoverned areas, to 

create jobs, to foster private enterprise. Frankly, there are a number of other very committed partners also, including Saudi Arabia 

and other GCC countries. 

So if together we can move that, there is great potential for 

Yemen to move from where it is now or has been over the past decades to a country, particularly as we see the political process begin 

to allow a government to function properly and be responsive to the 

needs of its citizens. I am optimistic about where that is headed. 

Senator KAINE. A last question. In the National Defense Authorizing Act that we passed at the end of 2013, the language that was 

hammered out between the House and the Senate with respect to 

Guantanamo opened up the prospect for more transfers of Guantanamo detainees back to countries of origin, with sort of two components: transfers to countries of origin, transfers to the United 

States for trial in Article 3 courts. 

We did not change the fundamental law with respect to the Article 3 courts, but we did open up more prospects for transfers back 

to countries of origin. A huge number of the remaining detainees, 

a sizeable percentage of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo, 

are Yemenis. Talk a little bit about, with greater congressional authority for such transfers, talk a bit about the important goal of returning to Yemen those who have been cleared for return at this 

point? 

Ambassador TUELLER. Senator, the administration is very grateful for the greater flexibility that the legislation has provided the 

President, who has made clear that it is the policy of this administration to close Guantanamo. It has not been effective. It has not 

193 

served our national security interests. So that flexibility that allows the administration to look at, in the case of Yemen, a caseby-case examination of each individual detainee to determine 

whether the conditions can be met to make a transfer either to 

Yemen or to a third country. 

So we will continue to look at that process. Again, it is going to 

be a case-by-case basis, looking at the specific circumstances of 

each individual and what assurances would be required so that we 

make sure that our national security interests are taken care of before any return takes place. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador Tueller, for your testimony and to all the witnesses and all who are here in support of 

them. I am glad we were able to have this hearing today. Each of 

your countries are very, very important allies for the United States 

and it is important that we have our best representing us there. 

The record of this hearing, and especially because of the timing 

of it, will remain open until the close of business next Thursday to 

allow members to submit questions for the record, and we ask your 

prompt response to such questions as they are submitted. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF DOUGLAS ALAN SILLIMAN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. What are the vital U.S. national security interests in Kuwait? What are 

the other national security interests in Kuwait? 

Answer. Kuwait is a steadfast ally in the strategically important gulf region and 

a valued partner in promoting policies that strengthen regional security and stability, including supporting efforts to reach a just and lasting peace between Israelis 

and Palestinians, resolving the Syria crisis, including addressing the humanitarian 

needs of the Syrian people, and confronting Iran’s destabilizing policies in the 

region. Our longstanding strategic partnership includes excellent military-to-military relations; Kuwait’s proven track record as a supportive host of U.S. Army Central is critical to our ability to deter threats to our own homeland and to our allies. 

One of our highest priorities is sustaining and enhancing our security partnership, 

especially with respect to countering the threat of terrorism and violent extremism 

against the United States, U.S. personnel in the region and U.S. allies abroad. 

Kuwait, which holds the rotating Gulf Cooperation Council presidency for 2014 and 

will host the Arab League summit March 25–26, is increasingly assuming a regional 

leadership role on issues of shared importance such as the Syria humanitarian crisis 

and Iraq’s regional reintegration. Finally, Kuwait holds roughly 7 percent of the 

world’s proven oil reserves, and U.S. companies actively compete for massive contracts in Kuwait’s transportation, heath, and infrastructure sectors. 

Question. What are the three most important goals of U.S. policy in Kuwait? 

Answer. Sustaining and deepening our security partnership will continue to be 

our first priority, as it is essential to ensuring U.S. security, and the security and 

stability of the broader gulf and Middle East regions. This includes the protection 

of official U.S. personnel in Kuwait, as well as the more than 50,000 U.S. citizens 

living, working, and visiting Kuwait City; in that respect, the Government of 

Kuwait provides outstanding cooperation in both of these areas. Protecting access 

to energy resources is a second, critically important objective. Kuwait produces 

roughly 2.7 million barrels a day and exports more than 2 million barrels a day; 

it is in our mutual interest to help ensure that Kuwait remains a reliable supplier 

to global energy markets far into the future. A final objective involves strengthening 

U.S.-Kuwaiti commercial ties. Kuwait has consistently run large budget surpluses, 

and the Government of Kuwait is directing a sizeable portion of these funds into 

modernizing the country’s infrastructure and improving the Kuwaiti health and 

education sectors, opportunities for which U.S. companies can expect to be excepVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
194 

tionally competitive. At the same, the government has also increased its yearly contributions to Kuwait’s Future Generations Fund, an investment fund to which 

Kuwait contributes a percentage of annual oil revenues. If I am confirmed, I will 

work to sustain the recent increase in Kuwaiti investment in U.S. assets and companies, where Kuwait ranks as our 13th-fastest growing source of Foreign Direct 

Investment. 

Question. How does achieving these goals in Kuwait align with a broader regional 

strategy? 

Answer. Deepening our security, political, and economic partnership with Kuwait 

is a key component in advancing our regional goal of countering threats and promoting stability. As evidenced by the Kuwaiti Amir’s September 2013 visit to Washington and Secretary Kerry’s two trips to Kuwait in the last 9 months, our two 

nations work collaboratively on a range of bilateral, regional, and international 

issues of utmost importance to U.S. national security. For example, as the Gulf Cooperation Council president for 2014, Kuwait will facilitate our multilateral engagement with that entity, including on ballistic missile defense. Kuwait has also welcomed the Joint Plan of Action as an important first step toward a comprehensive 

nuclear agreement with Iran, and Kuwaiti assistance has been critical to short-term 

economic stability in Egypt. To address the dire humanitarian needs stemming from 

the ongoing violence in Syria, meanwhile, Kuwait’s Amir cohosted with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon a second-annual high level donors’ conference that 

spurred a collective $4.2 billion in new pledges of humanitarian assistance. Finally, 

I had the privilege of personally working to advance the normalization of IraqKuwait relations over the past 18 months, which greatly contributed to regional stability and continues to serve as a powerful example of the potential for Iraq’s reintegration into the immediate neighborhood, from which it has been so long 

estranged. 

RESPONSES OF MATTHEW TUELLER TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. What are the vital U.S. national security interests in Yemen? What are 

the other national security interests in Yemen? 

Answer. Our vital U.S. national security interests in Yemen center on addressing 

near-term security threats to the United States and our regional interests by supporting President Hadi and the Yemeni Government’s efforts to counter Al Qaeda 

in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and to complete an historic democratic transition. 

In supporting Yemen’s transition process, the U.S. thereby bolsters the Yemeni Government’s ability to meet its citizens’ economic, humanitarian, and political needs, 

undercutting the lure of extremist movements. 

Our objectives include: enhancing the Yemeni Government’s ability to protect its 

borders and coastlines; enabling Yemen to participate more fully as a regional security, political, and economic partner; supporting the Yemeni Government in extending control over its territory and ungoverned spaces to prevent use by terrorists and 

transnational criminals; facilitating Yemeni efforts to modernize its military and improve interoperability with U.S. and coalition forces; and, encouraging bolstered rule 

of law and human rights best practices. 

Question. What are the three most important goals of U.S. policy in Yemen? 

Answer. The three most important goals of U.S. policy in Yemen are to: (1) 

counter the threat from AQAP and other violent extremists, in partnership with 

President Hadi and the Yemeni Government; (2) support Yemen as it implements 

the political, economic, and social reforms underpinning the country’s historic transition to democracy, fostering a more stable and prosperous Yemen; and, (3) protect 

and promote U.S. citizens, personnel, and interests in Yemen. 

Question. How does achieving these goals in Yemen align with a broader regional 

strategy? 

Answer. Achieving these goals in Yemen aligns with our broader regional strategy 

by promoting peace, security and stability, enhancing economic cooperation, expanding opportunities for broader trade and investment, and supporting aspirations for 

more inclusive, responsive governance which addresses basic universal rights and 

needs. 

195 

RESPONSES OF JOSEPH WILLIAM WESTPHAL TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. What are the vital U.S. national security interests in Saudi Arabia? 

What are the other national security interests in Saudi Arabia? 

Answer. In his September 24, 2013 address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama outlined U.S. core interests in the region, which also define our vital 

interests in Saudi Arabia: 

We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we 

did in the gulf war . . . 

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world . . . 

We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. 

If confirmed, I will work to advance our defense and security partnerships, energy 

coordination, and counterterrorism relationships, which truly are critical to our 

national security. 

However, as President Obama also noted: [T]o say that these are America’s core 

interests is not to say that they are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in 

our interests to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous, 

and will continue to promote democracy and human rights and open markets, 

because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity. 

Building our commercial relationships, including increasing Saudi imports of 

American products and bolstering the success of American firms in winning Saudi 

contracts and forming successful business partnerships, will be a high Embassy priority during my tenure as Ambassador. 

Likewise, if confirmed I will prioritize engagement with Saudi Arabia on affording 

opportunities for women to participate fully in the public and economic life of the 

country, and allowing citizens basic rights, such as freedom of association and 

assembly. I will not shy away from advocacy of Saudi reforms in these areas or from 

offering support to those fighting for protection of these rights. 

Finally, the safety and security of the many American citizens in Saudi Arabia, 

both private and official, will be a first priority for me as Ambassador if confirmed. 

Question. What are the three most important goals of U.S. policy in Saudi Arabia? 

Answer. The most critical U.S. policy goals necessarily follow the U.S. core interests outlined above. We must continue to maintain our deep security partnership 

while continuing to sustain our robust Foreign Military Sales program with a current value of more than $96 billion. Building Saudi defense capabilities and maintaining our partnerships in security and counterterrorism are essential matters of 

our national security strategy. We must also work closely with Saudi leaders on 

energy matters to ensure stability in global markets, and further enhance our cooperation on counterterrorism which is a critical policy goal that I will work to advance if confirmed, in whole-of-government fashion. I further look forward to visits 

from and consultation with members of the committee to discuss our approaches to 

these issues and how best to achieve our goals. 

Question. How does achieving these goals in Saudi Arabia align with a broader 

regional strategy? 

Answer. While our bilateral partnership with Saudi Arabia remains critical in its 

own right, it also is very much a component of the broader regional strategy that 

you reference. Saudi Arabia is an influential regional actor and plays a key role in 

every major issue confronting the region, from Syria to Iran. We need Saudi coordination and assistance to deal effectively with these complex regional challenges. As 

the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) collective, grows increasingly important as a 

political, security, and economic body, we must work with Saudi Arabia, the largest 

GCC member state, to strengthen our partnerships in the region and enhance 

regional economic and military ties. We must continue regular engagement with the 

GCC states through the U.S.-GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum to develop broader 

cooperative ties with the six GCC member states, including on matters such as gulf 

security and ballistic missile defense. 

RESPONSES OF JOSEPH WILLIAM WESTPHAL TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. As you are well aware, women in Saudi Arabia are effectively treated 

as legal minors due to the country’s male guardianship system and are unable to 

do many of things that women here in the United States take for granted. In fact, 

196 

according to a recent report from the World Bank, the economic potential of Saudi 

women is the most limited in the world due to their legal status. 

In recent years however, Saudi Arabia has made several advancements in women’s rights. For example, in the upcoming Saudi election in 2015, women will, for 

the first time, be able to stand as candidates and vote in municipal elections. The 

majority of these advancements made by King Abdullah have been largely symbolic 

but I hope that they can at the very least represent a turning point for women in 

Saudi Arabia. 

♦ What will you do to engage with the Saudi Government on women’s issues and 

how will you work to advocate on behalf of women especially in light of the upcoming 2015 elections? 

Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will engage Saudi leaders on the need to 

accelerate reforms that allow women to participate fully in the political and economic life of the country and that protect women and girls from abuse or discrimination. I will express the view that Saudi Arabia will never reach its full potential 

if it does not allow half of its citizens to contribute to the country’s future and prosperity. The historic appointment of 30 women to the Kingdom’s Consultative Council 

was a positive step in this direction; however, much more needs to be done for the 

full inclusion of women in Saudi public life. As Saudi women prepare to vote and 

to run for office for the first time in the upcoming 2015 municipal council elections, 

I will closely monitor these important elections and encourage the women of Saudi 

Arabia to seize this important opportunity to participate in their country’s political 

life. I will also engage with key Saudi women leaders in business and government. 

As I engage with Saudi officials, I will be clear that the U.S. Government supports 

women’s freedom of movement and all opportunities afforded to men, including the 

removal of restrictions on women in transportation, employment, and public life. 

Saudi women are working hard to change social and government views inside their 

country, noting the illogic of current policies and practices, and they have generated 

vigorous public debate within Saudi Arabia about the role of women in Saudi society—a debate the Saudi leadership has at least tacitly supported. The recent driving 

campaign is just one example of the many home-grown campaigns that Saudis of 

both genders have initiated in recent years to press for increased opportunities and 

rights for Saudi women. 

Question. Further, how do you believe the United States can best work to improve 

economic prospects for Saudi women? 

Answer. Many women in Saudi Arabia have little ability to fulfill their talents 

and career and entrepreneurial ambitions because of societal and governmental 

strictures. If confirmed, I will examine ways to expand women’s opportunities by 

showcasing Saudi women entrepreneurs through the use of social media and other 

mission resources and will facilitate networking among established women entrepreneurs and those just starting out so that others can gain from those with track 

records. I will also support increasing the number of Saudi students in the U.S. I 

will promote exchanges and training opportunities, and will examine partnerships 

for Saudi female entrepreneurs and professionals with peers in the U.S. I will also 

discuss with American companies operating in Saudi Arabia how they can help increase opportunities for women and youth and pave the way for more women to 

enter the labor force. Expanded U.S. educational offerings, network-building, and 

mentoring opportunities will benefit Saudi women just like they assist professionals 

everywhere, and over time will help expand the space available to women in Saudi 

Arabia to fully contribute to their country’s success. 

RESPONSES OF MATTHEW TUELLER TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Question. The busiest liquefied natural gas import terminal in the country is in 

my home State of Massachusetts. In fact, over the last 5 years, 40 percent of all 

U.S. imports have come through Boston Harbor. Fourteen percent of the LNG 

brought into the port originates in Yemen. That figure is declining due to terrorists 

repeatedly blowing up the main gas pipeline in Yemen. 

♦ What is your assessment of the current security situation as it relates to the 

country’s oil and gas infrastructure? Do you believe Yemen is a reliable source 

of natural gas for Massachusetts consumers? 

Answer. Yemen continues to face frequent attacks by Al Qaeda in the Arabian 

Peninsula (AQAP) and other armed groups seeking to undermine the political transition. This has included attacks on the country’s oil and gas infrastructure. PresiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
197 

dent Hadi and the Yemeni Government remain committed to improving the security 

environment and to protecting—and developing—Yemen’s energy infrastructure. 

The Yemeni Government has made some progress reclaiming territory in the south 

previously under AQAP control, and is working to prevent attacks on Yemen’s oil 

infrastructure. However, AQAP and tribal militias still routinely launch small scale 

attacks, particularly in remote areas, which disrupt energy production. 

The United States supports programs to help build the capacity of Yemen’s security forces to conduct counterterrorism operations and protect the Yemeni people, 

officials, and infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Our success in this initiative will 

contribute directly to Yemen’s reliability as a provider of LNG to the people of 

Massachusetts. 

Question. The United States has not merely given military aid to Yemen since 

that country’s political transition began in 2011 we have also provided humanitarian and economic development assistance. In fact, over the previous 2 fiscal 

years, we have provided over $100 million in economic aid. Yet, much more work 

is needed to transition Yemen’s political system and economy into the 21st century, 

particularly the country’s electric grid. Yemen suffers chronic blackouts, even in the 

capital. Reliable power is a cornerstone of stability. 

♦ Is there anything we can do to improve the reliability and security of Yemen’s 

electric grid with our assistance, so that it can move further toward self-sustaining development? 

Answer. Our security strategy in Yemen includes a strong focus on increasing 

Yemeni capacity to secure the country against AQAP and other threats, which will 

in turn build Yemeni capability to protect critical infrastructure. We seek to develop 

Yemen’s security forces to conduct counterterrorism operations, extend government 

control in ungoverned spaces to prevent use by terrorists, and to secure maritime 

and land borders. 

We routinely engage with the Yemeni Government on discussions over critical 

infrastructure—particularly Yemen’s electric grid—and, in tandem with the international community, continue to support efforts to improve the reliability and safety 

of the energy grid, including through infrastructure development programs linked 

to the country’s Mutual Accountability Framework, which is critical to ensuring 

donor confidence and continued support. 

We are also working with Yemen to develop more sustainable uses of energy and 

support the establishment of ties between Yemeni and American business communities to promote sustainable development, including in the areas of renewable 

energy. 

Finally, we continue to advocate for U.S. businesses looking to work with the 

Yemeni Government to increase electricity generation capacity. 

Question. In your opinion, what should be the focus of the United States economic 

development goals in Yemen? 

Answer. The United States economic development goals in Yemen should continue 

to focus on supporting near-term development and growth as well as longer term 

macroeconomic reform to achieve stability and underpin the gains of the country’s 

ongoing transition process. In particular, our goals should include: (1) assisting the 

Yemenis in addressing economic reform priorities, which will set Yemen on a more 

sustainable path while increasing opportunities for private enterprise; (2) strengthening the capacity of the Yemeni Government, including the Mutual Accountability 

Framework (MAF) Executive Bureau, to support the country’s efforts to implement 

reform commitments; (3) encouraging other international donors to fulfill assistance 

pledges which will enable the Yemeni Government to pursue meaningful reform and 

development; and, (4) assisting the Yemeni Government in meeting the critical 

humanitarian needs of the Yemeni people to foster the stability required to serve 

as a foundation for meaningful change. 

Significant structural reform and the development of a sustainable private sector 

remain essential to addressing many of the Yemeni citizens’ key economic-focused 

demands. The Yemeni Government, however, has limited technical capacity to 

undertake sweeping institutional and economic reforms on its own. Our development goals in Yemen should focus on supporting Yemen’s transitional government 

as it works to advance much-needed economic and structural reforms, while coordinating with the international community to maximize the utility of our assistance. 

(199) 

NOMINATIONS OF DEBORAH BIRX; SUZAN 

LEVINE; MAUREEN CORMACK; AND PETER 

SELFRIDGE 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Deborah L. Birx, of Maryland, to be Ambassador at Large and Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat 

HIV/AIDS Globally 

Suzan G. LeVine, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Swiss 

Confederation, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Principality of 

Liechtenstein 

Maureen Elizabeth Cormack, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Peter A. Selfridge, of Minnesota, to be Chief of Protocol, and to 

have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Markey, Cardin, Murphy, Kaine, Corker, and 

Barrasso. 

Also Present: Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. This hearing will come to order and we welcome all of you this afternoon. Today we welcome four distinguished individuals who have been nominated for senior positions 

in our Nation’s State Department. I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member, Mr. Barrasso, as we begin our hearing 

today and I want to thank our panel for being here. 

Our first nominee is Deborah Birx, who has been nominated to 

serve as Ambassador at Large and Coordinator of United States 

Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally. Dr. Birx has 

been a renowned leader and innovator in the HIV/AIDS field for 

decades. I could go on singing Dr. Birx’s praises, but my colleague 

and fellow Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, Senator 

Cardin, is going to arrive here soon in order to graciously deliver 

200 

Dr. Birx’s introduction, so that is all that I will have to say for 

right now. 

Our second nominee is Susan LeVine. After a storied career at 

Microsoft, Ms. LeVine has been nominated by the President to be 

our Ambassador to Switzerland and the Principality of Liechtenstein. Ms. LeVine has substantial experience in the private sector, including at Microsoft, and we are fortunate to have both of 

her distinguished Senators from Washington who have also offered 

to introduce her to the Foreign Relations Committee. 

I will note at this point that there is a roll call on the Senate 

floor right now, so we are going to have an imminent arrival of several distinguished Senators in order to properly extol the virtues of 

our candidates. 

We also have before us Maureen Elizabeth Cormack, who has 

been nominated by President Obama to serve as our next Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ms. Cormack brings a wealth of 

experience at the State Department, most recently as the Principal 

Deputy Coordinator of the Department’s Bureau of International 

Information Programs. As the Deputy Coordinator, Ms. Cormack 

provided skillful leadership to our Nation’s public diplomacy communications operation. 

Since she began her career at the State Department in 1989, Ms. 

Cormack has demonstrated exemplary service both at home and 

overseas. I believe her background will enable her to bring strong 

leadership to our Foreign Service as the next Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

Last but certainly not least, we welcome Peter Selfridge, who has 

been nominated by the President to serve as the Chief of Protocol 

at the State Department. Mr. Selfridge has a long and impressive 

track record of ensuring that the highest profile Presidential trips 

go off without a hitch, no small feat. He has demonstrated this as 

the Director of Advance and Operations at the White House. That 

is precisely the sort of experience needed in our Chief of Protocol. 

As our Nation’s first contact that welcomes foreign leaders and 

diplomats to our Nation, the Chief of Protocol plays a crucial role 

in our Nation’s diplomatic operations. Put simply, our Chief of Protocol makes person to person diplomacy possible. 

Mr. Selfridge began his career right here in the United States 

Senate as a staff assistant and legislative correspondent in the office of Senator Tom Harkin, and we are glad to welcome him back 

today as we consider his nomination to this position. Unlike many 

Senators, he has made his way to the White House. So we congratulate you on that. 

With that, I would like to stop and actually begin to allow our 

witnesses to testify. As the Senators arrive, I am going to interrupt 

at that point so that each of the Senators can make their welcoming comments as well. So why do we not we begin with you, 

Ms. Birx. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

201 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH L. BIRX, M.D., OF MARYLAND, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE AND COORDINATOR 

OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES TO COMBAT 

HIV/AIDS GLOBALLY 

Dr. BIRX. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to meet 

with you today. Let me begin by acknowledging the much appreciated and unheralded work of this committee and many in this 

room who have persistently and effectively moved AIDS from the 

shadows to the center of our global health agenda. 

I am deeply grateful to President Obama for his continuing support and investment and in challenging us to do more, to Secretary 

Kerry for his long-term commitment to changing the course of this 

pandemic, to Secretary Clinton for the blueprint for an AIDS-free 

generation, and to President Bush for creating PEPFAR. 

Let me also take a personal moment to acknowledge my parents 

here today, who taught me to live my life focused on others, and 

my daughters, age 27 and 30. I am very proud of them and grateful 

for their patience and sacrifice. 

Senator MARKEY. Could they stand for a second so we can recognize them for the fantastic work they did. 

[Parents stand.] [Applause.] 

Senator MARKEY. Beautiful. Thank you all for being here. 

Dr. BIRX. As you know, the AIDS pandemic has been devastating. Since the first cases were recognized in 1981, more than 

30 million people have died of HIV and more than 30 million people today live with HIV. But the AIDS story has changed dramatically over the last decade. It is no longer one of overwhelming despair. It has by sheer determination forged a different path, driven 

from the amalgamation of literally millions of untold and often heroic personal, political, and programmatic choices. Now the tide of 

this relentless pandemic is turning. 

Because of activists and analysts, scientists and religious leaders, 

parents and parliamentarians, we stand on the verge of achieving 

what many of us thought impossible just a few short years ago, the 

ends of the AIDS epidemic as we know it. 

My own 34-year professional journey, most of it in uniform in our 

Nation’s armed services, has been intertwined with the path of this 

epidemic from the beginning. My path has been marked by humility, inspiration, and discovery: humility because at Walter Reed in 

the early 1980s we were caring for young soldiers, sailors, airmen, 

and marines who were suffering and dying from a mysterious illness and we could not save them; inspiration from Africa in the 

late 1990s, when pregnant women dying of HIV/AIDS still came 

forward, were tested, and confronted stigma and discrimination, 

forsaking their own lives to save their babies from HIV, and we 

could do nothing to save them; discovery for the potential pathway 

to an effective HIV vaccine through a partnership with NIH, DOD, 

and Thailand, and discovering through PEPFAR that we have not 

only saved lives but changed the course of this epidemic. 

The United States political leadership of this global response 

have also taken risks, defying conventional wisdom, across multiple 

administrations and Congresses. This committee was instrumental 

in creating PEPFAR in 2003, which has twice been reauthorized 

with strong bipartisan support. 

202 

It only looks possible in hindsight that the whole of government 

coming together to achieve a common goal. the Department of 

State and USAID, the Departments of DOD and HHS and their 

components, as well as the Peace Corps, working together every 

day to implement PEPFAR. 

Among the lasting legacies has been the speed at which outstanding science and innovation has been translated into sound 

policy and programming at scale. Looking forward, our chance to 

realize an AIDS regeneration is within reach. We have arrived at 

a critical moment in time where we can redefine the trajectory of 

this epidemic. 

But our challenge is to remain—is maintaining our focus. If we 

begin to drift, if we lessen our aspirations or we leave our science 

behind, we will have squandered all of this investment and allowed 

the accomplishments of the last decade to unravel, with enormous 

negative consequences. 

We have arrived at an AIDS-free generation—we can arrive at 

an AIDS-free generation through PEPFAR and our vision is one 

that reflects shared responsibility, accountability, and impact. 

First, we need to follow the PEPFAR blueprint and the clear recommendations from external reviews. Second, we need to work together to achieve the vision of PEPFAR, holding each other accountable by harnessing the power of science to create new paths 

and tools, the power of scale in our programming, to continue to 

demonstrate to the sometimes-skeptical world that we are both capable of saving lives as well as changing the very face of this epidemic, the power of partnerships to create genuine synergies and 

to hold each of us accountable to our commitments, and the power 

of activism to translate our aspirations into our policies. 

Finally, we must stay focused in four key areas: scaling of effective interventions, strengthening countries’ capacities and systems, 

sharing responsibility to address the epidemic, and most important 

ensuring transparency, accountability, and oversight. 

I believe we can accomplish what was truly unthinkable just a 

few short years ago. I look forward to the opportunity of working 

with this committee as we bring this to fruition, and let me stop 

here and express my deep appreciation and take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Birx follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DEBORAH L. BIRX

Thank you Senator Markey, Senator Barrasso, Chairman Menendez, Ranking 

Member Corker and distinguished members of the committee. I am deeply honored 

to have been nominated by President Obama, with the strong support of Secretary 

Kerry, to serve as the United States Global AIDS Coordinator and to lead the global 

HIV/AIDS efforts on behalf of our Nation. It is a particular pleasure to have this 

opportunity to appear before your committee, which has so persistently and effectively moved AIDS from the shadows to the center of our global health agenda. I 

would like to applaud the members of this committee and your congressional colleagues for your unwavering bipartisan support of the U.S. President’s Emergency 

Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and for the recent passage of the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act of 2013. You are to be commended for your leadership in 

moving this legislation forward and with each reauthorization strengthening 

PEPFAR’s investment strategy and program oversight to ensure maximum impact 

on the epidemic to achieve an AIDS-free generation. 

Please know that if confirmed, I will continue to work with you and the larger 

global health community to further strengthen and accelerate our global HIV/AIDS 

efforts to ensure that our programs have an even greater impact in saving lives, 

changing the course of the HIV epidemic, and taking a major step forward in achievVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
203 

ing an AIDS-free generation. I will also ensure effective oversight, accountability, 

and enhanced transparency to you and the American people so that our investment 

of tax dollars reaps the greatest dividends. Our investments must continue to be 

smart, strategic, and impactful if we are to ultimately win the global battle against 

HIV/AIDS. 

The AIDS pandemic has devastated individuals and communities in the United 

States and around the world. Since the first cases were recognized in 1981, more 

than 30 million people have died from AIDS and millions more are now living with 

HIV, with an estimated 1.6 million deaths in the past year. Countless others have 

been affected by untold personal and economic loss. In recent years, however, the 

story of AIDS has changed dramatically. It is no longer just a story of devastation 

and despair—it is one of healing and hope. By sheer determination and millions of 

heroic personal, political, and programmatic choices, the tide of this relentless epidemic is turning. 

The U.S. global HIV/AIDS effort has both launched and anchored the largest and 

longest lasting global health collaboration in history. Working together we have 

brought about extraordinary achievements that have transformed individuals, communities, societies, and countries. Over the last decade we have seen impressive 

gains. We have reached, and in many cases exceeded, PEPFAR’s targets defined by 

the President. In FY 2013, PEPFAR directly supported 6.7 million men, women, and 

children worldwide with life-saving medicines; supported HIV testing and counseling to more than 12.8 million pregnant women; and provided antiretroviral medications to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus to 780,000 women. Last 

June, Secretary Kerry made the historic announcement that PEPFAR had achieved 

a milestone—1 million babies born HIV-free. We have supported more than 4.7 million voluntary medical male circumcision procedures in east and southern Africa. 

And PEPFAR supported 17 million people with care and support, including more 

than 5 million orphans and vulnerable children, in 2013. 

These efforts have saved millions of lives and illustrate the critical role of American leadership in global health. Within the global response to the epidemic, 

PEPFAR has served as a remarkable example of cooperation across the breadth of 

our Government and our Nation with countless partners around the globe. This success owes a great debt to the leadership of President George W. Bush and the members of his administration for creating PEPFAR. To President Obama, former Secretary of State Clinton, and Secretary of State Kerry for their deep commitment as 

outlined in the ‘‘PEPFAR Blueprint for an AIDS Free Generation’’ to further extend 

our efforts. And to the visionary leaders in this and earlier Congresses, who had 

the foresight to propose, support and guide this program in its development. We also 

owe a debt of gratitude to Ambassadors Eric Goosby and Mark Dybul for their effective stewardship of PEPFAR during the current and past administrations. And we 

are grateful as well to the pioneers who created the Leadership and Investment in 

Fighting the Epidemic (LIFE) Initiative in the Clinton administration. The U.S. 

global response to HIV has been uniquely uninterrupted, and each administration 

has contributed its own vision while maintaining the fundamentals, securing bipartisan bicameral support through each reauthorization, and reflecting the enduring 

compassion of the American people. 

My entire professional career has been focused on the AIDS epidemic, interacting 

with it from a number of different perspectives both in the United States and 

throughout the world. As a physician I have cared for patients, beginning in the 

1980s at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, before we knew a deadly virus was 

causing this horrendous disease. I made scientific contributions in understanding 

how this virus destroys the body’s defense mechanisms. 

And while leading the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research work on HIV/ 

AIDS, I was able to acquire a more thorough appreciation of the potential and limitations of groundbreaking vaccine research. As a proud Army Veteran, having risen 

to the rank of Colonel, I brought together the Navy, Army, and Air Force in a new 

model of cooperation—whose lessons I would hope to adapt in this role to ensure 

that the full U.S. Government interagency PEPFAR collaboration is enhanced. 

Finally, in my current role as the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), Division of Global HIV/AIDS, I have had the privilege of 

working with and across the full array of U.S. Government PEPFAR implementing 

agencies, where I developed a unique understanding and appreciation of the complementary roles of each. These diverse and demanding experiences have challenged 

me personally while reinforcing my confidence in our collective capacities—and my 

optimism that our chance to create an AIDS-free generation is within reach. 

Our challenge is to maintain our focus. If we begin to drift, to lessen our aspirations, or to stray from the scientific method, we will have squandered our accumulated assets and allowed the accomplishments of the last decade to unravel, with 

204 

enormous negative consequence to a great many young lives. To achieve an AIDSfree generation—we need to refocus our efforts, reenergize our partnerships, and 

reaffirm our commitments to achieving our objectives. My confidence in our eventual 

success derives from what we have seen and experienced thus far in the global 

effort. 

We have seen our many partners in clinics and communities across five continents 

persevere and prevail in their efforts to bring sound science to the service of social 

justice. 

We have seen the compassion and passion of AIDS advocates and activists at the 

forefront of the global response drawing support to the organizations, health care 

providers and community health workers who directly touch the lives of those we 

are privileged to serve. 

Within the U.S. Government efforts, we have seen in action the leadership at the 

Department of State, including the important contributions of ambassadors to the 

field, as well as the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, and USAID; the Department of Health and Human Services and its agencies, including CDC, HRSA, and 

NIH, and the Office of Global Affairs; the Department of Defense; the Peace Corps; 

the Department of Labor; and the many dedicated career staff working here and 

overseas bringing their complementary expertise and shared commitment to this 

effort. 

We have seen the increased efforts of other governments, our multilateral partners, the private sector and a wide array of community, faith-based and civil society 

organizations, including those living with HIV/AIDS join forces to create a global 

response, which brought the political will of the global community to bear at the 

front line of the epidemic. 

Together we have experienced the power of activism, to translate our aspirations 

into our policies; the power of science, to create new paths and tools where the ones 

we have in hand fall short; the power of scale in our programming, to continue to 

demonstrate to a sometimes skeptical world that we are capable of changing the 

very course of the epidemic; the power of partnerships, to create genuine synergies 

and hold each of us accountable to our commitments; and the power of our collective 

will and generosity of the American people. Together we have achieved what was 

once thought to be unachievable. 

Looking forward, our vision is to achieve an AIDS-free generation through shared 

responsibility, accountability, and impact. First we need to pursue both the agenda 

defined by the ‘‘PEPFAR Blueprint,’’ reflecting lessons learned from 10 years of 

experience in supporting countries to rapidly scale up HIV prevention, treatment, 

and care services, as well as recommendations from external reviews available to 

help guide PEPFAR’s next steps. Second, we need to work together with all our 

partners to realize our vision, holding each other accountable and continuing to 

work together as activists, scientists, policymakers, and service providers to turn 

the tide of this epidemic together. 

To realize this vision we must stay focused on four key areas. First, we need to 

use country-driven analyses to accelerate action to scale up effective interventions 

for maximum impact in saving lives. Second, we must focus on strengthening country capacities and systems for longer term accountability and sustained impact. 

Third, we need to establish innovative Country Health Partnerships that ensure 

shared responsibility of the epidemic with country and other global stakeholders, 

including more robust engagement of country governments and civil society. Finally, 

we need to ensure enhanced transparency and accountability of program objectives, 

impact, investments, and quality. 

SCALING OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

As a physician and epidemiologist, I am strongly committed to ensuring that 

country-driven analysis steers efforts to accelerate action to rapidly scale up effective interventions for maximum impact and controlling the HIV epidemic. Science, 

epidemiology, and dynamic data systems are essential. We will work with partner 

countries toward scaling up the best models for facility- and community-based service delivery that ensures that our resources go to the right people at the right time. 

We will prioritize reduction of sexual transmission by driving programs using epidemiological data and intervention effectiveness. To achieve an AIDS-free generation, 

we must analyze the epidemic country by country and tailor our approach to those 

most at-risk, to: eliminate new HIV infections among children and keep mothers 

alive; increase coverage of HIV treatment to reduce AIDS-related mortality and 

enhance HIV prevention; end stigma and discrimination against people living with 

HIV and key populations (e.g., men who have sex with men, sex workers, and people 

who inject drugs), improving their access to, and uptake of, comprehensive HIV 

205 

services; increase the number of males who are voluntarily circumcised for HIV prevention; and increase access to, and uptake of, HIV testing and counseling, condoms 

and other evidence-based interventions. 

STRENGTHENED COUNTRY CAPACITIES AND SYSTEMS

I am committed to ensuring that our PEPFAR programs are designed, implemented, and measured to strengthen country ownership and that we build longterm capacity of governments and civil society in countries through innovative 

Country Health Partnerships. These efforts to strengthen country ownership enjoy 

strong international support, and working with our partners we will maintain a concerted focus in health systems in a results-oriented manner that will be critical for 

sustaining the response to HIV prevention, care, and treatment. Through our work 

we will ensure we effectively support countries in strengthening their health systems over time with metrics and strategies that align with PEPFAR’s vision. I am 

committed to ensuring that civil society engagement will be enhanced to make sure 

that those voices are involved in decisionmaking, implementation, and oversight 

activities of all PEPFAR programs. 

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EPIDEMIC

Nothing is possible alone, ‘‘shared responsibility’’ is an established U.S. Government perspective and I believe everything is possible through this perspective and 

partnership. This means a joint approach toward country led, managed, and implemented responses with civil society, multilateral, and bilateral partners, including 

key collaboration with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, 

the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, UNICEF, other multilateral, nongovernmental organizations and faith-based organizations. PEPFAR and the Global Fund 

financed programs are complementary and intertwined in countries where both 

exist. If confirmed, I will be vigilant in ensuring that we continue to realize strong 

program coordination, decreased costs, greater impact and efficiencies between 

Global Fund and U.S. investments—so that we are getting the best return on all 

available resources to fight HIV/AIDS in countries. Similarly, private sector mobilization is critical to service delivery and sustainable programs. We will continue to 

work toward shared accountability so that countries are in a position to manage and 

control their own epidemics. We will apply lessons learned from PEPFAR and our 

development partners across the health and economic sectors to more effectively 

deploy our transition policy in a stepwise manner that is consistent and aligned 

with epidemiology, strategy, and financing. 

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND OVERSIGHT

If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring enhanced transparency and accountability of program impact, cost, and quality by clearly and transparently aligning 

vision, strategy, and resources. We must strengthen key management and accountability relationships between multiple agencies, countries, and recipients in support 

of common health goals. We will use health economic data, including in-depth cost 

studies and expenditure analyses, to better manage program accountability to demonstrate PEPFAR’s contributions to partner-country programs. We will use a comprehensive knowledge management framework, including a program monitoring and 

evaluation strategy, a prioritized and targeted research portfolio, and systems for 

knowledge dissemination, improved implementation and oversight—not only by the 

United States but also by the countries themselves. 

The history of the end of the 20th century will be forever recorded with the emergence of a new and deadly viral plague that challenged us scientifically, socially and 

politically. Fortunately, that history will also record that—eventually—we faced our 

own fears of the disease and embraced those infected and affected with the open 

arms of compassion, creative research, and determined solutions. Our task is to 

ensure that the history of the beginning of the 21st century records that we continued to bring our collective scientific and care-giving potentials together around the 

globe. And that with confidence in our tools and capacities, we focused them with 

unwavering urgency to control this pandemic. We demonstrated that this chronic 

disease could be managed in resource-limited settings. And when the end of HIV/ 

AIDS epidemic was within our reach, we grasped it and held on tightly. We cannot 

permit complacency to allow this pandemic to reemerge stronger and deadlier than 

it was before. 

Mr. Chairman, though the road ahead will be challenging, I am confident that we 

will prevail. If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to support and further the work of 

our many colleagues and partners whose determined effort is an inspiration to us 

all. It is essential that the United States of America continue to lead the global fight 

206 

against HIV and AIDS until we achieve our overarching objective, as envisioned by 

the President. Those who remain skeptical might find heart in Nelson Mandela’s 

encouragement to us that: ‘‘It always seems impossible until it is done.’’ The challenge in front of us is indeed immense, but we have learned a great deal from our 

efforts and success to date. The time has come where we can confidently translate 

our aspirations into operations, and systematically reign in this epidemic. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

Senator MARKEY. Our next witness, Ms. LeVine; whenever you 

are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN G. LEVINE, OF WASHINGTON, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE SWISS CONFEDERATION, AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT 

ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE 

PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN 

Ms. LEVINE. Thank you so much. Chairman Markey and distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before 

you today as the President’s nominee to be the next United States 

Ambassador to both the Swiss Confederation and the Principality 

of Liechtenstein. I am profoundly humbled by this opportunity and 

thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust and confidence that they are placing in me with this nomination. I would 

also like to thank Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell, when 

they get here, for their generous remarks on my behalf. 

If I may, I would like to introduce you to some of the members 

of my family who are here today. I would like to introduce you to 

my mother, Phyllis Davidson, my husband, Eric LeVine, and my 

children, Sydney and Talia. It is through their love and support 

that I am here today. 

Lastly, I would like to mention that I am sure my father, Maurice Davidson, may he rest in peace, who proudly served as an 

Army physician in Vietnam, is with us today in our hearts. Patriotism and service to our country were paramount to him and he instilled those values in me and my siblings throughout his life. 

Over the last—— 

Senator MARKEY. Can I ask your family to stand up, too, so we 

can see them? 

Ms. LEVINE. Absolutely. 

Senator MARKEY. Oscar in a supporting role here. 

[Family stands.] [Applause.] 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. LEVINE. Thank you. 

Over the last 20-plus years, be it as a leader in business, both 

as a director at Microsoft and a vice president at Expedia, or as 

an intern at NASA, or as a volunteer and leader in the nonprofit 

sector, or as a mother, I have pursued opportunities and overcome 

challenges. I have led teams, built partnerships, organized communities, grown businesses, created and cultivated social media 

spaces, and conducted youth outreach. Above all, I have achieved 

results. 

Throughout my career, I have focused my efforts on technology, 

innovation, education, travel, early learning, and social responsibility, all key areas of partnership with Switzerland and Liechtenstein. As two of the oldest federal republics in the world, the 

207 

United States and Switzerland are close friends and partners. Our 

relationship spans important areas of bilateral and multilateral cooperation, from human rights to regional stability. 

As in any mature relationship, sometimes we have different perspectives. The issue of bank secrecy and tax evasion was a difficult 

one, but the U.S. and Swiss Governments have reached important 

agreements in this area and we are turning the page. Liechtenstein 

has also made great progress in the sharing of bank information. 

I believe the mission for this position is to foster bilateral relationships with both Switzerland and Liechtenstein that enhance 

prosperity, stability, and security in our respective nations and 

around the world. Thus, if confirmed I would leverage my experience and knowledge to execute three key strategies: one, further 

grow our economic ties; two, expand global security and development collaboration; three, increase awareness and appreciation for 

each other’s culture, values, and policies. 

Let me elaborate. From the economic standpoint, we will start 

from a strong base. Switzerland is one of the top foreign direct investors into the United States, accounting for hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Switzerland is also a top-20 export market 

for American goods and services. Liechtenstein, even with a population of about 36,000, has key companies that account for thousands of U.S. jobs. If confirmed, I would make it a priority to tap 

into the rich potential for even more foreign direct investment and 

exports with these two partners. 

Second, throughout my career I have built and stewarded partnerships where we tackled bigger opportunities and challenges 

than we could have alone and at the same time reduced redundancy and cost. The United States, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein 

have done some outstanding work together on this front. For example, along with the Swiss we are founding members of the Global 

Counterterrorism Forum. In addition, with Switzerland serving as 

the 2014 Chairman in Office of the OSCE, we have the opportunity 

to work together for security, prosperity, and human rights in Europe and Eurasia. If confirmed, I would explore how we might better leverage and expand existing partnerships or create new collaborations to further our shared global priorities. 

Finally, if confirmed I hope to increase awareness and appreciation of culture, values, and policies between our nations. For example, as Americans among our many values we pursue fairness, protect our environment, and respect diversity. On the policy front, we 

are working closely with the Swiss on a number of policy priorities, 

including on the NATO-led Kosovo force, steering humanitarian assistance, and conflict mediation. 

To be effective at increasing awareness and appreciation, it is important to understand at least one of the core Swiss values and 

policies, that of neutrality, and how they demonstrate that neutrality does not mean hands off. For example, in January alone 

Switzerland took over the chairmanship in office of the OSCE, 

hosted the Geneva talks on Syria, and hosted the World Economic 

Forum in Davos. If confirmed, I will ensure that our global priorities and policies are articulated to both the Swiss and Liechtenstein Governments and their people. 

208 

In all of these areas and endeavors, if confirmed I will rely on 

our highly skilled embassy staff, both local and American. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again 

for inviting me to testify before you today. If confirmed, I commit 

to serving with integrity and to proudly and humbly applying my 

experience to this position. I look forward to collaborating with this 

esteemed committee and the Congress to foster our relationships 

between the United States and the Swiss Confederation and the 

Principality of Liechtenstein in the global diplomatic, development, 

and economic spheres. 

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. LeVine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZAN G. LEVINE

Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Barrasso, and distinguished members of the 

committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to 

be the next United States Ambassador to both the Swiss Confederation and the 

Principality of Liechtenstein. 

I am profoundly humbled by this opportunity and thank President Obama and 

Secretary Kerry for the trust and confidence that they are placing in me with this 

nomination. 

I would also like to thank Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell for their generous remarks on my behalf. I have known both for many years and hope that I 

can live up to the very high standards that each sets as an incredible public servant—whether as the ultimate mom in tennis shoes or as a tech exec doing good. 

If I may, I would like to take just a few moments to introduce you to some of 

the very special members of my family who are here today. First, I’d like to introduce you to my mother, Phyllis Davidson—who grew up not far from here and 

whose parents, my grandmother and grandfather, a WWI veteran and cofounder of 

the American Legion, are buried in Arlington Cemetery. Next, I’d like to introduce 

you to my husband, Eric LeVine, and my wonderful children, Sidney and Talia. It 

is through their love and support that I am here today. Lastly, I’d like to mention 

that I’m sure my father, Maurice Davidson, may he rest in peace, who proudly 

served as an Army physician in Vietnam, is with us today in our hearts. Patriotism 

and service to our country were paramount to him and he instilled those values in 

me and my siblings throughout his life. 

Over the last 20-plus years, be it as a leader in business, both as a Director at 

Microsoft and a vice president at Expedia, or as an intern at NASA, or as a volunteer and leader in the nonprofit sector, or as a mother, I have pursued opportunities 

and overcome challenges. I have led teams, built partnerships, organized communities, grown businesses, created and cultivated social media spaces, and conducted 

youth outreach. Above all, I have achieved results. It is my great hope that the Senate will permit me the opportunity to use my skills and experiences to further our 

vital relationship with Switzerland and Liechtenstein. 

My dual degrees in English and Engineering reflect my unique approach to leadership—I am a translator and a connector. Throughout my career I have focused 

my efforts on my passions, including technology, innovation, education, travel, early 

learning, and social responsibility—all core sectors of excellence for both Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and key issues of partnership in our bilateral relationship. 

As two of the oldest federal republics in the world, the United States and Switzerland are close friends and partners. Our relationship is deep and strong, covering 

a wide range of important areas of bilateral and multilateral cooperation, from 

human rights to regional stability. We share many of the same values. 

The United States and Switzerland partner together in many areas, including in 

venues such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 

of which Switzerland is the Chairman-in-Office in 2014, the NATO Partnership for 

Peace, multiple U.N. bodies, and international financial institutions. Switzerland’s 

neutrality allows it to play a unique mediating role, which can help address key 

U.S. foreign policy priorities. 

As in any mature relationship, sometimes we have different perspectives on how 

to address certain issues. The issue of bank secrecy and tax evasion was a difficult 

one, but the U.S. and Swiss Governments have reached important agreements in 

209 

this area, and we are turning the page. Liechtenstein has also made great progress 

in the sharing of banking information. 

I believe the mission for the job to which I have been nominated is to foster bilateral relationships with both Switzerland and Liechtenstein that enhance prosperity, 

stability, and security in our respective nations and around the world. Thus, if 

confirmed, I would leverage my experience and knowledge to execute three key 

strategies: 

(1) Further grow our economic ties; 

(2) Expand global security and development collaboration; and 

(3) Increase awareness and appreciation for each other’s culture, values, and 

policies. 

From an economic standpoint, the growth we pursue will start from a strong base. 

Both Switzerland and Liechtenstein have an outsized impact in economic matters. 

Switzerland is one of the top foreign direct investors in the United States, ahead 

of countries many times its size, and Swiss companies account for hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Switzerland is also a top 20 export market for American 

goods and services. Liechtenstein, even with a population of about 36,000, has key 

companies that account for thousands of U.S. jobs. If confirmed, I would make it 

a priority to tap into the rich potential for even more foreign direct investment and 

exports with these two partners. 

The second strategy I want to highlight, if confirmed, will be to expand our global 

security and development collaboration. I firmly believe in the value of partnering 

on difficult issues. Throughout my career, I have built and stewarded so-called ‘‘1+1 

= 3 partnerships’’—where we tackled bigger opportunities and challenges than we 

could have alone and, at the same time, reduced redundancy and cost. This type 

of collaboration is critical when it comes to both global security and development, 

and the United States, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein have done some outstanding 

work together on this front. For example, along with the Swiss we are founding 

members of the Global Counterterrorism Forum, which aims to stop terrorism 

before it begins. In addition, with Switzerland serving as the 2014 Chairman-inOffice of the OSCE, we have a great opportunity to work together for security, prosperity, and human rights in Europe and Eurasia. If confirmed, I would explore how 

we might better leverage and expand U.S.-Swiss and U.S.-Liechtenstein partnerships, and other collaborations, to further our shared global priorities. 

Finally, if confirmed, I hope to work to increase awareness and appreciation of 

culture, values, and policies between our nations. For example, as Americans, 

among our many values, we pursue fairness, protect our environment, and respect 

diversity. On the policy front, we are working with the Swiss Government on a 

number of foreign policy priorities, both in Switzerland’s backyard and further 

afield. Within Europe, Switzerland is a major troop contributor to the NATO-led 

Kosovo Force. Beyond Europe, Switzerland has provided over $70 million in humanitarian assistance for the people affected by the Syrian crisis, and helped to mediate 

among the factions in Mali. If confirmed, I will work with the highly skilled team 

at Embassy Bern to ensure awareness of these and other policies and values. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Swiss hold neutrality as a key value and policy. 

I got a taste of this fact in 1988 when, on the first day of my first trip to Switzerland, I was stunned to meet my hometown rabbi. He was there to escort a group 

of students on their trip from Poland to Israel; since these two countries did not 

share diplomatic ties at that time, Switzerland was the way-station. This experience 

powerfully imbued me with a sense of just how important the Swiss are in building 

bridges. 

While the political landscape has changed dramatically since 1988, Switzerland’s 

role as mediator and neutral broker has not. If anything, Switzerland has taken its 

global position to a whole new level. For example, in January alone, Switzerland 

took over the Chairmanship-in-Office of the OSCE; hosted the Geneva 2 talks on 

Syria; and hosted the World Economic Forum in Davos. They are actively showing 

that neutrality does not mean hands off. 

Fundamentally, if confirmed, I believe my key responsibility is to ensure that our 

global priorities are articulated to both the Swiss and Liechtenstein governments 

and their people so that we may partner wherever possible on key global challenges. 

In all of these areas and endeavors, if confirmed, I will rely on our Embassy and 

its staff, both local and American. I have heard great things about the staff, and 

if confirmed I will seek to engender a true team spirit at the Embassy. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee—thank you, again, for inviting me to 

testify before you today. I feel honored to be nominated and, if confirmed, I commit 

to serving with integrity, and to proudly and humbly apply my professional, nonprofit, and community experience to this position. I look forward to collaborating 

210 

with this esteemed committee, and the Congress, to foster our relationships between 

the United States and the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein 

in the global diplomatic, development, and economic spheres. 

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to answering any questions 

you may have. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. LeVine. 

Next we will hear from Maureen Elizabeth Cormack. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN ELIZABETH CORMACK, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO BOSNIA AND 

HERZEGOVINA 

Ms. CORMACK. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to appear before 

you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am deeply honored by the confidence placed in me by the President and Secretary Kerry. I would 

like to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. If confirmed, I will seek to merit your trust 

and avail myself of any opportunities to consult with you, as I 

know many Members of Congress have spent a great deal of time 

over the last two decades working to help ensure that Bosnia and 

Herzegovina moves toward a better future. 

Mr. Chairman, my husband, William Cormack, who is also a 

State Department employee, has been my support and partner for 

24 years. He has just transferred to an assignment in Pakistan and 

is very sorry not to be with us today. My oldest daughter is launching a new product with her colleagues at a startup in your great 

State of Massachusetts in Cambridge. My son William is—— 

Senator MARKEY. A very good excuse. [Laughter.] 

Ms. CORMACK. It is a good excuse. 

My son, William, is a freshman out in Colorado, and my daughter, Margaret, is on a semester abroad. So they are all here in spirit. We are a very Foreign Service family. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you all so much for all that you did, the 

family, as you are watching this on a computer someplace. Welcome. 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. Please continue. 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you. I have some wonderful neighbors and 

Department colleagues who are here today and I thank them 

warmly for their support. 

Mr. Chairman, I have on several occasions in my career been fortunate to work on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkans. My 

relationship goes back to the mid-1920s, when as European personnel officer for the U.S. Information Agency my first assignment 

in 1996 was to assign staff to the public diplomacy section of our 

Embassy in Sarajevo at the conclusion of the Dayton Accords. 

Those I assigned were sent on three-month tours to a city riddled 

with bomb craters. 

While serving at Embassy Paris in 1999, I was on the press staff 

for the Rambouillet Peace Talks, and as director of Western European Affairs in 2010 I worked with our European partners to ensure their contributions to the still-critical stabilization missions in 

Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Kosovo. 

Thanks in large part to the key role played by the United States 

through the implementation of the Dayton Accords, Bosnia and 

211 

Herzegovina has made strides since those early days. Much remains to be done, however, and the risk of backsliding cannot be 

discounted. 

Starting with the Dayton peace process in 1995 that ended the 

horrific war that claimed over 100,000 lives, the United States has 

invested huge amounts of political, human, and economic capital to 

bring peace and stability to Bosnia and Herzegovina and build its 

postwar institutions. We continue this work today with efforts to 

strengthen Bosnia and Herzegovina’s democracy, foster good governance, increase respect for human rights, and promote economic 

prosperity. 

We have a special bond with the people of Bosnia and 

Herzegovina as a result of our leading role in helping to end the 

war and build the peace, as well as through the thousands of 

Bosnians who immigrated to the United States. My goal, if confirmed, will be to work with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina 

to build a stable, multiethnic, democratic, and prosperous country. 

We support the aspirations of the people of Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, who want to see their country join the European 

Union and NATO so they too can share in the political stability 

and economic opportunities afforded by membership in these institutions. 

The United States is concerned, however, by Bosnia and 

Herzegovina’s lack of progress on the path to EU and NATO membership. Bosnian politicians and government leaders pledged their 

support for advancing the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, but 

have failed to take the basic steps required to move toward membership in those institutions. Constitutional changes are urgently 

needed to progress towards EU membership and make the government more efficient and responsive to citizens. Defense reforms for 

NATO integration and the conditions for transition of the Office of 

the High Representative remain unmet. 

As evidenced in the protests throughout the country last month, 

the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are frustrated with their political leadership, who have done little in recent years to improve 

the lives of their citizens and respond to the terrible economic situation. Politicians exploit zero-sum nationalism at the expense of 

the country as a whole, which prevents compromise on critical reforms. 

Despite these challenges, there are signs of progress and opportunities to pursue. Recent demonstrations and the formation of citizens forums are a hopeful sign of citizen engagement, though it is 

critical that protests remain peaceful. 

Our Embassy has a long history of working with civil society. If 

confirmed, I will build on these efforts to work directly with citizens in support of their shared aspirations instead of what divides 

them. The citizens will have the opportunity to hold their leaders 

accountable in general elections in October, a message I intend to 

strongly reinforce in public and private if confirmed. 

Croatia’s entry into the EU and progress made by Serbia and 

others in the region offers the potential to motivate Bosnia and 

Herzegovina to resolve long-standing obstacles to the country’s EU 

integration. 

212 

Bosnia and Herzegovina remains a strong bilateral partner to 

the United States. Their troops recently returned from a deployment alongside the Maryland National Guard in Afghanistan and 

the staff of our Embassy in Sarajevo and branch offices in Banja 

Luca and Mostar is exceptionally talented and dedicated to our 

mission. 

If confirmed, I will continue our crucial efforts to support the 

people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their aspirations for a peaceful and prosperous Euro-Atlantic future. 

Mr. Chairman, I am so grateful to appear before this committee 

today and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cormack follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAUREEN E. CORMACK

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before 

you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and 

Herzegovina. I am deeply honored by the confidence placed in me by President 

Obama and Secretary Kerry. 

I would like to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to appear 

before you today. If confirmed, I will seek to fully merit your trust and avail myself 

of any opportunities to consult with you, as I know many Members of Congress have 

spent a great deal of time over the last two decades working to help ensure that 

Bosnia and Herzegovina moves toward a better future. 

Mr. Chairman, my husband, William Cormack, who is also a State Department 

employee, has been my support and partner throughout 24 years in the Foreign 

Service. He has just transferred to an assignment in Pakistan and is very sorry not 

to be here today. Our daughter, Elizabeth, is launching a new product with her colleagues at a startup in Cambridge, MA, today, our son, William, is a freshman in 

college, and our daughter, Margaret, is on a semester abroad, and so they are all 

with me in spirit. Some wonderful neighbors and Department colleagues are here 

and I thank them warmly for their support. 

Mr. Chairman, I have on several occasions in my career been fortunate enough 

to work on Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkans. My relationship goes back to 

the mid-1990s, when as the European Personnel Officer for the U.S. Information 

Agency, my first assignment in early 1996 was to assign staff to the Public Diplomacy section of our Embassy in Sarajevo after the conclusion of the Dayton Accords. 

Those I assigned were sent on 3-month tours to a city still riddled with bomb craters, whose citizens still lived in great hardship. While serving at Embassy Paris 

in 1999, I was on the press staff for the Rambouillet Peace Talks, and as Director 

of Western European Affairs in 2010, I worked with our European partners to 

ensure their contributions to the still critical stabilization missions in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina as well as Kosovo. 

Thanks in large part to the key role played by the United States through the 

implementation of the Dayton Accords, Bosnia and Herzegovina has made strides 

since those early days. Much more remains to be done, however, and the risk of 

backsliding cannot be discounted as we look at the situation today. 

Starting with the Dayton peace process in 1995 that ended the horrific war that 

claimed over 100,000 lives, the United States has invested huge amounts of political, human, and economic capital to bring peace and stability to Bosnia and 

Herzegovina and build its post-war institutions. We continue this work today, with 

efforts to strengthen Bosnia and Herzegovina’s democracy, foster good governance, 

increase respect for human rights, and promote economic prosperity. We have a special bond with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a result of our leading role 

in helping end the war and build the peace, as well as through the thousands of 

Bosnians who immigrated to the United States. My goal, if confirmed, will be to 

work with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to build a stable, multiethnic, 

democratic, and prosperous country. We support the aspirations of the people of 

Bosnia and Herzegovina who want to see their country join the European Union and 

NATO, so they too can share in the political stability and economic opportunities 

afforded by membership in these institutions. Supporting these aspirations, in close 

cooperation with our European allies, will be one of my top priorities, if confirmed. 

The United States is concerned, however, by Bosnia and Herzegovina’s lack of 

progress on the path to EU and NATO membership. Bosnian politicians and government leaders pledge their support for advancing the country’s Euro-Atlantic aspiraVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
213 

tions, but have failed to take the basic steps required to move toward membership 

in these institutions. Constitutional changes are urgently needed to progress toward 

EU membership and make the government more efficient and responsive to citizens. 

Defense reforms required for NATO integration and the conditions for transition of 

the Office of the High Representative remain unmet. 

As evidenced in the protests throughout the country last month, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina are frustrated with their political leaders, who have done little 

in recent years to improve the lives of their citizens and respond to the terrible economic situation. Politicians exploit zero-sum nationalism at the expense of the country as a whole, which in turn prevents compromise on critical reforms needed to 

grow the economy, improve governance, and move toward Euro-Atlantic integration. 

Despite these challenges, there are both signs of progress and opportunities to 

pursue. Recent demonstrations and the formation of citizen forums are a hopeful 

sign of citizen engagement, though it is critical that protests remain peaceful. The 

Embassy has a long history of working with civil society in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

If confirmed, I will build on previous efforts to work directly with citizens in support 

of their focus on shared aspirations instead of what divides them. The citizens will 

have the opportunity to hold their leaders accountable in the general elections in 

October, a message I intend to strongly reinforce in public and in private if confirmed. Croatia’s entry into the EU, and progress made by Serbia and others in the 

region on their EU paths, offer the potential to motivate Bosnia and Herzegovina 

to resolve longstanding obstacles to the country’s EU path. 

Bosnia and Herzegovina remains a strong bilateral partner to the United States. 

Bosnian troops recently returned from a deployment alongside the Maryland 

National Guard in Afghanistan, and the country remains an ISAF contributor. The 

staff of our Embassy in Sarajevo and branch offices in Banja Luka and Mostar is 

exceptionally talented and deeply dedicated to our mission. 

With the strong support of Congress, U.S. assistance continues to support democratic development, good governance, rule of law, economic growth, defense reform, 

and interethnic reconciliation. If confirmed, I will continue our crucial efforts to support the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in their aspirations for a peaceful and 

prosperous Euro-Atlantic future, and in their efforts to demand greater accountability from their leaders. 

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Selfridge, another rollcall has gone off on the Senate floor. 

So I apologize to you. We are going to take a brief recess and then 

we will return and reconvene the hearing. So the chair calls this 

hearing to a recess and we will return in approximately 10 minutes. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Mr. Selfridge, if I could just welcome you on behalf of the other members who are here and congratulate each and every one of you. We are lucky to be joined by 

the two Senators from Washington State, who have both come to 

the committee today to first make a statement of introduction—and 

I apologize, due to votes. Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell, 

thank you so much for being here. I know you have an important 

message to bring to the committee as well as to the Senate, and 

whenever you are ready, Senator Murray, I turn to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you so much, Senator Barrasso, and 

Senator Markey as well, for chairing this hearing today. I really 

appreciate the opportunity to be here today with Senator Cantwell 

to introduce Suzie LeVine from our home State of Washington as 

this committee considers her nomination for Ambassador to the 

Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein. 

214 

I know you have a lot of nominations here today, so I just wanted to make a few points about Suzie. I first got to know her well 

around 7 years ago and, like most people when they first meet her, 

I was really struck by her energy and her passion and her commitment to her community, her country, and to making the world a 

better place. She has deep roots in Washington State’s technology 

and business world, was put into leadership roles in Microsoft and 

Expedia. She is an experienced and proven manager and has 

earned deep respect throughout the industry for her ability to 

translate and communicate complex tech issues to customers and 

stakeholders, as well as for her understanding of consumer needs 

and how technology and innovation can meet them. 

Throughout her career she has demonstrated a strong ability to 

assess problems, ask smart and insightful questions, find solutions, 

and motivate and inspire her team to act. When she sees a problem 

that needs to be solved, she is focused, engaged, and absolutely 

driven to get results. 

But she combines that drive and energy with a true ability to listen to people and build relationships and a deep compassion and 

caring for others. These skills were invaluable in the business 

world and she brought them with her into her work in the community as well. She cofounded Kavana, a nationally recognized Jewish 

community organization in Seattle. She started and chaired the advisory board for ILABS, the University of Washington’s Early 

Learning Research Lab, and through her work on education issues 

at Microsoft brought people together and built partnerships to support the thousands of students from around the world in the Imagine Cup, the company’s global student technology competition. 

She is clearly committed to her community and her country and 

it is clear that this patriotic spirit and love for America is something she and her husband Eric value deeply and have passed 

along to their children. 

Suzy is all about having a positive impact wherever she is. It is 

clear she wakes up every morning thinking about how she can 

make a difference and then spends the rest of the day going out 

and making that happen. She has done it in the business world, 

she has done that for her community and for the students that she 

has worked with across the globe. She has done it with a smile, a 

positive attitude, a relentless energy, and a true spirit of compassion. 

I am very confident that she will represent our country well and 

bring that same energy to her role as Ambassador. With all that 

is going on right now in Europe and across the world, we need people representing our country abroad who take these challenges seriously, who can bring people together, and who will stand up for 

our interests and represent our values. 

So I am very proud today to introduce her to the committee, and 

I am delighted to be here with my colleague Senator Cantwell as 

well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

Senator Cantwell. 

215 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and it is a 

pleasure to be here with my colleague Senator Murray and to introduce Suzy LeVine from Seattle to the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee for her consideration for Ambassador to the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein. 

Before I get started, I just want to acknowledge Suzy’s family 

who are with her here today: her husband, Eric, and her children, 

Sydney and Talia, who I have gotten to meet before, and her mother Phyllis Davidson. I just want to thank them, because oftentimes 

these things are a responsibility that goes beyond just the Ambassador role, but the family sacrifices as well. So we want to thank 

them for their sacrifices in this effort and the support of Suzy. 

In Seattle, as Senator Murray said, Suzy is well known as a 

savvy business leader and a trusted community advocate. In Washington State we are proud of our innovation economy, whether that 

is fuel efficient planes or medical breakthroughs or innovation in 

technology, and I think Suzy LeVine represents the best of Washington State. She knows how to build strong relationships, management teams with driven results, and whether it is working with 

Fortune 500 companies or major research institutions, she has 

done a lot. 

At Microsoft she helped launch the Windows 95. As vice president of sales and marketing at Expedia, she was part of the senior 

management team that took the company public and helped it become the number one online travel company. Just recently at 

Microsoft, she was responsible for building a strategic partnership 

for the Imagine Cup, which built partnerships with major companies like Coca-Cola and Nokia. During that time she highlighted 

the innovation of students from 60 countries around the world. 

So, like the Swiss students who designed a text-to-speech app 

called ‘‘Text For All,’’ Suzy knows how important an innovation 

economy is, and I know that that will be very important in her role 

in Switzerland. That is because in Switzerland it was ranked the 

number one innovation economy in 2013 by the Global Index of Innovation. Switzerland is home to the largest physics lab in the 

world, CERN, and it has been a leader in research and innovation. 

So Suzy has the right background from the tech world to hit the 

ground running in Switzerland and their very high tech economy. 

And she is a proven manager and can follow through on level policies and operations. She has also led a recognized nonprofit in 

Washington State and understands the important role of civil activities. 

The Swiss have a system of a people’s referendum. They an propose legislation and even reverse legislation approved by parliament. Suzy is familiar with the many initiatives we have in 

Washington State, something I know that both the chairman and 

Senator Barrasso know from their home States as well. So she understands what community issues are and how they need to be 

heard, and throughout her life she has demonstrated that she is a 

good, proven team-builder. 

So I am happy to be here and I wish her well in this new endeavor. I am confident she will do an excellent job representing our 

216 

country in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and I urge the committee to confirm her without delay. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Thank you, 

Senator Murray. I know you have very pressing schedules, but 

thank you so much for taking the time to be with us. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

We are joined also by Senator Cardin. Senator Cardin, thank you 

for joining us. I know you have a statement to introduce one of the 

nominees. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Barrasso, thank you very much. I appreciate this courtesy. I first want to offer my congratulations and 

thanks to all the nominees that are at the dais and thank them for 

their service to our country, their willingness to continue to serve 

our country, and we thank your families also because we know this 

is a joint sacrifice. 

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly proud of the Marylander that 

is on this panel, Dr. Deborah L. Birx of Maryland. Dr. Birx is a 

long-time Marylander and a world-renowned global health leader 

and scientist studying HIV/AIDS. Maryland is home to the very 

best medical researchers in the world. So I am pleased that President Obama has nominated Baltimore-born Dr. Deborah Birx to 

such an essential post. 

Dr. Birx is a model Marylander. She is a pioneer in HIV/AIDS 

research who has dedicated her life’s work to public service. Dr. 

Birx moved to Silver Spring, MD, in 1979 to begin training at the 

Walter Reed Army Medical Center, then in D.C.—it is now in 

Maryland—and completed a joint fellowship with NIH at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

For nearly 30 years since the beginning of the epidemic, Dr. Birx 

has dedicated her professional career to understanding and changing the course of HIV/AIDS both in the United States and throughout the world. Dr. Birx has been on the front lines of the HIV/AIDS 

epidemic before even we knew what the disease was. While serving 

at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Dr. Birx led its work on 

HIV/AIDS, including HIV vaccine research in domestic and global 

settings. Dr. Birx was part of the cadre of researchers that were 

instrumental in helping us first understand the disease. 

Throughout the 1990s and through 2005, she served as the Director of the U.S. Military HIV/AIDS Research Program in the Department of Defense and received the Legion of Merit Award for 

her innovation, management, and leadership in HIV/AIDS research 

and program implementation. She rose to the rank of colonel, 

bringing together the Army, Navy, and Air Force in a new model 

of cooperation, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

U.S. military’s HIV/AIDS efforts through the inter- and intra-agency collaboration. 

While in the Army, Dr. Birx served as Director of the U.S. Military HIV/AIDS Research Program and as Director of the Division 

of Retrovirology at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research from 

217 

1996 to 2005. Having served on Active Duty in the U.S. Army for 

29 years, Dr. Birx retired in 2008 with the rank of colonel. Dr. Birx 

earned the prestigious U.S. Meritorious Service Medal for her leadership in refining, validating, and standardizing immunity testing 

in HIV-infected patients. She helped lead one of the most influential HIV vaccine trials in history, known as RV–144 or the Thai 

Trial, which provided the first supporting evidence of any vaccine 

being effective in lowering the risk of contracting HIV. She was 

awarded another U.S. Meritorious Service Medal for that effort. 

Since 2005, as the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Global HIV/AIDS, she led and managed its President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, 

global effort. She has published over 200 HIV-related publications 

on domestic and global epidemiology, treatment, vaccine development, and public health programs, policy implementation, and 

health systems strengthening, in addition to serving on over a 

dozen scientific and advisory boards. 

She received her medical degree from Hershey School of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, trained in internal medicine 

and basic clinical immunology at the Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center and the National Institutes of Health. 

Today we can envision an HIV-free generation within our lifetime. Dr. Birx is one of the trailblazers who has dedicated her life 

to making this vision a reality. Her support for PEPFAR’s investments in programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV 

has paid great dividends. PEPFAR has averted more than one million pediatric HIV infections thanks to researchers like Dr. Birx 

and her colleagues. 

So, Mr. Chairman, before there was PEPFAR and the Global 

Fund Dr. Birx was leading the charge against this disease. I can 

think of no more qualified person to be our Ambassador at Large 

and Coordinator of the United States Government Activities to 

Combat HIV/AIDS Globally than Dr. Deborah Birx. 

Let me just say in concluding remarks, we all get the opportunity 

every once in a while to introduce people from our State that have 

been nominated for a particular post. I do not think I have ever 

introduced a person who is more qualified, who has done more in 

her lifetime, than Dr. Birx. We are very proud of her work and I 

am proud that she has been nominated to this important post. [Applause.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. They are all Marylanders behind me. 

Senator BARRASSO. I do not blame them. 

Thank you, Senator Cardin. I know you have a busy and pressing schedule. So thanks so much for joining us, and you are excused if that works for you. Thank you. 

Now back to Mr. Selfridge, who has been nominated to be Chief 

of Protocol. Your flexibility in allowing us to go to three other Senators shows that you are already very qualified for the position. 

STATEMENT OF PETER A. SELFRIDGE, OF MINNESOTA, NOMINATED TO BE CHIEF OF PROTOCOL, AND TO HAVE THE 

RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE 

Mr. SELFRIDGE. My resume is not as impressive. 

218 

I am, needless to say, very humbled by the company I share on 

both sides of this table. Ranking Member Barrasso, thank you for 

the opportunity to speak with you today. It is a tremendous honor 

for me to appear before this distinguished body as President 

Obama’s nominee for Chief of Protocol of the United States. I deeply appreciate the confidence of both President Obama and Secretary Kerry in nominating me for this position. 

If you would allow me, I would also like to recognize my wonderfully supportive wife, Parita, my cousin, Ami, and my long-time 

high school friends who have joined me here today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Could I ask them to please stand and be recognized. 

[They stand.] [Applause.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. SELFRIDGE. Thank you, sir. 

My story is not unlike those of many in this room today. I am 

a descendant of immigrants and a proud son of the Midwest. My 

mother hailed from Germany, where she was born and raised in 

the shadow of World War II. My father is a second generation 

Chicagoland native of Scottish and Irish heritage. My wife’s parents hail from Gujarat, India, and came to America, as did my 

mother and grandparents decades prior, in search of a dream that 

they will gratefully tell you has been fulfilled many times over, 

thanks to the opportunities afforded to them by this great country. 

My father taught me at an early age that good etiquette and decorum are not only useful tools for navigating society, but a reflection of the person wielding them. Treating others as you would be 

treated is a virtue for everyday life and is one of the guiding principles of protocol. 

I have had the honor of serving as the White House’s lead 

logistical representative on official travel overseas and have had 

the privilege of working with some of the best and brightest American ambassadors and diplomats at our missions and consulates 

abroad. I have interacted with many of the very same protocol officers and foreign government officials who, if confirmed, I would 

hope to work closely with as Chief of Protocol. 

Ranking Member Barrasso, as you and the members of this esteemed committee know well, the office of the Chief of Protocol 

plans an important role in advancing the foreign policy goals of the 

United States. The person selected for this post serves as the President’s representative to visiting foreign leaders and their delegations, as well as the members of the diplomatic corps based in the 

United States. Not only is this a great honor, it also provides remarkable opportunities to create an environment for successful diplomacy, to promote cross-cultural exchanges, and to build new 

bridges of understanding. 

I believe that we are obliged to use every diplomatic tool at our 

disposal to broaden our bilateral relationships as well as to set the 

stage where diplomacy can be made to work. The Office of Protocol 

provides many such tools to our government and its representatives. The team at Blair House works tirelessly to ensure that foreign dignitaries are properly accommodated as well as provided for 

and protected during their stays. The Ceremonials Division plans 

and executes official events hosted by the Secretary of State. This 

219 

dedicated staff, who I have had the privilege to meet, meticulously 

provides for the participation of the diplomatic corps in special 

events and public events, including joint sessions of Congress, inaugurations, funerals, and other ceremonies. 

The Diplomatic Affairs Division diligently oversees the accreditation of foreign ambassadors, diplomatic agents, and consular officials, thousands of individuals posted throughout the United 

States. The Diplomatic Partnership Division works to strengthen 

and deepen our government and our Nation’s relationships with 

the diplomatic corps through programming designed to promote 

new partnerships, enhance mutual understanding between our 

countries and their own. 

Protocol’s Visits Division manages the logistical planning behind 

hundreds of visits of foreign dignitaries to the United States, as 

well as all official engagements by President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary Kerry, and other officials overseas. This 

team also helps to plan and execute U.S.-hosted summits and other 

multilateral events. 

Protocol also assists with the selection of gifts given by the President, the Vice President, First Lady, Secretary of State in their engagements with foreign leaders. 

The work of the Office of Protocol provides a unique opportunity 

to showcase the very best America has to offer, not only as hosts, 

but as true partners in diplomacy. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you very much for 

the opportunity to appear before you today and for your consideration of my nomination. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Selfridge follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER A. SELFRIDGE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today. It is a tremendous honor for me to appear before this distinguished 

body as President Obama’s nominee for Chief of Protocol of the United States. I 

deeply appreciate the confidences of the President and Secretary Kerry in nominating me for this position. 

My story is not unlike those of many in this room today. I am a descendant of 

immigrants and a proud son of the Midwest. I was born in Illinois, raised in Minnesota, and educated in Iowa. My mother hailed from Germany where she was born 

and raised in the shadow of World War II; my father is a second generation 

Chicagoland native of Scottish and Irish heritage. My wife’s parents hail from 

Gujrat, India, and came to America, as did my mother and grandparents decades 

prior, in search of a dream that they will gratefully tell you has been fulfilled many 

times over thanks to opportunities offered by this great country. 

My father taught me at an early age that good etiquette and decorum are not only 

useful tools for navigating society, but a reflection of the person wielding them. 

Treating others as you would be treated is a virtue for everyday life, and it is one 

of the guiding principles of Protocol. 

As Director of Advance and Operations for the President and in a similar role for 

the Vice President before that, I have had the honor of serving as the White House’s 

lead logistical representative on official travel overseas. I have had the privilege of 

working with some of the best and brightest American ambassadors and diplomats 

at our missions and consulates abroad and interacted with many of the very same 

protocol officers and foreign government officials who, if confirmed, I hope to work 

closely with as Chief of Protocol. 

Mr. Chairman, as you and the members of this esteemed committee know well, 

the Office of the Chief of Protocol plays an important role in advancing the foreign 

policy goals of the United States. The person selected for this post serves as the 

President’s representative to visiting foreign leaders and their delegations, as well 

as the members of the foreign Diplomatic Corps and consular communities based 

in the United States. Not only is this a great honor, it also provides remarkable 

220 

opportunities to create an environment for successful diplomacy, to promote crosscultural exchanges, and to build new bridges of understanding with leaders, governments, and citizens throughout the world. 

I believe that we are obligated to use every diplomatic tool at our disposal to 

broaden our bilateral relationships, as well as to set the stage where diplomacy can 

be made to work. The Office of Protocol provides many such tools to our government 

and its representatives. The talented people who work in Protocol serve on the front 

lines of diplomatic engagement, and, if confirmed, it would be a great privilege to 

join them in carrying out this critical mission. 

The team at Blair House—the President’s Guest House—works tirelessly to 

ensure that foreign dignitaries are properly accommodated, as well as provided for 

and protected during their stay. What’s more, it’s a living museum that houses a 

considerable collection of treasured art and artifacts—many of which bear witness 

to pivotal moments in our Nation’s history. 

The Ceremonials division plans and executes official events hosted by the Secretary of State. This dedicated staff meticulously provides for the participation of 

the Diplomatic Corps in special events and official public functions including Joint 

Sessions of Congress, inaugurations, funerals, and other ceremonies, large and 

small. 

The Diplomatic Affairs division diligently oversees the accreditation of foreign 

ambassadors, diplomatic agents, and consular officers—thousands of individuals 

posted throughout the United States. 

And the Diplomatic Partnerships Division works to strengthen and deepen our 

government’s—our Nation’s—relationships with the Diplomatic Corps. As you know, 

there are more than 180 foreign ambassadors sent to the United States to represent 

their country’s interests. This expert team engages those diplomats through a wide 

array of programming designed to foster good will, promote new partnerships, and 

enhance mutual understanding between their countries and our own. 

Protocol’s Visits division manages the logistical planning behind hundreds of visits by foreign dignitaries to the United States, as well as all official engagements 

with President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary Kerry, and other officials. 

Through their important work, the Chief of Protocol extends the first hand that welcomes these chiefs of state and heads of government to our country. This team also 

helps to plan and execute U.S.-hosted summits and other multilateral events, as 

well as supports Presidential delegations in their travel abroad. 

Protocol also assists with the selection of gifts given by the President, Vice President, First Lady, and Secretary of State in their engagements with foreign leaders. 

The work of the Office of Protocol provides a unique opportunity to showcase the 

very best America has to offer, not only as hosts, but as true partners in diplomacy. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and for your consideration of my nomination. I 

look forward to your questions. 

Senator MARKEY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Selfridge, very 

much. We thank the other Senators who have come to introduce 

our witnesses. 

The chair will recognize himself and Iam going to begin with you, 

Dr. Birx. Recent antihomosexuality laws enacted in Uganda and 

Nigeria compromise the ability of PEPFAR programs to effectively 

reach the LGBT population with public health services and possibly put health workers at risk of retribution or imprisonment. For 

example, the new law in Uganda calls on individuals to report acts 

of homosexuality, but it is not clear what that provision means for 

doctor-patient confidentiality. 

What strategies do you think that we should put in place to 

maintain and sustain effective HIV programming in these difficult 

and challenging environments as they unfold? 

Dr. BIRX. Thank you, Senator Markey, for that question because, 

as with everyone in this room, we are deeply disheartened by the 

changes in both Uganda and Nigeria. It represents an entire step 

backward to a place where many of us were 35 years ago when this 

disease was first discovered. To move backward at a time when we 

should be moving forward and controlling the epidemic is conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
221 

cerning to all of us, and I think you have seen the wonderful statements made by President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and a series of 

Senators and House members who have spoken out against this 

specific legislation. 

We are very concerned about the public health impact of such of 

these bills because having it has an impact on services that people 

can no longer access because of their fear of retribution will be a 

huge step back for all of this epidemic control. It is particularly 

concerning to me for Uganda because Uganda was one of the few 

countries that had early control of its epidemic and then had over 

the last few years a real reversion and an increase in their incidence. At a time when they need to really concentrate every effort 

on controlling this epidemic, to pass this kind of legislation that 

will again cause the epidemic to expand and have people not access 

services is extraordinarily concerning to all of us in the field. 

Senator MARKEY. Let me follow up by asking you: In your testimony you covered the unprecedented results that PEPFAR has 

achieved so far. They bear repeating. PEPFAR has supported 

antiretroviral treatment for more than 6.7 million people, cared for 

17 million, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children, 

and last year announced 1 million babies have been born HIV-free, 

1 million babies born HIV-free. 

Beyond the measured results, PEPFAR transformed the thinking 

of what is possible for nations from AIDS futility to an AIDS-free 

future through leadership, science, and sound investments. 

Your testimony has highlighted your strategic goals and priorities for PEPFAR. What priority results should this committee hold 

you responsible for, this administration responsible for, and on 

what time line? What are your goals? 

Dr. BIRX. Thank you, Senator. Reading through the legislation 

and the reauthorizations from this committee really shows the 

knowledge that the committee has about this disease. The reporting requirements have evolved with the epidemic. The last act had 

very precise reporting requirements, but importantly also asked 

the office to look very carefully at prevalence and incidence in each 

of these countries and to measure clear impact. 

We are working very hard to measure clear impact and that 

should be a goal that the committee should hold the office, the coordinator’s office, responsible for, to really show country-by-country 

impact on this epidemic. Working backward from that, you absolutely have to have the treatment, the male circumcision, the counseling and testing, and the prevention of mother-to-child transmission, which are all covered in the reporting requirements to this 

committee. 

So you ought to hold me responsible to the roadmap that was 

laid out well a year and a half ago and to all of the elements that 

we know are responsible and the tools that we need to control this 

epidemic. 

Senator MARKEY. So how will you use science and evaluation 

with regard to costs and efficiency to drive these targets and results? 

Dr. BIRX. Over the last couple of years at CDC, we have integrated the costing analyses with site-level monitoring, so that we 

can actually analyze each site for its performance, how much it 

222 

costs to achieve that performance, the actual quality of the services 

delivered, and also measuring the impact on the community as far 

as controlling the HIV epidemic. This has been really important, to 

have that level of detail, and that is the level of detail we will need 

to bring to the office in order to ensure that we are having the impact that we are investing in. 

Senator MARKEY. What is the role of prevention, specifically combination HIV prevention that brings together structural, behavioral, and biomedical interventions in achieving those results? 

Dr. BIRX. Thank you for that question. That has been an important component of the office for the last 3 years. Ambassador 

Goosby, recognizing the importance of this particular approach, has 

launched two large combination prevention intervention trials that 

will actually look at this question in a very rigorous scientific 

methodology to ensure that we can answer the very question that 

you just asked. 

These questions have been answered in very double-blinded, controlled trials, but when you take that to actual community implementation there is always the question, does it work as well? So 

these particular trials are actually launching services at the community level and then looking at their impact, and we will be able 

to tell you the components that have the largest impact on decreasing incidence. 

Senator MARKEY. Great. Thank you so much for that great answer. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Cormack, if you could just briefly summarize how optimistic you are about making progress in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina? Do you have some sense that progress can be made? 

Ms. CORMACK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. I 

think that optimism is an integral component of diplomacy. So yes, 

I always go out with an optimistic approach, but also a realistic approach. The United States, as I noted in my testimony, has invested significant time and effort in helping Bosnia and 

Herzegovina emerge from a very difficult war and rebuild the country, rebuild the institutions of governance, and start to build the 

civil society. 

It is a period in time when we see citizens there starting to stand 

up and hold their leaders accountable, to take into their own hands 

some of the processes of democracy. I hope as I go out—I am a public diplomacy officer by training—to work directly with the people 

and really try to understand their concerns and see how we support them going forward into what we hope will be a Euro-Atlantic 

future. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much. 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Kaine—oh, I am sorry. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator KAINE. I defer to my colleague. 

Senator MARKEY. Let me turn and recognize the ranking member 

of the full committee, Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Well, thank you. I enjoyed our conversation on 

the earlier panel today. 

Senator MARKEY. Senator Kaine and I are now in 8-minute seats 

up here. 

223 

Senator CORKER. Very good. 

Senator MARKEY. It is a carryover joke from the earlier period. 

Senator CORKER. I am going to have mine for about a minute 

and a half. So I thank you for this. 

I thank all of you for what you are doing and getting ready to 

do. I just want to ask one question to Dr. Birx if I could. I am going 

to give a little preface for it. She is probably expecting this question. I want to thank you for being here today and I appreciated 

the meeting and discussion that we had regarding the PEPFAR 

program in my office. 

One of the many laudable achievements accomplished by the 

PEPFAR program is the fact that 6.7 million people have been put 

on treatment by the end of the year 2013. The prioritization of 

treatment and care has been a hallmark of the PEPFAR program, 

as you know well. Focusing on the goals of both the implementing 

partners and U.S.-funded initiatives, in the PEPFAR Stewardship 

and Oversight Act we included a provision that has been part of 

the program since the beginning, the requirement that at least 50 

percent of PEPFAR dollars must be spent on treatment and care 

programs. However, because the GAO report pointed out in a report in March 2013 that the administration has been excluding a 

significant portion of the PEPFAR funding from this 50-percent calculation, we clarified the language, and I know you and I talked 

about that. The language now states that the calculation must be 

made from all amounts appropriated or otherwise made available 

to carry out the provisions of Section 104[a] of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

So the question, after that preface. Senator Coburn and I wrote 

a letter to the administration asking a number of questions about 

the history of the treatment and care provision and we received 

their response shortly after our meeting. Today I would like to ask 

you about one of the specific answers we received in that response. 

We asked the administration if they are planning to modify current policies in order to comply with the new language in the Stewardship Act, and they responded that they will consider it. My 

question to you, Dr. Birx: If confirmed, will you ensure that the 

agency conforms to this clarification in law regarding the treatment 

and care calculation? Will you work in your new position to change 

any necessary policies or guidance to make sure it is implemented 

in compliance with the law? 

Dr. BIRX. Yes, sir, we will be compliant with the as-written in 

the legislation. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you so much. I look forward to your confirmation. 

Thank you for letting me do that on the record. If you want to 

talk about energy policy or anything else—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. I thank the ranking member for coming. Thank 

you, sir. 

The gentleman from—the Senator from Virginia, Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. He called me ‘‘gentleman,’’ but then he corrected 

it to ‘‘Senator.’’ 

Senator MARKEY. As a Congressman you are called ‘‘gentleman’’ 

and I was in the House for 37 years, calling people the ‘‘genVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
224 

tleman.’’ But in the Senate you just call people ‘‘Senator.’’ They are 

never ‘‘gentleman’’ over here in the Senate. 

Senator KAINE. Very true. 

Senator MARKEY. The Senator from Virginia. 

Senator KAINE. Dr. Birx, I think I walked in as you were answering a question that the chair posed to you. But I think I want to 

come back to it. The legislative activity in Uganda is very, very 

troubling. I use that as an example for the possibility of other such 

action anywhere in the world that would stereotype or stigmatize 

folks because of their sexual orientation. Very possible that such 

legislation is something that we could—we will see, continue to see, 

in other parts of the world. That kind of legislation can promote 

an attitude, frankly, that will be counter to your mission of trying 

to educate, inform, eradicate and treat HIV/AIDS. 

I imagine there are other parts of the U.S. Government, human 

rights offices and things, that are charged with dealing with those 

challenges when they come up. But I would also think part of your 

portfolio could be education and using the tools at your disposal to 

try to give people, give policymakers, the information they need so 

that they do not go down the path of discriminatory legislation. If 

you could talk just a little bit about what you see your role as in 

that important educational effort, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. BIRX. Thank you, Senator. There are many gentlemen in the 

South, including from Virginia. So thank you. 

This is an extraordinary time where we are making incredible 

progress. So to have this as a clear setback, and I think we all hear 

and share that this is an incredible setback to the people to be able 

to access services. If people cannot come forward for services, they 

cannot be tested. They will not know their status. They cannot receive lifesaving treatment and, more importantly, they cannot 

lower their viral load to a nontransmittable state. 

So it is in all countries’ interest to do all of their program, policies, and legal framework to encourage access to all public health 

services. I share your concern. I know the President shares your 

concern. Many Senators share your concern and have been very 

outspoken on this issue, as well as Secretary Kerry. I know that 

Secretary Kerry and the White House are working on this right 

now, and the Ambassador from Uganda is coming to Washington 

for this specific discussion during a chief of missions meeting, and 

we are working—I hope to work very closely. 

But you are right, it is not just Uganda and Nigeria. There are 

similar laws on the books, not quite as restrictive and not quite as 

violent as Uganda’s, in many of our countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and this legal framework has to be addressed in the future to 

have full successful control of the epidemic. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Dr. Birx. 

Ms. LeVine, congratulations on your nomination. You will succeed, I am confident, a dear friend of mine, Ambassador Don Beyer, 

who did a wonderful job. 

Senator Markey and I are strong supporters of immigration reform. The question I wanted to ask you is about immigration, particularly your kind of interpretation—explain to us what you can 

about the Swiss vote on February 9, that was a narrow backing of 

a referendum to put immigration caps on immigration from EU 

225 

countries. Why did the Swiss populace back that? What can we 

learn from it? 

Ms. LEVINE. Thank you very much for that question, Senator 

Kaine. I know that this is near and dear to your heart, also from 

your background in spending time in other parts of the world. The 

referendum itself is an internal Swiss matter and in terms of the 

implications to the United States or other parts of the world we do 

not yet know what those implications are and the ramifications of 

that referendum. 

But I think that what we can take away from it is it is sort of 

a fascinating demonstration of Swiss direct democracy. They have 

an interplay of direct and representative democracy with which 

Western States, like Washingtonians and Massachusetts, have this 

interplay between having initiatives and representative democracy. 

I think what we take away from that is an opportunity to work 

more with the Swiss people. 

I am moved by Peter’s testimony earlier with regards to his 

being an immigrant and coming from an immigrant background. I 

think the American story about immigration is an incredible one. 

I would suspect that 95 percent of the people in this room have 

come here some time within the past four generations. When I look 

at people like a gentleman named Hadi Partovi, who worked at 

Microsoft for a very long time, came to the United States as a 

young man, as a young boy in fact, from Iran. He succeeded wildly 

in technology and now he has created a nonprofit called Code.org 

to help people become ready for the 22nd century, never mind the 

21st century. 

We have an extraordinary story to tell, and if confirmed I would 

love the opportunity to tell that story. I think that that is what we 

as Americans can do in articulating and in reaching out. I also 

think that, if confirmed, I would love the opportunity to work with 

organizations that bridge the gap between different communities 

and continue some of the fantastic work that Ambassador Beyer 

had done, especially around gender equality and reaching out to 

women and technology, and to get more women into technology, of 

which I am one. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ms. LeVine. Wonderful answer. 

Ms. Cormack, talk a little bit about the dynamics about the possible joining of NATO by Bosnia? 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine. Bosnia has 

pursued the track of joining NATO. It is, along with their accession 

to the European Union, something that polls show the majority of 

the population supports. As so much at the moment in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, they have not been able to take the specific steps 

needed to move firmly onto the track of a map, the process for 

NATO. 

In the case of NATO, that is simply registering defense properties that have been identified by the ministry of defense as essential. These are unmovable defense properties that the ministry believes that they need for their functions. It is we consider a step 

that is fairly basic, and if confirmed I look forward to working with 

the Bosnians to try to help them move in that direction. 

Senator KAINE. You do not read the failure of the Bosnians to 

take those steps yet as any equivocation about wanting to pursue 

226 

NATO? You think this is a kind of a practical matter that we 

should be able to address productively? 

Ms. CORMACK. I think there are different perspectives among the 

population. Some people are probably less enthusiastic. Others are 

more so. But I do believe that, together with our NATO partners, 

we can try to move in this direction. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, with your permission—I am right at the end—could 

I ask Mr. Selfridge a question? 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Selfridge, your experience in directing advance and operations at the White House to me seems like the perfect background for this protocol job, because I understand a little 

bit about that position and I think it is pretty much the job description for protocol officer almost. But then there is the issue of 

challenging international sort of diplomatic perspectives and the 

fact that we sometimes see things differently than even our friends. 

I just was curious about this. There have been some recent controversies relating to criminal charges against foreign diplomats in 

the United States and they have made headlines. These are things 

you hope do not happen, but they happen—episodes related to 

Medicaid fraud, 49 New York-based Russian diplomats and spouses 

allegedly obtaining Medicaid benefits; and then the very controversial and widely publicized incident in December of 2013 about the 

arrest of an Indian deputy consul general in New York City on 

charges related to household employment. 

To your knowledge, to what extent in your position, Chief of Protocol, are you engaged in addressing or helping other officials within the U.S. Government figure out a way to address problems like 

that in a sensitive way? 

Mr. SELFRIDGE. Thank you, Senator, for that question. This is an 

issue of great importance to the Department, as you know, and to 

Secretary Kerry. I think protocol’s best weapon in these circumstances is communication. While we do not directly cover the 

visa process, we nonetheless can inject ourselves into that process 

by educating the workers themselves and the missions, foreign governments and their missions here in the United States. 

I think that is the most important step. We believe, the Department believes, that it has been very effective as far as getting information that was not previously available to these workers out, 

including hot lines, other actionable items that these workers can 

take. 

I think, as far as I guess post-infraction, the Office of Protocol 

acts as a coordinator, so to speak. They make sure the mission is 

aware of the infraction and encourage investigations of their own 

to correct them, and they can make recommendations in that regard. They also cooperate very closely with law enforcement to 

make sure that the missions and their diplomats and staff follow 

the law. Regardless of immunity, we expect all diplomats serving 

here to abide by U.S. law. 

So in the case of Dr. Khobragade, we believe that the system 

functioned as it should. It is unfortunate that it had to get to the 

point that it did. But the case is still pending. Should she return 

to the United States, she would face charges. So again, this is 

227 

something, if confirmed, that I would have a great staff working on 

these issues and I would intend to make that a top priority. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you to each of you, and thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, gentlemen. I thank the Senator. 

The chair recognizes the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all of you. I think some of the ground that I wanted 

to cover has already been covered you my colleagues. Ms. Cormack, 

great to see you here. I enjoyed our time together. 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you. 

Senator MURPHY. I wish you well in your new endeavor. I wanted to maybe ask you a broader issue about the challenges that confront the Balkans today and how the division of labor should be allocated between a historic United States leadership role in the Balkans and an emerging role for the EU in trying to moderate some 

of these disputes. There is all sorts of issues, but the three that 

sort of emerge at the top of the list over and over again are the 

question you will be confronted regarding Bosnian governance, the 

issue over the Macedonian name dispute with Greece, and then the 

conflict between Serbia and Kosovo, which is obviously getting better with the new agreement, but still has lingering issues. 

So when I talk to friends in the Balkans they are welcoming of 

Lady Ashton’s vigor on many of these issues, but are looking for 

a return to U.S. leadership on these questions. What do you see as 

the future of the European Union’s ability to moderate some of 

these disputes and how does that dovetail with what I hope is a 

renaissance of American interest in the region in the coming years? 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you very much, Senator Murphy. I also enjoyed our conversation, so thank you. 

The United States commitment to Bosnia and Herzegovina remains strong. We also strongly support Bosnia’s accession process 

to the European Union and NATO. We partner very closely with 

our European allies on the ground. There is an excellent European 

Union senior representative in Sarajevo. We work very closely with 

their Enlargement Commissioner. We really feel that we both play 

an important role. As you note, the United States has a very historic role in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Our commitment is something that I certainly, if confirmed, intend to fully maintain. I look 

forward to working closely with the people of the country and really finding out how we can work together to help them move to a 

Euro-Atlantic future. 

As we see countries like Croatia join the European Union, as 

Serbia and other countries move in that direction, Bosnia is in a 

region where they risk being isolated if they do not also follow that 

path. So it is the European Union that needs to have the lead in 

ensuring that Bosnia moves in the institutional sense in the direction that they need to if they are going to join Europe. But the 

United States certainly intends to be a key partner in that process. 

Senator MURPHY. It certainly appears that the carrots that Europe has offered so far has not been sufficient to change the political dynamics on the ground in Bosnia. So I wonder whether there 

is a different set of incentives or a renewed road map that may be 

necessary in order to stimulate the domestic reforms necessary. I 

228 

do not expect you to have a fulsome critique of what that road map 

should be, but it appears to me that we should know by now that 

whatever we have used is maybe insufficient and it is going to take 

a new set of criteria, both sticks and carrots I guess, to get them 

to change their calculus. 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed I certainly 

would look forward to working with our European partners to have 

that conversation, because you are right, we are very disappointed, 

honestly, that Bosnia and Herzegovina has not been able to take 

the first basic steps to move toward the EU and NATO. 

I do think that the demonstrations that we have seen in Bosnia 

and Herzegovina in recent weeks show an increasing frustration 

from the population with their leaders. These were economic demonstrations, people wanting jobs, wanting proper salaries, pensions, 

things that are very basic and that would certainly accrue to them 

if they start making the changes necessary to move down the European path. 

So figuring out what that is, what would put the political will in 

place to get that process going, is something that I would look forward to working on. 

Senator MURPHY. Great. Well, I think you are going to be a fantastic ambassador. I really appreciate your service. 

Ms. LeVine, we had a chance to talk as well and I am glad that 

Senator Kaine covered with you the topic that we spent some time 

discussing, which is the rather disturbing anti-immigration trends, 

not just in Switzerland but throughout the continent. As we sort 

of think about the future path for Ukraine, we of course envision 

them joining the EU. But that prospect is dimmed in some respect 

by the fact that there is going to be an EU that may be even more 

Euro-skeptic than before and countries like Switzerland, which are 

having a little bit harder time rapping their hands around the concept of free flow of peoples. So I am glad to hear your commitment 

to work on that issue. 

I wanted to just ask you about the pending free trade agreement 

with the European Union and just talk to you about the role that 

the Swiss will play and the role which your Embassy will play in 

trying to talk about ultimately the benefits that flow to all of Europe if we are able to ink a free trade agreement with the continent. 

Ms. LEVINE. Well, to be clear—thank you very much for that 

question, Senator Murphy. I also enjoyed our time yesterday, albeit 

brief. I look forward to more time to discuss some of these matters 

if confirmed. 

With respect to TTIP, Switzerland is not in the EU. They are in 

the European Free Trade Area. So while they are not part of the 

negotiations themselves, I think that the role that the embassy 

plays in the State Department plays is to continue to keep them 

updated on the progress of those conversations and identify those 

areas that would impact trade with Switzerland because of both 

the role that Switzerland plays in trade with Europe and of course 

as a top 20 export market for the United States and as a generator 

of over 400,000 American jobs, Swiss companies care deeply about 

the impact of TTIP. 

229 

So I think it is incumbent upon the State Department and the 

embassy team, and if confirmed myself as Ambassador I will make 

it a priority to continue to keep the Swiss Government updated and 

to facilitate in whatever way is necessary the USTR as they continue to negotiate this so that they keep the Swiss informed and 

involved. 

Senator MURPHY. I appreciate that. There are all sorts of nonEU countries who have partnerships in various ways, shapes, and 

forms with the EU that are going to benefit from this free trade 

agreement. Switzerland will benefit from this agreement. Other 

countries on the edges of the EU will no doubt benefit. And we 

want to the extent possible to have them partners with us in trying 

to sell this, both internally and globally, as we move forward. So 

I appreciate your focus on this. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to ask some questions. 

Senator MARKEY. If the Senator has any other questions—— 

Senator MURPHY. I am good. 

Senator MARKEY. Beautiful. 

Let me just ask you, Ms. LeVine, one quick question. Switzerland 

is shutting down its five nuclear power plants. It is going to decommission them and they are moving more toward a renewable energy future. Do you as a businesswoman see any opportunities for 

the United States in partnership with Switzerland to be engaging 

in business transactions that can help both Switzerland and the 

United States in that area? 

Ms. LEVINE. Senator Markey, I especially appreciate that question given your history with the environment and being an incredible steward for renewable energy development in the United 

States and jobs related to renewable energy. So thank you very 

much for that question. 

The short answer is yes. In addition to that, I think that there 

are a few areas related to this. Now, the Swiss have been leaders 

in clean tech funding and in fact clean tech from my understanding 

comprises about—clean tech jobs comprise about 5 percent of the 

jobs in Switzerland. There are over 160,000 people who are employed in that area. They are incredible funders, including sustainable asset management, green tech. There are emerald technology 

ventures. 

If confirmed, Senator, I look forward to applying my skills in 

building partnerships and in understanding and reaching out to entities—previously Senator Cantwell talked about work that I did 

when I was at Microsoft engaging Coca-Cola, engaging Nokia, to 

work with our students, or when I was at Expedia I worked with 

tourism boards to engage them with travel agencies, to increase 

travel. I would apply those same skills and the success that I have 

had in that domain to understand the respective interests and opportunities from among the clean tech funders in Switzerland and 

then, similarly, reach out to innovators, entrepreneurs, and 

thought leaders in the United States to gauge what are their 

needs, and to try to do that matchmaking, and with that to make 

sure that it is sustainable and mutually beneficial. 

Senator MARKEY. I think you are the perfect person, honestly, to 

capture that—— 

Ms. LEVINE. Thank you. 

230 

Senator MARKEY [continuing]. Economic opportunity for both 

countries. It is going to happen. This revolution is occurring. Switzerland believes that the planet is warming, that there are no 

emergency rooms for planets, and that we have to engage in preventative care, and Switzerland is a country that accepts that. 

They have the Alps. They can see what is happening. So we thank 

you for that. 

What I am going to do here is to ask each of you, in reverse 

order, to give us the 1-minute, tell us the 1-minute thing you would 

want us to remember about what it is that you hope to achieve for 

our country in the positions that you have been nominated to fill. 

Give us your vision of what it is that you hope to provide for our 

country in this incredible opportunity that you are each being 

given. We will go in reverse order from the opening statements, so 

we will begin with you, Mr. Selfridge. 

Mr. SELFRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a great question. I am thinking out loud right now because—— 

Senator MARKEY. And you would like to go last. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SELFRIDGE. I am used to that order, yes, sir. 

I am going to be thinking out loud a little bit here because I 

think the first thought that popped into my head is the Chief of 

Protocol, while somewhat—while very visible, I guess, when it 

comes to foreign diplomacy, is nonetheless supposed to I guess be 

seen and not heard. So I would like to be remembered as an excellent steward of the office. 

That being said, I think there is always room, to borrow Secretary Kerry’s line, for modernization and innovation, and I hope 

to look for those opportunities in the office, to perhaps be the Chief 

of Protocol, if confirmed, that invigorates the office in that respect. 

I also want to be known as a steward of the taxpayer dollars. I 

think this is one office that does quite a bit with very little. 

I see my time is up. I will leave it at that and thank you again, 

Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Cormack. 

Ms. CORMACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I go out, 

if confirmed, to Bosnia and Herzegovina, I have three overarching 

goals. I have heard from everyone in the U.S. interagency that I 

have one of the best missions they have worked with, and I look 

forward to taking the leadership role of a wonderful group of people 

and really hoping to inspire and empower them to do wonderful 

work. 

Secondly, I hope to use my public diplomacy skills and reach out 

far more extensively to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 

order to, first of all, listen and really understand their concerns, 

and then find out how the United States can support their aspirations. 

Finally, really support the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina as 

they move toward a Euro-Atlantic future. I do believe that their future, multi-ethnic, democratic, and prosperous, should be rooted in 

Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

So thank you so much. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much. 

Ms. LeVine. 

231 

Ms. LEVINE. Chairman Markey, if confirmed I look forward to 

applying my skills, my experience, and my passion to increasing 

our economic ties, especially as measured by foreign direct investment and exports. I look forward to expanding our collaborations, 

existing and new, whether it is through the OSCE, whether it is 

through the Global Counterterrorism Forum, or whether it is creating new ones, public-private partnerships like ones recently announced between the Gates Foundation and the Swiss Government. 

I also look forward to increasing awareness and appreciation, especially given what we discussed before in terms of direct democracy and outreach to the Swiss and Liechtenstein people, especially 

the youth and the students, and especially in the technology community. 

Senator, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate today and 

through my submissions that, while nonlinear, my wide array of 

experiences, from working at Microsoft, Expedia, even at NASA, to 

volunteering and starting up nonprofits, and also to being a mom, 

equip me to serve our country proudly, humbly, and well. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Levine. 

Ms. Birx. 

Dr. BIRX. Those were all wonderful answers. I think I feel a lot 

of pressure to continue the amazing work that has been done in the 

field, and building on that coalition of activists and their insights, 

civil society and their insights, and linking that with the scientific 

innovations that we have found to be most helpful, and continue 

to take them to scale. 

In addition, making it clear that the interagency process is the 

reason why PEPFAR has been successful. It was a brilliant idea to 

harness the whole of government. It made it clear that no one 

agency could do it alone. It has been amazingly successful in that 

we have learned from each other, yet still built on our individual 

agency strengths. The control of the epidemic that we have today 

is due to that. 

Then finally, be able to demonstrate that we can definitively control the epidemic, and finding that country or those countries that 

we can do that in will be the absolute goal of the next 3 years. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you, Ms. Birx. 

Well, we have four supremely qualified candidates for your positions. We thank each of you for your willingness to serve our country. I think you each have a background that fits the job that you 

have been asked to serve in perfectly, and we are very proud to 

have you as Americans willing to serve our country. I wish a 

speedy confirmation for each of you and I will try to help in any 

way that I can in order to accomplish that goal. So we thank you 

for that. 

For the other members who were not able to attend, I just make 

the public announcement that they will have until the close of business tomorrow to submit questions to our witnesses, because we 

hope to be able to move forward quickly on these nominations. 

So with that and the thanks of our country, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

232 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF DR. DEBORAH BIRX TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Burma is a PEPFAR bilateral country. In late February 2014, Doctors without 

Borders (MSF) was ejected from Rakhine State by the Government of Burma, which 

falsely alleged that MSF was stoking ethnic tensions. MSF is reportedly one of the 

biggest providers of HIV/AIDS drugs in Burma and also treats thousands of tuberculosis patients. 

Question. How will MSF’s ejection from Burma impact the health of the HIV/AIDS 

and tuberculosis patients they were treating in the country? 

Answer. MSF Burma, represented by MSF–Holland (MSF–H) and MSF–Switzerland, has been working in Burma for over 20 years, providing basic and maternal 

health care and treatment for HIV and tuberculosis (TB). The current situation only 

applies to activities conducted by MSF–Holland. MSF–Switzerland has not been 

impacted by the recent developments in Rakhine. 

MSF–H has significant operations in Rangoon and Kachin, Shan and Rakhine 

States. Currently, MSF–H is providing life-saving antiretroviral therapy to over 

30,000 HIV positive patients and tuberculosis treatment to over 3,000 patients. 

On February 27, 2014, MSF–H received a written order from the Government of 

Burma to cease all operations in the country pending renewal of its Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with the government. This led to a closure of all MSF– 

H clinics on February 28. On February 28, the Government of Burma allowed MSF– 

H to resume activities in all areas except Rakhine State. Seven hundred patients 

on antiretroviral therapy at MSF–H sites in Rakhine State have been impacted by 

the closure. 

Question. What possible impacts will MSF’s ejection from Burma have on the 

spread of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in the country? 

Answer. At the end of 2013, MSF was providing antiretroviral therapy to 31,276 

patients across the country. This represents nearly half of the total number of people on antiretroviral therapy in Burma. In addition to antiretroviral drugs, MSF is 

also supporting additional key TB/HIV services, which is a critical given that the 

HIV rate among new tuberculosis patients is estimated to be nearly 10 percent. 

Because MSF’s HIV/AIDS and TB activities in most of the country were resumed 

after a single day of suspension, no significant impacts are expected on the spread 

of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in Burma nationally. The Ministry of Health has 

assured continuity of treatment services for those patients in Rakhine State. It will 

be critical for the MOH to continue these services in order to ensure the current 

gains in combating HIV/AIDS and TB in Rakhine State are not lost. 

Question. What actions has the U.S. Government taken to encourage the Government of Burma to allow MSF back into the country? 

Answer. MSF clinics continue to operate in many parts of Burma. The current 

suspension affects the MSF–Holland clinics in Rakine State. U.S. Embassy Rangoon 

remains in regular contact with the Government of Burma and with local and international humanitarian assistance providers regarding the situation on the ground. 

Ambassador Derek Mitchell personally has been in frequent and active communication with both Government of Burma senior officials and MSF–H to encourage continued private dialogue in negotiating a way forward to ensure no gap in necessary 

humanitarian services and to work toward a restoration of MSF–Holland services 

in Rakhine State. As part of this effort, on the day of MSF’s suspension, Ambassador Mitchell highlighted for Burmese officials from the Ministry of Health, the 

Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Border Affairs, the humanitarian consequences of MSF–H not being allowed to continue provision of its life-saving services. Ambassador Mitchell also encouraged the GOB to continue dialogue with MSF 

toward ensuring unfettered access for humanitarian agencies to people in need. 

USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah joined with Ambassador Mitchell in expressing 

strong concern about the events of February 28 to government ministers with the 

Burmese President’s Office. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy 

Sherman also raised the issue with senior Burmese officials during her March 6– 

7 visit to Burma. 

U.S. Embassy Rangoon continues to engage daily with MSF–H and with the Government of Burma on this issue, urging the government to abide by international 

standards on humanitarian access and provision of services. 

233 

Question. How much PEPFAR assistance goes to Burma through MSF? Are there 

other PEPFAR partner organizations that can adequately treat the 30,000 HIV/ 

AIDS patients that were under MSF’s care? 

Answer. PEPFAR does not provide any direct financial assistance to MSF, nor 

does it support direct treatment service delivery in Burma through any other partners. MSF is currently providing treatment services to over half of all patients currently enrolled on antiretroviral therapy in Burma, and there are no other organizations that can absorb 30,000 patients at this time. 

Question. How much Global Fund assistance goes to Burma through MSF–H? Are 

there other Global Fund partner organizations that can adequately treat the 3,000 

tuberculosis patients that were under MSF’s care? 

Answer. MSF–H received $3.4 million USD in 2013 from the Global Fund, and 

is budgeted to receive $4.1 million in 2014. As MSF activities have resumed in most 

of the country, the U.S. Government is optimistic that nearly all of the 3,000 tuberculosis patients on treatment will continue to receive services through MSF sites. 

For the patients on tuberculosis treatment at currently shuttered MSF sites in 

Rakhine State, the Ministry of Health has made a commitment to provide treatment 

to these patients until MSF is allowed to resume activities. Health agencies working 

in Rakhine State, including other Global Fund partner organizations, do not have 

the capacity to assume the treatment burden for MSF’s caseload. 

RESPONSES OF DR. DEBORAH BIRX TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has enjoyed 

broad, bipartisan support since its launch in 2003. Last year, this bipartisan tradition continued with the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act, which passed 

unanimously in the Senate and by a voice vote in the House. The program’s support 

stems largely from the fact that Congress has a clear picture of what Americans get 

for their contributions by setting ambitious bilateral targets and goals specifically 

for PEPFAR and measuring progress toward those targets. However, this year the 

administration did not announce any new bilateral treatment or prevention goals 

for PEPFAR. 

The PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act requires the administration to 

report on bilateral annual targets for treatment and prevention programs specific 

to PEPFAR. 

♦ (a). How important do you think bilateral targets are to the performance, 

accountability, and focus of PEPFAR? 

Answer. Annual bilateral country targets are a core marker for measuring performance and implementing partner accountability for contributing to impactful 

HIV prevention and treatment programs. Annual targets are used to build implementing partner budgets, and allow for the PEPFAR country team to plan and collaborate with the host government and the Global Fund on what can be achieved 

in core prevention and treatment programs in a given year, and how these targets 

contribute to increased levels of treatment and prevention program coverage. 

PEPFAR’s targets for prevention, care, and treatment have been a critical factor 

in enabling both Congress and the American people to understand how their investments have been saving lives in countries around the world. In addition to these 

annual targets, PEPFAR works jointly with local and international partners to 

define measurable commitments that contribute to creating an AIDS-free generation, including commitments around legal reform, supply chain improvements, and 

increased domestic contributions for HIV/AIDS—all areas of work that ensure that 

treatment and care programs maximize their impact and meet or exceed any bilateral targets that have been set. 

PEPFAR will continue, per P.L. 113–56, the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight 

Act, to use bilateral targets as an essential component of its efforts to save lives 

and increase efficiencies. Fighting the AIDS pandemic will require global solidarity, 

and PEPFAR is only one of several donors working with partner countries on this 

epidemic. The act focuses not only on the bilateral targets established by PEPFAR 

in each partner country, but also the national targets established by the country 

itself, to which PEPFAR will contribute. 

♦ (b). How will you ensure that the bilateral target requirements in the Stewardship Act are met? 

Answer. On a semiannual and annual basis the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS 

Coordinator (OGAC) requires all implementing agencies to report core prevention 

234 

and treatment achievements drawn from an established set of program indicators. 

At the semiannual check-in point, the intent is to identify those countries (and implementing partners within countries) that are not on track to reach annual targets 

established, determine the problems, and develop a plan of corrective action. When 

warranted, technical support is deployed to country teams from headquarters to provide further assistance. Close monitoring of country achievements to targets and 

corrected action has enabled PEPFAR to meet annual and multiyear targets in prevention, care, and treatment. 

♦ (c). When will this year’s bilateral PEPFAR targets be released publicly? 

Answer. PEPFAR is committed to staying in regular communication with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) and other congressional committees of 

jurisdiction on progress toward setting FY 2014 bilateral PEPFAR targets. The FY 

2014 PEPFAR Country Operational Plans (COPs), the source of 2014 targets by 

implementing partner by country, will be reviewed in April/May and and finalized 

in the summer of 2014. In September/October, the 2014 COPs and targets will be 

made available to Congress and will also be posted publicly on the PEPFAR.gov 

Web site after a process of redaction has taken place to ensure that procurement 

sensitive information has been removed. The 2014 COP will be implemented in FY 

2015. Currently PEPFAR teams are implementing COP 2013, and all 2013 COPs 

have been posted publicly. 

In addition, in December 2013, the President called for the new U.S. Global AIDS 

Coordinator, once confirmed, to convene our partners to develop joint HIV prevention and treatment goals to ensure we are making progress against this epidemic 

together. We will engage SFRC closely in our processes toward setting these global 

targets. 

Question. PEPFAR has begun to transition from an emergency response to a sustainable, long-term program, including shifting toward greater country responsibility. While it is important for host countries to assume greater leadership in combating their HIV/AIDS epidemic, I am concerned by accounts that transitions to 

greater country ownership are driven by factors other than scientific data and country capacity. How those transitions are planned and executed is critically important 

and can involve significant risk to the more than $40 billion we have invested as 

well as a tremendous risk to the people who depend on these programs for life and 

health. 

What lessons have we learned from the transition process so far, and how do you 

intend to ensure that transitions to greater country ownership continue to increase 

the impact of core interventions, as well as protect our investments and the patients 

on the ground who are counting on us to get this right? 

Answer. Greater country ownership is key to ensuring that the PEPFAR investments, systems, and capacities that have been established in the program to date 

continue in the long term. Through our partnerships, we have saved millions of 

lives, and our paramount responsibility is ensuring that those to whom we provide 

treatment and care continue to receive treatment and care during our transitions. 

Under PEPFAR we have learned that political leadership, local management and 

technical capabilities, supportive public health institutions and communities, and 

mutual accountability are factors that affect the degree to which countries are ready 

to assume responsibility for the prevention, treatment, and care of people dependent 

on services that the United States has been providing. With our partner countries, 

we need to share the common goal of using scientific data with adequate financing 

to invest in proven interventions and key populations to achieve continued progress 

toward an AIDS-free generation. 

In countries where PEPFAR funds have been used to provide support for direct 

service delivery in prevention, care, and treatment programs, PEPFAR teams have 

delivered transition successes in conjunction with their country counterparts. Health 

care workers previously trained and funded by PEPFAR are now funded by the government. Delivery of clinical services has transitioned from international NGOs to 

the Ministry of Health, local NGOs, and faith-based local providers. National procurement and delivery of commodities are funded by domestic resources. In all 

cases, these successes have been possible due to strong partnerships and sustained 

because of strong political will and commitment. In addition, across multiple countries, PEPFAR has registered successful transfers of responsibilities for the care of 

key populations—groups that may have difficulties accessing health and support 

services—to local civil society. 

Across former focus countries, district- and provincial-level government and nongovernmental entities have assumed the role of direct service provider, enabling efficiencies and maintaining or improving performance. We are monitoring the use and 

235 

impact of evidenced-based scientific interventions through our newly launched quality strategy. To optimize the impact of investments, expand population coverage, 

and retain more patients in care, PEPFAR is developing, in partnership with host 

countries, strategies for strengthening the quality of clinical services with a focus 

on improving linkage, engagement, and retention in care. These strategies are 

rooted in sound international standards and locally relevant strategies for quality 

management so that the best possible results are achieved from PEPFAR and domestic investments. 

PEPFAR is also monitoring the readiness for and impact of transitions through 

a series of joint assessments with countries that will be taking on additional responsibility. These assessments focus on identifying what additional capacities are 

required for local partners—governments, research, development, and academic institutions, NGOs, the private sector, and civil society networks and communities— 

to lead, manage, and monitor internal and external efforts to address HIV/AIDS in 

country. Part of this process includes supporting a country’s ability to drive the 

process to identify, source, and manage ongoing capacity-building efforts as a sustained government-led effort to target change, facilitated by capacity-building frameworks and indicators developed by PEPFAR in conjunction with our partners. 

Our health partnership with South Africa is a model we are learning from, and 

continue to evolve with our partners in other countries, for transition to greater 

country ownership. Throughout the evolution of all of our partnerships, we have 

never lost sight of our shared goals: to enable more people in need of HIV/AIDS 

services to receive them, and ensure that those who already receive these services 

continue doing so. Strong partnerships with many diverse stakeholders are vital to 

achieving these goals. Where we face challenges, we work jointly to address them. 

For example, as some patients move from one facility to another, they can get lost 

in the system. Preventing this ‘‘loss to follow up’’ is a challenge in any health system, including within the United States. PEPFAR continues to work closely with 

our South African partners to support the rollout of monitoring systems to ensure 

patients are properly tracked over time and retained in care. 

As PEPFAR moves from an emergency to a sustainability response, we are extremely cognizant of the challenges that partner nations face as we make this transition. Every country is situated at a different point on the continuum of country 

ownership, with a different range of needs and strengths. Advancing sustainability 

in a way that is tailored to each specific circumstance will require time and careful 

planning. PEPFAR is committed to ensuring that the eventual transfer of program 

management, implementation, and ownership to the host country occurs smoothly 

and at a pace appropriate to the local context. There is not a one-size-fits-all 

approach to country ownership. The eventual transition of PEPFAR program activities to host countries will occur in a step-wise manner, at a pace appropriate to their 

local context. In all countries, PEPFAR’s goal is to support the country in achieving 

an AIDS-free generation, increasing the impact of core interventions, as well as protecting our investments and the patients on the ground. 

Question. Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) programming is intended to help 

achieve progress toward prevention, treatment, and care objectives, but exactly how 

they achieve it might not be as clear as it is with spending that is specific to a particular program area. Additionally, because the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator has not counted HSS as part of the denominator when calculating how to 

meet the treatment and care spending requirement in law, it would seem that it 

is somehow treated or viewed differently than other program focus areas. 

♦ (a). What is the total annual funding level for HSS in PEPFAR by year, and 

how was that funding level determined? 

Answer. 

Budget Code—OHSS 

2005 COP—Total Planned Amount ...................................................... 445,395,169 

2006 COP—Total Planned Amount ...................................................... 58,972,580 

2007 COP—Total Planned Amount ...................................................... 103,779,504 

2008 COP–OPU Full JUL 2011—Total Planned Amount .................. 152,471,123 

2009 COP–OPU Full AUG 2012—Total Planned Amount ................. 291,362,960 

2010 COP–OPU Full AUG 2013—Total Planned Amount ................. 337,581,718 

2011 COP–OPU Full AUG 2013—Total Planned Amount ................. 368,945,328 

2012 COP–OPU Full AUG 2013—Total Planned Amount ................. 364,601,625 

2013 COP—Total Planned Amount ...................................................... 296,386,434 

Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) funding levels as part of the annual Country 

Operational Plan (COP). Above are the most recent data for the Health Systems 

Strengthening budget code (OHSS) for COPs, including reprogramming. The collecVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
236 

tive, annual amount of HSS is variable and is dependent on the maturity of the program and specific HSS requirements in order to ensure strong results in prevention, 

care, and treatment programs. HSS-core activities include: support for human 

resources for health (HRH), supply chain management and improvement, infrastructure improvements, policy development that allows for optimal program delivery, 

economic strengthening initiatives for vulnerable populations, laboratory support 

and support for the development of strategic information systems and use of data. 

Each PEPFAR country team will prioritize those HSS efforts that are necessary for 

successful core program delivery. 

In FY 2013, OHSS represented about 8 percent of the most recent COP total 

budget. The FY 2014 level is not included as the COPS are not fully approved. 

♦ (b). Is HSS programming in PEPFAR required to demonstrate clear, direct contributions toward prevention, treatment or care targets, and if so, how? 

Answer. HSS spending is designed to support delivery of prevention, treatment 

and care activities and achievement of targets set under those budget codes. The 

COP 2014 Guidance, OHSS budget code narrative, states: ‘‘The HSS strategy and 

program plan should clearly demonstrate how its priority interventions flow from 

and support the prevention, care, and treatment pillars of the overall PEPFAR program.’’ The full COP 2014 guidance can be found here: http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/217765.pdf. 

The FY 2014 Technical Considerations provide supporting documentation to link 

HSS programming to the delivery of prevention, treatment and care services. For 

example, the Technical Considerations illustrate how teams can map HSS activities 

to support three PEPFAR goals; (1) increased use of HIV/AIDS services by key populations; (2) option B+/pediatric treatment scale-up; and (3) antiretroviral treatment 

scale-up. The mapping provides specific examples of HSS investments that support 

these goals in several types of health system components: governance/leadership; 

human resources for health; supply chain management, laboratory systems, strategic information, and finance. The FY 2014 Technical Considerations for health 

systems strengthening can be found here: http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/217761.pdf. 

HSS is required to be linked to advancing population coverage of key prevention, 

care and treatment programs. For example, support for redesign of supply chains 

ensures that commodities are available at all levels of the health care delivery system and drug stock-outs do not occur, meaning that people are enrolled in treatment 

programs, receive TB treatment, are able to get an HIV test, and can undergo male 

circumcision—all core HIV interventions. Additionally, investments in building partner country supply chains results in improvements in the efficiency of drug supply 

chains and best price commodity procurements, which means available budgets provide health services to a larger portion of the population. 

Some HSS interventions are multiyear investments, but ultimately allow for 

improved achievements. For example, policy work on the use of point-of-care CD4 

testing in low volume regions allows for people to be enrolled in treatment programs 

without waiting for the results of a CD4 test sent to a regional lab. Investments 

in electronic systems allow governments to tabulate health care worker availability 

and improve deployment, health care worker performance and retention strategies. 

These investments deliver results over time. While their impact is not captured as 

a direct result on service delivery performance metrics, without these types of 

investments, care and treatment programs are poorly resourced and struggle to 

perform. 

♦ (c). Does HSS programming have specific targets to meet or metrics by which 

its performance can be assessed? 

Answer. Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) programming is governed by 

metrics that relate to several of the health system components mentioned above. For 

example, country teams must meet specific targets through FY 2015 regarding the 

number of new health care workers. In addition, policy changes, as an outcome of 

investments in governance and leadership, are tracked. 

HSS metrics and target setting—while supporting the achievement of service delivery targets—are therefore, of a fundamentally different nature than those captured under delivery of prevention, care, and treatment services. Unlike investments 

in prevention, care, and treatment services, ‘‘activities that fall into the HSS budget 

code are generally those that are implemented above the service delivery point (site) 

level’’ (COP 2014 guidance). 

Under PEPFAR’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) set of indicators, 

performance of HSS investments in leadership/governance, human resources for 

health (HRH) and supply chain are currently tracked at the headquarters level 

237 

through the following (investments in laboratory systems and strategic information 

are primarily tracked through different budget codes): 

♦ Measuring progress in developing and implementing policies that directly support PEPFAR prevention, care, and treatment activities (one indicator: LGF— 

PTT); 

• Production and distribution of new health care workers (two indicators: HRH— 

PRE; HRH—HRIS); 

• Strengthening of HIV and other commodities supply chains (two indicators: 

SC—TRAIN; SC—STOCK). 

Question. Recently, PEPFAR has been sharply criticized for its lack of transparency for a lack of publically accessible and usable information, and that the program has actually made less data available over time. 

♦ If confirmed, what steps will you take to reverse this trend and increase the 

transparency and usability of PEPFAR data? 

Answer. As I said in my testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

last week, if confirmed, I will be fully committed to ensuring the PEPFAR program 

is transparent and accountable, and will be fully compliant with all the requirements of P.L. 113–56, the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act. 

Since 2007, PEPFAR has made comprehensive financial, program, and partnerlevel data available on its Web site (pepfar.gov) through annual publication of Country Operational Plans (COPs). All published COPs describe in detail the planned 

activities for each of PEPFAR’s implementing partners, including the scope of their 

program activities and the associated funding. PEPFAR also posts a quarterly 

report on its Web site that provides a financial picture of the PEPFAR program, 

including the available appropriations, obligations, and outlays for each PEPFAR 

implementing agency by country. 

Moving forward, as part of its implementation of P.L. 113–56, PEPFAR will increase the transparency, granularity, and usability of its data. PEPFAR will publish 

all nonprocurement sensitive information clearly and transparently in an open webbased format, and expand the quality and quantity of information available in its 

annual reports, including available financial and performance data. If confirmed, I 

will keep Congress well-apprised of efforts to increase data transparency and 

usability while avoiding inadvertently creating an overly burdensome reporting 

process for partner countries and U.S. Government teams in the field, which are 

also charged with producing lifesaving program results. 

The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) is also working with the 

State Department’s Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance on the ForeignAssistance.gov 

Web site, which is driving implementation of a whole of U.S. Government effort to 

align with the International Aid Transparency Initiative. Data that OGAC and 

PEPFAR implementing agencies provide for publication on ForeignAssistance.gov 

contribute to overall U.S. Government efforts to increase data transparency. 

(239) 

NOMINATIONS OF PAIGE ALEXANDER, ALICE 

WELLS, THOMAS KELLY III, AND CASSANDRA BUTTS 

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Paige Eve Alexander, of Virginia, to be Assistant Administrator, 

Bureau for the Middle East, United States Agency for International Development 

Alice G. Wells, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Hashemite 

Kingdom of Jordan 

Thomas P. Kelly III, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti 

Cassandra Q. Butts, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador 

to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:33 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine presiding. 

Present: Senators Kaine, Risch, and Rubio. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator KAINE. I am going to call this hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to order. Today we have four nominees 

for consideration by the committee in significant positions, doing 

important work for the United States with allies to our Nation, 

vital to the United States interests. I thank each of these witnesses 

for their service thus far and the service I am confident they will 

continue to render. 

The committee always encourages our panelists to introduce family members and I see we have got good family member representation in the audience as well, which I appreciate. 

Senator Risch is in the middle of a Republican committee meeting, a caucus meeting, that is running a bit late, but is likely to 

be here shortly. I have his permission to go ahead and begin the 

hearing. After I do introductions, I will ask each of you to give your 

opening comments and then begin with questions. When Senator 

Risch arrives, I will ask him to make any opening comments 

should he choose. But I welcome all to the hearing. 

240 

Today we have before us Paige Eve Alexander of Virginia, to be 

Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for the Middle East for 

USAID. Welcome, Ms. Alexander. 

In addition, we have Alice Wells, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan—very happy to have 

you—Thomas P. Kelly, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti; and Cassandra Q. Butts, of the District of Columbia, to be the Ambassador to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. 

What I will ask you to do is to make your opening statements 

in the order that I introduced you, and after you do I will move into 

questions, and again we will have Senator Risch make his comments should he choose and questions, as well as offer that opportunity to other committee members. 

I will say before I ask you to make comments that one of the real 

joys of being on the Foreign Relations Committee is traveling 

around the world and seeing what fantastic small ‘‘a’’ ambassadors 

we have. The Ambassadors, capital ‘‘A,’’ do a wonderful job, but I 

am impressed, and I know you are as well, by the degree to which 

all Americans who serve abroad are great ambassadors for the 

country. 

I recently returned from a visit to Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Egypt, and any time I travel I try to sit down with junior 

Foreign Service officers, usually those who are in their first or second tour, often working in the consul office as consular officials. 

And talking to these young men and women, some of whom are 

serving far away from spouses or loved ones, some of whom are 

serving in security situations where, as in Lebanon, they are required to live on the compound—they get 6 hours a week for personal time off the compound, only 6 hours a week. They live in Lebanon in a compound where they are reminded every day with the 

memorial at the compound of members of America’s consular community who were killed in bombings in Lebanon in the 1980s and 

other instances. 

We know, because we are still living in the shadow of the horrible experience in Libya, of the sacrifices that are made by those 

on consular service. I think Americans instinctively understand 

those sacrifices that are made by members of our military, and I 

think we demonstrate our appreciation for those sacrifices. But we 

have others who serve abroad who make us proud, who make sacrifices as well, whether they are security sacrifices or living far 

apart from family under difficult circumstances. 

You seek to join those ranks. Many of you have been working in 

this field already. But we owe you and your colleagues a debt of 

gratitude for the work that you do to represent America, to represent our country as ambassadors abroad. So for that I thank you. 

With that, I now would like to ask Ms. Alexander to begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAIGE EVE ALEXANDER, OF VIRGINIA, 

NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU 

FOR THE MIDDLE EAST, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Chairman Kaine. I am honored to 

be here today as the nominee for the Assistant Administrator for 

241 

the Middle East Bureau at USAID. It is a privilege to appear before this committee again and I appreciate and am grateful for the 

confidence that President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Administrator Shah have placed in me. 

I want to recognize the leadership and the dedication of Deputy 

Assistant Administrator Alina Romanowski, who has been serving 

as Acting Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for the last 12 

months. I would especially like to thank my family, friends, and 

professional colleagues, whose support and encouragement have allowed me to pursue this quest. In particular, I would like to thank 

my husband, Steve Grand, and my children, Rachel, Carly, and 

Josh. They all know the importance of public service and I am here 

today with their full support, which means the world to me. 

For the past 3 years, I have had the honor and the privilege of 

serving as the Assistant Administrator for the Europe and Eurasia 

Bureau at AID. I have forged working relationships throughout the 

interagency, and I would expect this strong collaboration, which 

also spans the length of Pennsylvania Avenue, to continue as an 

integral part of the effective approach that AID would plan to take 

in the Middle East Bureau and moving these countries from a relationship of assistance to one of cooperation and partnership. 

Four years ago, President Obama set forth a new version of a results-driven USAID that would lead the world in development. The 

agency has risen to this challenge, pioneering new models of development that bring greater emphasis on innovation and results. Our 

current national security strategy recognizes that development not 

only is a moral imperative, but is a strategic and economic one. 

In perhaps no other region is this more important than the Middle East and North Africa. Today’s USAID’s Middle East Bureau 

advances national and strategic interests and programs in 11 countries and territories, with an annual budget of over $1.3 billion. 

The Middle East region poses many challenges, both politically and 

developmentally, and also presents enormous opportunities to 

showcase what has been done right through American assistance. 

The challenges that the countries face in the region are complex: 

weak democratic institutions and processes, high unemployment, 

underperforming economies, and water scarcity. For the past 3 

years, calls for transitions and change have reverberated across the 

region. In this time of transition, the United States must remain 

as an engaged partner with the governments and the citizens of 

the region to provide support for economic and political reforms 

and to promote security and stability. 

AID’s programs work to address the perennial barriers that include stagnant economic growth, high unemployment, and challenges in the education system, all of which affect the region’s ability to compete in a global economy. To prepare the region’s young 

people for employment USAID programs provide job training and 

workforce skills development for growing economic sectors. In Tunisia, USAID’s work with the communications-technology sector has 

already generated over 2,600 jobs. USAID has supported the establishment of nine Palestinian startups and increased ICT exports by 

$1.4 million. 

USAID’s projects in democracy, rights and governance in the 

Middle East aim to support transitions by promoting resilient 

242 

democratic societies and strengthening weak institutions and processes, whether it is through direct support for elections assistance 

in places like Libya and Iraq or USAID’s assistance with Yemeni 

women in asserting their rights throughout the political process to 

program, help, and empower the average citizen to hold their government accountable. 

The crisis in Syria has become a regional challenge of daunting 

proportions. AID has responded to the needs of the most vulnerable 

populations both within Syria and to address refugee needs in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq—I am sorry, Lebanon, Turkey, 

Iraq, and Egypt. Supporting neighboring countries as they cope 

with both the short- and the long-term effects of the Syria crisis 

must continue to be a top priority. 

In practice, development is a continuum. It extends from humanitarian relief through recovery and reconstruction to investments in 

building institutions and delivering economic health and education 

services for the citizens of the country. Aid can begin at any point 

in that continuum and it can make short-term interventions or 

long-term investments depending on the needs. Yet, while it is on 

a continuum, it is not necessarily a linear process. Development 

can have challenges and threats to backsliding and these still persist. 

We must nurture critically minded citizens, involve youth, and 

find opportunities that include the use of new technologies, and 

hold governments accountable. In this region, AID’s development 

objectives are clear. The agency’s mandate is to promote open and 

transparent governments that are accountable to their citizens, foster private sector development, and strengthen civil society organizations. 

I am keenly aware of how technical assistance providers and 

grassroots organizations are important partners in implementing 

U.S. development and diplomacy objectives. Sound approaches to 

development must permit rethinking, reforming, and recalibrating 

our work in response to changing environments. 

Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to appear before 

you today. I welcome any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Alexander follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAIGE EVE ALEXANDER

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to be here today as President Obama’s nominee for Assistant 

Administrator of the Middle East Bureau at the United States Agency for International Development. It is a privilege to appear before this committee again and 

I am grateful for the confidence that President Obama, Administrator Shah, and 

Secretary Kerry have placed in me. 

I also want to recognize Deputy Assistant Administrator Alina Romanowski, who 

has been serving as Acting Assistant Administrator of USAID’s Middle East Bureau 

for over a year. Her vast knowledge and dedication, acquired across a more than 

30-year career in the United States Government reflect the best qualities of the 

Career Senior Executive Service. 

I would especially like to thank my family, friends, and professional colleagues 

whose support and encouragement have allowed me to pursue this opportunity. In 

particular, I would like to recognize my husband and best friend, Steve Grand, and 

our children, Rachel, Carly, and Josh. They all know the importance of public service and I am here today with their full support, which means the world to me. 

The experience I have gained over a more than 25-year career in international 

development, including nearly 11 years within USAID, as well in posts at private 

243 

foundations, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations, has prepared me 

well for the new responsibilities I will take on, if confirmed. 

For the past 3 years, I have had the honor and privilege of serving as USAID’s 

Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia. In this role, I have come to appreciate and respect the importance of interagency cooperation and collaboration. I 

have forged effective working relationships throughout, and would expect this strong 

interagency collaboration, which will also span the length of Pennsylvania Avenue, 

to continue to be an integral part of how I would effectively approach USAID’s work 

to move countries from assistance to cooperation and partnership. 

Indeed, my current position has given me an even greater appreciation for the 

critical interplay between Congress and the executive branch. I have benefited 

greatly from the advice and counsel I have received from members of this committee 

and others in the House and Senate. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to 

seek your guidance and counsel on the critical challenges facing us in the Middle 

East. 

Four years ago, President Obama set forth a new vision of a results-driven USAID 

that would lead the world in development. The Agency has since risen to this challenge, pioneering a new model of development that brings a greater emphasis on 

partnerships, innovation, and results. We are guided in these efforts by a new mission statement: we partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic 

societies while advancing our security and prosperity. If confirmed, I will work tirelessly with the dedicated men and women of USAID to continue to fulfill this goal. 

Although these goals are not new, they reflect a unique moment in development 

today when exciting opportunities are emerging to change what is possible. In a 

time of fiscal restraint, we are applying the new model to seize this moment and 

reach more people, save more lives, and leverage more private investment than ever 

before—delivering results for the American people and those in greatest need 

around the world. 

President Obama’s national security strategy recognizes development not only as 

a moral imperative, but as a strategic and economic one. In perhaps no other region 

is that more relevant than the Middle East and North Africa. 

The challenges that the countries of the region face are complex—weak democratic institutions and processes, high unemployment, underperforming economies, 

and water scarcity. For the past 3 years, calls for transition and change have reverberated across the region. In this time of transition, the United States must remain 

an engaged partner with the governments and people of the region to provide support for economic and political reforms and to promote security and stability in the 

region. 

USAID’s Middle East Bureau advances U.S. national and strategic interests with programs in 11 countries and territories with an annual budget of over $1.3 billion. 

If confirmed, I will provide strong oversight of USAID’s programs in the Middle 

East, which respond to the needs and aspirations of the people in the region by 

facilitating more inclusive economic growth, supporting democratic processes, 

strengthening civil society, and addressing other key challenges, such as the impact 

of the Syria crisis. 

Throughout the Middle East and North Africa, tepid or stagnant economic growth 

and high unemployment among young people remain major challenges. Twenty-four 

percent of young people are unemployed—the highest rate of youth unemployment 

in the world. Education systems fail to prepare young people for the workforce, 

reducing the region’s ability to compete in a global economy. USAID programs work 

to address these barriers. 

The Agency’s programs target private sector growth through economic empowerment programs that provide small and medium enterprises training in business 

skills, startup seed capital, and regional networking opportunities. For Egypt and 

Tunisia, USAID is managing grants to Enterprise Funds that will provide investment in the Egyptian and Tunisian economies and will seek to leverage the involvement of other financial institutions and global investors. In Libya, USAID has 

expanded the business potential of women microentrepreneurs and women-owned 

small- and medium-scale enterprises. 

USAID is also working with regional governments and local partners to create 

business-enabling environments that reduce barriers to starting a business and support them once they are operational. For instance, in several places, USAID is 

investing in ‘‘one-stop shops.’’ In Egypt these ‘‘shops’’ have reduced the time it takes 

to register a business from over a week to about an hour, and in Iraq the registration period has gone from 6 months to less than 2 months. 

To prepare the region’s young people for employment, USAID programs provide 

job training and workforce skills development for growing economic sectors. In Tunisia, USAID is encouraging job creation in the high-impact information communicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
244 

tions technology (ICT) sector. USAID’s work with this sector has already generated 

over 2,600 new jobs. In the West Bank, USAID has supported the establishment of 

nine Palestinian startups and increased ICT exports by $1.4 million. In Iraq, USAID 

has assisted 5,300 Iraqi jobseekers to find positions in over 550 Iraqi businesses, 

by providing training modules that bridge skills gaps and supporting an online jobs 

portal in partnership with Microsoft. 

USAID’s education programs link directly to USAID’s economic growth work, as 

keeping young people in school is key to regional economic growth and stability. The 

Agency is partnering with ministries of education and schools to implement early 

grade reading programs that will increase literacy rates, encourage retention, and 

expand girls’ access to education. In Morocco, our early grade reading program aims 

to increase the recruitment of female teachers, improve the retention rate, and provide opportunities outside of school to promote reading by engaging with and supporting community-based groups. In Egypt, USAID has supported advancements in 

early grade reading and secondary science, technology, and math skills. Our support 

is helping improve the reading fluency and comprehension of approximately 4.5 million Egyptian elementary students by introducing new teaching approaches and 

training teachers. 

USAID projects in democracy, rights and governance in the Middle East aim to 

support democratic transitions by promoting resilient democratic societies and 

strengthening weak institutions and processes. USAID projects in Libya and Iraq 

provide elections assistance to their respective elections commissions, helping with 

elections operations, voter registration, campaign finance, electoral dispute resolution, and the drafting of regulations and procedures. In February 2014, the Government of Iraq committed funds to support the USAID-sponsored Legal Clinic 

Network which has provided assistance on over 14,000 legal cases on behalf of vulnerable individuals such as female-headed households, internally displaced persons, 

and ethnic and religious minorities and educated over 26,000 Iraqis on their legal 

rights. USAID has supported Yemeni women in asserting their rights throughout 

the political process, and thanks in part to USAID’s efforts, a 30-percent female participation quota was established for the National Dialogue Conference. USAID is 

also providing support for international elections observers and domestic monitoring 

for Tunisia’s historic Presidential and parliamentary elections, which should take 

place at the end of this year. 

The Middle East is also facing substantial natural resource challenges, encompassing 12 of the world’s 15 most water-scarce countries. Further compounding the 

problem, the region has the world’s second-highest population growth rate and 

excessive water mismanagement, increasing competition for a scarce resource in a 

region. In Jordan, the influx of Syrians into local communities has increased the 

pressure on limited and already strained water availability. A USAID project has 

set up a revolving credit fund so families can access loans to install cisterns for harvesting rainwater. Repayment rates are high and half of the borrowers are women. 

This effort has helped tens of thousands of people secure access to water. In Yemen, 

USAID has established 16 water catchment sites throughout the country, which collect approximately 2 million liters of water per year. 

The crisis in Syria has become a regional challenge of daunting proportions, with 

6.5 million people displaced inside Syria, 9.3 million in need of humanitarian assistance, and over 2.6 million refugees spilling over into neighboring countries. USAID 

is providing more than $669 million to help over 4.2 million people inside Syria and 

more than $232 million to help Syrian refugees in neighboring countries. USAID 

has responded to the needs of the most vulnerable in all 14 Syrian governorates and 

Syrian refugees in five neighboring countries—Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and 

Egypt. In addition to humanitarian aid, our response to the conflict in Syria is comprehensive—combining humanitarian, transitional, and development interventions 

to address the needs of conflict-affected Syrians and host communities both within 

Syria, and regionally. Supporting neighboring countries as they cope with both the 

short- and long-term effects of the Syria crisis must continue to be a top priority. 

Of the 600,000 refugees in Jordan, nearly 480,000 Syrian refugees live within Jordanian host communities, rather than in camps, and these host communities face 

tremendous challenges. USAID has provided critical assistance to these communities to alleviate increased demand for services, including hospital renovations and 

water infrastructure repair. A USAID community engagement project is in place to 

help alleviate tensions in host communities by promoting dialogue and reducing 

community stressors including trash removal, and limited small-scale infrastructure 

projects to reduce traffic and create jobs. In Lebanon, where Syrians now make up 

more than 25 percent of the total population, USAID assistance focuses on water 

and education as well as a value-chain development program to advance small-scale 

agriculture. Since January 2013, USAID has rehabilitated thousands of LebaneseVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
245 

owned residential units for refugees, increased access to water or other municipal 

services for over 125,000 people and reached nearly 100,000 children and at-risk 

youth through supplemental education activities. 

As is well understood in the literature and in practice, development is a continuum. It extends from humanitarian relief through recovery and reconstruction, 

to investments in building sustainable institutions delivering economic, health, and 

education services for the citizens of that country. Aid can begin at any point on 

that continuum and can make short-term interventions or invest in the long term, 

depending on the needs. While development is on a continuum, it is not necessarily 

a linear process. Major development challenges and the threat of backsliding still 

persist. We must nurture critically minded citizens, engage youth, and find opportunities that include the use of new technologies to hold governments accountable. If 

confirmed, I will make it a priority to focus and concentrate USAID assistance in 

areas where it can achieve maximum results that align with our strategic objectives. 

In this region, USAID’s development objectives are clear. The Agency’s mandate 

is to promote open and transparent governments that are accountable to their citizens, foster private sector development, and strengthen civil society organizations 

capable of investing in the current and future lives of the people they represent, 

during this critical period of change. The United States continued engagement with 

the people of the region is critical for lasting growth, prosperity, and peace. 

I am keenly aware of how technical assistance providers and grassroots organizations are important partners in implementing U.S. development and diplomacy 

objectives. Sound approaches to development must permit rethinking, reforming, 

and recalibrating our work in response to changing environments. If confirmed, I 

will continue to focus on finding scalable solutions that can affect development 

globally. 

The Middle East region poses many challenges, both politically and developmentally, and also presents enormous opportunities to showcase what has been 

done right through American assistance. 

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any questions you might have. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you. 

Ms. Wells. 

STATEMENT OF ALICE G. WELLS, OF WASHINGTON, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM 

OF JORDAN 

Ms. WELLS. Chairman Kaine, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today and I am grateful and humbled to be the President’s 

nominee to represent the United States in the Hashemite Kingdom 

of Jordan. I would like to thank Secretary Kerry for the confidence 

he has shown me. 

I would not be here without the support of my husband and until 

recently a fellow Foreign Service officer, Kurt Amend, and our 

daughters Helen, Isabel, and Phoebe. Our service in Tajikistan, 

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and Russia was a family affair. It 

was an adventure and a privilege, but not without its share of sacrifices, and I am grateful to my husband and our girls for being enthusiastic participants in this journey. 

My brother, Tom Wells, my sister-in-law, Paula, and their children, Nicholas and Elizabeth, are also here today. Tom’s military 

service in Operation Desert Storm is one chapter in my family’s 

long engagement with the Middle East. 

Finally, my thanks to President Eisenhower, whose 1958 Middle 

East Task Force brought my father, then Army Captain Wes Wells, 

and later my mother, Heidi Wells, to Lebanon. 

To my parents, I owe much more than the accident of my birth 

in Beirut, but the extraordinary example of their public service, 

their curiosity, and their service to their country abroad. 

246 

As President Obama has stated, the United States has very few 

friends, partners, and allies around the world that have been as 

steadfast and reliable as His Majesty King Abdullah, as well as the 

people of Jordan. If confirmed I will work to ensure that our assistance, our policies, and our diplomatic platform further Jordan’s 

ability to withstand the Syrian crisis, to counter terrorism, and to 

promote regional security, to serve as an example for political and 

economic modernization, and to advance peace in the Middle East. 

Mr. Chairman, the historic partnership between the United 

States and Jordan has never been more important as we jointly 

work to achieve peace in the Middle East and to promote a democratic transition in Syria. With Jordan coping with more than 

600,000 Syrian refugees, the loss of export routes through Syria, a 

steep decline in tourism, and an energy bill that rose to 21 percent 

of its GDP, the United States has a strategic interest in ensuring 

that the Hashemite Kingdom can meet its international humanitarian obligations without jeopardizing its own economic and political stability. 

At the same time, our multifaceted partnership demonstrates to 

the people of Jordan and the region the benefits of choosing the 

path of moderation, of political and economic modernization, of 

peace with one’s neighbors. 

With strong bipartisan support from Congress, the United States 

is providing Jordan with a broad package of aid to bolster services 

strained by the refugee influx. United States support to Jordan 

topped $1 billion in both 2012 and 2013 and our bilateral assistance alone will exceed $1 billion in fiscal year 2014. This has been 

supplemented by more than $268 million in humanitarian aid to 

international organizations assisting Syrian refugees in Jordan, as 

well as a total of $2.25 billion in loan guarantees to help Jordan 

access international capital. 

If confirmed, I will advocate continued flexibility in responding to 

the evolving crisis. The United States has a deep stake in Jordan’s 

successful modernization and in supporting King Abdullah’s embrace of political and economic reform as a strategic choice. To 

date, working with the International Monetary Fund, Jordan is 

successfully balancing competing demands, including the imperative of structural reforms that replace blanket subsidies with a targeted social safety net to alleviate popular discontent over fuel and 

electricity price hikes. 

We also support King Abdullah’s efforts to respond for greater 

transparency and dignity, including the establishment of a National Integrity Commission and an Independent Electoral Commission. As friends of Jordan, we should encourage the full implementation of these home-grown initiatives. 

With the finalization of a second memorandum of understanding 

on bilateral assistance, substantial and predictable U.S. support 

can help Jordan transform the Syrian crisis into an opportunity. I 

am committed to reinforcing the collaborative and consultative approach to assisting Jordan as it charts this difficult path. 

Finally, if confirmed I will dedicate myself to building and sustaining a diplomatic team that can advance these ambitious objectives while working to ensure the safety and security of U.S. officials and the American community. 

247 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wells follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE G. WELLS

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, members of the committee. It is a great 

honor, as well as the dream of every Foreign Service officer, to appear before you, 

and today I am grateful and humbled to be the President’s nominee to represent 

the United States in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I would like to particularly 

thank Secretary Kerry for the confidence he has shown me. 

I would not be here without the support of my husband and, until recently, fellow 

Foreign Service officer, Kurt Amend, and our daughters, Helen, Isabel, and Phoebe. 

Our service in Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and Russia was a family 

affair, a great adventure, and a privilege, but not without its share of sacrifices. I 

am grateful to my husband and our girls for being enthusiastic participants in this 

Foreign Service journey. My brother, Tom Wells, my sister-in-law, Paula, and their 

children, Nicholas and Elizabeth, are also here today. Tom’s military service to his 

country, including in Operation Desert Storm, is one chapter in my family’s long 

engagement with the Middle East. Finally, my thanks to President Eisenhower, 

whose 1958 Middle East Task Force brought my father, then-Army Captain Wes 

Wells, and later my mother, Heidi Wells, to Lebanon. To my parents, I owe much 

more than my accident of birth in Beirut, but the extraordinary example of their 

public service, curiosity, and service to their country abroad. 

As President Obama has stated, the United States has ‘‘very few friends, partners, and allies around the world that have been as steadfast and reliable as His 

Majesty King Abdullah, as well as the people of Jordan.’’ Mr. Chairman, the historic 

partnership between the United States and our invaluable ally Jordan has never 

been more important, as we jointly work to achieve peace in the Middle East and 

to promote a democratic transition in Syria. The United States and Jordan share 

concerns about destabilization in the region and increasing extremist activity. We 

have a strong history of mutual resolve and cooperation against terrorist threats, 

including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where King Abdullah directed that Jordan be 

part of the answer to restoring stability and countering the message of violent 

extremists. 

At the same time, our multifaceted partnership with the Hashemite Kingdom 

aims to demonstrate to the people of Jordan and the region the benefits of their 

choosing the path of moderation, of political and economic reform, of peace with 

one’s neighbors. As a testament to our support for Jordan, the Jordanian people, 

what Jordan stands for, and what it has achieved, in the 15 years since King 

Abdullah ascended the throne, the United States has provided over $10 billion in 

assistance. 

If confirmed as the next U.S. Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 

I will work to ensure that our assistance, our policies, and our diplomatic platform 

to advance U.S. interests and further Jordan’s ability to withstand the Syrian crisis, 

counter terrorism, serve as an example of political and economic reform, and 

advance peace in the Middle East, while building bridges between U.S. and Jordanian societies. 

First, with Jordan hosting 600,000 Syrian refugees, the United States has a strategic interest in ensuring that the Hashemite Kingdom can meet its international 

humanitarian obligations without jeopardizing its own economic and political stability. While international attention has focused on the Zaatri refugee camp, which 

several committee members and staff have viewed firsthand, nearly 85 percent of 

Syrian refugees reside in Jordanian host communities. Local governments, social 

services, and civic organizations are severely strained, with cities and villages facing 

overcrowded schools, shortages of hospital beds and medicines, and an inability to 

stretch municipal services to accommodate the increased population. At the same 

time, Jordan grapples with the loss of export routes through Syria, a steep decline 

in tourism, negative investor sentiment resulting from the war, and an energy bill 

that rose to 21 percent of its GDP when Egypt could no longer deliver on its natural 

gas contracts. 

In response to these needs, the U.S. Government is providing Jordan with a broad 

package of aid designed to bolster services strained by the refugee influx and help 

safeguard Jordan’s economic and political reform. Jordan was the fifth-largest 

recipient of bilateral assistance in FY 2013. With strong, bipartisan support from 

Congress, U.S. support to Jordan has totaled over $1 billion in both fiscal years 

2012 and 2013. Our bilateral assistance alone will exceed $1 billion in fiscal year 

2014 thanks to the generosity of Congress. This assistance has helped to reduce the 

financial strain on the sectors directly affected by refugees. In addition, over the 

248 

past few years we have provided more than $268 million in humanitarian aid to 

international organizations and NGOs assisting Syrian refugees and host communities in Jordan, as well as a total of $2.25 billion in loan guarantees to help Jordan 

access international capital. If confirmed, I will advocate continued flexibility in responding to the evolving crisis, adjusting our own assistance priorities and diplomatic staffing as necessary. I also will continue to work closely with international 

donors and multilateral institutions to ensure a unified and coherent response that 

addresses Jordan’s needs, while encouraging sensible reform to promote long-term 

economic sustainability and political stability. 

Second, as violent extremists expand their operations in Syria and the Anbar 

province of Iraq, our cooperative efforts with Jordan on regional security and 

counterterrorism take on increased importance. Jordan offers practical partnership, 

as well as an alternative vision of a modern, Muslim country. The U.S. is utilizing 

a full array of programs, including the transfer of Excess Defense Articles, to 

strengthen Jordan’s capabilities. This includes completing the Jordan Border Security Program, which uses advanced surveillance technologies to safeguard Jordan’s 

border with Syria and Iraq, while working to stop the flow of foreign fighters and 

the financial networks that support them. In turn, Jordan’s highly skilled security 

forces are playing a leadership role in training counterparts throughout the Middle 

East region and in peacekeeping missions around the globe. If confirmed, I also will 

look for additional opportunities to amplify King Abdullah’s ‘‘Amman Message’’ of 

religious tolerance, as seen in Jordan’s hosting of Pope Francis later this month, recognizing that interfaith dialogue and understanding are integral to repudiating the 

terrorist message and building tolerant, pluralistic societies across the region. 

Third, the U.S. has a deep stake in Jordan’s successful modernization and supporting King Abdullah’s public embrace of political and economic reform as a ‘‘strategic choice.’’ In Jordan, 70 percent of the population is under the age of 30 and 

almost 40 percent under the age of 14. We support the King’s vision of promoting 

well-educated youth who can be an economic force multiplier. King Abdullah is in 

California today for meetings with U.S. investors and innovators to build greater 

economic ties and develop more jobs for the Jordanian people. To date, working with 

the International Monetary Fund, Jordan is successfully balancing competing 

demands, including the imperative of structural reforms that replace blanket subsidies with a targeted social safety net to alleviate popular discontent over fuel and 

electricity price hikes. 

We also support the reforms advanced by King Abdullah to promote greater transparency and dignity, including the establishment of a National Integrity Commission, a Constitutional Court, limits on the State Security Court, and parliamentary 

elections that were judged credible by international observers. As friends of Jordan, 

we need to encourage the full implementation of these home-grown initiatives to 

reinforce the relationship between economic and political reform. King Abdullah has 

noted publicly that ‘‘for business to invest and expand with confidence, they need 

a predictable, level playing-field, transparency and accountability, the rule of law 

and a strong, stable foundation of inclusive political life,’’ and we should encourage 

him to turn this vision into action. 

I am committed to reinforcing the collaborative and consultative approach the 

U.S. has taken to help Jordan, whether in reforming its political system and reforming subsidies, diversifying its energy sector, renovating water infrastructure, extending education and enhancing the role of women, promoting international competitiveness and improving government service. The 2009–2014 MOU that provides 

$360 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) and $300 million in Foreign Military 

Financing (FMF) annually has been integral to providing the predictability in assistance that Jordan needs to make strategic decisions and undertake difficult reforms. 

The President’s announcement in February of our intention to renew our MOU 

reflects the strength of our strategic partnership and our ongoing commitment to 

help Jordan successfully navigate the challenges posed by the regional unrest and 

build a stronger economy. For instance, if Jordan continues to adhere to its bold program of subsidy reform and diversification of its energy resources, by 2017 it has 

the potential to emerge from this crisis period with billions of dollars in budget 

savings. 

Fourth, the United States relies on Jordan’s continued support, as a partner and 

a stakeholder, to achieve a comprehensive final status peace agreement between the 

Israelis and Palestinians. Secretary Kerry appropriately called Jordan ‘‘an essential 

partner for peace.’’ As one of only two Arab States to sign a peace treaty with Israel, 

the host to 2 million Palestinian refugees, and the traditional guardian of the 

Islamic holy shrines in Jerusalem, Jordan has a critical interest in any final status 

negotiations, as well as a role to play in any future security and border arrangement 

along the Jordan River. If confirmed, I will support continued engagement with JorVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
249 

dan on this important issue and seek to identify ways to enhance trade, environmental and other ties between Jordan and Israel, and Jordan and the West Bank, 

recognizing the historic role that initiatives like the Qualified Industrial Zones have 

played in forging linkages. 

Finally, if confirmed, I will dedicate myself to building and sustaining a diplomatic team that can advance these ambitious objectives, while working to ensure 

the safety and security of U.S. officials and the American community. The U.S. 

Embassy in Amman has grown substantially over the last 5 years, reflecting Jordan’s regional importance and the Embassy’s role in providing support for our mission in Iraq and our interests in Syria. Last year, Embassy Amman hosted over 

15,000 official visitors, both U.S. and other nationalities, including—I’m glad to 

note—a total of 193 Members of Congress and staff. With the Embassy staffed to 

its physical capacity, choices will need to be made in prioritizing programs, as we 

anticipate the construction of a New Office Annex; similarly, we must remain nimble in responding to the evolving Syrian crisis. The safety and security of U.S. citizens and Embassy employees will always be the foremost priority, and I take the 

responsibility of managing risk seriously, recognizing the tension between security 

and engagement. 

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my quarter century of service as a Foreign Service 

officer, the world has changed dramatically. I entered the State Department with 

pretensions of being an expert on the Soviet Union, only to help open our first 

Embassy in the independent and sovereign state of Tajikistan 3 years later. As a 

junior officer in Saudi Arabia, I waited 3 days for local media to report on Saddam 

Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, but now wrestle with the immediacy of the 24-hour 

news cycle and the imperative of social media. As Office Director for North Africa, 

I confronted the seeming permanence of Qadhafi, Ben Ali, and Mubarak’s leadership, only later to see the frustration and despair of a street vendor in Tunisia 

ignite a wave of unprecedented political change in the Middle East. However, what 

has not changed is the importance of U.S. leadership, the power of our example, and 

the resources we bring to bear. If confirmed, it would be an honor to help the U.S. 

chart a course in Jordan at this critical time that promotes our shared values and 

our shared interests in a more peaceful and prosperous region. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you so much, Ms. Wells. 

Mr. Kelly. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. KELLY III, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF 

DJIBOUTI 

Mr. KELLY. Chairman Kaine, Senator Rubio, it is a great honor 

and privilege to appear before you today as President Obama’s 

nominee to be the next Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti. I 

am grateful for the confidence the President and Secretary of State 

have shown in nominating me to this position and for the support 

of Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Linda Thomas Greenfield. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the 

Congress to advance U.S. interests in Djibouti. 

Mr. Chairman, I am from a very big family. I do not think we 

can fit all of them in this room. But I do have a good representation here. I would like to introduce them. I am joined by my wife, 

Elsa Amaya-Kelly, my daughter, Chantal, my brother, Joe Kelly, 

my mother-in-law, Elsa Reyes de Amaya, my brother-in-law, Juan 

Carlos Amaya, my uncle, John Kelly, Aunt Mary Kelly, Uncle Chris 

Burns, Aunt Suzy Burns, Cousin Patrick Kelly, Cousin Michael 

Kelly, and Mike’s wife, Karen. Again, that is just the tip of the iceberg. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, during my 28-year Foreign Service 

career I have worked on a variety of issues that are relevant to my 

proposed post. I served for the first part of my career as an economics officer working on development issues around the world. I 

250 

also have experience managing large diplomatic missions, most recently in Lithuania, Argentina, and Brazil. 

Over the last three years, I have had the privilege to lead the 

State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, where we 

worked to reinforce the global partnership between the State and 

Defense Departments for our Nation’s benefit. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we share important interests and 

goals with Djibouti. The May 5 meeting between President Obama 

and Djiboutian President Guelleh reflected our desire to broaden 

our bilateral partnership, to work closely together to advance our 

shared vision for a secure, stable, and prosperous Horn of Africa. 

Djibouti hosts the only U.S. military forward operating site in 

sub-Saharan Africa. This is Camp Lemonnier, the headquarters of 

the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa, where more than 

4,000 U.S. military and contracted personnel are stationed. If confirmed, I will continue to expand coordination and cooperation between Embassy personnel and Camp Lemonnier and its tenant 

U.S. military commands. 

On the economic front, Mr. Chairman, making Djibouti an attractive place for investment is essential for its economic development. 

Djibouti remains very poor and less than 5 percent of its land is 

arable. The small USAID mission in Djibouti currently focuses on 

health and education, but we are expanding and deepening our 

focus areas following the President’s May 5 meetings. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, to help grow Djibouti’s economy the 

United States has recently pledged to increase technical and financial assistance to the Djiboutian people and to further invest in 

Djibouti’s development. If confirmed I will see that these programs 

remain a priority. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I am also committed to working with 

Djibouti to strengthen democratic governance. 

If confirmed, I will underscore the importance of democracy and 

governance reforms, including greater space for media, opposition, 

and civil society groups. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed my highest priority will be 

the protection of Americans and U.S. interests, including mission 

personnel living and traveling in Djibouti. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed by the Senate I look forward to working closely with you and other members of the committee and 

would hope to welcome you during my tenure. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the committee, thank you again for the honor to appear before the committee today. I will be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. KELLY

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, members of the committee, it is a great 

honor and privilege to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to 

be the next Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti. I am grateful for the confidence 

the President and Secretary of State have shown by nominating me to this position, 

and for the support of Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the Congress 

to advance U.S. interests in Djibouti. 

First, Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge several family members here today. I 

am joined by my wife, Elsa Amaya-Kelly; my daughter, Chantal Kelly; my brother, 

Joe Kelly; my mother-in-law, Elsa Reyes de Amaya; my brother-in-law, Juan Carlos 

251 

Amaya; my uncle, John Kelly; Aunt Mary Kelly; Uncle Chris Burns; Aunt Suzie 

Burns; Cousin Patrick Kelly; Cousin Michael Kelly; and Mike’s wife, Karen Kelly. 

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to tell you about myself. During my 28-year 

career, I have worked on a variety of issues that are relevant to my proposed post. 

I served for the first two-thirds of my career as an Economics Officer, working on 

development, trade, and finance issues around the world. I have extensive experience managing large diplomatic missions, serving as Deputy Chief of Mission in 

Vilnius, Lithuania, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, and as Principal Officer in Sao 

Paulo, Brazil. Over the last 3 years, I have had the privilege to lead the State 

Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs as Acting Assistant Secretary and 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary. The Political-Military Bureau works every 

day to reinforce the global partnership between the State and Defense Departments 

for the benefit of our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to leading Embassy Djibouti in 

advancing the interests of the United States. The U.S.-Djibouti relationship is 

strong, and our two countries share a firm commitment to peace and security, countering terrorism and piracy in the region, and economic development. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we share important interests and goals with 

Djibouti. The May 5 meeting between President Obama and Djiboutian President 

Guelleh [GEHL-ay] reflected our desire to broaden our bilateral partnership to work 

closely together to advance our shared vision for a secure, stable, and prosperous 

Horn of Africa. Djibouti has a strategic position at the Bab-el-Mandab Strait, which 

joins the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Approximately 60 percent of Djibouti’s population is ethnic Somali, and the Government of Djibouti has undertaken considerable efforts to restore peace in neighboring Somalia, a nation whose instability 

threatens the stability of the region. Djibouti is a troop-contributing country to the 

African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), and the al-Shabaab terrorist group 

has launched fatal attacks against Djiboutian forces in Somalia. If confirmed, Mr. 

Chairman, I will continue to build our bilateral relationship and contribute to efforts 

with Djibouti and other partners to promote a stable and peaceful Somalia. 

Djibouti hosts the only U.S. military forward operating site in sub-Saharan Africa. 

This is Camp Lemonnier, the headquarters for the Combined Joint Task Force– 

Horn of Africa (CJTF–HOA), where more than 4,000 U.S. military and contracted 

personnel are stationed. If confirmed, I will continue to expand coordination and cooperation between Embassy personnel and Camp Lemonnier and its tenant U.S. 

military commands, including the CJTF–HOA contingent. If confirmed, I will also 

ensure that CJTF–HOA programming in Djibouti fits within the framework of U.S. 

Government priorities to advance our key interests. 

On the economic front, Mr. Chairman, Djibouti’s Government has privatized the 

country’s excellent deep-water port and airport, reducing corruption and increasing 

revenue flows. Making Djibouti an attractive place for investment is essential for 

its economic development. Djibouti remains very poor, ranked 165th out of 187 

countries on the UNDP Human Development Index. Less than 5 percent of its land 

is arable. The small USAID mission in Djibouti currently focuses on health and education but we are expanding and deepening our focus areas following the President’s 

May 5 meetings. Mr. Chairman, to help grow Djibouti’s economy, the United States 

has recently pledged to increase technical and financial assistance to the Djiboutian 

people and to further invest in Djibouti’s development. Additionally, the United 

States responds to food insecurity through support for the Famine Early Warning 

Network office in Djibouti, as well as through U.S.-funded Food for Peace programs. 

If confirmed, I will see that these programs remain a priority. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I am also committed to working with Djibouti to 

strengthen democratic governance. Disputes over the 2013 legislative elections 

fueled months of protests, and the government arrested hundreds of opposition supporters. If confirmed, I will underscore the importance of democracy and governance 

reforms, including greater space for media, opposition, and civil society groups. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my highest priority will be the protection of 

Americans and U.S. interests, including mission personnel, living and traveling in 

Djibouti. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe my prior experience in the Foreign Service has prepared 

me to serve as Ambassador to Djibouti. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward 

to working closely with you and other members of the committee, and would hope 

to welcome you during my tenure. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the committee, thank you 

again for the honor to appear before the committee today. I would be happy to take 

any questions you may have. 

Senator KAINE. Thanks very much, Mr. Kelly. 

252 

Ms. Butts. 

STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA Q. BUTTS, OF THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS 

Ms. BUTTS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today as President 

Obama’s nominee to be the next Ambassador to the Commonwealth 

of The Bahamas. I am profoundly grateful for the honor that the 

President has bestowed upon me and for the confidence shown in 

me by Secretary Kerry as I look to take up this assignment if confirmed. 

Please allow me to introduce my family members who are here 

today. I am joined by my mother, Mae Karim; my aunt, Barbara 

Jordan; and my brother-in-law, Frank Abbott. My family’s been a 

wellspring of support for me. I am here today because of their love 

and support and because of their dedication and because of their 

belief in me. 

I believe my experience as a lawyer and a policy adviser and my 

service to my country in the executive and legislative branches 

have well prepared me for the duties of Ambassador to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Having worked on some of the major 

legal and policy issues of our time, including my most recent experience in international development at the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation, I have always sought solutions consistent with the 

values of our great Nation. I understand that leading with our values is the basis for finding lasting policy solutions and building 

strong partnerships at home and abroad. 

If the Senate were to confirm me, I would bring these experiences, grounded in my strong belief in equality, justice, and compassion, to the post of Ambassador to the Commonwealth of Bahamas. Through close political, economic, and cultural ties, the 

United States and The Bahamas have forged a strong bilateral relationship that has served both countries well. Bahamians regularly travel to the United States to visit friends and family and to 

conduct business, and approximately 6 million U.S. citizens travel 

to The Bahamas annually. 

The proximity of The Bahamas to the United States inextricably 

links our countries’ national security. Together we are confronting 

shared challenges, such as illicit trafficking, including in narcotics, 

arms, and people. 

If confirmed, my first and foremost priority will be to ensure the 

safety and security of U.S. citizens living in or visiting The Bahamas, as well as the Turks and Caicos Islands, which are included 

under Embassy Nassau’s consular oversight. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with local authorities and U.S. 

law enforcement officials under chief of mission authority to lower 

crime rates and other illegal activities. Other priorities will include 

promoting greater economic ties and growth, including exploring 

ways to support the development and enforcement of stable, transparent regulations. 

We also want to encourage countries like The Bahamas to adopt 

cleaner technologies and build strong and resilient energy markets. 

These steps are important not only to provide a more secure and 

253 

sustainable clean energy future, but also to further economic 

growth and limit the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. I will also 

seek to further gender equality and expand opportunities for 

disenfranchised youth. 

Expanding educational exchanges is one way, is one of the best 

ways to deepen the already existing cultural and historical ties between the United States and The Bahamas. At present approximately 1,600 students from The Bahamas study in the United 

States, and more than 750 students from the United States study 

in The Bahamas. If confirmed, I will seek to increase levels of educational exchange between our two countries, including through enhancing existing partnerships and building new ones. 

While geography and history have forged strong bonds between 

our countries, The Bahamas also maintains close relationships with 

many other countries. We do not see foreign economic and commercial links to The Bahamas as a threat to the U.S. interests. We believe that beneficial and sustainable international trade and investment must be carried out in adherence to international standards 

of transparency and good governance, while respecting local environmental standards and regulations. 

We should continue to focus our interests on the greater good of 

regional stability. The United States has not had an ambassador 

in Nassau for nearly 21⁄2 years, but we have a strong U.S. Embassy 

staff in The Bahamas continuing the important work of the mission. If confirmed, I will work to further their good work and 

strengthen our already close and productive bilateral relationship. 

In closing, I am confident that I have the experience, the imagination, and the energy to lead our bilateral relationship with the 

people and the Government of The Bahamas. While at the Millennium Challenge Corporation, I have seen firsthand the important 

work carried out by our ambassadors and their teams as they engage and advocate for U.S. goals and objectives. If confirmed, I 

pledge to uphold the tradition and high standard of public service 

that ambassadors are expected to uphold. 

I look forward to the opportunity to continue to serve my country. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Butts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY CASSANDRA Q. BUTTS

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be 

the next Ambassador to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. I am profoundly grateful for the honor that the President has bestowed upon me and for the confidence 

shown in me by Secretary Kerry as I look to take up this assignment, if confirmed. 

Please allow me to introduce the members of my family who are here today: my 

mother, Mae A. Karim; my aunt, Barbara Jordan; my brother-in-law, Frank Abbott, 

and my nephews, Alston and Ethan Abbott. Unfortunately, my sister, Deidra 

Abbott, could not join us today because of a work-related commitment. My family 

has been a wellspring of support. I am here today because of their love and support 

and because of their dedication and belief in me. 

I believe my experience as a lawyer and policy advisor and my service to my country in the executive and legislative branches have well prepared me for the duties 

of Ambassador to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Having worked on some of 

the major legal and policy issues of our time, including my most recent experience 

in international development at the Millennium Challenge Corporation, I have 

254 

always sought solutions consistent with the values of our great Nation. I understand 

that leading with our values is the basis for finding lasting policy solutions and 

building strong partnerships at home and abroad. If the Senate were to confirm me, 

I would bring these experiences, grounded in my strong belief in equality, justice, 

and compassion, to the post of Ambassador to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. 

Through close political, economic, and cultural ties, the United States and The 

Bahamas have forged a strong bilateral relationship that has served both countries 

well. Bahamians regularly travel to the United States to visit friends and family 

and to conduct business. And approximately 6 million U.S. citizens travel to The 

Bahamas annually. The proximity of The Bahamas to the United States inextricably 

links our countries’ national security. Together, we are confronting shared challenges such as illicit trafficking, including in narcotics, arms, and people. 

If confirmed, my first and foremost priority will be to ensure the safety and security of U.S. citizens living in or visiting The Bahamas, as well as the Turks and 

Caicos Islands, which are included under Embassy Nassau’s consular oversight. If 

confirmed, I will work closely with local authorities and the U.S. law enforcement 

officials under Chief of Mission authority to lower crime rates and other illegal 

activities. Other priorities would include promoting greater economic ties and 

growth, including exploring ways to support the development and enforcement of 

stable and transparent regulations as well as improving the business environment 

through transparent procurement and investment procedures. We also want to encourage countries like The Bahamas to adopt cleaner technologies and build strong 

and resilient energy markets. These steps are important not only to provide a more 

secure and sustainable clean energy future, but also to further economic growth and 

limit the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. I will also seek to further gender 

equality and expand opportunities for disenfranchised youth. 

Expanding educational exchanges is one of the best ways to deepen the already 

existing cultural and historical ties between the United States and The Bahamas. 

At present, approximately 1,600 students from The Bahamas study in the United 

States, and more than 750 students from the United States study in The Bahamas. 

If confirmed, I will seek to increase levels of educational exchange between our two 

countries, including through enhancing existing partnerships and the building of 

new ones. 

While geography and history have forged strong bonds between our countries, The 

Bahamas also maintains close relations with many other nations. Historically, foreign investment in the Bahamian banking sector has been mainly by Europeans and 

Canadians. The key tourism and hospitality sectors have seen increases in American, European, and, more recently, Asian investment as the world economy continues to rebound. We do not see foreign economic and commercial links to The 

Bahamas as a threat to U.S. interests. We believe that beneficial and sustainable 

international trade and investment must be carried out in adherence to international standards of transparency and good governance, while respecting local 

environmental and labor regulations. We should continue to focus our interests on 

the greater good of regional stability. 

The United States has not had an ambassador in Nassau for nearly 21⁄2 years, 

but we have had a strong U.S. Embassy staff in the Bahamas continuing the important work of the mission. If confirmed, I will work to further their good work and 

strengthen our already close and productive bilateral relationship. 

In closing, I am confident that I have the experience, imagination, and energy to 

lead our bilateral relationship with the people and the Government of The Bahamas. While at the Millennium Challenge Corporation, I have seen firsthand the 

important work carried out by our ambassadors and their teams as they engage and 

advocate for U.S. goals and objectives. If confirmed, I pledge to uphold the tradition 

and high standard of public service that ambassadors are expected to uphold. I look 

forward to the opportunity to continue to serve my country. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome your questions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you all for your opening statements. 

Senator Risch has declined to do an opening statement. He is 

just going to make his questions particularly hard. [Laughter.] 

Senator KAINE. We will have 6-minute rounds of questions. 

Senator RISCH. The first one is for you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Senator KAINE. We will have 6-minute rounds of questions. If we 

do not get to you in round one, do not worry; I am planning on 

255 

coming back and making sure, because I have a number of questions for all of you. 

But I will just begin with Ms. Alexander. USAID, in my travels 

as a member of this subcommittee I have really been impressed 

with the work of USAID in Jordan, with the work that USAID is 

doing in—I was recently in the West Bank and interacted with 

some of the Palestinian businesses that have been working together with USAID, and also was aware of USAID’s good work 

being done in Egypt, but was not able to personally visit that work. 

So this is very important work that is going on. USAID—in 

Egypt we were not able to visit because of security concerns. I just 

wonder if you would sort of offer some thoughts there. We are 

wrestling with complex issues here with regard to Egypt, levels of 

support, et cetera. Egypt has a significant counterterrorism threat 

that is a very real one that we need to provide help with. At the 

same time, there has been a tendency of concern to many of us to 

label opponents terrorists when they are really just opponents in 

the sense that you would expect there to be different points of view. 

What can USAID do in the sort of democracy-building area that 

would be appropriate in Egypt, to just use that as an example for 

other nations in the region? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Sure. Thank you, Senator Kaine. I think 

USAID’s programs have always been broadly designed to address 

the needs of the citizens and the governments as they support their 

own citizens’ needs. In Egypt in particular, it is a difficult situation. In many of these countries it is very fluid throughout the Middle East, and we are looking to reorient our programs in places 

where we can not work with the governments directly on infrastructure or building capacity. We have started looking more closely at economic growth, the opportunities of the private sector. 

In a lot of these situations we have had the opportunity to look 

at sectors such as—you mentioned the technology sector, but agriculture and tourism, as a real area for job employment and job 

growth. The linkage between economic growth and democracy and 

governance can not be lost. It is very difficult—and I have seen this 

through the transitions in Eastern Europe. It is very difficult to 

have democracy and governance take hold and make these transitions work if you have an economy that is tanking. 

So in every way possible, AID looks to orient its program to 

make sure we are addressing the needs of the people and being 

sure to bring these countries through the transition in a way that 

the economic growth and the democracy rights and governance are 

synergistic. 

Senator KAINE. A bright spot, I think it could be a bright spot, 

and one for us to pay some close attention to is Tunisia in the 

aftermath of constitutional reforms. If you could talk a little bit 

about USAID activity currently in Tunisia and what are some 

things that we can do to hopefully encourage a continued—the success of these recent constitutional reforms, the creation of a government that respects religious minorities, respects the rights of 

women, but within the Muslim cultural context of that country? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Sure. Tunisia is a bright spot for us. The interagency has actually quite a good division of labor between what the 

State Department programs are working on and what AID is workVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
256 

ing on. As we move forward in Tunisia, we have the Enterprise 

Fund and activities that we will plan to be doing through them, 

again to invest in the economy, and also to be looking at the democracy and governance work, both with gender equality programs 

and the dialogues that need to happen within Tunisia to make sure 

that this transition holds. 

We really—a lot of our work right now at AID is focused on the 

global development alliances that we have in Tunisia with HP, 

with UNIDO, and with the Italians on the multilateral side, because I think that this is a world issue. People are looking at these 

countries and recognizing that together we can be helpful, but we 

have to make sure that we are listening to the people of Tunisia 

and we are doing what they request. 

Senator KAINE. One other question that I think is a complicating 

fact and I am wondering how USAID would approach it is, in my 

visit to Israel and to the West Bank the USAID work with Palestinian entrepreneurs on the West Bank was very, very notable, and 

USAID has a great reputation for that work. The recent announcement that West Bank PLO authorities are working to find a unification with Hamas in Gaza is problematic because USAID and we 

do not have working relationships with Hamas because of its status 

as a terrorist organization. 

How would you at USAID intend to carry on the ongoing work 

that has been positive in the West Bank under this scenario and 

what would your approach be to these unification issues? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. USAID has a two-track approach in West BankGaza. One is the budget support that we are working with the Palestinian authorities on and the other is the project activities that 

we are doing, and that includes institution building. So to the extent that those programs continue, we have high-impact, microinfrastructure programs that have begun, and this is part of the 

peace process and the need to make sure that these negotiations 

continue, because at the end of the day that really is going to be 

the solution, a two-state solution. 

As far as the announcement on the unity government, I think we 

have seen this before and we are going to watch carefully and see 

what ends up happening at the end of the day. We will adjust our 

programs as necessary, but we need to see how this plays out, because at this point it is not set in stone. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ms. Alexander. I will say the Foreign 

Relations Committee recently had an opportunity to meet with Foreign Minister Liberman of Israel to talk about these very issues. 

While expressing a lot of challenges and skepticism about current 

developments, when we explored the reality of the need for these 

peace negotiations he stated very plainly that there really is not a 

solution other than a two-state solution. How we get there and the 

timing and the circumstances is going to be very, very difficult. 

But, much as you indicated in your answer, he was very, very plain 

about that. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Alexander, Americans are the most caring, compassionate, 

humanitarian people on the face of this planet. You will lead the 

agency that is really the flagship agency of that caring relationship 

257 

that Americans have with other human beings on this planet. I am 

always amazed at what USAID does. 

I think the challenge for you is to convince Americans that they 

are doing this and that they are doing a good job doing this and 

that they are doing a good job doing this, and that we should feel 

good about what we are doing in that regard. What USAID does 

I find to be under the radar as far as Americans are concerned, and 

yet around the world USAID is regarded so highly because of the 

humanitarian work that they do. So we wish you well and have 

every confidence you will do a good job. 

Ms. Wells, your challenge is a little different. You are going to 

one of the countries that is certainly one of our friends in the Middle East. The King comes here regularly and meets with us. We 

have such a good friend in the King. Indeed, if everyone had, every 

country in the Middle East, had a leader like King Abdullah, the 

Middle East would have an entirely different complexion than it 

does today. 

I have every confidence that you will carry America’s feelings in 

that regard. I would just say that it has been printed and, although 

we cannot talk completely about it in an open setting, but it has 

been printed at least in the media that there is considerable Jordanian cooperation going on with Israel regarding counterterrorism 

work. I would hope that you would encourage the two agencies to 

continue that work. Certainly Jordan needs that with the challenges they have and the kind of immigration that they have had. 

So with that, I would kind of like to hear your thoughts as far 

as the relationship with Jordan and Israel? 

Ms. WELLS. Thank you, Senator. Jordan continues to be a leader 

on the Middle East peace process, both by being only the second 

Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, but also by King 

Abdullah’s public and frequent exhortations for the region and for 

the process to move forward. He describes peace as a basic right 

and a practical need, and he himself has championed the Arab 

peace initiative as well as worked very closely with Secretary Kerry 

over the last year in terms of the framework negotiations. 

I think what is important about Jordan, irreplaceable really, is 

how it leads by example, as you mentioned. The fact that Jordanian officials sit down pragmatically with Israeli counterparts to 

discuss the holy sites in Jerusalem, water, environment, trade, security, the fact that security officials have appropriate relationships 

with one another, is all extremely important. 

As we look ahead, we see new institutional relationships forming, 

including over energy security and how Israel and Jordan may be 

able to cooperate in the future on less expensive Mediterranean 

gas. We see very practical cooperation by King Abdullah in building Palestinian institutions, including the training of 5,600 Palestinian Presidential guards and national security officials. 

So I think that, even though sometimes among the Jordanian 

public support can be tepid for the peace treaty, the kind of leadership we see from King Abdullah is really what we need to see more 

of in the region. Certainly if I were confirmed I would work to encourage that level of practical daily cooperation. 

Senator RISCH. Well said. I think that probably that is one of 

the—again, something that is not stressed enough, and that is 

258 

what a success story it is, the relationship between Jordan and 

Israel, and the fact that Jordan leads by example. I think it makes 

it a lot easier for other Arab countries to deal with Israel when 

they see how well this relationship has worked between Jordan and 

Israel. 

So I am sure that as you work with them you will carry our message that this is a really, really good thing and we want to see it 

continue. I know the King has expressed to us over and over again 

that he wants that relationship with Israel and would like to see 

all his Arab brothers have the same kind of a relationship with 

Israel. 

So thank you very much and thank all of you for your service to 

the United States. 

Senator KAINE. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Thank you all for coming here. Congratulations to you and your 

family, and thank you for your offer to serve the country. For those 

that are already serving, thank you for that. 

My first question is for you, Ms. Alexander. I wanted to ask you 

a little bit about the recent announcement of a unity government 

by the Palestinian Authority. Is it your position that this new government as announced as you understand it complies with or satisfies U.S. conditions on aid to the PA? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. For starters, thank you, Senator Rubio. Hamas 

is a terrorist organization and we cannot work with Hamas. As far 

as the discussion about the unity government, at this point we are 

waiting to see what ends up forming. We have seen this before and 

we really have to wait and see how the process works at this point. 

Senator RUBIO. So obviously then we are waiting to see what it 

looks like. But is it safe to say in your opinion that Hamas has not 

adequately recognized the Jewish State of Israel’s right to exist and 

has not adequately accepted all provisions—or all previous IsraeliPalestinian agreements? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. Yes, Hamas as currently configured has not. 

Senator RUBIO. Can you confirm in your consultations with the 

agency that you are about to head that there will be an immediate 

cutoff of relevant U.S. assistance unless there is a full compliance 

with the letter and the spirit of all the provisions in the Palestinian 

Anti-Terrorism Act? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. I can speak only to what I know at this point, 

which is the law. And as the law stands we would not be able to 

apply assistance to that government. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Ms. Wells, let me ask you about Jordan for a moment. I think 

you have touched upon it in your statement, but I wanted to talk 

briefly about the reform efforts that are occurring within Jordan. 

Obviously, there is a situation where on the one hand there is the 

need, I think as recognized by the government, to create more political opening, more space, for all voices to be heard within Jordanian political society. On the other hand, there is the need to 

provide stability. 

We have seen what has happened around the world when these 

changes are not adequately managed during a pace that is sustainable. In fact, it creates a space for tremendous instability. 

259 

How would you assess the pace and the status of those reform 

efforts as being undertaken in Jordan today by the kingdom? 

Ms. WELLS. Thank you. Since King Abdullah came to power in 

1999, he has launched a variety of political and economic initiatives. He would be the first to say he was not satisfied with the 

progress he had been able to achieve. I think what we have seen 

recently is how the confluence of events have made difficult choices 

much more possible. The fact that you had the Arab Spring, you 

had the cutoff of the inexpensive Egyptian gas, and you have the 

Syrian crisis next door reinforces the imperative for getting ahead 

of public demands for change, as well as being able to respond to 

what was an unbearable economic pressure being placed on the 

government. 

So I think we see in three broad areas substantial and noteworthy efforts at reform. On the political side, the King has relaunched a public dialogue on reform. He has led an effort to 

amend one-third of the constitution. He has created a constitutional court, an Independent Electoral Commission, he has held 

successful parliamentary elections in January 2013 which outside 

observers deemed as credible. He has also taken steps to shrink the 

jurisdiction of the state security courts, and we welcome those initiatives. 

On the economic side, we see the same kind of forward-leaning 

approach. His negotiation of a standby arrangement with the IMF 

allows Jordan to establish a glide path for removing subsidies that 

are simply unsustainable. He has eliminated fuel subsidies in 2012 

and the electricity company by 2017 will be in a position to have 

full cost recovery. This is essential when electricity deficits were 

eating up 6 percent of GDP. 

So we are trying to support that. We are working with other donors to support that. It is a critical step and Jordan would be a 

leader in the region if it achieves those two reforms. 

Then just the final element is energy diversification. This is— 

when they lost the inexpensive Egyptian natural gas after 20 attacks on the pipeline, their energy costs went up to 21 percent of 

GDP, again unsustainable. So we have worked with Jordan and 

Jordan has been very forward-leaning in seeking to find less expensive fuels, including through the American company that works 

with Israel, establishing an LNG terminal, working to expand the 

mix of solar and wind. 

So I think right now as friends of Jordan we need to encourage 

that approach. 

Senator RUBIO. Just one more point I wanted to raise. When we 

have had this debate here about what to do in Syria, some ask why 

should we even care about it. One of the arguments I have made, 

of course, is that our relationship and the cooperation that we get 

from the King and the Jordanian Government are extraordinary. It 

is a very important relationship in the region. It is one of the cornerstones of our Middle Eastern policy. 

You would agree, I think you have already in your statement 

here today, that the events going on in Syria pose a direct threat 

to the kingdom, to their ability to continue to be of assistance to 

us, given the potential that that has to spill over into their own territory if not managed appropriately. So would you agree that as we 

260 

view the Syrian conflict we should view it partially through the 

context of what it would mean to our allies in Jordan? 

Ms. WELLS. I agree entirely, Senator. I think from Jordan’s perspective Syria is an existential threat. So if you look at our strategy in responding to the crisis, we have moved very aggressively 

both to provide the humanitarian assistance and economic aid that 

Jordan needs to weather this and weather the influx of refugees. 

At the same time, we have a very aggressive program of mil-mil 

cooperation, bolstering Jordan’s border security, increasing our own 

bilateral and multilateral training, trying to build the capacity, including through the targeting of foreign fighters, so a broad-based 

approach to address both the security element as well as the economic element. 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time. Can I 

ask one brief question on The Bahamas? 

Senator KAINE. Yes. 

Senator RUBIO. Ms. Butts, thanks for being here. Congratulations. I wish you the best on your assignment. It is a part of the 

country that is very—a part of the world that is very close to my 

part of the country in Florida. 

I did want to ask you, however. There have been reports, and I 

have seen the videos of some of this, of how Cuban refugees have 

been forcefully repatriated back to Cuba by the Bahamian Government. We have reached out to their government. They dispute 

some of those assertions. Nonetheless, we remain very concerned 

about it. 

I would just want to encourage you to work with the Bahamian 

authorities to ensure that not just Cuban refugees, as well as other 

refugees, including Haitian refugees and others, are treated appropriately and humanely if in fact they wind up on Bahamian territory. I think it is something that if people saw some of the images 

that have been put out there of how some of them have been treated by these authorities, they would be very concerned. 

Again, we understand the realities of addressing something like 

this, the costs associated with it. But I would hope that you would 

use your office and our Embassy to speak out in favor of any vulnerable peoples that may find themselves on their territory. I 

would encourage you to use your position there to be an advocate 

for that. 

Ms. BUTTS. Thank you, Senator Rubio. I appreciate that encouragement. It is certainly something that is very important to me. It 

is one of the policy issues that was most attractive about the role 

in The Bahamas. I have worked on migration issues before. Actually, I worked on migration issues on the Hill both on the Senate 

side and on the House side. 

I have not seen the images. I have certainly heard about some 

of the allegations with regard to how Cuban refugees have been 

treated, migrants have been treated in The Bahamas. As I understand it, our State Department has had a number of conversations 

with the Bahamians. It will be one of my priorities to ensure that 

all migrants are treated humanely, and I am happy to, if I am confirmed, to have a chance to come back to you, Senator, and to your 

staff and keep you up to date on the issues. 

Again, it is an issue of great importance to me too. Thank you. 

261 

Senator RUBIO. Let me just close by saying to all the nominees 

that I have not been here very long, about 31⁄2 years, but in my 

short time I have learned that when the committee is not fully 

manned here with all the members it is usually a good sign for 

your nominations. So I wish you all the best. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you both. 

A question about embassy security that I really want to address 

both to Ms. Wells and Mr. Kelly. One of my first hearings as a 

member of the committee was a hearing to examine the Accountability Review Board recommendations in the aftermath of the 

analysis post-Benghazi. Those recommendations are significant and 

numerous, but I think all who were reviewing the recommendations find the ones that they kind of most lock on, and the ones 

that I really locked onto were sort of the embassy security challenges. 

In the time since then, we have augmented the Marine security 

guard training program at Quantico to expand the Marine presence 

at a number of high-threat embassies. The State Department has 

recently announced moving forward with a FASTC, Foreign Assistance State Training Center, that is a long-desired effort to augment 

security training for embassy personnel. There are other issues 

concerning the hiring of the in-country security firms or individuals 

to assist. 

These are issues that I am really passionate about. I just wonder, for both, especially Ms. Wells and Mr. Kelly, if you could talk 

a little about how you intend to tackle the challenge of keeping 

your folks safe and secure as you take on posts in a neighborhood 

of the world that can be pretty challenging? 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you very much for your question, Senator 

Kaine. There is no more important issue for a chief of mission than 

taking care of your people. It is something that I have lived personally in my own career. My first assignment was in El Salvador during the civil war. We lost many embassy colleagues during my tour 

there, the years before and after. 

In my second tour, in Chile, I survived a terrorist attack against 

a embassy-related softball team, where a terrorist group put a 

bomb in a softball bat and killed one of my teammates and injured 

some of my embassy colleagues. 

So this is an issue that the Foreign Service has been dealing 

with for many, many years. So it is something that I am going to 

be very focused on as the chief of mission. Now, we have perhaps 

an advantageous situation in Djibouti because 2 miles from the 

Embassy we have more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel and 

contractors. So I think that our security is in pretty good shape. We 

have a very robust presence by diplomatic security agents in the 

Embassy. We also have an almost brand new Embassy compound, 

which really provides state of the art security conditions for our 

personnel. 

But I think the most important thing that a chief of mission can 

do is inculcate a culture of security throughout the mission, and 

that is something that will be important to me every day. 

Just another point about the environment that we are operating 

in now. Another very important aspect of our bilateral relationship 

with Djibouti is, because our Djiboutian partners provide us with 

262 

a platform to have a forward military location in Djibouti, that 

gives us access to a lot of neighboring countries that are potentially 

more vulnerable than we are. Our forces operating out of Djibouti 

were already fairly recently able to go into Juba in South Sudan 

to provide much-needed security reinforcement to our mission 

there, and that enabled our mission to stay open. 

So it is an issue that is very important and it is something that 

will be on my mind every single day. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Ms. Wells. 

Ms. WELLS. Like Tom, I have also experienced the instability 

that can take place, whether it was in Tajikistan being evacuated 

or from Pakistan or the political tensions escalating between India 

and Pakistan and the effect it has on Foreign Service families and 

the broader American community. Security would be my number 

one concern in Amman. It is a family posting. There are 760 official 

Americans and their family members under chief of mission authority. Given the history of events, the assassination of our 

USAID officer back in 2002, attacks on hotels in Jordan in 2005, 

and just the general events in the region, it is impossible to take 

security for granted. 

One of the very first things I would do at post would be to walk 

the wire with the regional security officer to understand what our 

strengths and weaknesses are, to go outside the embassy to look 

at schools and our housing complexes, to have a sense of how the 

unofficial American community, which numbers 40,000, what challenges they face. 

Thankfully, we have a very capable partner with the Jordanians, 

who provide excellent security support to us. The Embassy is well 

staffed to oversee our security programs. But this has to be a preoccupation in this day and age. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Ms. Butts, a question about one of the major areas of cooperation 

between the United States and The Bahamas is in the antidrug effort. I know that The Bahamas has been a good partner. There is 

a regional initiative including The Bahamas and the Turks and 

Caicos, that they have been significant players in. 

We recently in Armed Services had testimony by General Kelly, 

the head of SOUTHCOM, who basically was talking about the effect of sequester on drug interdiction efforts by our Nation. He 

said: ‘‘I watch about 75 percent of drugs coming into the United 

States just go by because I do not have the resources that I would 

need to stop them.’’ And he estimated that if he did he would make 

a huge reduction in the amount of drugs that come into the United 

States. 

Talk a bit—we have to resolve these budgetary issues, but what 

are some opportunities as you look ahead for the United States and 

The Bahamas to be even better partners on this significant challenge that we face? 

Ms. BUTTS. Thank you for your question, Senator Kaine. Certainly the focus of counternarcotics is a large focus of the bilateral 

relationship with The Bahamas. As you mentioned, Senator, we 

have the Operation Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, which the acronym is ‘‘OPBAT,’’ which has been going on since 1982. It is a partVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
263 

nership effort with The Bahamas which focuses on gathering intelligence, which focuses on cooperating in investigations, but also focuses on executing interdictions. 

We have seen success since 1982 and we are continuing to see 

success. Actually, just this past year we have seen an increase, a 

significant increase actually, in the drugs that we have been able 

to seize through that operation. 

In addition to that, under the Obama administration we actually 

now have the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative that actually 

started in 2010. Over the 4-year period we have invested $263 million. What is interesting about CBSI, Senator, is that actually it is 

a regionwide initiative. Where OPBAT is focused on The Bahamas, 

Turks and Caicos, and the United States, CBSI is focused on the 

entire Caribbean. One of the things that the President wanted to 

do was to show that you have to have a regionwide focus if we are 

going to be successful. 

So I would say to you, Senator, in addition to the very important 

joint efforts that we are doing through OPBAT, that we have got 

to look at the region as a whole in ensuring that we are doing the 

right level of cooperation, that we are doing the right level of coordination. I think that the President has started that out with the 

Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, and I hope that we are able 

to continue that. 

Actually, one of the advantages that The Bahamas has in the region is that The Bahamas—we have the Southern Command, obviously, Senator, but The Bahamas is actually organized through the 

Northern Command. So we have the Northern Command resources, 

just talking about resources that we can bring to bear to the effort. 

So we have the Northern Command resources, but we are the beneficiaries of the efforts going on through the Southern Command. 

Certainly there is a recognition that we never have as much in 

terms of resources that we want. But with some of the rethinking 

and reallocation of resources as a result of pulling out of Iraq and 

winding down in Afghanistan, with actually hope that there will be 

some additional resources that might be able to come the way of 

The Bahamas and of the Caribbean so that we can continue what 

has been a very strong effort on counternarcotics and counterterrorism efforts. 

Senator KAINE. That is one other concern that I know many 

have, is whether offshore banks in The Bahamas are at all being 

utilized by criminal networks, whether those are networks that are 

primarily focused on narcotic activity or other criminal activity. 

What is the current status of any activity or cooperation between 

the United States and The Bahamas to try to specify the existence 

of that problem and hopefully deal with it? 

Ms. WELLS. There has been a good deal of cooperation, Senator, 

over the years. Certainly The Bahamians understand the importance of ensuring that their financial services institutions are not 

being used in ways that are illicit. They have put regulations and 

reforms in place to address that. So we have some confidence moving forward now and moving forward that the financial services— 

that the industry in The Bahamas is not trafficking in finances 

from illegal activities. So we have confidence they have done a very 

264 

good job. We work jointly with them in ensuring to provide the support that they need so that they can get their system in place. 

So I think we feel confident. There could always be more done 

and as the chief of mission in Nassau I certainly want to work and 

coordinate with the Bahamians to ensure that they can continue to 

do the good work that they are doing. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Kelly, one of the things that is interesting, I find interesting, 

about Djibouti is the degree of foreign military presence. The 

United States only sort of permanent enduring military facility in 

southern Africa, and in addition there is a Japanese military presence and a French military presence and also the international 

antipiracy efforts focusing on the Gulf of Aden are headquartered 

in Djibouti. 

Given your immediate past billet at the State Department, you 

would seem to be just exactly the right person to help manage that. 

I know those are primarily mil-to-mil relationships, but talk a little 

bit about the relationship that you would have as Ambassador in 

not only interacting with the AFRICOM Joint Command, Horn of 

Africa Joint Command, but also with the other U.S. allies that 

have military presence in Djibouti? 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you very much for your question, Mr. Chairman. What I have been doing the last 3 years at the Political-Military Bureau is working every day to try to make sure that State 

Department and Department of Defense are working around the 

world in sync. We have taken a lot of steps to try to work more 

efficiently in that regard, including embedding each other’s personnel in the other’s agency. We now have more than 90 Foreign 

Service officers working in different military commands and we 

have doubled the number of uniformed officers over the last couple 

of years who are working at the State Department. 

We have that kind of model that is already functioning in 

Djibouti. At the CJTF–HOA there is a Senior Foreign Service officer who works as the adviser to the base commander, and then 

there is also a military liaison officer who works at the Embassy. 

It would be my responsibility as chief of mission to make sure 

that every day we are working together as efficiently as possible, 

to make sure that our coordinated efforts are advancing all of the 

very significant interests that we have in Djibouti. As you said, Mr. 

Senator, we have very considerable security interests there. 

Djibouti provides us with a platform that we just do not have anywhere else in the entire continent, and it gives us very important 

strategic access to places like Yemen, which is a country that is 

plagued by the most active al-Qaeda affiliate in the world right 

now, as well as al-Shabab in Somalia. So the stakes are indeed 

very high. 

We will also be coordinating with the other military forces that 

are there, as you mentioned. Camp Lemonnier used to be the overseas base for the French Foreign Legion. 

The Foreign Legion is no longer there, but there are still 2,000 

regular French troops who are stationed in Djibouti. They are very 

active. The only Japanese, significant Japanese military presence 

outside of Japan is at Camp Lemonnier as well. 

265 

There is presence by several other foreign military forces, especially navies that are focused on the counterpiracy mission that you 

described. That is going to be an important part of my job as well 

and I am looking forward to it. 

Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. Talk a little bit—Senator Durbin is particularly 

interested in development issues in Djibouti and I wanted to just 

ask. In the recent meeting between President Obama and President Guelleh, talk a little bit about economic issues that came up 

and what you see as some economic opportunities for the United 

States to interact and assist in the development of this economy. 

As you point out, only a small percentage of the land is arable 

land. There are some significant challenges there. How can we 

through USAID or other strategies be helpful? 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you very much, Senator. I am a development 

economist by training, so I believe very strongly that our strategic 

partnerships have to be underpinned by partners who govern 

democratically and openly and who are presiding over prosperous 

economies. So I think that it is very important that we spend a lot 

of time making sure that we are bringing all our development assistance resources to bear to make sure that Djibouti continues to 

grow. 

Djibouti faces a number of development challenges. Besides the 

fact that they basically have to import all of their food, they also 

face real energy problems. There are blackouts that last for much 

of the day. Half of the country does not even have access to electricity. There is a very high rate of unemployment, the estimate is 

about 60 percent of the population, and young Djiboutians, 20 to 

24, the unemployment rate is probably above 80 percent. 

So we need to continue our traditional development focus on 

basic health and primary education, but I think we have to do 

more than that. During the May 5 conversation that the President 

had with the Djiboutian President, we made a commitment to move 

into other areas that are very important for Djibouti’s development. 

In the first instance, we are going to work actively in workforce 

development to try to help Djiboutian authorities develop the skills 

of the Djiboutian workforce in a way that is relevant to the private 

sector. Then in the energy sector we are going to work with other 

donors, including the World Bank, to try to develop Djibouti’s considerable geothermal resources to provide them with some national 

source of energy that can provide them with a more constant 

source of power, which in turn I think can help them to attract 

more private investment, especially more foreign investment. 

Djibouti has very ambitious development plans. We think that 

they have a good vision, but they are going to need help from us 

and from other donors to get it right, to put in force the right regulatory framework. I am looking forward, as somebody who has 

worked on development for many years, to do that. 

Senator KAINE. Excellent. 

Ms. Wells, I wanted to ask a similar question about some sort 

of economic issues, and maybe especially given Jordan—the degree 

to which the Syrian refugees really stress an economy that already 

has a lot of stresses. Jordan is one of the most water-poor countries 

266 

in the world. The number of Syrian refugees coming into Jordan 

taxes a system that is already very, very challenged. 

I believe that most now see these refugees, not as a short-term 

presence, but a longer term presence. So some of the strategies 

that you might use to deal with the refugee population that might 

just be there for a short period of time—it now becomes more of 

a development issue, building water systems rather than providing 

bottled water, just to use an example. 

If I am correct about that, that the refugees are not likely to be 

returning to Syria any time soon, what are some strategies that we 

should be looking at in tandem with the Jordanian Government to 

make sure that the number of refugees does not overly tax this 

economy that can be fairly fragile? 

Ms. WELLS. Thank you. I think the first is to step back and to 

do as you have, which is to recognize the extraordinary burden and 

the extraordinary generosity that the Jordanians are displaying in 

hosting the Syrian community, 80 to 85 percent of whom are living 

in host communities. The Jordanians have opened their schools to 

Syrian children. They have opened their hospitals to Syrian refugees. In the north we are seeing schools running double shifts, 80 

kids to a class. Hospitals are at full capacity and in some instances 

running out of medicine. 

It obviously places a strong burden on the water infrastructure, 

with Jordan being—I think there are only three countries in the 

world that have less accessible water than Jordan. So I think the 

response has to be two-part: one, continuing to respond appropriately to the crisis conditions that Jordan faces; but two, to be 

nimble in our response and to reprogram and to redeploy assistance as appropriate, which we have begun to do, whether it is by 

using moneys to renovate and build new schools, directing more 

moneys to municipal water sources, taking advantage of existing 

programs, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s $275 

million 5-year project to expand water and waste water efficiency, 

which will touch the lives of three million Jordanians. 

So I think in terms of how our aid program is structured for Jordan, we are doing the right things. We are really focused on the 

resilience that Jordan needs in water, education, sanitation, and 

health, but to constantly be reassessing what is the burden that is 

being placed on Jordan and are we responding appropriately. 

Our tools do not have to be limited just to assistance. We have 

a lot of other economic tools at our disposal. We have support for 

the multilateral programs, like IMF that I have mentioned, coordination with the World Bank and other key donors to make sure we 

have a consistent and appropriate response. We have a slew of 

trade mechanisms. Jordan has one of the most open economies in 

the Middle East, and we can use the free trade agreement, the 

qualified industrial zones, our bilateral investment treaty, to make 

sure that we as we build the private sector are also encouraging 

and helping Jordan achieve the increased growth that it needs. 

Then I think energy diversification, so keeping Jordan focused on 

its own long-term economic sustainability and modernization. 

Mr. KELLY. The Jordanian-American Chamber of Commerce paid 

a visit to us recently here and is very interested in expanding their 

267 

ties with American technology and other firms. That is something 

that I know many of us are interested in working with them on. 

The last question I will ask you is about the status of political 

reforms that are under way in Jordan. Jordan has done a fairly 

good job of managing different constituencies that in other nations 

have been harder to manage. The Muslim Brotherhood is a sort of 

loyal opposition to the monarchy in Jordan and have been treated 

as a loyal opposition, not marginalized to a degree where they 

would then seek to engage—not shut out of legitimate political opportunities so that they feel like to be heard they have to carry out 

illegitimate opportunity. 

But talk about sort of ongoing political reform efforts in Jordan 

and how those are affected by other challenges like the Syrian refugee challenge? 

Ms. ALEXANDER. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, there are 

a variety of political reform initiatives that King Abdullah has 

taken up in the last 3 years. One of the very important reform initiatives is to take steps to increase the presence and strength of political parties. Jordan is a tribal country, a tribal society, along 

with a significant Palestinian population. But the Parliament has 

not reflected, has not really been based on parties. It has been 

based on tribal leaders and individuals with standing in the community, with one of the sole parties that has a coherent ideology 

being the Islamic Action Front. 

So if you look back at Jordan’s elections, until the Islamic Action 

Front began to boycott the elections they were the single most important party. So some of the reforms that have been taken recently have been to give Jordan simply one man, two votes. You 

can place one vote, which people presume will go to somebody in 

your community or a tribal leader, but a second vote is for a national list. We see this as a very positive development and beginning to encourage the formation of other parties. 

I agree with your assessment that King Abdullah has ably managed the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. They are a legitimate, as 

he puts it, part of the Jordanian social fabric. They have been 

around since the 1940s, recognized by the government. They became a political party in 1992. They never established a militant 

wing and they have never called for the overthrow of the 

Hashemite monarchy. 

So to create a culture where there is consensus, where there is 

give and take, where all of these parties participate in the elections, I think is a goal. If you look at the parliamentary elections 

that took place in January 2013, they were judged by many outside 

observers as being both credible and an improvement on previous 

elections. 

So again, as friends of Jordan I think we want to continue to encourage those kinds of forward-leaning reforms. 

Senator KAINE. You mentioned a comment that I just want to 

underline, which was a comment about the generosity of Jordanians, Turks, Lebanon in particular in dealing with Syrian refugees. The scope of it is just staggering. I know the figures best 

probably in Lebanon because of my recent visit there, but the number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon is now the equivalent of one out 

268 

of four Lebanon native population. And they have arrived within 

a space of about three years. 

So if you were to think in the United States, if we suddenly had 

75 million war refugees show up over a 3-year period, you got to 

look yourself in the mirror and say, would we be as generous? I 

bring that point up because sometimes we think of this region as 

a region of troubles and strife and folks doing horrible things and 

a lot of atrocities, and there certainly are. We also need to think 

of it as a region where neighbors do some pretty incredible things. 

And the Governments of Turkey and Jordan and Lebanon are 

pretty different. They are all stressed in their own way, some resource, some with leadership challenges. And yet in each of these 

nations there has been an extraordinary degree of sacrifice really, 

to run double shifts in schools, to in a water-poor nation provide 

water for refugees. 

Now, the United States is the single largest funder of assistance 

to Syrian refugees who have fled borders to other countries, and 

that is something that we can do and we should do and hopefully 

we can do more. But it is important to shine a spotlight on what 

Jordan and again Lebanon and Turkey especially are doing in the 

midst of this very difficult situation. I am glad you brought that 

up. 

I want to thank you all for this, for the hearing today, for your 

willingness to serve, and your forthright and thoughtful answers. 

I will leave the hearing open officially. If any members of the 

committee desire to submit questions in writing, I will leave the 

record open until Thursday at 5 o’clock for those questions to be 

submitted, and if they are I will trust that you will respond as 

promptly as you reasonably can. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSE OF ALICE G. WELLS TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. The pressures from the Syrian humanitarian crisis on the Government 

of Jordan and many sectors of its society remain enormous. On April 3, 2014, the 

Senate passed S. Res. 384, calling on the President to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to address the Syrian humanitarian crisis. The 

strategy is to be submitted within 90 days of the resolution’s passage, or by early 

July. 

♦ If confirmed, what are your objectives for the strategy, and what is the status 

of the administration’s progress in developing and completing it? 

Answer. The U.S. Government’s Syria policy is guided by six overarching interests—countering violent extremism and preventing the growth of terrorist safe 

havens, avoiding the collapse of the Syrian state, preventing the transfer or use of 

chemical weapons, supporting Syria’s neighbors, alleviating the humanitarian suffering, and fostering a political transition. 

The United States is taking steps to ensure that our humanitarian and development efforts across the region complement and reinforce those of our partners, 

neighboring countries, international humanitarian organizations, and other donors. 

Of the roughly $1.7 billion in humanitarian assistance that the United States is providing to respond to the crisis in Syria, more than $268 million is distributed 

through international organizations and nongovernmental organizations operating 

in Jordan (Migration and Refugee Assistance, International Disaster Assistance, 

and Food for Peace (Title II) funding). 

269 

Our funding and programs are geared to support both immediate needs and 

longer term programming. To the maximum extent possible, we seek to have governments and civil society take ownership of programs with continued and robust 

international support. The United States has been supporting the United Nations 

efforts to develop a Comprehensive Regional Strategic Framework (CRSF). The goal 

of the CRSF, which was just released on May 8, is to coordinate humanitarian, 

development, and macrofiscal interventions to meet immediate protection and 

assistance needs; build the resilience of households, communities and systems; 

strengthen host-country leadership; and support regional stability. We support the 

U.N.’s effort to build coherence between traditional humanitarian and development 

responses through the CRSF. Donor coordination tools such as the CRSF and the 

National Resilience Plan/Host Community Support Platform in Jordan are useful for 

making the best use of limited U.S. Government resources during a time of budget 

constraints and several large-scale crises occurring at one time. 

Jordan has an important role to play in identifying the areas where we can best 

help them, and we will actively seek Jordan’s counsel. With regard to Jordan, my 

primary role will be to focus on the interests that facilitate its security and assist 

Jordan in its efforts to help alleviate the humanitarian suffering. 

Our policies for the specific objectives of alleviating the humanitarian suffering 

and supporting Jordan’s security are well developed, and I would seek to build on 

them. They include continuing robust humanitarian and economic assistance for 

Jordan, furthering the Jordan Border Security Project, pursuing and capitalizing on 

opportunities for military training exercises like Eager Lion, continuing and developing contingency planning and defensive assets in Jordan, increasing cooperation 

on countering the flow of foreign fighters, and, in light of the extraordinary refugee 

flows into Jordan, continuing and expanding our extensive cooperation to provide 

cross-border humanitarian assistance and nonlethal assistance. 

RESPONSE OF ALICE G. WELLS TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. In FY 2012, Jordan received $20 million in USAID sustainable WASH 

funding, which is nearly 5 percent of USAID’s total sustainable WASH budget. The 

2013 Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act’s Report to Congress states that in FY 2012 

‘‘more than 1.7 million people in Jordan received improved water service through 

USAID-funded construction of pumping stations and water conveyance systems. An 

additional 8,750 plus people now receive improved access to drinking water. 

♦ Since Jordan has 96 percent access to safe water, can you please describe what 

specific communities USAID WASH funds currently target? 

♦ What populations are represented in the 1.7 million and 8,750 figures, and what 

is the definition of ‘‘improved water service’’ versus ‘‘now receive improved 

access’’ used in the annual report to Congress? 

♦ What proportion of WASH funds are supporting Syrian refugees and what kind 

of WASH programs are being directed to assistance Syrian refugees? 

♦ If confirmed, what do you believe are the United States Government’s priorities 

for WASH funding in Jordan? And how can these funds be leveraged to bring 

first time access to safe water and sanitation to poor and vulnerable communities? 

Answer. Jordan has access to safe water because of its piping network, but this 

does not mean that the pipes are always full of water. In fact, Jordan’s water distribution system is by and large discontinuous and rationed. In the northern 

governorates, water comes only once every 2 weeks for a few hours at a time, so 

households are largely dependent on water stored in cisterns and tanks. On average, the wastewater network is much less widespread, with approximately 65 percent of coverage across the country. 

The ‘‘1.7 million population’’ refers to those served by the Zaatri pump station and 

the 48 km-long Zatari-Hofa pipeline, which will serve the 1.7 million residents of 

Jordan’s four northern governorates, Ajloun, Irbid, Mafraq, and Jerash. We are 

uncertain to what the statement ‘‘an additional 8,750-plus people now receive 

improved access to drinking water’’; refers to, however, the impact of our projects 

in improving access to drinking water in the north alone would account for far 

broader access to drinking water than that figure: A 20-percent immediate increase 

in access was anticipated at the startup of the Zaatri pump station, which would 

amount to approximately 340,000 people receiving improved access to drinking 

water for this project alone. 

The Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), 

manages the U.S. assistance to Syrian refugees in Jordanian refugee camps, and 

270 

USAID directs its assistance to Jordanians and Syrians living in Jordanian host 

communities. It is estimated that 85 percent of Syrian refugees are living outside 

of the refugee camps. UNHCR and other relief organizations are keeping comprehensive records and maps detailing percentages of Syrian refugees residing in 

host communities throughout Jordan, and USAID Mission Amman is currently 

working to develop ways to better quantify the benefits of our water, sanitation, and 

hygiene (WASH) programs for Syrian refugees receiving this assistance. Considering 

that water pipelines and wastewater treatment plants benefit all people in Jordan, 

including Syrians, we can conclude that our assistance is benefiting millions of 

people. 

There are many things Jordan can do to improve water resource management. 

There is a great need for Jordan to continue improving water policies, tighten up 

its water system by reducing leaks and theft, and increasing its ability to recover 

its costs by improved billing procedures. Our USAID mission can help by supporting 

the Jordanian utility companies, such as the Yarmouk Water Company, in a similar 

manner that we helped the Aqaba Water Company and will soon be engaging 

Miyahuna, the Water Utility for Amman. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation has 

been asked to increase water tariffs and recover more costs as a condition of loan 

guarantees from the U.S. They also need to continue to find ways to decrease water 

use in the agricultural sector and better protect their aquifers, while dealing with 

the high concentration of Syrian refugees living with no access to wastewater treatment networks, particularly in the north of the country, where wastewater network 

coverage represents only 35–40 percent of households. 

(271) 

NOMINATIONS OF MARK SOBEL, SUNIL 

SABHARWAL, MATTHEW MCGUIRE, AND 

MILEYDI GUILARTE 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Mark Sobel, of Virginia, to be United States Executive Director of 

the International Monetary Fund for a term of two years 

Sunil Sabharwal, of California, to be United States Alternate Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund for a term 

of two years 

Matthew T. McGuire, of the District of Columbia, to be United 

States Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of two years 

Mileydi Guilarte, of the District of Columbia, to be United States 

Alternate Director of the Inter-American Development Bank 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD– 

419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Murphy, Corker, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. 

Today we have four well-qualified nominees for the committee’s 

consideration. These nominees, if confirmed, will represent the 

United States in the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the InterAmerican Development Bank, three essential international institutions tasked with international macroeconomic stability, poverty alleviation, and economic development. 

Every Presidential administration since Harry Truman’s has valued the work of international financial institutions. Most have 

sought to strengthen them and bolster their capability to reduce 

poverty and increase economic development. President Eisenhower 

said they assist the world’s poorest in their struggle for ‘‘freedom 

from grinding poverty.’’ 

But then, as now, they are also instrumental in keeping America 

prosperous and secure. It is in our clear interest to support the 

272 

global and regional institutions that promote global financial stability, sound fiscal policies, open markets, good governance, and 

help alleviate poverty. And, in the decades after World War II, they 

helped keep the peace. 

That said, recent efforts to undermine U.S. participation in these 

institutions in my view is not the answer, and is a direct threat 

to U.S. global leadership of an international economic system that 

we largely built. 

Do they need reform? Yes. As the world economy evolves, so 

must these organizations, and the three international financial institutions we will hear about today are all in the process of reform. 

I look forward to hearing our nominees’ thoughts on the progress 

being made in reforming these organizations, and what each of 

them intends to do to continue the reform process. 

Our first panel will focus exclusively on the IMF. Six weeks ago, 

this committee approved a Ukrainian bill that included important 

governance and quota reforms that IMF members agreed to in 

2010 in recognition of the key role the IMF played in stabilizing 

Ukraine’s economy, but also because we believed it was time for 

the United States to ratify reforms that would reinforce the IMF 

as the first-responder to international financial emergencies. 

At the end of the day, supporting the IMF has not been a partisan issue. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and both Presidents Bush 

backed legislation to increase IMF resources, and President Reagan 

called the IMF ‘‘the linchpin of the international financial system.’’ 

In fact, during our debate on the Ukraine bill, I quoted from a 

letter to House and Senate leadership from members of the Bretton 

Woods committee who argued—and I quote—‘‘implementing the 

IMF quota reforms bolsters our leadership in the Fund and provides the United States with leverage to continue to preserve our 

national security and economic interests abroad.’’ So I look forward 

to hearing from our first panel why they believe the IMF as an institution, and the 2010 reforms in particular are critical to continued U.S. global economic leadership. 

We welcome all of our nominees and their family members and 

friends. We also encourage nominees to introduce family members 

so we can also acknowledge them for their support and shared sacrifice in this process. 

With that, let me recognize the distinguished ranking member, 

Senator Corker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling the hearing and to the two of you for your public service in the roles that 

you now play and hopefully will play in the future. 

I appreciate the opportunity, as you mentioned, to examine the 

roles of these three entities, the IMF, the World Bank, and IDB. 

I want to share the chairman’s comments and concerns regarding 

the IMF. I too wish that we had been able to pass the IMF reforms 

that actually began—I had a good conversation yesterday with Mr. 

Sobel. But these IMF reforms began early in the Bush administration, and somehow things have been conflated, if you will, recently 

and people have forgotten the origin of these and have tried to use 

273 

the fact that these reforms are continuing to be pushed by this administration as if this is something new. 

But I do think it is very important for us to have the kind of reforms put in place at the IMF that have been discussed. The IMF 

continues to be a viable entity. I think that we do a very poor job 

here of explaining to people back home that when you have a population of 4.5 percent of the world and yet you share in 22 percent 

of the world’s gross domestic product, it is very important—more 

important—to our citizens maybe than any other that the world is 

stable and that we have the opportunity to continue to grow economically, and we do a really, really bad job of that, I think, on 

this committee but, candidly, in the Senate and as Federal officials 

in general. 

So I appreciate you being here. I do think there are some challenges when you look at the World Bank and just other sources of 

loans. I want to talk a little bit about that. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I just want to close with this. I know that 

the IMF legislation that we looked at was a part of a Ukraine bill, 

and I appreciate the way we have done so many things together 

in a bipartisan way. 

I will have to tell you that it is very frustrating to get up every 

morning and to read the newspapers and to see what Russia is 

doing inside Ukraine. For Russia to be making statements that 

they have moved troops away—and we know that they have not— 

for them to continue to foment problems inside the country as we 

sort of race—it is almost a game of chicken between now and May 

25 when the election takes place. It does not appear that we are 

doing anything. It looks like Putin is doing a whole lot. And it is 

very disturbing to me to know that we are in a position as a nation, where we are unwilling to prevent the kind of behavior that 

Russia is putting forth. And I know that many people on both sides 

of the aisle share those same frustrations. 

But thank you for the hearing today, and I look forward to the 

witnesses’ testimony and I look forward to working with the chairman as we move along to try to put the IMF reforms in place at 

some point so that, again, we have an institution that is healthy 

and is able to—even though mistakes were made during the European crisis—and I am sure it will come up today or at least in written questions. Mistakes were made. Having an entity like this that 

helps usher in economic stability in countries where that does not 

exist is a good thing. So thank you for the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Senator Corker, and thank you 

for your work with us on the IMF as part of the Ukraine package 

and your observations about it, with which we totally agree, and 

hopefully we can get there at some point in this process. 

With that, let me introduce our first panel today: Mark Sobel, 

nominated to be U.S. Executive Director of the IMF; and Sunil 

Sabharwal, to be alternative U.S. Executive Director to the IMF. 

Mr. Sobel has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Monetary and Financial Policy, Senior Advisor to the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF, and Director of the 

Office of International Monetary Policy, as well as other senior positions at Treasury. 

274 

Mr. Sabharwal began his career at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He has worked in international 

payment systems in both the United States and Europe and has 

held senior positions at First Data Corporation, Western Union, 

and GE Capital. 

Thank you both for your willingness to serve. 

Let me just say for the record that your full statements will be 

included in the record, without objection, in their entirety. We ask 

you to summarize them in about 5 minutes or so, so that we can 

enter into a Q&A session. And again, if you have family members 

here, please feel free to introduce them. 

Mr. Sobel. 

STATEMENT OF MARK SOBEL, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED 

STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL 

MONETARY FUND FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member 

Corker, and members of the committee. I am honored that President Obama nominated me to serve as Executive Director of the 

United States to the International Monetary Fund, and I am grateful to Secretary Geithner, Secretary Lew, and former Under Secretary Lael Brainard for supporting me. 

I am delighted to be joined today by my wife, Martha Halperin. 

Working with talented Treasury colleagues and senior officials in 

administrations from both parties, I have had the rare privilege of 

holding a front row seat in the making of American history for over 

three decades. As you noted, I have served as an Assistant Financial Attache in Bonn, Germany; Director of the Treasury’s International Monetary Policy and Transition Economy Offices; worked 

in the staff of the U.S. IMF Executive Director; and since 2000, as 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy. In recent years, I have been proud to play a role in 

America’s leadership in establishing the G20 Leaders process and 

reforming the IMF. 

Seventy years ago, as our brave soldiers fought in World War II 

to liberate the global from tyranny and dictatorship, our Nation’s 

financial diplomats took the lead in creating a new vision for international economic cooperation. Their vision shunned protectionism 

and beggar-thy-neighbor currency policies, forces that helped catalyze the war, and instead trumpeted multilateralism and shared 

prosperity. At the center of that vision, they created the IMF. 

Since its inception, the Fund has well served the world economy 

and U.S. national security and economic interests, whether it be in 

helping to mitigate economic crises in Latin America in the 1980s, 

support the transition of the ex-Soviet states in the 1990s, combat 

the Asian and emerging market crises of the latter 1990s, provide 

concessional support and debt relief for poverty alleviation in lowincome countries, or tackle the European crisis of the past years. 

Without the IMF, these developments had the potential to rock 

geopolitical stability to a much greater extent, often in countries 

with strategic significance to our national security. Without the 

IMF, these developments also had the potential to spread more 

virulently around the world and seriously harm U.S. growth and 

275 

jobs through decreased export opportunities, lost foreign investment, and financial shocks. 

Throughout my career, I have seen firsthand the IMF’s 

strengths. Its ability to design and support country reform programs is unparalleled. The IMF brings together officials from 

around the world, creating shared understanding. It fosters multilateral rules of the road. Its technical assistance helps countries 

build the infrastructure for more robust economic policies. The 

IMF’s surveillance can help prevent crises. 

But despite the Fund’s strengths, the organization, like any 

other, has room for improvement, for example, in better providing 

crisper judgments on global rebalancing and exchange rate issues, 

strengthening its work on crisis prevention and debt sustainability, 

supporting pro-poor spending in low income countries, and helping 

make financial sectors more resilient. 

I believe firmly in defending U.S. interests and in advancing 

multilateralism, as well as in working pragmatically and collegially, with analytic rigor and in a nonpartisan manner. I also believe in the IMF’s mission and that our Nation’s leadership of the 

IMF is critical. Those beliefs have guided my career. 

If confirmed as U.S. Executive Director, I will work vigorously to 

strengthen and improve the IMF consistent with those beliefs. I 

will dedicate myself to doing my utmost to work with Congress to 

help secure U.S. passage of the 2010 quota and governance reforms. 

Again, to have been nominated by the President to represent the 

United States in the International Monetary Fund, the very institution at the center of America’s post-World War II global economic 

and financial vision, is a tremendous and humbling honor and a responsibility that I am eager to undertake. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sobel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK SOBEL

Thank you Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the 

committee. I am honored that President Obama nominated me to serve as Executive 

Director of the United States to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and I am 

grateful to Secretary Geithner, Secretary Lew, and former Under Secretary Lael 

Brainard for supporting me. I am delighted to be joined today by my wife, Martha 

Halperin. 

Working with talented Treasury colleagues and senior officials in administrations 

from both parties, I have had the rare privilege of holding a front row seat in the 

making of American history for over three decades. I have served as an Assistant 

Financial Attache ́ in Bonn, Germany; Director of Treasury’s International Monetary 

Policy and Transition Economy Offices; a member of the staff of the U.S. IMF Executive Director; and since 2000 as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy. In recent years, I have been proud to play a role in 

America’s leadership in establishing the G20 leaders process and reforming the 

IMF. 

Seventy years ago, as our brave soldiers fought in World War II to liberate the 

globe from tyranny and dictatorship, our Nation’s financial diplomats took the lead 

in creating a new vision for international economic cooperation. Their vision 

shunned protectionism and beggar-thy-neighbor currency policies, forces that helped 

catalyze the war, and instead trumpeted multilateralism and shared prosperity. At 

the center of that vision, they created the IMF. 

Since its inception, the Fund has well served the world economy, and U.S. 

national security and economic interests—whether it be in helping to mitigate economic crises in Latin America in the 1980s, support the transition of the ex-Soviet 

states in the 1990s, combat the Asian and emerging market crises of the latter 

276 

1990s, provide concessional support and debt relief for poverty alleviation in low 

income countries, or tackle the European crisis of the past years. 

Without the IMF, these developments had the potential to rock geopolitical stability to a much greater extent, often in countries with strategic significance to our 

national security. Without the IMF, these developments also had the potential to 

spread more virulently around the world and seriously harm U.S. growth and jobs 

through decreased export opportunities, lost foreign investment, and financial 

shocks. 

Throughout my career, I have seen firsthand the IMF’s strengths. Its ability to 

design and support country reform programs is unparalleled. The IMF brings 

together officials from around the world, creating shared understanding. It fosters 

multilateral rules of the road. Its technical assistance helps countries build the 

infrastructure for more robust economic policies. The IMF’s surveillance can help 

prevent crises. But despite the Fund’s strengths, the organization—like any other— 

has room for improvement, for example, in better providing crisper judgments on 

global rebalancing and exchange rate issues, strengthening its work on crisis prevention and debt sustainability, supporting pro-poor spending in low income countries, and helping make financial sectors more resilient. 

I believe firmly in defending U.S. interests and in advancing multilateralism, as 

well as in working pragmatically and collegially, with analytic rigor, and in a nonpartisan manner. I also believe in the IMF’s mission and that our Nation’s leadership of the IMF is critical. Those beliefs have guided my career. 

If confirmed as U.S. Executive Director, I will work vigorously to strengthen and 

improve the IMF, consistent with those beliefs. I will dedicate myself to doing my 

utmost to work with Congress to help secure U.S. passage of the 2010 quota and 

governance reforms. 

Again, to have been nominated by the President to represent the United States 

in the IMF—the very institution at the center of America’s post-WWII global economic and financial vision—is a tremendous and humbling honor and a responsibility that I am eager to undertake. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sabharwal. 

STATEMENT OF SUNIL SABHARWAL, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE 

UNITED STATES ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE 

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FOR A TERM OF TWO 

YEARS 

Mr. SABHARWAL. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, 

distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to appear 

before you today to present my personal and professional credentials for the position of the United States Alternate Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund. 

I am grateful to the President for nominating me to this important office and to Secretary Lew for his confidence and support. I 

also want to thank your staff for taking the time to meet with me 

prior to today. If confirmed, I look forward to advancing our shared 

commitment to make the IMF an even more effective organization 

and one where U.S. interests are strongly represented, promoted, 

and defended. 

I would like to introduce members of my family who are here 

with me today, starting with my son, Nicolas, a freshman at Duke 

University with an interest in engineering and sciences; my daughter Izabella, a freshman at National Cathedral School in high 

school, who is vying to follow her grandfather to be an Olympian 

track athlete; and finally, my wife, Gabrielle, whose forensic 

sciences background and attention to detail actually has helped me 

a great deal to be able to be sitting here in front of you. Gabrielle 

and I also share a common passion for the sport of fencing, as we 

277 

met 25 years ago in Culver City, CA, at a fencing club and continue 

our involvement with the sport and the Olympic movement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Who wins? [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that was determinative. Go ahead. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SABHARWAL. I was born in New Delhi, India, to an Indian 

father and a Hungarian mother. My parents separated when I was 

9, and I moved to Budapest, Hungary, part of the Soviet Bloc at 

the time. Following my mother’s refusal to join the Communist 

Party, she was denied a business permit, was constantly harassed 

for her religious beliefs, in the end giving the family no choice but 

fleeing the country and seeking asylum in the U.S. Embassy in Vienna. I had just finished high school then. 

Through the cooperation of the U.S. State Department, the 

United Nations, and charitable organizations, we received political 

asylum in the United States, more precisely in Columbus, OH, with 

the specific assistance of the Upper Arlington Lutheran Church. To 

date, I will never forget the reception we received in Columbus in 

December 1983, just a few days before Christmas, and will remain 

forever grateful to Professor Cole and his family who enabled me 

to enroll at the Ohio State University a few weeks after my arrival. 

While I put myself through college with the use of financial aid, 

work-study, and scholarships, my family moved to California. Upon 

graduation, I joined them in California to begin my professional career. 

When I left Hungary in 1983, I thought that was going to be for 

good. Little did we know that less than 10 years later, massive political changes would sweep the region free. One of the first institutions created to foster the transition was the European Bank for 

Reconstruction and Development, and I was fortunate enough to 

play a meaningful role in the region’s transition as an American 

citizen and an EBRD employee. 

I established the EBRD office in Budapest in early 1992, a time 

in which Hungary was at the forefront of innovative foreign direct 

investment legislation and regulations. This experience allowed me 

to participate in landmark public and private sector transactions, 

including the first bank and telecom privatizations, infrastructure 

projects, municipal finance, and venture capital deals. I then 

transitioned to the EBRD headquarters in London as a member of 

its financial institutions team, which had the responsibility of investing and lending to banks in the region. 

The 5 years I spent at the EBRD had shaped my early professional career and have had a significant impact throughout. I then 

spent about 10 years working for GE and First Data Corporation, 

most of it focused on investing in the financial services sector and 

companies that provide services to the financial services industry. 

For the last 8 years, I have served as an independent investor and 

adviser to the same sectors. 

As a result of my global upbringing, through which I have had 

an ability to relate to people around the world, and my 25 years 

of tenure in the financial services sector, gained in both public and 

private domains, I am equipped with the experience necessary to 

carry out successfully the duties, if confirmed, of the U.S. Alternate 

Executive Director at the IMF. In addition, my language skills and 

278 

volunteer experiences are also highly relevant in a body where we 

need to get representatives of nearly 200 countries to support us 

on a wide-ranging set of issues. 

I look forward to answering your questions and, if confirmed, 

working with members of the committee on policy matters affecting 

the IMF. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sabharwal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUNIL SABHARWAL

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished members of the 

committee—it is an honor to appear before you today to present my personal and 

professional credentials for the position of United States Alternate Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

I am grateful to the President for nominating me to this important office and to 

Secretary Lew for his confidence and support. I also want to thank you and the committee’s staff members for taking the time to meet with me prior to today. If confirmed, I look forward to advancing our shared commitment to make the IMF an 

even more effective organization and one where U.S. interests are strongly represented, promoted, and defended. 

I would like to introduce members of my family, who are here with me today: 

starting with my son, Nicolas, who is a freshman at Duke University with an interest in engineering and the sciences. My daughter, Izabella, who is a freshman in 

high school at the National Cathedral School, and is vying to follow her grandfather 

to be an Olympian track athlete, and finally my wife, Gabrielle, with a forensic 

sciences background whose attention to detail has helped me get through all the 

documents needed prior to me sitting here in front of you. We also share a common 

passion for the sport of fencing as we met 25 years ago in Culver City, CA, in a 

fencing club and continue our involvement with the sport and the Olympic movement. 

I was born in New Delhi, India, to an Indian father and a Hungarian mother. My 

parents separated when I was 9, and I moved to Budapest, Hungary, part of the 

Soviet Block at the time. Following my mother’s refusal to join the Communist 

Party, she was refused a business permit, was constantly harassed for her religious 

beliefs—in the end giving the family no choice but fleeing the country and seeking 

asylum at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna. I had just finished high school. 

Through the cooperation of the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and 

charitable organizations, we received political asylum in the United States, more 

precisely in Columbus, OH, and with specific assistance by the Upper Arlington 

Lutheran Church. To date, I will never forget the reception we received in Columbus, in December 1983 (just a couple of days before Christmas) and will remain forever grateful to Professor Cole and his family who enabled me to enroll at the Ohio 

State University weeks after my arrival. While I put myself through college with 

the use of financial aid, work-study, and scholarships, my family moved to California. Upon graduation, I joined them to begin my professional career. 

When I left Hungary in 1983, I thought it was for good. Little did we know that 

less than 10 years later, massive political changes would sweep the region free. One 

of the first institutions created to foster the transition of the region was the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and I was fortunate 

enough to play a meaningful role in the region’s transition as an American citizen 

and EBRD employee. 

I established the EBRD office in Budapest in early 1992, a time in which Hungary 

was at the forefront of innovative foreign direct investment legislation and regulations. This experience allowed me to participate in landmark public and private sector transactions, including the first bank and telecomm privatizations, infrastructure projects, municipal finance, and venture capital deals of Central & Eastern 

Europe. In 1995, I transitioned to London to join the EBRD’s headquarters staff as 

a member of its Financial Institutions team, which had the responsibility of investing in and lending to banks in the region. The 5 years I spent at the EBRD had 

shaped my early professional career and have had a significant impact throughout. 

I then spent about 10 years working for GE and First Data Corporation, most of 

it focused on investing in the financial services sector or companies that provide 

services to the financial services industry. For the last 8 years, I have served as an 

279 

independent investor and adviser focused on the financial services, or ‘‘fintech’’ 

sector. 

As a result of my global upbringing, through which I gained an ability to relate 

to people around the world, and my 25 years of tenure in the financial services sector—in both public and private domains—I am equipped with the experience necessary to carry out successfully the duties, if confirmed, of the U.S. Alternate Executive Director at the IMF. In addition, my language skills and volunteer experiences 

are also highly relevant in a body where we need to get representatives of nearly 

200 countries to support us on a wide-ranging set of issues. 

I look forward to answering your questions, and, if confirmed, to working with 

members of the committee on policy matters affecting the IMF. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you both. You have started off very 

well because neither one of you used your full time, and that is a 

rarity here at the hearings. So we appreciate that. 

Let me start off with you, Mr. Sobel. The United States championed the 2010 IMF quota and governance reforms, but we are the 

only major IMF member country that has yet to ratify them. How 

would you describe this as impacting U.S. leadership in the IMF? 

And if confirmed, what actions would you take as the Executive Director to counter any real or perceived decline in U.S. influence? 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you. 

I think, as you have suggested, both of you suggest in your statements, it is an absolute priority for the United States to implement 

the 2010 legislation. The IMF is extremely critical to the United 

States for our national security, for our economy, for our ability to 

lead and foster a multilateral system of governance around the 

world, and it is also crucial to how the world views American leadership. This is an institution we created, and the world looks to us 

to play a major role in leading it. And when we are the one country 

that has not passed our legislation, I think the world looks at us 

and wonders if we truly remain committed to multilateralism and 

to this institution. 

You know, I was struck during the recent spring meetings of the 

IMF and World Bank. There are many important issues in the 

global economy. There are issues about how are we going strengthen global growth. What are the risks and the potential tail risks 

that could undermine our economy? But, in fact, what happened 

was that the global community ended up spending most of its time 

focused on what did the inability to secure legislation mean for the 

IMF. So I think it was a distraction from really some of the very 

important issues that the world economy faces. 

I believe that there is a very strong case for the legislation, for 

the important role the IMF plays for the United States. I think the 

legislative package is an excellent one. We are not putting $1 into 

the IMF, and yet, we are preserving our veto power. We are preserving our leadership and influence, and we are achieving some 

modernization of the IMF, which is critical for the Fund’s future. 

So it is an excellent package. I will do whatever I can to work with 

you to make sure that the importance of this legislation for the 

United States and for the global economy is understood by all. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, if confirmed as the Executive Director, until 

we get to that point, you will have a challenge, when dealing with 

your counterparts in making them understand that we are truly 

280 

committed. And I assume that we can count on you to be able to 

do that. 

Mr. SOBEL. You may, sir. I, in my current position, wear a G20 

hat. This issue is very prominent in the G20 as well, and the Secretary, I, and many others have spent a considerable amount of 

time explaining the situation to others, assuring them that the executive branch remains fully committed to securing passage of this 

legislation, and we will certainly continue to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you. I would appreciate it if you 

could discuss the key role the IMF plays in intervening in financial 

crises such as the ongoing situation in the Ukraine. And as part 

of that, please explain how ratification of the 2010 reforms would 

strengthen the IMF’s ability to fulfill its mission. 

Mr. SOBEL. Unfortunately, countries live beyond their means. 

They fall into stress, and they come to the IMF often too late. But 

what the IMF works to do—I would say the country then faces two 

paths. One is a path of disorderly adjustment. In that path, the 

country puts in place measures that are half-hearted, piecemeal, 

and there can be a very sharp, disorderly contraction in the economy that has major spillover effects on the global economy, including the United States. 

What the IMF seeks to do is to help the country put in place 

sound reforms for a market-based economy and provide some financial support, conditioned on implementation of tough reforms, 

tough reforms that are necessary for the country to live within its 

means and to tighten its belt, but to provide support to provide for 

a more orderly and gradual adjustment path that is less disruptive 

to the people of the country and less disruptive to the global economy. And that is why I think the Fund programs are so important 

in supporting market economies around the world and lessening 

the spillback to the United States. 

Ratification of the IMF again is absolutely vital for strengthening 

the IMF. We want the membership of the IMF to feel part of a 

multilateral system. We benefit from a multilateral system, and we 

benefit from countries playing according to multilateral rules of the 

road. What we do not want to see is the world economy splinter 

off into regional blocs. We do not want to see a Ukraine that is dependent upon its neighborhood and not have the support of the 

international community. And so to do that, we need a modernized 

IMF that the membership feels is relevant and legitimate, and the 

2010 reforms will help precisely do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have one last question for you. Last year, I 

joined 60 other Senators in a letter to Secretary Lew raising concerns about currency manipulation. A number of studies estimate 

large U.S. job losses due to direct and sustained intervention in foreign exchange markets by our major trading partners. And know 

that I am deliberately not referring to the effects of central bank 

monetary policies. 

We in Congress are looking for a robust administration action 

plan. Now, I understand Treasury’s preference has been to address 

this through the IMF and G20, not through trade negotiations, but 

so far such attempts have fared poorly. 

281 

If confirmed, would you use your position to motivate IMF leadership to press currency manipulators to move forward toward 

market-based exchange rates? 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you for that question. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the IMF was created— 

one of the reasons it was created was specifically to overcome beggar-thy-neighbor currency practices which, as I noted, was one of 

the factors that gave rise to the disruptions in World War II. 

Foreign exchange surveillance is a core mandate of the International Monetary Fund. This is another area referencing what 

Senator Corker said at the beginning. Senator Corker said that the 

governance reforms in the IMF have been pursued in both last administrations. The same can be said about IMF and foreign exchange surveillance. Both administrations very actively since 2005 

have pressed the IMF to exercise firmer and more rigorous surveillance over exchange rates. And as you have acknowledged, we have 

also pushed this case very heavily in the G20. 

In response, I think the IMF has significantly improved its analysis. It has improved its coverage of exchange rate issues in its article 4 work and other papers. I still feel that there is more to be 

done. As I indicated in my statement, I feel there is more to be 

done in providing crisper assessments and judgments in this area, 

and I would like to assure you that, if confirmed, I will definitely 

press the IMF to undertake more vigorous and more robust foreign 

exchange surveillance. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Sabharwal, since it is only Senator Corker and I, I am 

going to take advantage and ask one more question and will then 

turn to him. 

Being the alternate is important as well because if Mr. Sobel is 

not, for any reason, acting and you are going to get engaged, I want 

to know how you think. So I would appreciate if you could give us 

your perspective, as someone with extensive experience in the private financial sector, on the importance of the IMF in ensuring 

international financial stability, and why you think—assuming you 

think—full implementation of the proposed 2010 quota and governance reforms are justified and necessary. 

Mr. SABHARWAL. Thank you for the question. 

The IMF really sits in the center of the global economy. One of 

its missions is to avert crises, and if a crisis does happen, to contain them. Whenever the private sector looks to invest, the first 

item of risk it is looking at is the risks that the IMF is addressing, 

macroeconomic risks, which includes financial economic currency 

as well. Therefore, a strong IMF creates strong global economies, 

which then leads to a growing economy that is helpful for us in the 

United States as about 15 percent of our GDP is based on exports 

creating 10 million jobs, and of course, a stronger global economy 

results in more exports. When there is stability around the world, 

then those countries are also investing more back home. 

As a business person, I would think that a proposal where each 

U.S. dollar—our dollars—is being matched four to one by other 

countries in the objective of strengthening the IMF, and on top of 

that, we are then the only country with a veto right. That is a very 

strong proposition and one, from a businessman’s perspective, I 

282 

would take because it benefits us. It is leveraging our capital. It 

is growing the global economy that is creating jobs back home. The 

strength of the global economy again is enabling others to invest 

in our country, travel to our country, again beneficial for the U.S. 

economy. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank 

you both for being here. 

Just for those who might be looking on and members who are not 

here, explain the relationship, if you would, between the actual 

person and the alternate and how the two interrelate and why we 

have it set up in that way, if you would briefly. 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you, Senator. 

The Office of the United States Executive Director is responsible 

for being the voice of the United States. In the IMF, some people 

talk about our votes. So we cast the votes. The office does. The 

Fund tries to operate most of the time on consensus, but we also 

provide the intellectual heft from the United States to articulate 

and represent our views. 

I would say one thing I have learned in my career is that virtually any issue of importance to the international monetary system is discussed in the IMF board. 

So what does the IMF office do? 

Senator CORKER. Before we get to that, just if you would specifically—there is an Executive Director and then there is an alternate. Explain why we have it set up that way, if you would briefly. 

Mr. SOBEL. It goes back to the original governance of the Fund, 

but of course, there is just a tremendous amount of work that goes 

to the board, and the two are there to represent the United States 

in the board, to discuss with colleagues around the world and build 

a consensus to advance U.S. positions. And of course, if one or the 

other is not present, the other would serve as the representative. 

Senator CORKER. So you have to be present to vote. Is that correct? 

Mr. SOBEL. Yes. 

Senator CORKER. You cannot do that by proxy. 

Mr. SOBEL. Absolutely not. 

Senator CORKER. So is that the reason you have an alternate? 

Mr. SOBEL. Absolutely. 

The IMF board meets three to four times a week. They are bringing hundreds of papers to the board for discussion and presentation 

of ideas every year, and the office needs to be positioned to read 

all the papers and weigh in on each and every one of them. It is 

a tremendous volume of work. 

Senator CORKER. So, Mr. Sobel, we had a meeting yesterday, and 

I have been listening to your testimony today and I appreciate it. 

You used the word ‘‘intellectual’’ a minute ago. You all provide the 

intellectual work to analyze what is happening. And you seem very 

quiet and unassuming and sort of reserved. It is kind of refreshing 

when you think about the environment I live in daily. 

But on the other hand, I would like to ask this question. I mean, 

you talk about influencing others. And I know you probably have 

a very high IQ, beyond certainly the person asking the question. 

283 

I guess the question is how much on the EQ side is relevant to the 

job. I mean, is this an influencing job where you are out trying to 

influence other people? You are relatively quiet and I am just wondering what kind of skills you possess relative to getting other people from other countries who have divergent views to come your 

way. 

Mr. SOBEL. Well, thank you for that question. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me forewarn you before you answer. Do not 

take Senator Corker’s self-effacing way to suggest that somehow 

your intellect is greater than his. This is his ‘‘oh, shucks’’ way of 

getting to people. So I just want you to know. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Mr. SOBEL. I thank you for that. I had not been fooled. 

Well, first of all, I thank you for perceiving me for being quiet 

and unassuming. I know many people who would not agree with 

your assessment. 

Over my career, I have come to appreciate that the United States 

leads not only by virtue of being the largest country in the world, 

but by having good people who are smart and can put forward 

strong reasoning and lead with analysis and good ideas. Obviously, 

we have to be collegial. I think my colleagues around the world 

know that if I need to be a tough negotiator, I can be a tough negotiator. But I am a straight talker and I am on my game. 

Senator CORKER. How much of the job, though seriously—I know 

we talked a little bit yesterday. But how much of the job is you influencing others through discussion and conversation? How much 

of it is just analyzing some paper and people reading and making 

a decision based on what is in a paper? 

Mr. SOBEL. The two actually come together. You read papers. 

You form your analysis, but then you go talk to others to form the 

best position and to exchange ideas on it. And I think that really 

is in large measure the essence of what one does in the IMF executive board. 

Senator CORKER. Well, I know we talked a little bit about the 

quota package or you did with the chairman. I think there has 

been some discussion on our side of the aisle, not by me, but some 

have questioned the difference between the NAB and the risk that 

our Nation has relative to that versus going ahead and making the 

investment that is called for by the IMF reforms. 

Would you mind using this opportunity to distinguish between 

the two and to talk a little bit about that risk? I think it would 

be your view that the investment is not any more risky than having the NAB out there, or at least I think that is what it was yesterday. But if you would, please share your thoughts in that regard. 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you. 

Both our contributions to the NAB and quotas I feel are extremely secure. I feel our reserve claims on the IMF are completely 

secure. The safeguards that would apply to the NAB or the quota 

are the same. When NAB or quota resources are lent out, they are 

lent out subject to strong conditionality. When the IMF lends to 

country X, our exposure as a nation is not to country X. It is to 

the Fund’s balance sheet. The Fund’s balance sheet is rock solid. 

The Fund is regarded around the world as a de facto preferred 

284 

creditor. The Fund has strong reserves. It has strong unrealized 

gold profits that could back our loans in case there were any questions. So the Fund’s balance sheet is rock solid. I think that is beyond debate. 

Senator CORKER. Has the Fund ever lost—has the Fund ever had 

a year where losses took place? 

Mr. SOBEL. No, absolutely not. 

Senator CORKER. Has it ever lost money on a single loan? 

Mr. SOBEL. The Fund has not lost money. 

Senator CORKER. On any loans ever. 

Mr. SOBEL. They at times have extended loans, and some principal has gone into arrears but it has been repaid. 

Senator CORKER. So I think one of the things that people who 

criticize the reforms and maybe criticize the IMF in general are 

concerned about is there have been a lot of exceptional access loans 

recently. It seems to be growing. People get concerned. Obviously, 

the IMF has had a solid track record, as you just alluded to, but 

people over time, as they watch things happen that are, quote, extraordinary, meaning they are not the norm, get concerned about 

the IMF and the governance there, if you will, becoming more lax 

and potentially exposing taxpayers’ losses. I wonder if you might 

respond to the fact that we have done much more of that recently 

than in the past. We, meaning the IMF. 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you. 

One observation I would make about the way the global economy 

has changed that is directly relevant to your question is that if you 

think back to the 1970s and 1980s countries developed current account issues, problems, and by tightening macro policies, they could 

adjust their current accounts. 

What has happened—and this is a tremendous benefit to the 

world economy—is that we are seeing countries around the world 

that have become more integrated into the global financial system. 

Their capital accounts play a much more pronounced role in the financing of the country, and when they face serious stress, capital 

can flee very quickly. And I think that is part of the reason why, 

starting with Mexico in 1994 and continuing through the Asia crisis, is that you have sent the Fund need to rely more on exceptional access programs to provide countries with resources to stop 

liquidity runs, to stop liquidity pressures and the like. 

So no policymaker that I know of has ever liked approving exceptional access programs, but it was felt that one needed to do this 

for the stability of the global economy. 

Now, in the case of Greece, this issue has arisen, as you know, 

and it has been debated in the press. What I wanted to say about 

the issue in that context is that in mid-2010, I feel that Greece was 

looking potentially at a massive default or a departure from the 

euro, and it was also a time when Europe had not built the firewalls that were really needed to protect the Eurozone. And had 

Greece defaulted or left the euro at the time, I feel there would 

have been potentially a massive contagion also within the 

Eurozone. This would have had a tremendously detrimental impact 

not only on Europe, not only on the world, but particularly the 

United States. There were a lot of forecasts that I saw at the time 

that said if it had been highly contagious, it could have pushed us 

285 

back into recession at a time when we were just beginning to grow 

our way out of the 2009 financial crisis, and that would have 

meant a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States. 

And between May and July of 2010, the stock market in the 

United States declined by about 15 percent, largely on these developments, and it wiped off, I was told, $2 trillion in capitalization. 

So those are the savings of American works. Those are their pensions. 

And so I think that the IMF, working with the Europeans to provide support for Greece, even if it was exceptional access, was very 

much in the interests of the United States and the global economy. 

Senator CORKER. Is it OK if I can go just a little bit longer? I 

know I am already over, and I appreciate the extra time. 

So in the case of Greece in particular, there were actually allegations that the IMF not only did something exceptional but also sort 

of bent the rules. And that news—that kind of came out at a time 

which made it difficult, if you will, when we were looking at IMF 

reforms. Do you want to talk a little bit about that and the fact 

that it actually looked like maybe the IMF staff—it just seemed 

there was a little shading of what the current situation was in 

order to make this happen. And should that concern policymakers 

here in Washington? 

Mr. SOBEL. I would be pleased to answer that. 

So when the exceptional access criteria were developed in the 

early 2000s, Under Secretary John Taylor, whom you may know, 

played a role in advancing that. As I said, no policymaker liked approving exceptional access loans. And he felt that there could be 

perhaps a more systematic and rigorous process for examining 

whether such loans met certain criteria: sustainability, could the 

country regain market access and the like. And we developed the 

exceptional access criteria. 

Now, there were a number of loans, even then, that were approved that did not fulfill all the criteria of the exceptional access. 

I think Turkey, Uruguay, Argentina, maybe even Brazil back then 

that we approved the did not meet the criteria. 

So if we fast forward to—so I guess the point is I always thought 

of the criteria as guidelines but not rigid rules. They were to help 

us think through the case and whether it made sense. 

If we fast forward to the Greek case, the IMF felt that there was 

a question as to whether there was a high probability of sustainability of the program. So they put into the second criteria systemic 

exception. And they put this to the board, which under the Fund’s 

governance is the body that, with requisite voting power, is duly 

constituted to approve such loans and that policy change, and the 

board approved that. Everybody read the paper. Everybody in the 

world knew what they were doing. The shareholders did it, and I 

outlined the reasons why I felt at the time this was absolutely the 

right thing to do for the world economy and for the U.S. economy. 

Senator CORKER. So I know that I have gone over and unfortunately so long that now there is another member. And I have 

messed up the chairman’s schedule. But I have a couple of questions and I am going to ask you directly in writing. I talked to you 

a little bit yesterday about the Argentina bonds issue and whether 

you were involved in trying to get a brief written outside of the 

286 

Treasury oversight, if you will. So I am going to ask you a couple 

of other questions in writing. 

But I thank you both for your willingness to serve in this way 

and your testimony today. Thank you very much. 

I am sorry to take so long. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, my pleasure. 

Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually will not 

belabor this meeting. 

Thank you very much, both, for being here. Mr. Sobel, I am sure 

you have covered the topic of Ukraine in your remarks and some 

of the back and forth. Maybe you have answered this, but let me 

just pose it to you and if you have, you can expound upon it. 

I appreciate all of the thought that the IMF has given to the conditions upon which support has been granted to the Ukrainian 

Government. A lot of outstanding questions remain about their 

ability to repay that loan, especially given some of their past history with this kind of assistance. 

What is the relationship between the ability of Ukraine to normalize trade relations with Russia and their ability ultimately to 

pay back the money that has been lent and will be lent? Or is there 

an ability to have a frozen conflict over the course of 5 or 10 years 

and still be able to repay their obligations? Ultimately, obviously, 

we believe that there is going to be an ability for Ukraine to have 

a relationship with Europe but also have a significant relationship 

with Russia. But if that were not to happen in the course of the 

next 10 years, does that potentially compromise their ability to pay 

back that money and what role would the IMF have then in trying 

to facilitate some normalization of relations after the temporary 

hostilities, that we hope are temporary, abate? 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you, Senator Murphy. 

I think the IMF’s loan for Ukraine is absolutely vital. I think 

Ukraine, after many years of a difficult policy experience, fits and 

starts, faces a critical moment, as I know you do. And we are keenly interested in seeing a Ukraine that is on the path of reform, that 

becomes an economy that is able to sustain its finances, to stand 

on its own feet, to trade and interact with the world, the whole 

world, and to lessen its vulnerability and dependence to its neighbors. 

And that is what the IMF package seeks to do. Obviously, it is 

going to be a very tough program, and given the history of Ukraine 

with the IMF, we are going to have to be very vigilant and make 

sure that the tough reforms that Ukraine needs to take are implemented faithfully. These, as you know, involve addressing extraordinarily heavy subsidization of energy in the economy. I was told 

that basically Ukrainian consumers pay 20 percent of the cost of 

energy, and this results in a subsidy of about 8 percent of GDP to 

the economy. And so it just puts an enormous burden on them, but 

it also puts a tremendous dependence upon them on the region. 

And it also then puts huge pressure on their fiscal policy and whatnot. And given that Ukraine has had an overvalued exchange rate 

for a long time, it is not the most competitive economy and it is 

addressing those issues. 

287 

I think if Ukraine is able to address those issues—and it is going 

to be tough. We are going to have to monitor it very carefully— 

there is the prospect that Ukraine can put itself on its own feet 

and be able to interact on a much more market-oriented basis with 

the rest of the world. 

And so I feel that the IMF is offering that multilateral path forward and is absolutely essential. But Ukraine will have to pay its 

energy bills, and that is part and parcel of the program that is 

being put forward for the country. 

The IMF has an excellent repayment record. It is regarded as the 

world’s de facto preferred creditor. The IMF is always repaid. And 

I have no doubt that Ukraine will repay the IMF, as it always has 

in the past. But I very much hope that this time we will be able 

to see Ukraine embark on a much bolder reform path, tackle the 

corruption and governance problems that the country has had, and 

make significant progress forward. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Sobel. 

Let me just ask one thing of you, that as we implement the repayment terms, I think it is important to understand, as I know 

you do, that there is going to be enormous pain with respect to the 

conversions that the Ukrainian economy has to make to move away 

from these dramatic inefficiencies and oversubsidization of energy 

prices. But the result of moving too quickly and too rapidly is a corresponding rapid undermining of support for this new government, 

which ultimately I think is the only one that has the potential to 

deliver on these reforms. 

I know this is always a tension that the IMF faces when trying 

to press economies for these types of reforms, but in Ukraine, 

which is different than some of the other European countries that 

have been offered these assistance packages, they have an alternative. They can always go back to a financial and economic dependence on Russia. Ultimately this path forward, one in which 

they are in partnership with the IMF and Europe, is better for 

Ukraine, better for the continent and ultimately I think better for 

the United States. And being careful about the timing and the 

terms upon which we ask them to make reforms is integral to the 

ability of this new government to be able to stand on its two feet 

in the long run. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SOBEL. I fully agree with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sobel, at any time during the last year, did you urge officials 

of the Government of Mexico to file an amicus brief with the U.S. 

Supreme Court, taking the side of a foreign government against 

U.S. investors? 

Mr. SOBEL. No, sir. The Mexican Government asked the U.S. 

Treasury about the litigation, but the Mexican Government decided 

on its very own to file, as did France and Brazil. We did not advocate that. 

The Secretary was asked about this recently in a hearing in the 

House, and he also indicated that Mexican officials have spoken to 

him and that he had interacted with them on this issue and exVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
288 

plained the longstanding concerns of the United States on this 

issue. 

Senator MCCAIN. So I take it that your answer is you did not 

urge officials of the Government of Mexico to file an amicus brief 

with the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Mr. SOBEL. No. 

Senator MCCAIN. Did you recommend to the Government of Mexico that they do that? 

Mr. SOBEL. No. 

Senator MCCAIN. Did you urge or express support for the IMF 

filing a brief without the approval of your own superiors at the 

Treasury Department? 

Mr. SOBEL. The IMF decided on its own that it wanted to file a 

brief and then communicated that through the U.S. ED’s Office to 

the Treasury. This was known in the Treasury. There were senior 

level discussions of the issue and staff level discussions. And Secretary Lew again said in the hearings a few weeks ago that he had 

discussed this matter with the IMF. 

Senator MCCAIN. So at no time during last year did you urge the 

International Monetary Fund officials to file an amicus brief with 

the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Mr. SOBEL. It was their decision. They decided. We did not encourage or discourage them. This was their decision. 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you aware of any other examples in which 

the IMF has intervened in a domestic court case in a member 

state? 

Mr. SOBEL. So I am not a lawyer. I am told that it is rare for 

IMFs, the international financial institutions, to do so, but that 

they have. And I would be happy to submit for the record what our 

lawyers have come up with in that regard. 

[The information requested was not available at the time this 

transcript went to press.] 

Senator MCCAIN. And I assume you do not know why the IMF 

originally had the impression that the United States supported the 

filing and why that impression needed to be corrected. 

Mr. SOBEL. I think you would have to ask Madame LeGarde. 

Senator MCCAIN. So you have no idea. 

Mr. SOBEL. No, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, do you have personal views on the continuing litigation between U.S. investors in Argentina over Argentina’s refusal to settle its defaulted debt? 

Mr. SOBEL. So this is a longstanding issue, as you know. It involves a clause in sovereign bonds that the United States has felt 

the interpretation of the clause is important for the orderliness and 

predictability of the sovereign debt process, as well as for New 

York’s role as a financial center. 

The Bush administration filed a case in 2004—filed an amicus in 

2004 with the appellate court, and the Treasury also filed two 

briefs in 2012 on this same issue. So there is a longstanding concern in the Treasury Department—well, not only Treasury. It is 

Treasury, State, and Department of Justice that all come together 

and weigh in on these issues. There is a longstanding concern that 

has existed since 2004, if not earlier, on this issue and I think that 

289 

remains the view of many. That remains the view in the Government. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is it not a fact that Argentina has refused to 

settle its defaulted debt even though when the bonds were issued, 

they pledged to submit to U.S. court judgments and waive their 

sovereign immunity? Argentina’s current leadership is defying U.S. 

courts and refuses to even negotiate with its creditors. And is it not 

true that the U.S. courts have consistently ruled against Argentina 

in the matter, most notably in the unanimous ruling by a panel of 

the Second Circuit Court of Appeals last August? It is my understanding that you disagree with that court’s ruling. Do you disagree with that court’s ruling? 

Mr. SOBEL. Thank you. 

I want to be clear. We do not condone Argentina’s behavior. We 

have urged Argentina to honor its commitments. We have had a 

policy for many years of opposing MDB lending to Argentina. Our 

interest in the matter has related, as provided for in our briefs, to 

our broader concerns about the impact of this issue on—again, it 

comes back to the orderliness and predictability of the sovereign 

debt restructuring process. 

It is just an issue about Argentina. We have seen a tremendous 

uptick in such litigation around the world over the last decade or 

so. There was recently an academic article, and I would be happy 

to provide to your staff after this, which actually contains a catalog 

of all the increased holdout litigation, but it affects countries like 

Liberia and Zaire and others around the world. That is the concern 

in the United States. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you agree or disagree with the court’s ruling? 

Mr. SOBEL. The court has ruled as it is. 

Senator MCCAIN. I repeat my question, sir. Do you agree or disagree with the court’s ruling? It is a pretty straightforward question. 

Mr. SOBEL. I appreciate that, Senator. My job is to provide advice 

to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Treasury—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I am aware of what your job is. I would like 

to know whether you agree or disagree with the court’s ruling. As 

I say for the second time, it is a pretty straightforward question. 

You are free to elaborate on your view, but I would like to know 

whether you agree or disagree. 

Mr. SOBEL. I continue to believe that the court’s ruling has 

given—gives rise to the questions that we have had for over a decade—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Sobel, you know, this is really getting a little frustrating. It is a fairly straightforward question. I would like 

to know whether you agree or disagree with the court’s ruling, and 

you can elaborate on it however you want. 

Mr. SOBEL. Senator—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask because I want to wrap this up. 

Do you have an opinion? If you have an opinion, yes. If you do not 

have an opinion, then your answer is you have no opinion on the 

ruling. 

Mr. SOBEL. I have an opinion. 

290 

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe it is not your job to have an opinion on 

the ruling. 

Mr. SOBEL. OK. Senator, I have an opinion. I continue to be concerned that the court’s ruling could upset the orderliness and predictability of the sovereign debt restructuring process. So, yes, I 

have concerns about the court’s ruling. But that is me speaking 

personally. As to what the U.S. Government does, that will be a 

matter that will be determined by the Department of Justice, the 

Department of the Treasury, and the Department of State. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let me thank both of you for your testimony. Because we are 

going to have votes in a few minutes, I want to get to the second 

panel. There are other questions. I do not want Mr. Sabharwal to 

think he walked away that easily. We have a few other questions, 

but I am sure you will both be able to answer them. 

If questions are provided for the record, I would urge you to answer them expeditiously because the sooner you answer them, the 

more quickly we can consider you at a business hearing for the 

committee’s vote. 

And with the gratitude of the committee for your testimony and 

your willingness to serve, this panel is excused. 

Let me bring up our second panel. We have Matthew McGuire, 

nominated to be the U.S. Executive Director of the International 

Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and Mileydi Guilarte, 

nominated to be the Alternate U.S. Executive Director to the InterAmerican Development Bank. 

Mr. McGuire is the Assistant to the Secretary and Director of the 

Office Business Liaison at the Department of Commerce. He previously worked as a senior executive in the financial services industry, and has been active with nonprofit and civic organizations 

throughout his career. 

Ms. Guilarte has served at USAID, the United Nations, the 

World Bank, and the IMF, giving her a broad perspective on global 

economic development and poverty alleviation efforts. 

Welcome to both of you. 

Again, I will just state for the record that your opening statements will be fully included in the record for their entirety, without 

objection. I would ask you to summarize them in about 5 minutes. 

And if you do have family members or friends here, please feel free 

to introduce them prior to making your statement. 

Mr. McGuire. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW T. McGUIRE, PH.D., OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS 

Dr. MCGUIRE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, 

Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished members of the committee. It is an honor and a privilege to be here as President 

Obama’s nominee for Executive Director of the International Bank 

for Reconstruction and Development. 

291 

I have enjoyed meeting some of your staff in the last few weeks, 

and I look forward to answering your questions today. 

I am, as you mentioned, fortunate to have a number of family 

members with me, and I would like to acknowledge them before I 

begin. First, my wife, Michelle, is here with our two daughters, Alexandra and Charlotte. My mother, Georgianna McGuire, is here, 

as is my brother, Eric and his wife, Stacy. My uncle and aunt, John 

and Lynne McGuire, and their son and my cousin, Jason, as well 

as my in-laws and my other parents, Bobby and Dianne Mance. I 

am from D.C. as I will come back to in a minute and so many family who are here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you for populating the hearing. We 

appreciate it. [Laughter.] 

Dr. MCGUIRE. Certainly. I try to be helpful. 

My mother was part of the first Peace Corps group ever to go 

overseas, Ghana 1, back in 1961. She was the first person in her 

family to go to college, having worked her way through, and when 

she graduated, she heard President Kennedy’s call to reach out beyond America’s shores and make a difference, however small or 

however large that might be. She taught English in a small town 

in Ghana called Tema, and many years later, a student of hers 

from Tema’s secondary school became one of my professors at 

Brown University. As you might imagine, I grew up hearing many 

stories about those sorts of connections, and I grew up hearing 

about the importance of America’s role in the world, especially 

through its uniquely American institutions like the Peace Corps. 

My father, who died when I was 6 years old, also served in the 

Peace Corps in what was then East Pakistan and is now Bangladesh. He spent most of his career working on international affairs as well, and his influence on me has been considerable even 

in his absence. 

I also grew up working in my family’s business here in Washington, DC, the McGuire Funeral Service. My great grandfather, 

Robert Grayson McGuire, founded the funeral home in 1912, and 

when I was old enough I began spending my summers and my 

weekends there, washing cars, arranging flowers, shoveling snow 

off the driveway, and even acting as a pallbearer when a family 

was in need of another set of hands. And I will always remember 

that my mother and my uncle paid me minimum wage and no 

more, punching a time clock like everyone else, for every hour and 

every minute that I worked there. 

Through the course of watching my grandfather, my mother, my 

aunt, and my uncle run the funeral home, I learned numerous 

things. I learned how important it is to have a bank that provides 

credit in bad times, as well as good, about how having economic 

independence makes it easier to engage with the political issues of 

the day, like the civil rights movement, which my family was deeply involved in, and about the pride and responsibility that comes 

from being able to hire more people as your company grows. These 

are simple yet powerful things that I carry with me to this day. 

The first part of my career was squarely focused on issues of economic equality and how public policies can increase the possibilities 

of ordinary citizens to raise their incomes and have a shot at realizing their dreams. I got a Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard, 

292 

finishing in 1998, and my dissertation was on the redevelopment 

of public housing in Chicago. During that time, I also spent several 

months in Ethiopia and Eritrea researching the relationship between those countries shortly after the end of their 30-year-long 

war. And when I finished my Ph.D., I ran a welfare-to-work job 

training program in New York before joining a firm that helped 

U.S. cities redevelop public housing projects into mixed-income 

communities. 

In 2003, I moved into the financial services industry, and I spent 

the next 8 years working for several mutual fund and hedge fund 

companies, raising capital and serving as a senior executive in 

three entrepreneurial and dynamic firms. During that time, I 

began to more fully understand the role that financial markets play 

in our economy and how interconnected the global economy is as 

a result of the ease with which capital moves across national borders, industry sectors, and asset classes. In an era where CEO’s 

and investors can deploy their next dollars or euros or ryal almost 

anywhere in the world at almost a moment’s notice, it is increasingly important that countries like ours pay close attention to their 

financial positions and that they strive to maintain and strengthen 

the integrity of their capital markets. 

And that is what I would like to close with. Should this committee and the full Senate confirm me, you can be sure that I will 

undertake the role of Executive Director with that very sensibility 

in mind at all times. I will strive to be a sound steward of our 

country’s capital at the bank and I will work to ensure that each 

dollar we commit is used to support the values that have proven 

so durable since America’s founding, that open societies are the 

strongest societies, that transparent systems are the most successful systems, and that those countries which endeavor to give all of 

their citizens a fair shot at becoming educated, being healthy, and 

achieving economic independence are the countries that will succeed no matter where they happen to be located. Those are just a 

few of the values I have watched President Obama champion for 

many years now, and I would be honored to carry them forward on 

his behalf and on the country’s behalf as the Executive Director of 

the bank. 

I look forward to answering any questions you might have, and 

I thank you again for allowing me to come before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McGuire follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW T. MCGUIRE, PH.D. 

Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished 

members of the committee. It is an honor and a privilege to be here, as President 

Obama’s nominee for Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I have enjoyed meeting some of you and your staff in the 

last few weeks, and I look forward to answering your questions today. 

I am fortunate to have a number of family members with me, and I would like 

to acknowledge them before I begin. First, my wife, Michelle, is here with our two 

daughters, Alexandra and Charlotte. My mother, Georgianna McGuire, is here; as 

is my brother, Eric, and his wife, Stacy. My uncle and aunt, John and Lynne 

McGuire, are here as well; and so are my in-laws and my ‘‘other parents’’ Bobby 

and Dianne Mance. 

My mother was part of the first Peace Corps group ever to go overseas, ‘‘Ghana 

I,’’ back in 1961. She was the first person in her family to go to college, having 

worked her way through, and when she graduated she heard President Kennedy’s 

call to reach out beyond America’s shores and to make a difference however small 

293 

or however large it might be. She taught English in a small town in Ghana called 

Tema, and many years later a student of hers from the Tema Secondary School became one of my professors at Brown University. As you might imagine, I grew up 

hearing many stories about those sorts of connections, and I grew up hearing about 

the importance of America’s role in the world, especially through its uniquely American institutions, such as the Peace Corps. My father, who died when I was 6 years 

old, also served in the Peace Corps, in what was then East Pakistan and is now 

Bangladesh. He spent most of his career working on international affairs as well, 

and his influence on me has been considerable even in his absence. 

I also grew up working at my family’s business here in Washington, DC, the 

McGuire Funeral Service. My great-grandfather, Robert Grayson McGuire, founded 

the funeral home in 1912, and when I was old enough I began spending my summers and my weekends there, washing cars, arranging flowers, shoveling snow off 

the driveway, and even acting as a pallbearer when a family was in need of another 

set of hands. And I will always remember that my mother and my uncle paid me 

minimum wage and no more, punching a time clock like everyone else, for every 

hour and every minute that I worked there. 

Through the course of watching my grandfather, my mother, my aunt and my 

uncle, run the funeral home, I learned numerous things. I learned about how important it is to have a bank that provides credit in bad times as well as good; about 

how having economic independence makes it easier to engage with political issues 

of the day, like the civil rights movement, which my family was deeply involved in; 

and about the pride and responsibility that comes from being able to hire more people as your company grows. These are simple, yet powerful things that I carry with 

me to this day. 

The first part of my career was squarely focused on issues of economic equality, 

and how public policies can increase the possibilities of ordinary citizens to raise 

their incomes and have a shot at realizing their dreams. I got a Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard, finishing in 1998, and my dissertation was on the redevelopment of public housing in Chicago. During that time I also spent several months 

in Ethiopia and Eritrea, researching the relationship between those countries 

shortly after the end of their 30-year-long war. And when I finished my Ph.D., I 

ran a welfare-to-work job training program in New York before joining a firm that 

helped U.S. cities redevelop public housing projects into mixed-income communities. 

In 2003, I moved into the financial services industry, and I spent the next 8 years 

working for several mutual fund and hedge fund companies, raising capital and 

serving as a senior executive in three entrepreneurial and dynamic firms. During 

that time I began to more fully understand the role that financial markets play in 

our economy, and how interconnected the global economy is as a result of the ease 

with which capital moves across national borders, industry sectors, and asset classes. In an era where CEOs and investors can deploy each next dollar, or euro, or 

real, almost anywhere in the world at almost a moment’s notice, it is increasingly 

important that countries like ours pay close attention to their financial positions, 

and that they strive to maintain and strengthen the integrity of their capital 

markets. 

And that is what I would like to close with. Should you all confirm me, you can 

be sure that I will undertake the role of Executive Director with that very sensibility in mind at all times. I will strive to be a sound steward of our country’s capital at the Bank, and I will work to ensure that each dollar we commit is used to 

support the values that have proven so durable since America’s founding: that open 

societies are the strongest societies; that transparent systems are the most successful systems; and that those countries which endeavor to give ALL of their citizens 

a fair shot at becoming educated, being healthy, and achieving economic independence, are the countries that will succeed no matter where they happen to be located. 

Those are just a few of the values I have watched President Obama champion for 

many years now, and I would be honored to carry them forward on his behalf, and 

on the country’s behalf, as Executive Director of the Bank. 

I look forward to answering any questions you might have, and I thank you again 

for allowing me to come before you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Guilarte. 

294 

STATEMENT OF MILEYDI GUILARTE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE UNITED STATES ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER–AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 

Ms. GUILARTE. Thank you, Chairman. Before I begin, I would 

like to introduce my family: my mother, Zenaida, my sister, Maida, 

my sister-in-law, Meda, my brother, Jose, and my father, Jose. 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I am honored that President Obama nominated me to serve 

as the Alternate Executive Director at the Inter-American Development Bank. I am also grateful to Secretary Lew and Assistant Secretary Marisa Lago for supporting me. 

I am also grateful to my family, friends, and colleagues that are 

present today for their love, encouragement, and unwavering support. I specially would like to thank my mother, Zenaida, for inspiring me to be better each day. 

If confirmed, I will bring to the IDB a deep understanding of 

Latin America, solid experience with international development, a 

strong belief in the value of public service, and the commitment to 

relentlessly promote the U.S. interests in the region. 

Representing the United States at the IDB, an institution created to support the economic and social development of Latin 

America, is a humbling yet vital undertaking. If confirmed, I would 

be the first Latina in nearly 30 years to hold this important position. 

Let me take the opportunity to tell you a little bit about my 

background, which has shaped how I came to pursue a career in 

international development. Born in Cuba, I left Havana for the 

United States at an early age with my family in search of a better 

life with only a single blue suitcase in our hands. I spent my formative years in Miami, where I worked side by side with my parents 

in flea markets each weekend to help make ends meet. These experiences taught me the value of discipline and hard work. I was the 

first member of my family to graduate from college, and I feel deeply blessed to have prospered in America. 

While in graduate school, I focused on developing a solid academic foundation to understand economic, political, and social 

issues as they impact development and democracy. 

After graduation, my deep commitment to the promotion of democracy and human rights led me to work and live in various countries around the globe. Professionally I have worked in countries as 

diverse as India, East Timor, the Philippines, and the Republic of 

the Maldives. Through these experiences, I deepened my leadership 

skills and learned how critical the interaction between financial institutions, donors, and civil society are in the development of the 

world’s poorest nations. 

At the World Bank and at the United Nations, I worked on conflict prevention, humanitarian assistance, and strengthening 

emerging democracies. Most recently, at the United States Agency 

for International Development, I worked in El Salvador shepherding an interagency initiative which supported broad-based economic growth and citizen security. These experiences allowed me to 

appreciate the challenges of working within complex multilateral 

295 

institutions and develop the skills to help promote effective initiatives in that environment. 

Thinking about Latin America has been a constant throughout 

my life. The opportunity to represent our great country at the 

Inter-American Development Bank is a particular honor for me as 

an American born in Latin America. 

If confirmed, I will work diligently to advance U.S. objectives at 

the Inter-American Development Bank by carefully stewarding the 

resources of the U.S. taxpayer and promoting greater accountability, transparency, and effectiveness. I look forward to working 

closely with the members of this committee and your staff. 

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to answering 

any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Guilarte follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILEYDI GUILARTE

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored that President 

Obama nominated me to serve as the Alternate Executive Director at the InterAmerican Development Bank. I am also grateful to Secretary Lew and Assistant 

Secretary Marisa Lago for supporting me. 

I am also grateful to my family, friends, and colleagues that are present today, 

for their love, encouragement, and unwavering support. I specially would like to 

thank my mother, Zenaida, for inspiring me to be better each day. 

If confirmed, I will bring to the IDB a deep understanding of Latin America, solid 

experience with international development, a strong belief in the value of public 

service, and the commitment to relentlessly promote the U.S. interests in the region. 

Representing the United States at the IDB, an institution created to support the 

economic and social development of Latin America, is a humbling yet vital undertaking. If confirmed, I would be the first Latina in nearly 30 years to hold this important position. 

Let me take the opportunity to tell you a little bit about my background, which 

has shaped how I came to pursue a career in international development. Born in 

Cuba, I left Havana for the United States at an early age with my family in search 

of a better life with only a single blue suitcase in our hands. I spent my formative 

years in Miami, where I worked side by side with my parents in flea markets each 

weekend to help make ends meet. These experiences taught me the values of discipline and hard work. I was the first member of my family to graduate from college, and I feel deeply blessed to have prospered in America. 

While in graduate school, I focused on developing a solid academic foundation to 

understand economic, political, and social issues as they impact development and 

democracy. 

After graduation, my deep commitment to the promotion of democracy and human 

rights led me to work and live in various countries around the globe. Professionally, 

I have worked in countries as diverse as India, East Timor, the Philippines, and the 

Republic of the Maldives. Through these experiences, I deepened my leadership 

skills and learned how critical the interaction between financial institutions, donors, 

and civil society are in the development of the world’s poorest nations. 

At the World Bank and at the United Nations, I worked on conflict prevention, 

humanitarian assistance, and strengthening emerging democracies. Most recently, 

at the United States Agency for International Development, I worked in El Salvador 

shepherding an interagency initiative which supported broad-based economic growth 

and citizen security. These experiences allowed me to appreciate the challenges of 

working within complex multilateral institutions and develop the skills to help promote effective initiatives in that environment. 

Thinking about Latin America has been a constant throughout my life. The opportunity to represent our great country at the Inter-American Development Bank is 

a particular honor for me as an American born in Latin America. 

If confirmed, I will work diligently to advance U.S. objectives at the Inter-American Development Bank by carefully stewarding the resources of the U.S. taxpayer 

and promoting greater accountability, transparency, and effectiveness. I look forward to working closely with the members of this committee and your staff. 

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to answering any questions 

you might have. 

296 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you both for your testimony. 

Just like the previous panel, you have extraordinary personal 

backgrounds, and we always marvel about how people can come 

forth from their different backgrounds and engage in public service. 

So we applaud you in that respect. 

And your father is probably the smartest person here. He has a 

guayabera on. I wish I could get away with that here. [Laughter.] 

But in any event, let me ask you, Mr. McGuire. The World Bank 

is now in the second year of President Kim’s ambitious reform plan 

to refocus the bank on its twin missions of ending extreme poverty 

by 2030 and promoting shared prosperity. 

What is your assessment of that progress to date? Certainly, 

strong U.S. leadership is essential in this process. If confirmed, in 

addition to your assessment, what interaction would you expect to 

have with President Kim’s reform program? 

Dr. MCGUIRE. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

You are absolutely right. Dr. Kim has undertaken significant 

changes at the bank in terms of how it operates and those two 

goals that you outlined. I am quite supportive to this point of the 

efforts he is undertaking. Anytime there is significant change in an 

institution, there are hiccups and bumps and I think that the 

changes he is making are significant ones, and as a result, it is imperative as the Executive Director, the United States maintain 

close focus on how it is all going and whether or not the capital 

that we entrust to the bank continues to carry out the purposes 

that the board has approved them to do. 

I would say that one of the things in particular he has done I 

applaud, which is a move toward practice areas or in the business 

world we called verticals, and moving toward aligning the experts 

in agriculture, in education, in energy in such a manner that they 

really can spread their expertise more effectively across the many 

regions working with the country directors who understand the 

local environment the best. I have seen that model work quite well 

in the private sector, and while it takes time for it to really take 

root, it is one thing in particular that I think is quite commendable. And I look forward to working with Dr. Kim closely on seeing 

its execution all the way through. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Guilarte, what is your perspective on how 

the IDB initiatives complement U.S. foreign policy goals for this 

hemisphere? And do you believe there are areas where the United 

States and the IDB could coordinate more closely to be able to further mutual objectives? 

Ms. GUILARTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

The IDB plays a critical role in the region. As the largest shareholder at 30 percent, we have a unique opportunity to really shape 

the way that we conduct our relationship with the region. It helps 

in a number of ways—our assistance to the bank. Primarily it 

helps promote and advance our national interests, our security 

agenda. It helps promote U.S. opportunities and increase investment to U.S. firms, create jobs. So in a number of ways, our assistance goes a long way. A stable economy for our neighbors means 

a stable economy for us as well. 

In terms of our collaboration, I think there is a lot of work being 

done right now between the IDB and the World Bank. One great 

297 

example is for the Haiti reconstruction that we have worked very 

closely on. So there are a lot of opportunities. It does not mean that 

we cannot do more. Absolutely. And if confirmed, I look forward to 

working with my colleague at the World Bank to promote and encourage more collaboration, ensuring that we do not duplicate any 

of our efforts. 

The CHAIRMAN. One other question for you. Argentina has failed 

to honor international obligations to the IMF, the United States, 

and other Paris Club creditors and to private bondholders. And I 

understand that the administration’s policy since 2011 has been to 

oppose all MDB loans, including from the IDB, to Argentina, and 

that the IDB is currently large inactive in Venezuela. 

If confirmed, will you assure us that you will work to ensure that 

the IDB continues to take the U.S. Government’s concerns about 

Argentina and Venezuela into consideration, and will keep the Congress informed? 

Ms. GUILARTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Absolutely. The United States does not support any loans to Venezuela or Argentina, and if confirmed, I will continue to uphold 

that position and keep your committee informed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for your willingness to do this, your great 

backgrounds. And you are very fortunate today that we have vote 

coming up and this is going to be short meeting. [Laughter.] 

I would like for you, if you would, Mr. McGuire to explain to people again looking on what our national security dividend, if you 

will, is for being such a large contributor to the World Bank and 

being involved in that way. 

Dr. MCGUIRE. Sure. There are any number of things. I would 

start with several. One, as was mentioned earlier, economic stability is in the interest of our national security in the sense that 

when there are fragile or failed states in any part of the world, 

they tend to have spillover effects in the surrounding region. And 

to the extent that the World Bank can serve to strengthen countries all over the globe, it allows us to extend our foreign policy 

toolbox, as it were, in ways that are very important to not only the 

citizens of those countries, but to our Government itself. 

I would point secondly, coming from the Commerce Department, 

that I think an awful lot about the U.S. economy and its importance not only to our national security but to the globe’s well-being. 

Clearly to the extent that there are growing middle classes around 

the world, there are deeper export markets for our companies to 

sell into, and as President Obama says an awful lot, 95 percent of 

the world’s customers are outside of the United States. So to the 

extent that we can strengthen economies around the world, there 

are dividends not only to our national security but to companies 

here in the United States, to workers here in the United States, 

to our economy every single day. 

Senator CORKER. So one of the things people look at relative to 

your organization, the organization you hope to be a part of—China 

has obviously dramatically changed over the last two decades, and 

yet we are still involved with—the World Bank is still involved 

298 

with making loans there. I guess I would ask, should we not be 

moving away from being involved with economies and countries 

like China, Brazil, and India? 

Dr. MCGUIRE. So there are two ways I would come at that. First, 

in terms of India itself, as I understand it, the bank is not providing loans except—to China except in those cases where there 

are considerable human needs. It is really about very, very basic 

human needs. So if the question is in terms of loans there, I would 

just want to differentiate between China and some other countries. 

In terms of the—— 

Senator CORKER. Explain that to me again. 

Dr. MCGUIRE. As I understand it, at this point the World Bank 

is not loaning to China for projects there except for those instances 

where there are exceptional human needs having to do with very 

basic health, having to do with really fundamental lives being at 

stake. So in the sense that it is not like borrowing countries where 

there are projects coming before on a very regular basis. 

Senator CORKER. So on that note, though, that is interesting, and 

obviously we care about people’s human needs. But on the other 

hand, China is making massive loans to countries in Africa, obviously taking advantage of natural resource access. And actually 

people are very worried about the amount of loans they are making 

to some of those countries and their ability to repay them and what 

happens over time to those countries’ sovereignty. 

So can you explain to me the rub there? So here we are making 

loans to China inside their country for basic human needs. On the 

other hand, they are loaning massive amounts out to other countries and, in essence, maybe making them stewards of China. It 

just seems like to me there is a little bit of a conflict there, and 

I wonder how you might resolve that. 

Dr. MCGUIRE. So I think the important point there is that China 

can do things on a bilateral basis or on a multilateral basis. And 

it is important that China is part of the World Bank and that we 

are working with them so that they are in part of this multilateral 

institution and with other countries from around the world who 

can engage and try to shape some of the things that are going on 

within not only China but elsewhere in the world. So really it 

comes down in a very basic way from my perspective about working with someone versus entirely against someone, and I think it 

is always advantageous to the extent you can bring people into 

these global institutions and work with them and try to shape behavior there. 

I would also say that in terms of Africa specifically or other countries where the World Bank operates, as does a country like China 

bilaterally, it is very important for a member of the World Bank’s 

role often is the smart money, if you will. The capital markets have 

changed. The global environment is radically different now than it 

was 20 years ago. One of the things that World Bank money does 

is often come with the expertise that is highly respected and that, 

therefore, can shape the way the particular governments there operate differently than they might if they only were choosing between a bilateral choice of Chinese dollars—or Chinese yuan versus 

American dollars and there were not institutions like the World 

Bank to be mediators and to push people in the right direction. 

299 

Senator CORKER. So I have met Jim Kim, and I think actually 

the chairman may have hosted something where he came in to talk 

a little bit about the World Bank. And we have been reading stories about the restructuring, and we all know probably better than 

anybody in the world here that when you change anything, there 

is lots of resistance. A lot of people have a lot of stake in the status 

quo. 

But you feel with his background, which is very different for 

somebody looking at billions and billions and billions of dollars 

alone—he has a very different background, if you will, coming 

mostly I think from a health background. Do you feel like he is 

qualified, first of all, to carry out the role of the World Bank but 

also the changes that he has put in place with things that are 

going to lead to a good end at the World Bank? 

Dr. MCGUIRE. I do and for several reasons. One, I would note 

that he has run various types of organizations in his career. So as 

president of Dartmouth University, that is a very different entity 

than when he cofounded Partners in Health, which was really 

doing health care around the world, public health. So I think the 

diversity of the types of organizations he has run is an advantage. 

I think also importantly, though, this is where the Executive Director can play a real role. The United States is a leader on the 

board, as you know. We have significantly more shares than anyone else at the bank. And this is a role that I hope that I can help 

play by garnering support at the board level, by working closely 

with management, and making sure that this does go smoothly 

going forward. 

Finally, the thing I would say that is important—and you know 

this as a business owner yourself, I would imagine—is how important the people under you are. And I think so long as he continues 

to maintain the extraordinary talent under him and let them do 

their jobs effectively, I am very confident that he will be able to 

succeed going forward. 

Senator CORKER. Well, thank you both. And we will have some 

written questions to follow up. But I do appreciate especially people 

with the backgrounds that you have aspiring to serve in this way. 

Thank you for bringing of your family members. We have a minister that ends up having the children’s choir a lot to make sure 

the audience is full. [Laughter.] 

So thank you very much, all of you, for being here. And we look 

forward to a speedy confirmation. So thank you. 

Dr. MCGUIRE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GUILARTE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Corker. 

Again, as I said to the previous panel, there will be some other 

questions submitted for the record. I would urge you to answer 

them as expeditiously as possible in order to consider your nomination before a business meeting of the committee. 

This record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow, Thursday. 

And with the thanks of the committee for your testimony and 

your willingness to serve, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

300 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

LETTER SIGNED BY 11 HOUSE MEMBERS SUPPORTING THE

NOMINATION OF MATTHEW T. MCGUIRE

301 

RESPONSES OF MARK SOBEL TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

EU FINANCIAL CRISIS AND IMF REFORMS

Question. Since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2009, 11 European countries have entered into financial assistance programs with the IMF, with commitments totaling about $157 billion. Of these programs, three are with members of 

the Eurozone: Greece, Portugal, and Ireland. Some critics, including here in Congress, are concerned about whether loans to Europe are an appropriate use of IMF 

resources, and have called for internal, systemic reform of the IMF surveillance program and lending processes. 

♦ Given that you were working at Treasury during the crisis, what is your view 

of the IMF’s response to the crisis in Europe? If confirmed, are there any 

aspects in particular of the IMF’s mandate and/or procedures that you believe 

merit review and possible reform? 

Answer. The Fund’s engagement with Europe is strongly in the U.S. interest. The 

IMF has played a critical role in supporting its European members’ efforts to stabilize their economies and financial systems, and helping to mitigate contagion from 

Europe to other countries, particularly the United States. As our largest economic 

302 

partner, Europe is an important source of growth and jobs for the United States, 

and our economic health is closely intertwined with Europe’s. 

The IMF benefits all of its members by standing ready to provide policy advice, 

technical assistance, and financing, if needed. The IMF has supported specific European countries in cases where the European Union has provided the bulk of the 

financing and has been willing to apply its policy tools flexibly and aggressively to 

support necessary reforms. This lending has come with rigorous conditions in the 

context of macroeconomic adjustment programs. Today, Ireland has exited and Portugal is close to exiting from IMF support, and Greece has achieved a primary surplus and completed an international bond issue. 

Despite its many strengths, the IMF—like any other organization—has room for 

improvement. As I discussed in my testimony, I think the IMF can provide crisper 

judgments on global rebalancing and exchange rate issues, strengthen its work on 

crisis prevention, spillover analysis, and debt sustainability, support pro-poor spending in low-income countries, and help make financial sectors more resilient. I look 

forward to working to strengthen the IMF’s work in these areas, if confirmed. 

RESPONSES OF MARK SOBEL TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

IMF QUOTA PACKAGE

Question. If the quota reforms are implemented, the United States will transfer 

approximately $63 billion from the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) credit line 

to the more permanent IMF quota system. The overall IMF quota will be doubled, 

reaching approximately $755 billion. 

There are many in Congress who approved the emergency NAB credit line in 2009 

because they were led to believe the NAB funds were important in a time of global 

financial emergency. 

♦ Why is a doubling of the IMF quota justified? 

Answer. The 2010 reforms are necessary to put the IMF on a more sustainable 

and stable financial footing for the future. 

The world has changed since the 1980s and 1990s, and the size of IMF quotas 

has not kept pace with global growth and the rise in global trade and capital flows. 

With increased financial integration and globalization, the extent to which destabilizing flows can flee a country has greatly increased. Moreover, reflecting this and 

other realities, the world has confronted far greater tail risks since the global financial crisis. In short, there is the potential for much larger demands for IMF 

resources in the face of continuing global economic and financial instability. 

The doubling in quota resources was also an important element of the 2010 negotiations, facilitating the achievement of needed realignments in quota shares and to 

modernize IMF governance. Specifically, these reforms are designed to rebalance 

shares to more accurately reflect today’s global economy, while maintaining the U.S. 

veto. 

It is critical to underscore, however, that the overall amount of resources available 

to the IMF when the 2010 reforms are implemented will only increase slightly, and 

the United States will not increase its commitment to the IMF by a single dollar. 

Under the 2010 reforms, the United States preserves its veto and leadership role 

in the IMF, facilitates a needed realignment to ensure that the Fund’s membership 

remains anchored in the multilateral system and continues to view the Fund as 

legitimate, all without committing any new resources to the IMF. At the same time, 

the IMF gets the resources it needs to keep pace with the growth in global output, 

trade, and financial flows. 

Question. Engagement with Congress on the IMF reform package has not been 

effective since the administration agreed to the reform measures and quota changes 

in 2010. Given that you were responsible at the Treasury Department for the IMF 

during that period, what would you do differently going forward in your engagement 

with Congress to explain and promote congressional approval of the proposed IMF 

changes? 

Answer. The administration has been, and continues to be, strongly committed to 

passage of legislation to implement the 2010 IMF quota and governance reforms. 

As Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy, I 

have appreciated the opportunity to engage with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other congressional committees, on the importance of passing this legislation. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of Congress on this high priority legislation. 

303 

IMF SURVEILLANCE AND THE RESPONSE TO THE 2008 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

Question. One of the key functions of the IMF is to monitor the economic and 

financial policies of its member countries, highlighting the risks to stability in the 

international monetary system and advising on needed policy adjustments. Yet, 

recent financial crises such as the global financial crisis of 2008 and the Eurozone 

crisis seem to have caught many by surprise and unprepared. 

♦ In your view, what lessons have we learned from the 2008 crisis? What changes 

to IMF surveillance and policies have been implemented in response to these 

crises? 

Answer. IMF surveillance indeed has an important crisis prevention role. The 

global community is far better served by crisis prevention rather than coping with 

crisis resolution. 

As a first line of defense, countries have important responsibilities to implement 

sound policies. Many countries, especially emerging markets, have learned lessons 

from their crises in the past decade, and have improved their policies, consistent 

with IMF advice, in order to create more space and shock absorbers. 

The 2008 crisis revealed other lessons. One was that the potential for capital to 

rapidly flee countries has further grown. Another lesson in this spirit is that interdependencies among countries have also increased, meaning that contagion can 

spread more virulently and quickly around the world. In this regard, IMF surveillance underestimated the combined risk across economies, as well as sectors, and 

the importance of financial sector feedback and spillovers. Another lesson is that a 

sound macroeconomic policy framework is the best first line of defense against 

external risks. 

Accordingly, since 2008, the United States has encouraged the IMF to strengthen 

its focus on multilateral surveillance through increased coverage of financial stability and external sector issues, as well as analysis of the spillover effects of country policies. In response, the IMF now produces annual spillover reports and external sector reports, and has enhanced its analysis of financial stability issues in 

Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) reports. The United States has also 

continued to urge the IMF to undertake more rigorous bilateral surveillance and put 

forward its views in a more candid and forthright manner. 

Further work, though, is still needed to create incentives for countries to follow 

IMF advice to strengthen their policies and reduce vulnerabilities, recognizing that 

sovereign countries may not always follow the IMF’s recommendations. If confirmed, 

I will work to ensure that surveillance is strengthened. 

ARGENTINA BONDS AND AMICUS BRIEFS

Question. As you know, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held 

that Argentina breached its contractual obligations to U.S. taxpayers by refusing to 

honor its financial obligations under bonds owned by those taxpayers. Last summer, 

Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 

announced that the Fund would be filing an amicus brief in support of Argentina’s 

appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

♦ It is my understanding that the IMF has never before filed a U.S. Supreme 

Court brief. Is that accurate? 

Answer. I am aware that though the IMF has not filed an amicus brief before the 

Supreme Court, it has filed at least one amicus brief in a U.S. appellate court. In 

1997 and 1998, the IMF (together with the Inter-American Development Bank, PanAmerican Health Organization, and Intelsat) filed, in both the federal district and 

appeals courts, amicus briefs opposing the imposition of D.C. sales taxes on cafeteria 

transactions by a World Bank contractor. International Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development v. District of Columbia, 171 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

I understand that submission of amicus briefs by international financial institutions occurs infrequently, but the IMF and other international financial institutions 

such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank do file amicus 

briefs in U.S. courts from time to time. 

Question. What communications did you have with the IMF Executive Board and 

any staff of the IMF regarding the Argentine sovereign debt? Did you participate 

in any conversations regarding the potential IMF amicus brief? If so, please describe 

such conversations. 

Answer. The IMF’s decision to file in this case was its own, reached by IMF management and staff. The IMF’s concerns about the implications of the Court’s ruling 

in undermining the orderliness and predictability of the sovereign debt restrucVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
304 

turing process were similar to those expressed in prior U.S. Government briefs in 

the litigation. 

The State and Treasury Departments actively discussed the merits of whether the 

United States should file an amicus brief, working closely with the Department of 

Justice. Treasury exchanged views with the IMF at the staff level on the posture 

of the litigation, consistent with discussions ongoing at senior levels. As Secretary 

Lew stated in recent testimony (before the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on April 29, 2014), he discussed these issues with the 

IMF. 

In the context of this broader discussion, I engaged with the IMF management, 

in particular through the U.S. Executive Director, who is a member of the Executive 

Board, to help advise senior Treasury officials in determining the appropriate U.S. 

posture with respect to the IMF’s consideration of a potential amicus brief and to 

engage with IMF officials regarding such a brief. 

Question. What are your views on the propriety of the U.S. Executive Director to 

the IMF advocating that the IMF or foreign governments file amicus briefs in 

domestic U.S. court cases? 

Answer. The positions taken by the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF at the 

IMF Board are subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. If confirmed, I will adhere to the instructions of the United States Government, and in 

particular, the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Question. Would you please elaborate on your concern that ‘‘the court’s ruling 

could upset the orderliness and the ability of the debt restructuring process’’? 

Answer. The United States, in briefs filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Second Circuit in [April] and December 2012, stated that U.S. efforts to promote voluntary debt restructuring, along with macroeconomic reform and support as necessary from the international financial institutions, is the most effective way to 

resolve sovereign balance of payment crises while minimizing economic damage. 

This in turn will help protect the U.S. economy and U.S. jobs. 

As those briefs stated, the court’s ruling may make voluntary sovereign debt 

restructuring substantially more difficult by tilting the incentives away from consensual, negotiated restructuring in the first place. 

In 2004, the United States also filed a brief with the District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case involving Argentina. Like the 2012 briefs, the 

2004 brief highlighted the potentially harmful impact on debt restructuring of both 

novel interpretations of standard contract terms and novel enforcement mechanisms. The 2004 brief also noted that the United States has only previously twice 

intervened in litigation on sovereign debt issues (in Allied Bank/Costa Rica in 1984 

and in CIBC/Brazil in 1994), emphasizing the adverse effects that contractual uncertainty could have on international financial markets and on restructuring efforts. 

INVESTOR RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGN BORROWER LENDING FROM THE IMF

Question. The IMF staff issued a report in April last year on sovereign debt 

restructuring examining collective action clauses. What are your views on balancing 

the rights of bond holders with the need to establish a financially stable restructuring path for the debt burdened sovereign. 

♦ Do you think property rights of investors should be respected when a sovereign 

borrower needs to restructure its debt in an economic crisis? How do you balance respect for investor’s property rights and the need for debt relief to help 

the borrowing country recover? 

Answer. As I stated in the hearing, the United States does not condone Argentina’s treatment of its creditors or actions, respects the sanctity of contract rights, 

and urges countries to honor their commitments. As stated in the U.S. amicus brief 

filed in the Argentina case, U.S. sovereign debt policy implicitly recognizes the critical role of the contract in resolving a debt crisis. Restructuring negotiations, when 

these unfortunately become necessary, must take place within a framework where 

creditors can seek recourse to the courts to enforce contractual obligations. Moreover, creditors must be assured that the terms of any new debt instruments issued 

pursuant to a restructuring plan will be legally enforceable. As the amicus brief submitted by the U.S. Government in 2012 stated, it would harm the process that has 

evolved to address sovereign debt problems if creditors, in negotiating with debtors, 

also retained the option to litigate to obtain interpretations of standard terms than 

are not supported by commercial market practice. 

Question. Do you think good faith negotiations between a sovereign borrower and 

its private sector investors is the best way to arrive at a fair and mutually agreed 

305 

restructured deal? What do you think of the proposals from some quarters for a nonnegotiated or unilateral deal approach on the grounds of expediency? 

Answer. I believe that good faith negotiations between a sovereign borrower and 

its private sector are the best way to arrive at a fair and mutually agreed deal. Borrowers should engage constructively with creditors, and fully disclose information on 

the country’s financial situation and plans going forward. 

I would not support proposals that would impose a unilateral deal on the grounds 

of expediency. 

TTIP AND FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATION

Question. Treasury has opposed including financial services regulatory issues in 

TTIP. Is that still Treasury’s position or has there been any further interagency discussion on how to approach the issue in TTIP? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the administration’s position has not 

changed. As Secretary Lew has indicated, traditional market access issues for financial services should be part of the negotiations; however, financial prudential and 

regulatory cooperation should continue in existing and appropriate bilateral and 

multilateral regulatory fora, such as the G20, the Financial Stability Board, and 

international standard setting bodies, in parallel alongside the TTIP negotiations. 

Question. My understanding is that the Europeans have stated publicly that the 

current Financial Regulatory Markets Dialogue (FMRD) is insufficient to address 

bilateral issues, and they appear to be insistent that these issues be addressed in 

TTIP. 

♦ Isn’t there some sort of creative solution that can bring some of these issues into 

TTIP in a way that does not undermine U.S. law or negatively affect regulators’ 

prudential authority? 

Answer. Ensuring the safety and soundness of the U.S. financial system through 

a robust regime of prudential regulation and supervision remains a top priority of 

the administration. 

Since the financial crisis, the United States has been pursuing a comprehensive 

agenda, with ambitious deadlines, on regulatory and prudential cooperation in the 

financial sector—multilaterally, in the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, bilaterally with the European Union in the Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue, and 

in international standard-setting bodies such as the Basel Committee on Banking 

Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions. 

Alongside the TTIP negotiations, the United States will continue to work to make 

progress in these channels in the near term, including by raising international 

standards to the levels that our financial regulators are now implementing in the 

United States. This is the best way to assure high quality regulation globally and 

level the playing field for U.S. firms. 

CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS

Question. In your role as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, did you at 

any time discourage the U.S. Executive Director to the International Bank of 

Reconstruction and Development, the U.S. Executive Director for the Asian Development Bank, or the Executive Director from the Inter-American Development Bank 

from agreeing to requests to appear at hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. If confirmed as U.S. Executive Director, do you commit to appearing at 

hearings of this committee when requested and to responding to committee requests 

for information in a timely manner? 

Answer. Yes, I look forward to working with your committee. 

RESPONSES OF MARK SOBEL TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES E. RISCH

Question. In your answers to Senator McCain’s questions you indicated that both 

the IMF’s announcement, in July 2013, that it would file an amicus brief with the 

U.S. Supreme Court siding with Argentina against U.S. investors, and then the subsequent reversal of this announcement were decisions that originated at the IMF 

and received no support or influence by any U.S. Government officials. 

♦ Is this an accurate summary of your position? 

306 

Answer. The IMF’s decision to file in this case was its own, reached by IMF management and staff. The IMF’s concerns about the implications of the Court’s ruling 

in undermining the orderliness and predictability of the sovereign debt restructuring process were similar to those expressed in prior U.S. Government briefs in 

the litigation. 

The State and Treasury Departments actively discussed the merits of whether the 

United States should file an amicus brief, working closely with the Department of 

Justice. Treasury exchanged views with the IMF at the staff level on the posture 

of the litigation, consistent with discussions ongoing at senior levels. As Secretary 

Lew stated in recent testimony (before the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on April 29, 2014), he discussed these issues with the 

IMF. In view of the posture of the litigation, and the U.S. decision not to file a brief, 

Treasury indicated to the IMF that it would not support the brief. 

Question. In its 68-year history, the IMF has never attempted to influence a domestic U.S. court case, and in fact, the Fund has maintained a decades-long tradition of remaining neutral in debt disputes between member states. 

♦ Will you assure this committee that, if confirmed as U.S. Executive Director to 

the IMF, you will maintain this tradition and oppose any effort by the IMF to 

influence a domestic U.S. court case? 

Answer. The positions taken by the U.S. Executive Director to the IMF at the 

IMF Board are subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. If confirmed, I will adhere to the instructions of the United States Government, and in 

particular, the Secretary of the Treasury. 

I am aware that though the IMF has not filed an amicus brief before the Supreme 

Court, it has filed at least one amicus brief in a U.S. appellate court. In 1997 and 

1998, the IMF (together with the Inter-American Development Bank, Pan-American 

Health Organization, and Intelsat) filed, in both the federal district and appeals 

courts, amicus briefs opposing the imposition of D.C. sales taxes on cafeteria transactions by a World Bank contractor. International Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development v. District of Columbia, 171 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

I understand that submission of amicus briefs by international financial institutions occurs infrequently, but the IMF and other international financial institutions 

such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank do file amicus 

briefs in U.S. courts from time to time. 

RESPONSES OF SUNIL SABHARWAL TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

IMF REFORM

Question. The 2010 quota and governance reforms increase the IMF’s resources 

and adjust its governance structure to more accurately reflect current global economic participation. However, stemming from IMF engagement in EU countries 

during the financial crisis, some critics contend that other systemic and operational 

reforms should be considered. 

♦ Do you agree that, aside from the 2010 reforms, other internal reforms are 

needed at the IMF and do you intend to explore additional reform options, if 

confirmed? 

Answer. It is important for the IMF to be evenhanded and maintain the same 

high standards in its lending to European countries as in its lending to other countries around the world. On the other hand, it is not uncommon that the IMF’s exposure at any given time is high to a finite group of countries in a given region for 

the purposes of avoiding contagion, negatively affecting the global economy. An 

example of this would be the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. 

The IMF plays an important role in promoting fiscal discipline and open and 

transparent budget processes in its member countries. As a businessman, I believe 

that the IMF should apply similar discipline to its own internal budget framework 

and demonstrate strong institutional transparency. I understand the United States 

has been a strong voice over the years in encouraging IMF budget stringency and 

greater transparency of the IMF’s operations. I look forward to supporting these 

efforts and looking into these issues further, if confirmed. 

IMF SURVEILLANCE

Question. A frequent accusation of critics is that IMF surveillance is ineffective, 

because the IMF has no means of enforcing its policy recommendations in countries 

that do not borrow from the IMF. 

307 

♦ Do you agree with this assertion? If so, how might the USED’s office work with 

the IMF to make its surveillance more effective? 

Answer. Surveillance is one of the IMF’s primary activities to identify risks and 

prevent crises. Many countries have learned lessons from past crises and have 

improved their policies consistent with IMF advice. I understand that given the 

importance of surveillance to crisis prevention, the United States has encouraged 

the IMF to strengthen its focus on multilateral surveillance through increased coverage of financial stability and external sector issues, as well as analysis of the spillover effects of country policies. Multilateral surveillance can be further improved by 

increasing cooperation with and amongst other stakeholders of the global economy. 

In addition, more work is needed to create incentives for countries to follow IMF 

advice to strengthen their policies and reduce vulnerabilities, recognizing that in the 

end, countries are responsible for charting their own course. 

Therefore, I believe surveillance can be improved throughout, via a number of 

methods, such as the application of peer pressure using the article IV consultations 

and publication of IMF staff assessments. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that 

surveillance is strengthened. 

IMF TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Question. To what extent has the IMF, as it claims, increased transparency and 

accountability to both shareholders and loan recipients? If confirmed, will ensuring 

greater transparency in the IMF be a priority for you? 

Answer. In the 1990s, very little information was published about the IMF’s institutional or operational activities. Since then, I understand the United States has 

consistently pressed for greater transparency at the IMF, including enhanced disclosure of economic and financial information by IMF member countries. Today, extensive information about the IMF’s operations and activities is publicly available on 

the IMF Web site, and I understand that over 90 percent of IMF article IV staff 

reports and lending program documents are published. If confirmed, I will work to 

promote enhanced transparency at the IMF. 

RESPONSES OF MATTHEW T. MCGUIRE TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

WORLD BANK SAFEGUARD REFORM

The World Bank is currently overhauling its social and environmental safeguard 

policies. With strong U.S. leadership, the Bank was the first international financial 

institution to adopt such policies, which have been influential and remain critical 

in ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. 

♦ As USED, how will you use this opportunity to ensure safeguard policies reflect 

international best practices and U.S. development priorities at the World Bank? 

Answer. The World Bank’s social and environmental safeguard policies are an 

integral part of its comparative advantage and impart value added beyond the 

financing that the World Bank provides. The current review of the World Bank’s 

safeguards is an opportunity to update and strengthen the safeguards, both in terms 

of the written policies and the way in which they are implemented. If confirmed, 

I will work with other Board members to build support for safeguard policies that 

reflect international best practices and U.S. development priorities. I will also 

actively consult with civil society groups and the private sector on the World Bank’s 

safeguard review process. 

WORLD BANK RESPONSE TO UKRAINE AND GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

Question. What is your evaluation of the World Bank’s response to the global 

financial crisis? What reforms, if any, would have improved its effectiveness? The 

World Bank has announced its intention to support IMF and other bilateral and 

multilateral efforts to stabilize and reform Ukraine. What are the goals of this program and what role do you anticipate you would have as USED in discussions 

regarding Ukraine? 

Answer. The World Bank responded to calls from G20 Leaders to increase lending 

to emerging and developing economies in support of essential government spending 

during the global financial crises. The World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group 

concluded that the World Bank was responsive in scaling up countercyclical financing, but was also critical of the Bank’s crisis-related fiscal management operations 

308 

and financial sector support. The evaluation puts these findings into perspective by 

noting the severe economic headwinds. 

In Ukraine, the World Bank has responded rapidly. My understanding is that the 

Board will consider a lending package totaling up to $3 billion in 2014. I also understand that World Bank programs in Ukraine are tackling the difficult reforms 

required in the country to improve governance and lay the foundations for future 

economic growth. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage the World Bank to 

respond effectively to the crisis in Ukraine. 

WORLD BANK ENERGY INITIATIVES IN AFRICA AND ASIA

Question. Off-grid energy markets in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have 

grown rapidly, but could grow faster with better access to reliable financing partners. 

♦ If confirmed, what will you do to ensure the Bank’s Lighting Africa and Lighting Asia programs not only break down market barriers, but also provide longterm, low-cost financing? 

Answer. I understand the United States supports the World Bank’s Energy strategy, which aims to increase access to energy, enhance energy security and move 

countries toward more sustainable energy practices. Lighting Africa and Lighting 

Asia are helping to increase access to modern lighting services by setting industry 

standards for product quality, promoting relevant policy and regulatory reforms and 

mobilizing private capital to increase access to low-cost finance. If confirmed, I will 

continue to support and encourage the World Bank’s efforts to increase energy 

access in Africa and Asia. 

WORLD BANK DOING BUSINESS REPORT

Question. The ‘‘Doing Business’’ report has long been lauded as signature World 

Bank initiative that promotes reform efforts around the world to improve the ease 

of doing business. However, it has aroused some controversy and last year an external panel appointed by President Kim reviewed the report and suggested reforms. 

♦ What were the main reforms the panel recommended and how would this affect 

the integrity of the report? What has World Bank leadership decided as far as 

implementation of the recommendations? If confirmed, would you have the 

opportunity to influence internal decisions on this issue, and what is Treasury’s 

position on the results of the review? 

Answer. I understand the United States Government vigorously supports the 

‘‘Doing Business’’ report, including its aggregate country rankings. I believe that the 

report is a valuable knowledge product of the World Bank Group that helps 

incentivize changes to improve business climates in the Bank’s member countries. 

Dr. Kim has announced that he will focus on improving methodology and increasing 

data to strengthen the ‘‘Doing Business’’ report. If confirmed, I will work actively 

with senior World Bank management and other Board members to protect and 

enhance the ‘‘Doing Business’’ report. 

WORLD BANK—EMERGING MARKET LENDING

Question. What reasons are there for the World Bank to continue to lend to 

dynamic emerging market economies such as China, which have substantial resources of their own and often have their own active assistance programs? 

Answer. While the World Bank’s grant resources are appropriately reserved for 

the poorest countries, I believe there is an ongoing role for the World Bank in middle-income countries, where the majority of the world’s poor live today. For example, 

World Bank programs deliver the highest quality procurement standards, as well 

as strong environmental and social safeguards. Moreover, World Bank lending to 

middle-income countries supports domestic consumption within these economies, 

which generates export markets for U.S. firms and contributes to broader global 

rebalancing efforts. 

To clarify a previous statement that I made about World Bank lending to China, 

the World Bank provides a range of lending to China, mainly for projects supporting 

green growth and stronger social inclusion. But consistent with congressional legislation, it is U.S policy to oppose World Bank projects for China, except those that 

are specifically aimed at meeting basic human needs, such as clean water, basic 

education, and health services to poor populations. 

309 

WORLD BANK—PROCUREMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR U.S. COMPANIES

Question. There are billions of dollars in procurement opportunities from World 

Bank lending. 

♦ To what extent are U.S. firms bidding on, and winning, these contracts? What 

hurdles do U.S. firms face on bidding for contracts? If confirmed, what actions 

would you take to ensure American companies are fully informed of opportunities and can compete on a level playing field for such contracts? 

Answer. My understanding is that in the World Bank’s fiscal year 2013, U.S. 

firms won 134 prime contracts with a total value of almost $100 million. The World 

Bank is currently reviewing and revising its procurement policy, and the U.S. Government has committed to ensuring that the World Bank maintains procurement 

policies that uphold a level playing field for all businesses. As a way to level the 

playing field between American firms and international firms, if confirmed, I will 

continue to push for greater use of nonprice factors, such as quality or after sales 

service, in the awarding of contracts, rather than only the lowest cost options. 

WORLD BANK/IFC WATER PROJECTS

Question. Access to clean and affordable drinking water is a major challenge in 

much of the world, and water-borne illnesses are a major source of death and lost 

productivity in the developing world. The World Bank has been a global leader in 

this area, particularly its private finance arm, the International Finance Corporation, and this has great potential to alleviate global poverty. However, I have heard 

concerns that IFC has prioritized financial outcomes over access. 

♦ I fully understand the complexity of water issues, and realize the private sector 

has a crucial role to play. However, will you commit to me now that, if confirmed, you will explore this issue during your first year, in coordination with 

my office? 

Answer. I understand that this is an issue on which the U.S. Executive Director’s 

Office has been engaged with civil society organizations, IFC and World Bank staff 

in recent months. My understanding is that when the IFC provides support to private water companies, it sets out explicit development objectives for these investments, including expanding access and improving quality. If confirmed, I will continue to engage on this issue and would be pleased to update your office as the work 

progresses. 

WORLD BANK—CHANGES TO THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (IDA)

Question. According to some estimates, the number of countries eligible to borrow 

from the World Bank’s concessional facility, the International Development Association, or ‘‘IDA, will decline from the current 81 countries to as low as 30 within the 

next 10–15 years, and with most of those in sub-Saharan Africa. 

♦ Can you explain this expected development, and could this fundamentally 

change how the World Bank operates? What would this mean for the new objective of eliminating extreme poverty by 2030? 

Answer. I understand that the U.S. Government places a very high importance 

on IDA, given its global reach and focus on the poorest, which aligns with administration priorities. Current demand for IDA resources remains high for countries that 

are too poor to attract sufficient capital to support their urgent development needs. 

And, to achieve the World Bank’s goal of eliminating extreme poverty by 2030, IDA 

support is critical for the hardest-to-reach places, like fragile and conflict-affected 

states, where progress has been slower. 

WORLD BANK REFORM—MEASURING PERFORMANCE AND GLOBAL PUBLIC GOODS

Question. Many critics of the World Bank argue that its main weakness has been 

to judge performance by how much it lends rather than by what it and borrowing 

countries achieve . . . essentially a quantity over quality criticism. 

♦ Do President Kim’s reforms address this common concern with the World Bank? 

Answer. Yes, I understand that Dr. Kim’s reforms will restructure the World 

Bank around ‘‘global practices,’’ which are thematic areas, such as water, energy, 

health, and education. I believe that restructuring the World Bank in this way will 

strengthen its expertise on these issues, improve the flow of knowledge across the 

different countries in which the World Bank works and improve the quality of the 

World Bank’s lending. The effort to shift the World Bank’s culture to a stronger 

focus on results will take sustained attention over time. If confirmed, I will continue 

310 

to support Dr. Kim’s reforms that aim to accelerate this cultural change and, more 

generally, work to elevate the use of evidence and the measurement of results. 

Question. Given the huge size of private investment in emerging and developing 

economies, some critics also contend that the Bank should devote fewer resources 

on country programs and instead use its global reach to focus efforts and serve as 

a catalyst for addressing global challenges, such as those related to the environment, health, agricultural productivity, and good governance. 

♦ The World Bank already engages in regional and global initiatives, but are you 

aware whether the ongoing reorganization will accelerate this shift? If confirmed, do you anticipate supporting more regional World Bank programming? 

Answer. The World Bank can convene a broader set of stakeholders than bilateral 

agencies. This is especially important for providing global public goods or when dealing with global challenges like climate change or food security, which are too vast 

and complex for any one country—or even group of countries—to effectively manage 

on their own. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage the World Bank to work 

on regional projects and to address global challenges that are not contained within 

country boundaries. 

RESPONSES OF MILEYDI GUILARTE TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

IDB PRIVATE SECTOR CONSOLIDATION

Question. The IDB is reviewing options for consolidating multiple existing private 

sector divisions, following a 2012 independent evaluation that was critical of the 

inefficiencies of the current structure. 

♦ Is the administration supportive of the private sector restructuring initiative? 

Do you expect greater efficiency and efficacy from a consolidated private sector 

division? What concerns does the administration have, and what can we expect 

as far as consultations with Congress? If confirmed, what involvement with this 

issue would you expect to have? 

Answer. I understand that the United States welcomes the initiative to improve 

the efficiency and development impact of the IDB’s private sector operations, and 

that during the recent IDB annual meeting, the Board of Governors passed a resolution to continue work on developing a proposal for the so-called ‘‘merge-out’’ restructuring of the IDB’s private sector windows. 

It is also my understanding that the United States has advocated for an in-depth 

review of the proposed restructuring, including an analysis of the assumptions and 

implications of the potential business and capitalization models. This process will 

be ongoing throughout 2014 and 2015. If confirmed, I would aim to ensure that the 

process is comprehensive and that the potential implications for the IDB’s financial 

outlook and development effectiveness and soundness are fully understood and considered. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to keep you updated on both the 

process and new developments. 

IDB—ENERGY IN THE CARIBBEAN

Question. The Caribbean has been in an energy crisis for quite some time. Electricity rates are high and there is a great dependence on Venezuela’s subsidized oil. 

The political and economic catastrophe in Venezuela could very well end that subsidized oil program and further exacerbate hardship throughout the Caribbean. 

♦ Are you familiar with IDB energy initiatives related to the Caribbean? What 

policies guide the USED’s office on this issue and, if confirmed, what actions 

would you be in a position to take to help the IDB address this issue? 

Answer. I understand that the IDB is very active on this issue. For instance, the 

IDB hosted the Caribbean Energy Ministers Conference in December 2013. During 

this conference, the USED’s office helped to facilitate a meeting between U.S. 

Energy Secretary Moniz and President Moreno, which led to an enhanced working 

relationship between the IDB energy sector staff and USG agencies. I understand 

that the IDB is funding energy studies that explore the feasibility of conversion to 

natural gas as a fuel source in the Caribbean, as well as the role for renewables 

and energy efficiency. I believe that collaboration with U.S. Government agencies 

has been integral to these studies. If confirmed, I will continue to support this important cooperation. 

In addition, I understand that the participation of the USED’s office in IDB 

energy initiatives related to the Caribbean is in line with the administration’s enVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
311 

ergy objectives in the region, and is guided by the President’s Climate Action Plan, 

which seeks multipronged energy solutions. If confirmed, I will continue to pursue 

U.S. policy goals at the IDB on these important issues. 

IDB—SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT VERSUS ECONOMIC GROWTH

Question. Social development is one of the IDB’s strategic policy goals. In particular efforts to reduce inequities in opportunity based on gender, ethnicity, race, 

disability, and social and economic circumstance are key priorities. 

♦ How important is social development for economic development, compared, for 

example, with efforts to promote productivity, to enhance private sector growth, 

and to encourage economic and institutional reform? How will you balance these 

sometimes competing objectives if confirmed? 

Answer. Economic growth and social development are inextricably linked, and I 

understand that both are central to the IDB’s mission to support efforts by Latin 

American and Caribbean countries to reduce poverty and inequality through sustainable and inclusive growth. I understand that the IDB has put in place a development effectiveness framework to ensure that all IDB activities—whether for social 

development specifically, or for private sector growth and institutional reform—contribute to the overall goals of the institution, while complying with effective social 

and environmental safeguards. 

I understand that last year 21 percent of approved IDB financing was allocated 

to social sector programs; 34 percent was allocated to infrastructure and the environment; 9 percent to regional integration and trade; and 36 percent to institutional 

support for development. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the IDB project 

portfolio continues to support both the goals of social development and economic 

growth. 

IDB—PROGRAMS IN HAITI

Question. The IDB is a major donor to Haiti and has pledged to provide $2.2 billion in grant assistance to Haiti by 2020. 

♦ Is IDB assistance to Haiti meeting its objectives, and is it doing so in an open 

and transparent manner? If confirmed, do you expect to have the opportunity 

to influence IDB programs in Haiti? 

Answer. I understand that in 2010 the shareholders of the IDB, with strong leadership from the United States, agreed to forgive all of Haiti’s outstanding debt to 

the IDB and to provide $200 million in transfers each year to the Haiti Grant Facility over a 10-year period. The fourth transfer of $200 million to the grant facility 

was approved at the recent IDB annual meeting. I understand that this funding will 

continue to provide critical resources to support the IDB’s ongoing work in six priority sectors in Haiti: education reform, private sector development, energy, agriculture, transportation, and water and sanitation. My understanding is that IDB 

projects in Haiti are subject to the same approval processes and transparency protocols as any IDB project, including Board approval prior to project implementation. 

From my experience at USAID, I know that the sustainable development of Haiti’s economy is an important policy priority for the U.S. Government, given Haiti’s 

proximity to the United States and our close economic and people-to-people ties. If 

confirmed, I will represent these interests by supporting the IDB’s annual $200 million transfer to the Haiti Grant Facility each year, and work with IDB staff to ensure that those resources are used effectively and in a coordinated manner in helping to meet Haiti’s long-term development objectives. 

IDB—MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND

Question. The United States is in arrears to the Multilateral Investment Fund, 

and there are concerns that without additional financing, the MIF could be forced 

to cease operations as soon as 2015. 

♦ What other sources of funding, besides the United States, can the MIF draw 

from? Are you aware how U.S. arrears to the MIF compare to the arrears of 

other countries? Would consolidation of the private sector functions potentially 

solve this problem? 

Answer. I understand that the United States has been an active supporter of the 

MIF, and if confirmed, I will continue to strongly support the MIF’s critical work 

and valuable contributions to development in Latin America. My understanding is 

that the United States is the only IDB shareholder in arrears to the MIF. 

I understand that the MIF would be part of a new, consolidated entity, but that 

its precise relationship is unclear and the reform process itself may take some time 

312 

to conclude. For that reason, it is my understanding that at the recent IDB annual 

meeting, the Board of Governors asked IDB management to present formal proposals for interim MIF financing by June 2014, to ensure an appropriate level of 

operations until decisions are made on the private sector restructuring initiative. 

IDB—PROCUREMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR U.S. COMPANIES

Question. There are significant procurement opportunities related to IDB project 

lending, especially in the infrastructure sector. 

♦ To what extent are U.S. firms bidding on, and winning, these contracts? What 

hurdles do U.S. firms face in competing for these contracts? If confirmed, what 

actions would you take to ensure American companies are fully informed of 

opportunities and can compete on a level playing field for such contracts? 

♦ What can the USED’s office do to encourage the IDB to adopt procurement policies that encourage the adoption of high-quality goods, services, and technology, 

as opposed to simply accepting a bid with a low initial cost, but poor durability 

and excessive maintenance requirements? 

Answer. I understand that U.S. companies are actively bidding on—and winning—contracts related to IDB project lending. I understand that the percentage of 

U.S. firms that bid on and win consulting opportunities averages 75–80 percent, 

while the percentage for contractors is around 60–65 percent. Since 2011, U.S. companies have been awarded 240 consulting contracts for IDB-related projects, totaling 

$32,982,266, as well as 53 contracts for goods and services related to IDB projects, 

totaling $55,166,702. 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the USED’s office, in collaboration with 

the U.S. Commercial Liaison Office to the IDB, makes every effort to assist U.S. 

companies in preparing bids for international procurement opportunities with the 

IDB and in clearing any hurdles that might arise during the procurement bidding 

process. My understanding is that the USED’s office advises U.S. companies on how 

to be successful in their bids by providing helpful guidelines (such as information 

about IDB procurement rules, networking opportunities, and process suggestions), 

and by assisting companies with obtaining procurement related documents (all of 

which are available on the IDB Web site). 

It is also my understanding that the USED’s office participates in Board- and 

Committee-level discussions pertaining to reforms of the IDB’s procurement policies. 

If confirmed, I will continue to encourage robust procurement policies that conform 

to international best practices and provide a level playing field for U.S. firms. 

ECONOMIC STATECRAFT

Question. I have long been interested in finding ways to leverage U.S. agencies 

such as Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, and TDA to promote economic integration in the Western Hemisphere, specifically by tackling Latin America’s infrastructure deficiency. 

♦ In your opinion, how can the U.S. Government and private sector work with the 

IDB to address this issue and create new economic opportunities here in the 

United States and throughout the hemisphere? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to support the ongoing efforts made by the U.S. 

Government and the private sector to work in cooperation with the IDB in promoting economic integration and addressing infrastructure deficiencies in Latin 

America. As just one example, I understand that the U.S. Government is actively 

exploring ways to work with the IDB and other partners in the region to improve 

trade and logistics infrastructure through Central America and its linkages to North 

and South America. With regard to private sector coordination, I understand that 

the Americas Business Dialogue (ABD) is a private sector driven initiative facilitated by the IDB intended to foster a high-level and open dialogue among the region’s most important business leaders, and is being supported by the State Department and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If confirmed, I will continue to support 

these types of efforts and seek out new opportunities to address this issue. 

CUBA’S STATUS IN THE IDB

Question. Cuba signed the 1959 IDB Charter as an ‘‘original member’’ but never 

formalized its membership. Any move to include Cuba in the IDB would receive 

intense and bipartisan interest from both Congress and the administration. The 

United States has the ability as the largest shareholder to withhold the quorum 

needed to proceed with a vote by the IDB Board of Governors to include Cuba as 

a member. 

313 

♦ Given ongoing congressional interest will you assure us that you will consult 

closely with Congress on any and all developments concerning Cuba’s membership in the IDB? 

Answer. It is my understanding that, at present, there are no discussions regarding potential membership for Cuba in the IDB. If confirmed, I would consult closely 

with Congress on any developments concerning Cuba’s potential membership in the 

IDB, were that to occur. 

RESPONSE OF MATTHEW T. MCGUIRE TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Question. The World Bank is currently reviewing its safeguard policies, which 

identify and minimize harm caused by bank projects to vulnerable people and the 

environment. Women, girls, and minority communities compose more than half of 

the world’s population, but face discrimination, human rights abuses, and frequent 

exclusion from positive benefits of economic development. Recent World Bank studies have affirmed the real economic costs of discrimination to economic development. 

In recent months, the consequences of this exclusion on women, girls, and LGBT 

communities have become particularly evident, in part because of unfortunate new 

laws and practices in some countries that seek to discriminate and exclude, rather 

than support these groups. 

The World Bank has never adopted a mandatory safeguard policy to mitigate 

risks associated with its investments to these vulnerable groups. As a result, the 

Bank risks excluding these individuals—often some of the poorest and most 

marginalized—from benefiting from or contributing to its projects and programs, 

and, in so doing, it may even reinforce or create new inequalities in the countries 

in which it works. This is bad for our investments and it is not what we stand for 

as a country. I was pleased to see that the Obama administration recently released 

a policy paper expressing support for adding additional safeguards to World Bank 

projects, particularly safeguards on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

♦ As the Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development, how will you seek to ensure that World Bank projects do not exclude marginalized groups? Would you support an effort by the World Bank to 

update its safeguard policies so that they address the impacts of World Bank 

projects on women, girls, and LGBT minorities? 

Answer. Exclusion of vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, girls, 

and LGBT persons, is unacceptable. If confirmed, I will work with other Board 

members to build support for World Bank policies, including safeguard policies, that 

seek to ensure that Bank projects and other Bank activities do not directly or indirectly contribute to exclusion of these groups and that help enable the Bank to fulfill 

its goal of inclusive economic growth. 

(315) 

NOMINATIONS OF ANDREW SCHAPIRO 

AND NINA HACHIGIAN 

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Andrew H. Schapiro, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic 

Nina Hachigian, of California, to be Representative to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, with the rank and status of 

Ambassador 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:36 p.m. in Room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher Murphy 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Murphy and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator MURPHY. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee will now come to order. We will be joined shortly I believe by Ranking Member Senator Johnson. Thank you very much 

for your patience. As you know, we just finished a long series of 

votes, which happens to be the final series of votes for the week. 

So that may explain what could be a smaller turnout for this hearing. We appreciate your patience, figured that you guys have waited for months for this hearing to take place, so an extension of a 

few hours might not necessarily be so disastrous. 

I am pleased to welcome both of our nominees and also your 

friends and family who have come here today to support you. The 

committee will consider today the nominations of Andrew Schapiro 

to be our Ambassador to the Czech Republic and Nina Hachigian 

to be our Ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. 

Just to outline the process, I will give some opening remarks. If 

Senator Johnson arrives, he will give his as well. Then we will proceed to introductions of our nominees, at which time you will be invited to give your opening statements and then answer questions 

from the panel. It would be great of you could keep your opening 

statements to around 5 minutes or less. 

To begin, I would like to address the United States relationship 

with the Czech Republic and the challenges and opportunities that 

316 

await our next Ambassador. The United States-Czech relationship 

is a special one. Our democratic histories have served as an inspiration to each other. Former Czech President, poet, and playwright 

Vaclav Havel and the revolutionary manifesto Charter 77 are icons 

of freedom and democracy to millions here in the United States. 

Correspondingly, America of course was a refuge for thousands of 

Czechs fleeing both Nazi occupation and Soviet control. 

In addition to our shared values, we also have strong security 

and economic ties. The Czech Republic is a key NATO ally and 

serves as the protecting power for U.S. interests in Syria after we 

evacuated our Embassy in Damascus. Since 2002 they have been 

one of our staunchest and strongest partners in Afghanistan, sending 700 soldiers, including special forces, who operate in some of 

the most challenging areas of Afghanistan. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Czech Republic plays a leading role 

promoting democratic values around the world, helping countries 

make that difficult transition from authoritarian regimes to representative democracy. It was under the Czech Presidency of the 

European Union that the Eastern Partnership Initiative was 

launched. 

Still, there are challenges in the Czech Republic that no doubt 

will be met by our next Ambassador. The surprisingly successful 

entrance of the ANO Party on the Czech political scene was largely 

driven by voters fed up with bribery and corruption. According to 

a Gallop Poll, the percentage of Czechs who perceive corruption as 

widespread in the government increased by 15 percentage points 

between 2007 and 2013, reaching 94 percent last October. The recent scandal that forced the Prime Minister’s resignation and triggered new elections may have been the most notable of these problems, but hopefully it will also lead to real reform. 

Another area that will be both a challenge but also an opportunity is the field of energy security, which has increasingly become a central issue of our discussions around Ukraine and the European response to Russia’s belligerent actions in the region. The 

Czech Republic, like many nations in Central and Eastern Europe, 

is highly dependent on Russian energy. They need a regional strategy to diversify their sources and to modernize their energy infrastructure. 

Now let me say a few words about ASEAN. The United States 

has deep interests in Southeast Asia, including maritime security, 

the promotion of democracy and human rights, the encouragement 

of liberal trade and investment regimes, counterterrorism, the combating of illegal trafficking of narcotics and human trafficking, and 

many other issues. 

As a Pacific nation and a global power, it is imperative that the 

United States continue to deepen our engagement in the region 

and with ASEAN, its most important multilateral institution. In 

terms of our economic partnership, the trading and investment figures with the region speak for themselves. U.S. goods trade with 

ASEAN is nearly $200 billion. Services trade is approximately $30 

billion, and U.S. foreign direct investment in those markets is 

around $160 billion. Conversely, the 10 countries have a market of 

approximately 600 million consumers and economic growth there 

has been faster than the world average for the past decade. 

317 

In terms of political and security interests, I would note that the 

United States has an abiding interest in maintaining peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region, and this includes ensuring open 

sea-lanes in the South China Sea and the East China Sea, where 

so much of the world’s commerce flows. So it is of paramount importance that any disagreements and territorial disputes in Asia be 

resolved peacefully, through international law, through arbitration 

and through codes of conduct, not through aggressive actions and 

confrontation. 

The tension between Vietnam and China—I am sure we will talk 

about that today—that we have seen in recent days underscores 

they need for peaceful mechanisms to resolve territorial disputes. 

We hope that the Association will continue to play an important 

role in facilitating these discussions. 

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on those subjects and 

many others. In the absence of Senator Johnson’s opening remarks, 

let me proceed to introducing our witnesses and then you can proceed with your statements. I am pleased to introduce Andrew 

Schapiro, who is the nominee for Ambassador to the Czech Republic, who has come before this committee after a career in both the 

public and private sector. 

Andrew is a Czech American who has deep family ties to the 

country to which he has been nominated to serve. I would encourage all of my colleagues to read the incredible moving story of his 

family’s experience during the time of Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia as documented in ‘‘Letters From Prague.’’ 

Mr. Schapiro attended Yale University, graduating magna cum 

laude with a degree in history. He was awarded the Marshall 

Scholarship to do postgraduate work at Oxford, earning a degree 

in philosophy, politics, and economics, and then he returned to the 

United States to attend Harvard, the law school there, where he 

also graduated magna cum laude. 

Again, his legal career as a clerk to two distinguished Federal 

judges, both Richard Posner and Supreme Court Justice Harry 

Blackmun. He then entered public service, spending 5 years as a 

Federal public defender in Manhattan. He went on to become a 

partner at two leading international law firms, achieving newsworthy victories in the areas of intellectual property, white collar 

criminal defense, and commercial litigation. He was selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers of America and has been described as 

one of the brightest legal minds of his generation. 

In addition, Mr. Schapiro is involved in a number of civic and 

charitable organizations, serving on the Criminal Justice Act Advisory Board for the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit and 

the Board of Directors for the Chicago Low Income Housing Trust 

Fund, as well as the Board of Directors for the Jewish Council of 

Urban Affairs. 

I am also pleased to introduce Nina Hachigian as the nominee 

for the Ambassador to be the Representative of the United States 

to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, with the rank and 

the status of Ambassador. She is currently a senior fellow at the 

Center for American Progress, based in Los Angeles. She focuses 

on great power relationships, the United States-China relationship, 

international institutions, and United States foreign policy. 

318 

She is the coauthor of the book ‘‘The Next American Century: 

How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise.’’ She was previously a senior political scientist at RAND Corporation and served 

as the director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy for 4 

years. Before that she was with the Council on Foreign Relations 

and also on the staff of the National Security Council in the White 

House. 

She has published numerous reports, book chapters, and journal 

articles. She is on the board of the Institute for International Affairs of Stanford University and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Pacific Council on International Policy. 

She received her bachelor of sciences from Yale University and 

then, like Mr. Schapiro, for inexplicable reasons left Connecticut to 

pursue her J.D. from Stanford Law School. 

We will now move to opening statements. We will start with you, 

Mr. Schapiro, and then Ms. Hachigian. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW H. SCHAPIRO, OF ILLINOIS, 

NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks in advance 

to Ranking Member Johnson and all members of the committee. It 

is an honor to come before you as the President’s nominee to be our 

next Ambassador to the Czech Republic. 

Seventy-five years ago my late mother, then a small girl, 

watched from the window of her family’s apartment in Prague as 

German soldiers marched in to occupy her city. Czechoslovakia, as 

it was then known, had been a flourishing outpost of Western democracy and culture prior to those tragic events. Our family, like 

all the Czech people, learned the hard way that you cannot take 

liberty and security for granted. 

We ultimately learned something else—that the United States of 

America, the Nation that gave my mother and her parents refuge 

when they fled the Nazis, literally saving their lives, is a force for 

good in the world like no other. 

I want to thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the 

trust that they have shown in me with this nomination, and I am 

so pleased that if I am confirmed my wife and children will be joining me to represent America in the Czech Republic. They mean everything to me and they are here with us today: my wife Tamar, 

our 13-year-old daughter, Gallia, and our 10-year-old son, Alexander. Mr. Chairman, they will be force multipliers in Prague if I 

am confirmed for this position. 

I would also like to acknowledge my sister, also named Tamar, 

who has come in from California to be here today. Sadly, my parents are no longer with us, but their wisdom and their examples 

are always present. 

The Czech Republic is a staunch, important ally in the heart of 

Europe. We have deep relationships in three key areas: our shared 

security, our shared prosperity, and our shared values. Let me address each in turn. 

Our defense and security relationship has flourished since the 

end of the cold war. As an active member of NATO, the EU, and 

the OSCE, the Czech Republic plays a role in global affairs that is 

disproportionate to its relatively small size. As you mentioned, Mr. 

319 

Chairman, Czech military forces serve side by side with U.S. forces 

in Afghanistan. The Czechs have helped to promote peace and stability in the Balkans, in Mali, and the Sinai, and the Czechs have 

courageously served as our protecting power in Syria since we 

closed our Embassy there in 2012. 

If confirmed, I will work to fortify our bilateral and multilateral 

cooperation in building security around the world. 

Of course, Russia’s actions in Ukraine now remind us and our allies of the role that NATO was originally created to perform, the 

defense of transatlantic security. Here again, the Czechs are making important contributions. They have offered fighter jets to reinforce Baltic air space and troops to support the NATO Response 

Force. They have also provided monitors for OSCE missions. In 

fact, a Czech was among the OSCE monitors recently taken captive 

and then released in Eastern Ukraine. 

The Czech Republic has quickly and faithfully implemented the 

targeted sanctions and asset freezes that have been imposed on 

Russia, and if confirmed I will make sure that we continue to coordinate closely with our Czech allies as we jointly address the situation in Ukraine. I will also take every opportunity to reaffirm 

our ironclad commitment to mutual self-defense under NATO’s Article 5. 

Today the Czech defense budget totals just over 1 percent of 

GDP, falling well short of NATO targets and placing the Czechs in 

the middle of the pack among our European allies in terms of defense spending. If confirmed, I will urge the Czech Government to 

boost the share of resources that it dedicates to defense. 

Recent events also starkly demonstrate the need for greater attention to European energy security. The Czech Republic, which 

gets about 75 percent of its oil and gas from Russia, understands 

that predictable and uninterrupted access to energy is fundamental 

to both national security and economic prosperity. If confirmed, I 

will work with the Czech Republic to help increase its energy security through diversification of energy sources and routes. 

Next, I want to build on our two nations’ growing economic and 

commercial ties. Over the last 4 years bilateral trade between the 

United States and the Czech Republic has doubled to nearly $6 billion. The Czech Republic has become one of the United States fastest-growing export markets in Europe, and if confirmed I will be 

a strong advocate for U.S. business interests to support job creation 

back home and I will make expanding our trade ties and ensuring 

that our firms can compete on the ground a top priority. 

Completing an ambitious Transatlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership, or TTIP, is a key strategic goal for both the United 

States and the European Union and its member states, including 

the Czech Republic. I promise that, along with our excellent interagency team in Prague, I will work to maintain the support of the 

Czech Government for TTIP and help to promote awareness that 

a mutually beneficial agreement will ensure continued growth and 

prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. 

Finally, on our shared values, if confirmed I will advocate for 

transparency and rule of law in the business sector and encourage 

the Czech Government to continue its anticorruption efforts to help 

improve the overall business climate. I will also work with the 

320 

Czech Government and civil society organizations to help foster a 

more inclusive society so that all Czechs, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, benefit from equal opportunity and 

full protection of the law. 

In all of these efforts I will draw upon my experience as an advocate, as a public speaker, as a student of economics and politics, 

and as a manager of large and diverse teams to advance the goals 

of our Nation and the Embassy. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I noted at the outset 

that in the late 1930s my mother and grandparents watched Nazi 

troops enter their city from their apartment window in Prague. 

That apartment building still stands and it is within walking distance of the U.S. Ambassador’s residence where, if confirmed, I will 

soon be living with my own family. It is not a long walk, but it is 

quite a journey that has taken us from that apartment to that residence. I am deeply honored to have been asked to represent the 

United States in Prague. I thank you for this opportunity to appear 

before you and I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schapiro follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW H. SCHAPIRO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the committee. It is an honor to come before you as the President’s nominee to be our next 

Ambassador to the Czech Republic. 

Seventy-five years ago, my late mother—then a small girl—watched from the window of her family’s apartment in Prague as German soldiers marched in to occupy 

her city. Czechoslovakia, as it was then known, had been a flourishing outpost of 

Western democracy and culture prior to those tragic events. Our family—like all the 

Czech people—learned the hard way that you cannot take liberty and security for 

granted. And we ultimately learned something else: that the United States of America—the nation that gave my mother and her parents refuge when they fled the 

Nazis, literally saving their lives—is a force for good in the world like no other. 

I want to thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust in me that 

they have shown with this nomination. And I am very pleased that, if I am confirmed, my wife and children will join me in representing America in the Czech 

Republic. They mean everything to me, and they are here with us today. My wife, 

Tamar; our 13-year-old daughter, Galia; and our ten-year-old son, Alexander. They 

will be ‘‘force multipliers’’ in Prague if I am confirmed for this position. I would also 

like to acknowledge my sister—also named Tamar—who has come in from California to be here today. Sadly my parents are no longer with us—but their wisdom 

and their examples are ever-present. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at this critical time, the Czech 

Republic is a staunch, important ally in the heart of Europe. We have a deep relationship in three key areas: our shared security; our shared prosperity; and our 

shared values. Let me address each in turn. 

First, our defense and security relationship has flourished in the decades since the 

end of the cold war. As an active member of NATO, the EU, and the OSCE, the 

Czech Republic plays a role in global affairs that is disproportionate to its relatively 

small size. Czech military forces serve side by side with U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan; they are currently in charge of base protection at Bagram Air Force base and 

contribute helicopter training units and special forces troops. The Czechs have 

promised that they will draw down only in consultation with allies, and have 

pledged to be ‘‘in together, out together’’ with us in Afghanistan. 

The Czechs have also made important contributions to peace and stability in the 

Balkans, providing units for both NATO’s force in Kosovo and the EU’s mission in 

Bosnia. Today Czech soldiers are deployed with the EU Training Mission in Mali, 

and with the Multinational Force Observers mission in the Sinai. Additionally, the 

Czechs have courageously served as our protecting power in Syria since the closure 

of our Embassy there in 2012. If confirmed, I will work to fortify our bilateral and 

multilateral cooperation in promoting democracy and building security around the 

world. 

321 

And while Czech forces have proven their mettle in expeditionary missions, Russia’s actions in Ukraine now remind us and our allies of the role that NATO was 

originally created to perform, the defense of transatlantic security. Here again the 

Czechs are making important contributions. They have offered fighter jets to reinforce Baltic airspace and troops to support the NATO Response Force. They have 

also provided monitors for OSCE missions; indeed a Czech was among the OSCE 

monitors recently taken captive and then released in Eastern Ukraine. 

The Czech Republic has quickly and faithfully implemented the targeted sanctions 

and asset freezes that have been imposed on Russia. If confirmed, I will make sure 

that we continue to coordinate closely with our Czech allies as we jointly address 

the situation in Ukraine. I will also take every opportunity to reaffirm our ironclad 

commitment to mutual self-defense under NATO’s Article 5. 

Today the Czech defense budget totals just over 1 percent of GDP, falling well 

short of NATO targets and placing the Czechs in the middle of the pack among our 

European allies in terms defense spending. If confirmed, I will urge the Czech Government to boost the share of resources that it dedicates to defense. I know that 

Defense Secretary Hagel and Czech Defense Minister Stropnicky discussed Czech 

modernization efforts and the need to maintain readiness and capabilities to support 

NATO when they met here in Washington last month. If confirmed, I will continue 

to engage on this high priority topic. 

The events in Ukraine also starkly demonstrate the need for greater attention to 

European energy security. The Czech Republic—which gets about 75 percent of its 

oil and gas from Russia—understands that predictable and uninterrupted access to 

energy is fundamental to both national security and economic prosperity. With the 

cancellation of the Temelin nuclear power plant tender, the Czech Government is 

reexamining its energy security strategy. If confirmed, I will work with the Czech 

Republic to help increase its energy security through diversification of energy 

sources and routes. 

Next—I want to build on our two nations’ growing economic and commercial ties. 

Over the last 4 years, bilateral trade between the U.S. and the Czech Republic has 

doubled—to nearly $6 billion. With a prosperous, industrialized economy, the Czech 

Republic provides substantial export opportunities for the U.S. in high-tech, manufacturing, and other sectors. Last year, with the support of the U.S. Commercial 

Service, we exported almost $2 billion of goods to the Czech Republic—more than 

at any other time in our history. In fact, the Czech Republic has become one of the 

United States fastest growing export markets in Europe. If confirmed, I will be a 

strong advocate for U.S. business interests to support job creation back home, and 

will make expanding our trade ties and ensuring that U.S. firms can compete on 

the ground a top priority. 

Completing an ambitious Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or 

TTIP, is a key strategic goal for both the United States and the European Union 

and its member states, including the Czech Republic. The Czechs will benefit from 

the expansion of trade and reduction in the cost of doing business through lowering 

tariffs and removing ‘‘behind the border’’ barriers. U.S. companies will benefit from 

the opening of opportunities—especially for small and medium-sized businesses—to 

trade with and invest in the Czech Republic. I promise that—along with our excellent interagency team at our Embassy in Prague—I will work to maintain the support of the Czech Government for TTIP and help to promote awareness that a mutually beneficial agreement will ensure continued growth and prosperity on both sides 

of the Atlantic. 

Finally, on our shared values, if confirmed, I will advocate for transparency and 

rule of law in the business sector and encourage the Czech Government to continue 

its anticorruption efforts to help improve the overall business climate. Last year, 

several prominent Czech NGOs came together to speak with one voice on anticorruption issues. Their efforts led to creation of several distinct pieces of anticorruption legislation which a majority of parliamentarians have publicly supported. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working with Czech civil society organizations to support and amplify their efforts. 

Confronting all forms of racism and intolerance reinforces the values and security 

of both the United States and the Czech Republic. I will work with the Czech Government and civil society organizations on building a more inclusive society to 

ensure that all Czechs, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation benefit 

from equal opportunity and the full protection of the law. 

In all of these efforts, I will draw upon my experience as an advocate, a public 

speaker, a student of economics and politics, and a manager of large and diverse 

teams to advance the goals of our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I noted at the outset that in 1939 

my mother and grandparents watched Nazi troops enter their city from their apartVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
322 

ment window in Prague. That building still stands, and it is within walking distance 

of the U.S. Ambassador’s residence where—if confirmed—I will soon be living with 

my own family. It is not a long walk, but it is quite a journey that has taken us 

from the apartment to the Residence. I am deeply honored to have been asked to 

represent the United States in Prague. I thank you for this opportunity to appear 

before you. I welcome any questions you may have. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Schapiro. 

Ms. Hachigian, I hope that I came somewhat close to pronouncing your name correctly. You are welcome to give your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF NINA HACHIGIAN, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINATED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ASSOCIATION OF 

SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS, WITH THE RANK AND STATUS 

OF AMBASSADOR 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I am deeply honored to appear before you today and 

humbled by the confidence that President Obama has shown in me 

with this nomination. My Armenian grandmother, whose locket I 

am wearing, only had a grade school education. When she came to 

this country fleeing persecution and poverty in her homeland, I do 

not think she could have imagined the path that would bring me 

here. 

Her younger son served in the U.S. Air Force during the Korean 

war. He earned a Ph.D. in math. He married another professor 

from Germany and they had a daughter, who ended up at this 

table. I am my grandmother’s American dream. My parents would 

also have been very proud of this nomination. 

I would like to introduce my husband. My family is more important to me than anything and I would not be here if Joe and my 

two children were not willing to embark on a genuine adventure. 

I also want to thank my friends and colleagues who are here with 

us today. 

I have been working on U.S. Asia policy for some 15 years now 

since I left the staff of the National Security Council, first as the 

Director of the Center for Asia Pacific Policy at the RAND Corporation and now as a senior fellow at the Center for American 

Progress. In those jobs, I traveled to the region frequently, had the 

opportunity to meet with Asian leaders and work closely with my 

Asian counterparts. 

I am thrilled by the prospect of entering government again and 

serving my country if I am confirmed as the next Ambassador to 

ASEAN. I want to acknowledge the key role the Senate has played 

in recognizing the growing importance of ASEAN, including by creating this position in 2006. 

Just as the Rebalance to Asia is an important part of the administration’s foreign policy, engagement with ASEAN plays a central 

role in the rebalance. Increasingly, the most challenging issues in 

Asia—energy security, territorial disputes, climate, human trafficking—can only be solved by nations working in concert. ASEAN 

is at the heart of Asia’s institutions, providing the architecture to 

work through these issues, and that is why Secretary Kerry said 

last year ‘‘The partnership that we share with ASEAN remains a 

top priority for the Obama administration.’’ 

323 

What binds the 10 countries of ASEAN together is their commitment to nonviolence and the rule of law. We share those values. 

We share ASEAN’s vision of a peaceful, prosperous, rules-based 

order in the Asia-Pacific. If confirmed and with your help, I will 

work with ASEAN to further our common values, including human 

rights for the people of Southeast Asia. 

The United States has other important interests in the region, 

including economic opportunity. Southeast Asia’s over 600 million 

people are already America’s fourth-largest export market, supporting over half a million U.S. jobs. ASEAN is pursuing an integrated economic community and the United States is supporting 

that effort. America is the largest foreign investor in Southeast 

Asia. If confirmed and with your help, I will continue to work to 

expand U.S. business’s access to the growing ASEAN market. 

Energy, environment, and climate are also critical issues in 

Southeast Asia. As a Californian, I especially welcome the chance 

to engage with the region on how to protect oceans and rivers, 

these critical natural resources that provide food security and economic livelihoods for so many. 

Our engagement with ASEAN is also about its people, many of 

whom are our relatives. Over 6 million Americans identify with an 

ASEAN ethnicity. The region is young—65 percent of ASEAN’s 

people are under the age of 35. With the Young Southeast Asian 

Leaders Initiative that President Obama launched in April, we are 

looking to build ties with the leaders of tomorrow, giving them a 

platform to work with each other across ASEAN borders. 

All of our interests in Southeast Asia ultimately rest on the 

peace and stability made possible by our enduring security presence in the Asia-Pacific. Two treaty allies, the Philippines and 

Thailand, are members of ASEAN. The United States response 

after Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines shows the unique capabilities that our military and civilian agencies bring to bear and demonstrates our deep and abiding commitment to addressing both traditional and nontraditional security challenges in the region. 

Half of the tonnage of the world’s ship-based cargo passes 

through the South China Sea. The United States has a national interest in the unfettered flow of this commerce and in freedom of 

navigation and overflight in these waters. We have a deep stake in 

ensuring that the territorial and maritime disputes in the South 

China Sea are solved peacefully, without coercion, force, or intimidation, and in accordance with international law. 

Unfortunately, we have seen lately what appears to be a pattern 

of unilateral actions by China to advance its territorial and maritime claims, the latest of which is China’s introduction of an oil rig 

into the disputed waters near the Paracel Islands. This is provocative and raises tensions and it highlights the need for claimants to 

clarify their claims in accordance with international law. America 

supports ASEAN’s strong and unified voice on these disputes and 

its efforts to manage them in a manner that is consistent with a 

rules-based regional order and international law. We encourage 

ASEAN and China’s efforts to conclude a meaningful code of conduct. A peaceful rules-based process will benefit all the claimants, 

big and small, and help preserve regional peace and stability. 

324 

An effective ASEAN will have lasting benefits for the region and 

for our shared future. If confirmed and with your help, I will commit myself to deepening our ties with this important organization. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to 

answer your questions now or at any time in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hachigian follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NINA HACHIGIAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to appear 

before you today, and humbled by the confidence that President Obama has shown 

in me with this nomination. 

My Armenian grandmother, whose locket I am wearing, had only a grade school 

education. When she came to this country, fleeing persecution and poverty in her 

homeland, I don’t think she could have imagined the path that would bring me here. 

Her younger son served in the U.S. Air Force during the Korean war. He earned 

a Ph.D. in math, married another professor from Germany (my mother, who later 

became a small businessowner), and they had a daughter who ended up at this 

table. 

I am my grandmother’s American dream. 

My parents would also have been very proud of this nomination. 

I would like to introduce my husband. My family is more important to me than 

anything, and I wouldn’t be here if he and our two children were not willing to 

embark on a genuine adventure. 

I’ve been working on U.S. Asia policy for some 15 years now, since I left the staff 

of the National Security Council—first as the director of the Center for Asia Pacific 

Policy at the RAND Corporation, and now as a Senior Fellow at the Center for 

American Progress. In those jobs, I traveled to the region frequently and had the 

opportunity to meet with Asian leaders and work closely with my Asian counterparts. 

I am thrilled by the prospect of entering government again, and serving my country, if confirmed as the next Ambassador to ASEAN. 

I want to acknowledge the key role that members of the Senate and of the House 

have played in recognizing the growing importance of ASEAN, including creating 

this position in 2006. I will count on your continued engagement if confirmed. 

Just as the Rebalance to Asia is an important part of the administration’s foreign 

policy, engagement with ASEAN plays a central role in the rebalance. 

Increasingly, the most challenging issues in Asia—energy security, territorial disputes, climate, human trafficking—can only be solved multilaterally. ASEAN is at 

the heart of Asia’s institutions, providing the architecture to work through these 

issues, and that is why as Secretary Kerry said last year: ‘‘The partnership that we 

share with ASEAN remains a top priority for the Obama administration.’’ 

What binds the 100 countries in ASEAN together is their commitment to nonviolence and the rule of law. We share those values, and we share ASEAN’s vision 

of a peaceful, prosperous rules-based order in the Asia-Pacific. 

If confirmed, and with your help, I will work with ASEAN to further our common 

values, including human rights for the people of Southeast Asia. 

The United States has other important interests in the region including economic 

opportunity. Southeast Asia’s over 600 million people already are America’s fourthlargest export market, supporting over half a million U.S. jobs. 

ASEAN is pursuing an integrated ASEAN Economic Community, and the United 

States is supporting that effort. In 2012, President Obama established the U.S.- 

ASEAN Expanded Economic Engagement initiative to promote increased U.S. trade 

with and investment in the region, and to encourage ASEAN countries to join highstandard trade agreements. If confirmed, and with your help, I will continue this 

work to expand U.S. businesses’ access to the growing ASEAN market, creating 

more jobs for Americans and realizing ASEAN’s own goals. 

Energy, environment, and climate are critical issues in Southeast Asia. As a Californian, I especially welcome the chance to engage with the region on how to protect 

oceans and rivers—these critical natural resources that provide food security and 

economic livelihoods for so many. 

Our engagement with ASEAN is also about its people, many of whom are our relatives. Over 6 million Americans identify with an ASEAN ethnicity. 

The region is young. Sixty-five percent of ASEAN’s people are under the age of 

35. With the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative that President Obama 

launched in April, we are looking to build ties with the leaders of tomorrow, giving 

325 

them a platform to work across ASEAN borders to solve social and economic challenges. 

All of our interests in Southeast Asia ultimately rest on the peace and stability 

made possible by our enduring security presence in the Asia-Pacific. Two treaty 

allies, the Philippines and Thailand, are members of ASEAN, and all five Pacific 

allies are members of the East Asia Summit. The U.S. response after Typhoon 

Haiyan in the Philippines shows the unique capabilities our military and civilian 

agencies bring to bear and demonstrates our deep and abiding commitment to 

addressing both traditional and nontraditional security challenges in the region. 

Half of the tonnage of the world’s ship-based cargo passes through the South 

China Sea. The United States has a national interest in the unfettered flow of this 

commerce and in freedom of navigation and overflight in these waters. 

We have a deep stake in ensuring that the territorial and maritime disputes in 

the South China Sea are solved peacefully, without coercion, force, or intimidation 

and in accordance with international law. 

Unfortunately, we have seen lately what appears to be a pattern of unilateral 

actions by China to advance its territorial and maritime claims, the latest of which 

is China’s introduction of an oil rig into disputed waters near the Paracel Islands. 

This is provocative and raises tensions, and it highlights the need for claimants to 

clarify their claims in accordance with international law. 

America supports ASEAN’s strong and unified voice on these disputes and its 

efforts to manage them in a manner that is consistent with a rules-based regional 

order and international law. We encourage ASEAN and China’s efforts to conclude 

a meaningful Code of Conduct. A peaceful, rules-based process will benefit all the 

claimants, big and small and help preserve regional peace and stability. 

An effective ASEAN will have lasting benefits for the region and for our shared 

future. If confirmed, and with your help, I will commit myself to deepening our ties 

with this important organization. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer your 

questions, now or at any time in the future. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you to both of our nominees. Welcome 

to your families as well. 

We will now start an opening round of questions. Mr. Schapiro, 

let me start with you to talk a little bit about the subject of my 

first, and I think only, visit to the Czech Republic, which was some 

years ago in the middle of the tender for the nuclear contract, 

which has now been shelved, in part likely because of energy price 

dynamics in the Czech Republic and the region. But of course, this 

was always about the Czech Republic’s efforts to make themselves 

energy independent, and maybe the price sensitivities of the market today do not allow for the tender to go forward. But hopefully 

we will have an ambassador there who will try to impress upon the 

Czechs the need to reopen this bidding process. We clearly have an 

American company that we hope gets fair consideration, but it is 

hard to figure out in the short term and the medium term how the 

Czech Republic really moves in a substantial manner to independence with respect to energy from Russia without that nuclear 

project getting under way. 

What is your understanding as you have learned about this country, about the prospects of that deal being put back together, and 

what is the role of our next Ambassador in trying to make that 

happen? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You raise a very important issue, the issue of energy independence, which has both an 

economic and a security aspect to it, as we have learned in recent 

events. As you note, the Czech Republic does rely on nuclear power 

for some of its electricity generation, and we were of course disappointed that the Temelin tender, the tender for the Temelin nuclear power plant, has been called off. 

326 

I can say that our Embassy team in the Czech Republic did wonderful work in advocating for Westinghouse in that regard. But, as 

you noted, it was essentially an economic decision by the Czech 

Government. The Czech energy company, CEZ, had asked for price 

guarantees, but, given the economic realities, the government was 

not able to make those price guarantees. 

If I am confirmed, I will make sure to advocate for and support 

an open and transparent tender process. There is word that the 

tender is not necessarily permanently taken off the shelf. 

Senator MURPHY. If you could talk a little bit about the orientation of the Czech Republic to Europe. Their former President 

Vaclav Klaus was famously Euroskeptic in his views. You have now 

got the ANO Party. The leader of that party is not supportive of 

joining the euro zone, although he is, frankly, not rabidly committed to staying out of European Union affairs. 

A lot of talk within the region about this next round of European 

Parliament elections perhaps resulting in more Euroskeptic Parliament members going to Brussels. What do you see? What do you 

understand to be the view and the trend line over the next 5 years 

of attitudes toward Europe and the EU within the Czech Republic? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. Thank you, Senator. What I can say about that 

is that the current government is generally regarded as somewhat 

more EU-centric than the government that it replaced. But as you 

correctly point out, one of the larger parties within the coalition, 

ANO, is sometimes seen as not so tilted toward Europe. So I think 

what we can draw from that is that it is very hard to predict. It 

is a relatively new government. But certainly we have seen nothing 

that causes any alarm or concern. There are strains of 

Euroskepticism in Czech politics, as in most countries in the EU. 

I would not hazard to predict how the European parliamentary 

elections, which I think are a week from today, will turn out. I 

think we will have to wait and see. But everything I have heard 

suggests that we have no cause for any alarm. 

Senator MURPHY. Ms. Hachigian, I am not sure whose phrase 

this was, but one of your focuses is on great power relationships 

and clearly that would seem to describe the relationship between 

the United States and China. But part of being a great power is 

submitting yourself to internationally acceptable ways of resolving 

disputes. One of the troubling trend lines in the part of the world 

that our subcommittee looks at over the past several months has 

been one great power, Russia’s, enthusiasm, frankly, for walking 

away from those traditional ways of dealing with disputes and disagreements. 

As you look at this pattern of aggressive activity on the open 

seas by the Chinese, do you think this is a government that is moving toward attempting to settle disputes outside of those acceptable 

norms, or do you think this is just a sort of series of provocations 

designed to lay claims so that they can settle disputes in an acceptable form? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. Thank you for that question, Senator. It is a difficult question because I do not think we really know yet. What we 

are seeing is the pattern, and it is China’s acting unilaterally to 

change the status quo and not resorting to diplomacy, which is 

327 

what the United States would want to see, that these disputes are 

resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law. 

That said, the ASEAN and China are engaged in negotiations 

over a code of conduct, and the United States would very much like 

to see that be a meaningful code that is concluded swiftly, because 

there is obviously a need for more guidelines so that there is not 

further violence in the region. 

Senator MURPHY. One of the criticisms of ASEAN is that it is a 

talk shop, that it is a forum for a lot of discussion, but not as much 

action. So take the dispute over the Paracel Islands. What is the 

role for ASEAN to play in a bilateral dispute like this and what 

is the potential for ASEAN to shed that image and deliver a little 

bit more action and a little bit less discussion? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. Thank you for that question. ASEAN has a central role in these disputes. It negotiated a declaration of conduct 

with China back in 2002, which is a document that asks for all the 

claimants to act peacefully and to not act in an escalatory manner. 

Now, as I said, it is in negotiations with China over a declaration 

of conduct. 

Over this last weekend ASEAN had its summit, and in three separate documents it talked about its serious concerns over these incidents in the South China Sea. That is significant. It shows a level 

of concern on the part of ASEAN that we have not seen before. The 

Indonesian foreign minister made some surprisingly strong statements. Of course, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister did as well. 

I think that, would we like to see even stronger statement? We 

would and if confirmed as Ambassador that is something that I will 

certainly be working on. 

The other thing I should note is that talking is actually very important in this region that does not have a history of a security architecture. So ASEAN’s forums, where the entire region can get together, China and us and many others, to talk about these issues, 

is actually playing a meaningful role. They also generate a number 

of confidence-building exercises, including those related to humanitarian response and disaster assistance. So you have all the 10 

ASEANs plus China and Japan and us and Australia and others 

working together to facilitate the future cooperation. 

Senator MURPHY. One last question and then I will turn it over 

to Senator Johnson. Has the announced pivot to Asia, whether or 

not you agree with the realization of that policy, had an effect on 

the influence of the United States representative to ASEAN, or are 

those nations waiting to see what the actual policies are that come 

after that announcement in policy shift? What has this announced 

pivot to Asia meant for the influence specifically within the association of the U.S. representative? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. I would say that having a Permanent U.S. Representative is part of the Rebalance to Asia. If confirmed, I would 

only be the second one, so we have only had one since 2010. We 

were the first non-ASEAN country to have a Permanent Representative in Jakarta at the Secretariat and that meant a lot and means 

a lot to the ASEANs. 

I think as I look at it from the outside, there is a lot going on 

in Asia, that we have a tremendous number of different kinds of 

programs across the board in economics, in security, and in democVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
328 

racy and human rights. It has been a very active policy. I think 

that an ambassador to ASEAN is able to point to all those things 

to show that we are there to stay, that we have been a Pacific 

power and we will continue to be one in the future. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms.—how do you pronounce your name? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. ‘‘Hah-CHEE-gee-an.’’ 

Senator JOHNSON. ‘‘Hah-CHEE-gee-an,’’ OK. 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. You were very close. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you draw any parallels in terms of what 

is happening in Eastern Europe, what the U.S. response has been 

to Vladimir Putin’s aggressive expansion, our reaction to it, and 

what China is doing in terms of, in your words, acting unilaterally? 

Do you draw a parallel there? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. I see the parallel that you are drawing. But we 

have very strong interests in Asia that the rebalance is all about, 

and I do not think anyone should doubt our resolve to realize those 

interests and those of our allies in the region. 

Senator JOHNSON. You are saying nobody should, but are people 

doubting our resolve? Have you spoken to some of the ASEAN 

countries and are they starting to question Americans’ resolve? 

And is that a concern to you, and how are you going to address it? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. I see your point. I think that we are doing so 

much in Asia that I do not think that they are doubting our resolve. I see the analogy that you are drawing, but these unilateral 

actions that China has been taking, they precede the annexation 

of the Ukraine and they continue to exist. I do not think that there 

has been a direct effect that I can see, although I do not know for 

certain. 

What I can say is that Putin’s annexation of the Crimea has perhaps put more pressure on China in the region to show that it actually means to resolve these disputes peacefully, as is its stated 

policy. 

Senator JOHNSON. That would be a hopeful outcome. Let us hope 

that is exactly what China is thinking. I think they are probably 

thinking something else. I think they are thinking this is probably 

a pretty good time to act, and that is a concern. 

Talk to me about the economic opportunities we have in East 

Asia? What are our greatest opportunities? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. I think we have a terrific opportunity to increase 

exports. It is already the fourth-largest market and it is growing 

rapidly. ASEAN has plans to form an integrated economic community, which over time will mean more harmonization of standards 

and regulations across the 10 countries, and I think that will make 

it a lot easier for our exporters. 

So I would say that that is a central and important opportunity 

for us, and if confirmed I will be speaking with U.S. businesses 

about how we can realize that. 

Senator JOHNSON. There has been an awful lot of talk here in 

Congress and in Washington about potential Chinese currency manipulation. I kind of happen to think that the United States is calling the—the pot calling the kettle black here. And there has been 

329 

an awful lot of reports that it is very difficult to say exactly where 

the Chinese currency value would actually fall if it were in a true 

free market. 

Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. China is a major economic player in the region, 

no question. They have strong trading relationships with ASEAN. 

But we have strong trading relations with ASEAN as well and we 

are the largest foreign investor by far. 

In terms of China’s currency, I am certainly no expert and should 

probably take that question back. 

Senator JOHNSON. That is a pretty large driver, though, of economic activity between the countries, correct, currency valuations? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. It certainly is bilaterally between us and China, 

and I assume is as well within the region. But in terms of the detailed economic analysis of that, I do not think I can get it to you 

just now. 

[The written response to Senator Johnson’s question to Nina 

Hachigian follows:] 

It is imperative that we get our relationship with China right, given the effect 

its economic policies have on the United States, including the Rebalance to Asia, 

and on the world economy. We have an interest in developing a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China that delivers benefits to both our 

countries and to the broader international community. As a part of developing this 

relationship, we must find ways to address the array of issues born of our substantial and complex bilateral economic engagement. 

The policy of the administration is to use all the tools at U.S. disposal to direct 

China toward full compliance with its international trade and commercial obligations, including its commitment to enhance exchange rate flexibility. The management of our economic relationship cuts across a range of U.S. agencies, including 

USTR and the Departments of Treasury, Commerce, Energy, and Agriculture, in addition to State. I agree with the objective of leveling the playing field in China for 

U.S. businesses and workers; however, I defer specific questions about currency to 

the Treasury Department. 

More broadly, we must remind China how both our countries benefit from China’s 

increased integration into the rules-based international economic system—and of 

the level playing field this system requires. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Schapiro, why do you not speak a little bit 

in terms of what are our greatest opportunities economically with 

the Czech Republic? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. Thank you, Senator. I am very excited to build on 

the great work that our team on the ground in the Czech Republic 

has been doing over the last 4 years under Ambassador Eisen. 

They have doubled trade between our countries, so that now the 

Czech Republic is one of our fastest growing, I think it is either the 

second- or third-fastest growing export market in Europe. 

So I want to support and encourage that type of trade. I think 

there are four things I can do in that regard. First, I think the Ambassador’s job is to be, and his team is to be, alert to opportunities 

and make sure that that gets communicated back home to companies, to businesses, to this committee. 

At the same time, we have to be advocates, and that is something that I have spent my career doing, so to be out advocating 

for U.S. companies on the ground. 

Next, I think we really need to work to build an environment in 

which free trade allows both our country and the Czech Republic 

to really reap the benefits of economic growth. For that reason, 

pressing and encouraging the Czechs, who are already essentially 

330 

on board with the TTIP treaty—there are still discussions going on, 

but they have been supporters. Working to make sure they help the 

European Union get that across the finish line with us would be 

the third thing I would want to do. 

Then fourth, as Senator Murphy said, I think before you were 

coming in, is to do all I can to level the playing field by pressing 

for rule of law and advancing the anticorruption efforts that we already have under way, especially in procurement. If you are a U.S. 

company coming in, you need to know that the rules are going to 

apply by one yardstick to everyone. 

Senator JOHNSON. So specifically in what product areas or service areas have exports grown, and are those the same areas that 

there is renewed or increased opportunity in the future, or are 

there some other areas as well? Specifically with the product or 

service areas? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. The U.S. exporting to the Czech Republic, I know 

that we have increased exports in high tech and that we also have 

large resource and development capabilities that some American 

companies have placed in the Czech Republic. In turn, the Czechs 

mainly export manufactured goods to the United States. 

I think there is a great deal of opportunity, but I probably will 

need to be on the ground and surveying the landscape before I can 

opine as to whether one sector or another is best for us. We had 

hoped that the area of nuclear energy would be one and, as we discussed earlier, there still may be some hope to revise that effort. 

That is certainly something that creates a tremendous amount of 

jobs back here in the United States. 

Senator JOHNSON. Both Senator Murphy and I have been involved in meetings with European partners and there is always a 

great deal of vocal support for TTIP in general, but then it kind 

of gets down to the specific issues. Are you aware of any specific 

trouble spots in terms of negotiating TTIP that will come out of the 

Czech Republic? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. Nothing unique to the Czech Republic, other than 

there are some concerns about farmers markets and whether farmers markets and agriculture will be affected in a way that hurts 

Czech farmers. I think that is not the case, and so one of my jobs— 

and I know our team is already doing this—will be to make sure 

that the story gets out about how a mutually beneficial treaty between the United States and the European Union can benefit everyone. 

But the short answer to your question is there are no large concerns on the horizon that we have heard, nothing different from 

what we are seeing in many of the European countries. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

One of the things that both of us have observed as we have 

watched the crisis in the Ukraine and on Russia’s borders play out 

is that, as we are increasingly concerned about security interests, 

we tend to spend a little bit less time focusing on some of the 

human rights issues and problems inside places like Russia. It is 

a convenient distraction from some of the very serious issues regarding the freedom of civil society. 

331 

I think the same thing plays out in Southeast Asia as well. As 

we are focused on these almost daily security concerns, we maybe 

lose sight of some of our interests in promoting human rights. 

That is an opening to ask a broad question to you, Ms. 

Hachigian, over this question of what ASEAN’s role is in promoting 

human rights in the region. I just noted the recent decision of 

Brunei to institute fairly strict sharia law, including floggings for 

abortions and adultery. What is the role that we play within 

ASEAN on the issue of human rights and how aggressive will 

ASEAN itself be in trying to work on those issues? 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. The issue of human rights is very important to 

me. When I was in college I spent some time at an antiapartheid 

organization in South Africa. I went to Afghanistan to do some research on the placement of land mines in civilian areas. In my first 

trip to Southeast Asia I was part of a Navy program to train Cambodian military officers in human rights and the rule of law. So 

these are personal—this is a personal interest to me. 

I think if you look at the region overall the human rights situation has gotten quite a bit better over the last 20, 30 years. But 

there are still pockets of real need for improvement, including the 

Rohingya in Burma and freedom of expression in Vietnam and 

then, as you say, sharia law in Brunei. 

ASEAN has a few years ago established a human rights commission, and the United States has been working with that commission from the beginning. If confirmed I will continue to work to try 

to make that a more effective body than it currently is. 

When it comes to sharia law in Brunei, I know that our bilateral 

embassy is engaged on this issue. I think it comes down to it being 

important that a nation’s laws conform with its international obligations on human rights. Some of the physical corporal punishment 

associated with that law, if implemented, as you point out, would 

be inconsistent with international obligations. 

Senator MURPHY. One additional question for you, Mr. Schapiro. 

We have danced a little bit around Ukraine here today. The Czechs 

have been very strong, frankly, in their at least language and rhetoric that they have used surrounding the provocations of Russia in 

Eastern Ukraine and the invasion and annexation of Crimea. What 

is the disposition as you understand it of the Czech Republic with 

respect to the next level sanctions, possible sectoral industry-wide 

sanctions, that will have an economic effect on major Russian trading partners like the Czech Republic? We have heard a lot of strong 

talk from some of our European partners, but not necessarily corresponding action. 

I am one, and I think others on the committee join me, in believing that it is probably about time for the United States to move out 

on our own with respect to stronger sanctions. 

What do you understand to be the disposition of the Czech Republic? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. I think I would describe the disposition as cautious, Senator. As you note, the Czechs have thus far stood side by 

side with us. There is no daylight between our positions. They have 

implemented the sanctions that are in place thus far and they have 

most recently condemned the May 10 referenda in Eastern 

332 

Ukraine. No major media outlets in the Czech Republic are tilting 

pro-Russian in any way. 

That being said, Russia is a significant trading partner of the 

Czech Republic. They get 70 to 80 percent of their gas and oil from 

the Russians. So they face competing concerns. I think my job as 

Ambassador, if confirmed, will be to continue to try and, through 

public engagement and through private meetings with the government, do all I can to support those who will stand with us, because 

the Czechs do recognize—and this is one of the sources of the 

strong support that you describe—they understand that you cannot 

be asleep at the wheel when there is a dangerous power not too far 

away. They had the experience of the late 1930s, they had the experience of 1968. So I think they get it. 

All that being said, it is true there would be some significant economic pain if we go to sectoral sanctions. 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. I would just ask you in your capacity as our next 

Ambassador to convey a very strong message that this assumption 

of security based on NATO membership comes with limitations. 

One limitation is that the United States cannot continue to provide 

70 percent of the funding. We cannot allow for countries like the 

Czech Republic to come in with only 1 percent of their GDP. I was 

glad that your opening remarks talked about your intention to 

press that point. 

But secondarily, what Putin is perfecting is an ability to rattle 

nations and gain control of portions of their society and public affairs without a transparent invasion through military force. That 

should worry every single NATO member because we have an Article 5 obligation to protect NATO members, but the question is if 

the kind of tactics that Putin is using in places like Eastern 

Ukraine start to be used in a NATO country, a Czech Republic or 

a Hungary or a Baltic State, there is a legitimate question as to 

what our Article 5 responsibility is. 

That is why, even with the pain that may come with engaging 

in tougher sanctions, our European allies especially on the eastern 

edge of the continent I would hope should be willing to deal with 

some of that temporary economic pain to make sure that those kind 

of tactics are not visited upon their country, posing a pretty significant and troublesome question about what NATO’s response will 

be. 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. I could not agree with you more. 

Senator MURPHY. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think Putin is perfecting that technique because he is not paying a price. Mr. Schapiro, you talked about the Czech Republic’s dependence on Russian oil. As Ambassador, would you advocate for 

opening up those oil markets so we can end Vladimir Putin’s basic 

monopoly on oil and gas supply to not only the Czech Republic, but 

the Ukraine and other parts of Europe? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. Well, I am pleased to say that the Czechs have 

increased storage capacity and made investments in reversible 

pipeline technology. We support that. I will encourage Czech efforts 

to diversify their energy sources, to liberalize EU energy markets, 

to increase interconnectivity of European energy supply works. 

333 

I was pleased to read that I think just yesterday, I believe it was 

the V–4—Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic—announced their intention to come up with a plan to deal with any 

potential shutoff of Russian gas and oil, because I think this has 

to be a wakeup call for them, and that is a message I intend to 

bring. 

Senator JOHNSON. But just storing Russian oil is not the answer. 

They actually have to get supplied from other places. Certainly I 

think the United States has the capability of doing it, and I think 

it would be helpful if people on the ground there could advocate 

back to the administration. It would be very helpful to start, for example, to allow those LNG permit applications to proceed forward. 

Just that announcement I think would be helpful. 

Earlier today I read a report that the Czech Defense Minister 

said that he sees no NATO troops stationed on Czech soil. Do you 

have any further information on that? Have you heard about that, 

and what that posture is? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. I do, Your Honor—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Close enough. 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. It is my former job as a lawyer. [Laughter.] 

Senator Johnson, yes. The Czech Defense Minister’s comment— 

I think it was to a Reuters reporter—about seeing no need for 

NATO troops to be stationed on Czech soil caused a bit of an uproar over the last 2 days in the Czech Republic. He was roundly 

criticized by all of the parties in the government, including the 

Prime Minister. He has essentially walked that back, said that his 

comments were taken out of context by Reuters, he was talking 

about permanent stationing of troops. 

In response to this, the lower house of the Czech legislature 

just—it was either yesterday or today; I am not sure about how the 

time difference plays into this—passed a new resolution stating 

that they will comply with all NATO obligations. So I was pleased 

to see that it created and expression of support for NATO. 

Senator JOHNSON. So you would anticipate, then, that the Czech 

Republic—and you would potentially help advocate for this—could 

potentially host training exercises as somewhat a show of strength 

and resolve against Vladimir Putin’s actions? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. I think—I could be wrong about this, but I think 

the Czech Republic has already stated that it would be open to 

hosting training exercises. I know that the Defense Minister was 

here in April and met with Secretary Hagel and National Security 

Adviser Rice. It is possible that I am mistaken about that with regard to exercises, but I believe that is accurate. 

Look. Anything that we ask the Czechs to do as a part of NATO 

or that NATO wants to do that involves the Czech Republic is 

something that is going to need to be worked out through a dialogue with our Czech partners, and my job will be to facilitate that 

dialogue and advance our interests. 

Senator JOHNSON. I would like to ask both the nominees—and 

we will start with Mr. Schapiro. When we were over in the 

Ukraine, I think, one of the most important messages we heard is 

that the propaganda coming out of Vladimir Putin and Russia is 

incredibly effective. I think we see it in Venezuela. We have these 

very dictatorial regimes in total control of the media. 

334 

My concern, across the board, is that America has pretty well 

withdrawn from providing the truth and providing information. My 

final question to both of you is your assessment of that and what 

do you think we can do in the countries that you are going to be 

representing the United States in, to hopefully increase our efforts? 

Mr. SCHAPIRO. It is a real issue, Senator. A few weeks ago I 

turned on my television in a hotel room and I was watching what 

I thought was an ordinary news program. This was here in Washington. And after about 4 minutes I realized, something just seems 

off about this. Then I realized I was watching RT, the Russian faux 

cable news channel. I can see how, to those who do no view it necessarily with a critical eye, it is fairly sophisticated. That is a real 

issue. 

The Czechs have a good history of partnering with us to counter 

Russian disinformation. Back after the fall of the Iron Curtain, 

Vaclav Havel, who was then the President of the Czech Republic, 

invited Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty to move from Germany to 

Prague. So RFE and Radio Liberty are now located in the Czech 

Republic. Of course a lot of what they do is beamed toward other 

areas of the world, but some of it is Russian language. 

I think, in light of what has happened, no one should be blind 

to the danger that that type of propaganda poses, and as Ambassador, if confirmed, I will encourage and support all of our efforts 

to push back. 

I will say, though, I think one of our great strengths is that those 

who pay attention understand that when they look at our country 

and the diversity of voices and CNN and Fox and MSN and NBC, 

I think people can tell the difference. I would not want to fall into 

any ham-handed propaganda, but I do not think that is what you 

are suggesting. 

Senator JOHNSON. No. The problem is so many people just live 

their lives and they are not paying attention, not closely. So when 

they are inundated with propaganda from Vladimir Putin’s Russia 

or from the dictators now in Venezuela or other places, there is just 

no pushback. 

I think one of the problems we have, whether we are talking 

about the human rights abuses within Muslim countries, requires 

a real concerted effort to provide real information. 

So I just throw that question to you as well. 

Ms. HACHIGIAN. Thank you, Senator. I think this is why our continued advocacy for freedom of the media in all these countries is 

really important. I do think, though, that actions speak louder than 

words, and even in a country where media is controlled, as in Vietnam, the message of China’s recent actions has really come 

through. As you know, there have been protests across the country. 

I think, similarly, our actions and what we did in Typhoon 

Haiyan in the Philippines, that is real. That is showing a real commitment, and that is better than any propaganda. We just have to 

make sure we can get the message out about what we are actually 

doing. I think that is the challenge. That is what public diplomacy 

is all about and what, if confirmed, I will help to try to do. 

Senator JOHNSON. I agree, actions speak far louder than words, 

and that is a lesson we can learn in other areas as well. 

Thank you. 

335 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. 

Thank you both for your testimony today. I think you have acquitted yourselves very well. We are going to keep the record open 

for a short period of time. We are going to keep it open just until 

tomorrow at 5 o’clock. So if we do get any questions in, we hope 

that you can turn them around very, very quickly, in part because 

we are going to try to move your nominations through the committee very, very quickly. So the record will be open until Friday 

at 5. You will try to turn any questions around as quickly as possible. 

Thank you for your participation today, and with that this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(337) 

NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT STEPHEN 

BEECROFT, STUART E. JONES, DANA SHELL 

SMITH, JAMES D. NEALON, AND GENTRY O. 

SMITH 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. Robert Stephen Beecroft, of California, to be Ambassador to 

the Arab Republic of Egypt 

Hon. Stuart E. Jones, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Iraq 

Dana Shell Smith, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the State of 

Qatar 

James D. Nealon, of New Hampshire, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Honduras 

Gentry O. Smith, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Office of 

Foreign Missions 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Murphy, Kaine, Corker, Risch, 

Rubio, Johnson, and Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee will come to order. 

For our first panel today, we have nominees for U.S. Ambassadors to Egypt, Iraq, and Qatar. 

In Egypt on Sunday, the former Minister of Defense, Field Marshall Sisi, was sworn into office. But, as we all know, a sustainable 

democratic transition is about more than elections. I remain concerned by the state of media repression in Egypt, the intimidation 

and detention of activists, mass death sentences, and the disproportionate use of force by Egypt’s security services. That said, the people of Egypt have taken to the streets to protest successive governments, and there is no reason not to expect protests again if the 

Sisi government is unable to deliver on its promises. 

338 

Ultimately, my goal is to find a way forward for the United 

States/Egypt partnership, which means maintaining the peace 

treaty between Israel and Egypt, and a strong defense in counterterrorism partnership. When it comes to assistance, continued U.S. 

aid must be based on the totality of our shared interests. And this 

now includes the Egyptian Government taking steps toward a sustainable democratic transition. That is not only my view, but a 

legal requirement of the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act. So, 

that said, I look forward to hearing from Ambassador Beecroft on 

his views. 

In Iraq, while political leaders are dealmaking to form a government, the Iraqi people are not benefiting from their country’s increased oil output, and the conflict continues to surge in western 

Iraq, as the spillover from Syria has enabled the Islamic state of 

Iraq and Syria to take hold. Clearly, we must continue to support 

the Iraqi Security Forces, but I am concerned by reports that they 

have been using barrel bombs in their operations. Syria’s questions 

remain unanswered: Iraq’s role in Syria, the activities of Iraqi Shia 

militias fighting with Assad security forces, Iranian influence in 

Iraq, and the commitment of the Iraqi Government to protect the 

residents of Camp Liberty until we can conclude a resettlement 

process. So, Ambassador Jones, I look forward to your perspectives 

and analysis. 

Qatar presents another set of issues. I know that there are many 

who have questions about the context of the negotiations, the 

Qatari Government’s role in facilitating the talks, and its commitments regarding the status of the Taliban detainees. However, 

Qatar’s multifaceted strategic importance goes far beyond its facilitating role in the Bergdahl/Taliban deal. So, I sincerely hope that 

this hearing does not denigrate into a political debate that demands answers the nominee does not have and ultimately holds up 

the process, leaving us with no ambassador on the ground to enforce the terms of the agreement. This is not the time to debate 

those terms. It is time to confirm an ambassador who will enforce 

them. I look forward to hearing from you, and to hearing about 

what you see as your role in Qatar, broadly, as well as on this 

issue. If you are confirmed, I am monitoring this commitment, and 

I want to make it clear that Congress will play an active oversight 

role on this issue. That said, I look forward to hearing from the 

nominee on the many facets of Qatar’s broader strategic importance. 

With that, let me turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, 

Senator Corker, for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks, to all three of you, for your desire to serve in this 

way. We obviously have three very qualified nominees, and going 

to very, very important places. 

And I think, to a lesser degree in Qatar, but certainly to a degree, there are two issues that overwhelmingly will affect the service of both Ambassador Jones and Beecroft, and that is the black 

hole that we have right now in Syria. 

339 

And I know that both of you have already experienced that in the 

countries in which you are serving right now and the fact that we 

have never really put in place any kind of policy or strategy, or 

even laid out what our objectives are clearly. And that is obviously 

having a very destabilizing effect on Iraq and Jordan, where both 

of you have been. 

We also have a situation where there is just no regional strategy. 

You know, the administration, unfortunately, continues to hide behind, you know, classified briefings and those kind of things, and 

is unable to lay out a coherent strategy for the region. And so, 

again, all three of you enter places where that has created significant difficulties. And again, I thank you for your desire to serve in 

that way. 

Egypt, since 2011, there has been no stabilization there. The 

country is really no better off, relative to many of the issues that 

we care about, than it was. I do have hopes—maybe greater hopes 

than our chairman just mentioned—for Egypt, going forward. And 

I know that they are a very important relationship for our country. 

Iraq, we are continuing to read daily the devolution that is taking place there. You feel it on the ground. The lack of involvement 

that we have had in helping shape things on the ground is very, 

very apparent, and I know we will talk about that during Q&A. 

And in Qatar, because of our inability or lack of desire or just 

whatever in taking a lead, relative to the Syrian opposition, Qatar 

obviously has taken a role that has been unhealthy. I understand 

that may be tapering back some now, but that is a very, very important relationship. 

So, I look forward to our questions and answers. I want to thank 

each of you again for the lives you have led that have made you 

so qualified for the positions that you are ascending to. And I 

thank you for being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Corker. 

Let me again welcome our first panel of nominees, all decorated 

career Foreign Service officers. None is a stranger to demanding, 

consuming critical assignments, both domestically and abroad. And 

we thank them and their families for their past service, and for 

their willingness to serve again in very challenging roles. 

Let me introduce them. They are Robert Stephen Beecroft, to be 

Ambassador to Egypt; Stuart E. Jones, to be Ambassador to Iraq; 

and Dana Shell Smith, to be the Ambassador to Qatar. 

Ambassador Beecroft has undertaken difficult assignments in the 

most critical countries for U.S. national security and strategic interests. He is a career Foreign Service officer with the rank of minister counselor, and currently serves as Ambassador to the U.S. 

Embassy in Baghdad. 

Stuart E. Jones also is no stranger to demanding assignments in 

the most strategic, pressing areas for the United States. He is a career Foreign Service officer with the rank of career minister. He is 

currently serving as our Ambassador in Amman, Jordan, and has 

served twice as the deputy chief of mission in Baghdad, and in our 

Embassy in Egypt. 

Dana Shell Smith is truly a global diplomat, having served 

throughout the world in her capacity as a public affairs officer. She, 

too, is a career Foreign Service officer, with the rank of minister 

340 

counselor, and currently serves as senior advisor to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. 

So, let me join Senator Corker in thanking you all for your service, both past and moving forward in the future. 

We have a larger audience than we normally have for nominees, 

so I assume that maybe there are some family members or friends 

present. If they are here with you, we would urge you to introduce 

them to the committee when you have your time to testify. We understand and appreciate that families are a big part of the sacrifice 

and the service, and we honor their willingness to have you serve 

our country while they, themselves, face sacrifices as a result of it. 

Your full statements will be included in the record, without objection, so we ask you to summarize your openings in about 5 minutes or so, so we can enter into a dialogue with you. 

And, with that, we will start off with you, Ambassador Beecroft, 

then Ambassador Jones, and then move to Ms. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Thank you very much, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, other members of the committee. I 

am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee 

to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt. I 

am deeply grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for 

their support and confidence, and, if confirmed, I look forward to 

working closely with you and other Members of Congress to advance the interests of the United States. 

I am also pleased to share this hearing with my colleagues, Stu 

Jones and Dana Smith. I look forward to working closely with them 

on the many issues facing the United States in the Middle East. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent much of my career working in the 

Middle East, including assignments in Syria and Saudi Arabia, and 

as Ambassador to Jordan and to Iraq. My experience has made me 

acutely aware of Egypt’s strategic importance inside and outside 

the region, and the need for effective U.S. engagement with Egypt. 

As the most populous Arab country, Egypt represents fully a quarter of the Arab world. It also hosts the Arab League. Its long-standing cultural influence and importance as an opinion leader and 

bellwether for trends across the region is well known. Egypt is the 

third-largest market for U.S. goods and services in the Middle 

East, and the United States is the second-largest source of foreign 

direct investment in Egypt. 

Approximately 8 percent of global maritime commerce flows 

through the Suez Canal every year, and a total of 427 U.S.-flagged 

vessels, including over 85 U.S. military vessels, moved over 1.9 billion tons of cargo through the Suez in 2013. 

And I cannot stress enough the importance of Egypt’s upholding 

of its peace treaty with Israel, which has delivered over 35 years 

of stability to the region. After repeated conflicts, beginning in 

1948, the two countries have not seen war since 1973. Conditions 

in Egypt, thus, have implications for the security of Israel and our 

allies in the Arab world and beyond. Increased instability in Egypt 

would not only open space for violent extremist strongholds, but 

341 

also encourage migrant flight. It would threaten global commerce 

with an ensuing ripple effect on international economies. 

For these reasons and more, we have crucial interests in Egypt: 

preserving regional peace and stability with Israel and all of 

Egypt’s neighbors, countering the transnational threats of terrorism and weapons trafficking, creating economic prosperity and 

increased opportunities for foreign investment, and building inclusive democratic institutions and civil societies that undermine the 

conditions for violent extremism and form the bedrock of prosperous, equitable economic growth. As President Obama said in his 

May 28 address at West Point, support for human rights and democracy goes beyond idealism. It is a matter of national security. 

While views on how to advance our interests in Egypt may differ, 

there is agreement that Egypt’s success as a secure, prosperous, 

and pluralistic democratic state remains vitally important to the 

United States. If confirmed, I commit to work with Congress to 

help achieve this goal and promote a constructive United States/ 

Egypt partnership that furthers our interests. 

I want to commend the American personnel and local staff at our 

U.S. mission who have been carrying out courageous and difficult 

work during a tumultuous time. The mission has remained actively 

engaged with Egyptian Government officials, political parties, and 

civil society. Twelve cabinet-level agencies at the mission are advancing our national security objectives, protecting the welfare of 

American citizens and business, and pursuing our work with the 

Government and people of Egypt. If confirmed as Ambassador, I 

look forward to joining in their efforts. 

It is a distinct honor to have been nominated by President 

Obama to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, and I thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker, I look forward to answering any questions you or members of the committee 

may have. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Beecroft follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, 

I am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to serve as the 

U.S. Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt. I am deeply grateful to President 

Obama and Secretary Kerry for their support and confidence, and if confirmed, I 

look forward to working closely with you and other Members of Congress to advance 

the interests of the United States. 

I am also pleased to share this hearing with Stuart Jones and Dana Smith. I look 

forward to working closely with them on the many issues facing the region. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent much of my career working in the Middle East, including assignments in Syria and Saudi Arabia and as Ambassador to Jordan and 

to Iraq. My experience has made me acutely aware of Egypt’s strategic importance 

inside and outside the region and the need for effective U.S. engagement with 

Egypt: as the most populous Arab country, Egypt represents fully a quarter of the 

Arab world. It also hosts the Arab League. Its long-standing cultural influence and 

importance as an opinion leader and bellwether for trends across the region is wellknown. Egypt is the third-largest market for U.S. goods and services in the Middle 

East, and the United States is the second-largest source of foreign direct investment 

in Egypt. Approximately 8 percent of global maritime commerce flows through the 

Suez Canal every year, and a total of 427 U.S. flagged vessels—including over 85 

U.S. military vessels—moved over 1.9 billion tons of cargo through the Suez in 2013. 

And I cannot stress enough the importance of Egypt’s upholding of its Peace Treaty 

342 

with Israel, which has delivered over 35 years of stability to the region. After repeated conflicts beginning in 1948, the two countries have not seen war since 1973. 

In the ensuing years, Egypt has even played a constructive role supporting our mediation on other tracks of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. 

Conditions in Egypt thus have implications for the security of Israel and our allies 

in the Arab world and beyond. Increased instability in Egypt would not only open 

space for violent extremist strongholds, but also encourage migrant flight that could 

place added strain on our Southern European allies. It would threaten global commerce, with an ensuing ripple effect on international economies. 

For these reasons and more, we have crucial interests in Egypt: preserving regional peace and stability with Israel and all of Egypt’s neighbors; countering the 

transnational threats of terrorism and weapons trafficking; creating economic prosperity and increased opportunities for foreign investment; and building inclusive, 

democratic institutions and civil societies that deter the emergence of violent extremism and form the bedrock of prosperous, equitable economic growth. As President 

Obama said in his May 28 address at West Point, ‘‘. . . support for human rights 

and democracy goes beyond idealism—it is a matter of national security.’’ 

While views on how to advance our interests in Egypt may differ, there is agreement that Egypt’s success as a secure, prosperous, pluralistic, and democratic state 

remains vitally important to the United States. If confirmed, I commit to work with 

Congress to help achieve this goal and promote a constructive U.S.-Egypt partnership that furthers our interests. 

I want to commend the American personnel and local staff at our U.S. mission 

who have been carrying out courageous and difficult work during a tumultuous 

time. The mission has remained actively engaged with Egyptian Government officials, political parties, and civil society. Twelve Cabinet-level agencies at the mission 

are advancing our national security objectives, protecting the welfare of American 

citizens and business, and pursuing our work with the Government and people of 

Egypt. If confirmed as Ambassador, I look forward to joining in their efforts. 

It is a distinct honor to have been nominated by President Obama to serve as U.S. 

Ambassador to Egypt, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker, I look forward to answering any questions you or members of the committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ambassador Jones. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STUART E. JONES, OF VIRGINIA, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ 

Ambassador JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Corker, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I am 

deeply honored today to appear as President Obama’s nominee to 

be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq. I am 

grateful to the President and to the Secretary for their confidence 

in me. If confirmed, I will work closely with you to advance U.S. 

goals in Iraq. 

I look forward to building on the excellent work of my predecessor and friend, Ambassador Steve Beecroft, who is, of course, 

with us today, and I am also delighted to share this panel with 

Dana Smith, a valued colleague of many years. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce 

my daughter, Dorothy Jones, a rising sophomore at Duke University. She flew up from Atlanta to be with me here today. My wife, 

Barbara, and two sons, Thaddeus and Woody, are in Amman. I am 

grateful that my family has been game for every new posting. 

Mr. Chairman, I am both humbled and thrilled to have the opportunity to serve as Chief of Mission at the American Embassy in 

Baghdad, one our largest and most complex diplomatic missions. I 

have served in Iraq twice, as you mentioned, and as Director for 

Iraq Affairs on the National Security Council. These jobs have 

helped me to prepare for the complexity and challenges of the assignment ahead. 

343 

We are all familiar with the history of Iraq’s past decade. It is 

impossible to serve in Iraq without recalling and honoring the sacrifice and achievement of our U.S. service men and women and civilians. More than 4,000 lost their lives there, but they also put an 

end to the oppression and regional threat of the Saddam Hussein 

regime. Today, we are all committed to help build a new Iraq, secure in its borders, with strong democratic institutions, where all 

can benefit from its abundant resources. 

Iraq has, indeed, made important economic and democratic 

progress, but is now engaged in a fierce battle against ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, one of the most dangerous terrorist 

groups in the world. Monday’s coordinated attack on Mosul in 

which ISIL militants overran parts of the city highlights just how 

dangerous this group is. We will continue to work with our international partners to try to meet the needs of those who have been 

displaced, and we will look for ways to support the government and 

the security forces in their conflict with ISIL. 

Overall, violence in Iraq has reached levels not seen since the 

height of the U.S. surge in 2007. Suicide vests and vehicle bomb 

attacks are averaging nearly 70 per month since the beginning of 

this year. The United States has taken important steps to help 

Iraq combat this shared enemy. We have provided urgently needed 

military equipment through the foreign military sales process, and 

the Iraqis have told us that our equipment and advice are making 

a critical difference. I would like to thank this panel for making 

these transfers possible. 

In addition to military equipment transfers, we have strengthened our information-sharing relationships and are developing programs to improve border security. We have also initiated a highlevel dialogue between our senior military leadership and key Iraqi 

military commanders. 

Security assistance, however, is only one element of our assistance, and it is connected to intense political and economic engagement. The United States has also encouraged Iraq to adopt a holistic strategy to isolate ISIL from the population and develop a strategy for sustainable security. This strategy will require continued 

engagement between Iraq’s political leaders, Sunni tribal leaders, 

and others. 

From a political standpoint, Iraq’s successful national election on 

April 30 was a victory for efforts to strengthen Iraq’s democratic 

institutions. While Prime Minister Maliki’s State of Law Coalition 

won more seats than any other, it fell short of the 165 needed to 

form a majority government. Government formation is an Iraqiowned process, and it will be up to Iraq’s political leaders to form 

a government that reflects the will have the people, as expressed 

in the April 30 election. 

Despite Iraq’s political and security challenges, its tremendous 

economic growth over the last decade has been impressive. Iraq’s 

economy has averaged 6.5-percent growth since 2005. It is now producing 3.2 million barrels of oil per day. 

The United States and Iraq have partnered to share best practices on fossil fuel production and exports. We are engaged with the 

Government of Iraq on capturing gas for power generation and on 

political issues related to hydrocarbon revenue management. The 

344 

government also faces a challenge in its natural resources—in distributing the wealth created by its natural resources to its population and to use its oil wealth to promote growth in other sectors. 

Iraq’s economic growth offers exciting opportunities for U.S. 

firms, particularly in key sectors, such as infrastructure development and construction. If confirmed, I look forward to promoting 

Secretary Kerry’s Shared Prosperity agenda as Ambassador to 

Iraq. 

Mr. Chairman, as I have discussed, Iraq poses a challenging security environment. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will bear responsibility for the safety of all U.S. personnel in Iraq, including 

at Embassy Baghdad and our consulates in Erbil and Basrah. If 

confirmed, I will work closely with our security team on the 

ground, as well as with our diplomatic security professionals back 

here in Washington, to ensure that our people are well protected. 

This will be my highest priority, as well as to protect the safety of 

American citizens in Iraq. 

Since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in 2011, the Embassy and 

consulates have significantly reduced our staffing. As of June 2014, 

we have approximately 5,300 staff, just one-third of our 2012 footprint. If confirmed, I will continue to examine staffing levels to ensure that we have the appropriate number of personnel to carry out 

our mission. 

Our diplomatic efforts are supported by a highly skilled team of 

individuals at the Embassy in Iraq, and they represent a wide 

range of U.S. departments and agencies. This whole-of-government 

approach allows us to bring the very best experts our government 

has to offer and address some of the challenges I have raised with 

you today. I would like to thank everyone at the Embassy in Iraq 

for their service, as well as the leadership back here in Washington, including this committee, that makes this level of interagency coordination possible. Our continued success in Iraq depends on continued collaboration. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 

the opportunity to address you today. I appreciate and value this 

committee’s oversight of our efforts in Iraq. And, if confirmed, I 

look forward to welcoming you and your respective staff members 

to Baghdad. Your continued engagement on the policy issues that 

we face in Iraq are a vital element in ensuring our success. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jones follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY STUART E. JONES

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, members of the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you today, as President 

Obama’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq. I am 

grateful to the President and to Secretary Kerry for their confidence in me. If confirmed, I will work closely with you to advance U.S. goals in Iraq. I look forward 

to building on the excellent work of my predecessor and friend, Ambassador Steve 

Beecroft, who is of course, here today. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my daughter, 

Dorothy Jones, a rising sophomore at Duke University. She flew up from Atlanta 

to be with me today. My wife, Barbara, a former Foreign Service officer and current 

civil servant, is in Amman with our sons, Thaddeus and Woody, so they could not 

join us. I am grateful for our children’s support for this assignment and throughout 

our Foreign Service careers. 

345 

Mr. Chairman, I am both humbled and thrilled to have the opportunity to serve 

as chief of mission at American Embassy Baghdad, one of our largest and most complex diplomatic missions. I had the honor of serving as Deputy Chief of Mission in 

Baghdad. I also served as the Governorate Coordinator in Ramadi, in Anbar province under the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004. Later I was Director for Iraq 

Affairs on the National Security Council staff here in Washington. These jobs have 

helped me prepare for the complexity and challenges of the assignment ahead. 

We are all familiar with the history of Iraq’s past decade. It is impossible to serve 

in Iraq without recalling and honoring the sacrifice and achievement of our U.S. 

service men and women and civilians. More than 4,000 Americans lost their lives 

to give the Iraqi people a chance at a better future. Today we are committed to helping build a new Iraq, which has moved beyond the isolation and oppression of its 

past, with secure borders, strong democratic institutions, and where all citizens benefit from its abundant resources. 

On April 30, Iraq held its first national elections since the departure of U.S. 

forces. As they did in 2005 and 2010, Iraq’s citizens overcame terrorist threats and 

exercised their franchise. 

Today, Iraq is also producing around 3.2 million barrels of oil per day. It is one 

of the major contributors to the world oil market and this oil wealth has placed Iraq 

on the path to economic self-sufficiency. Iraqi oil exports have also made it possible 

to sustain the international sanctions on Iran without cost to the world economy. 

While we are encouraged by these developments, we also recognize that the 

Republic of Iraq is now engaged in a fierce fight against the Islamic State of Iraq 

and the Levant, or ISIL. The complex, coordinated attack on Mosul on Monday, in 

which ISIL militants overran parts of the city, highlights just how dangerous this 

group is. ISIL now controls much of Iraq’s second-largest city, and thousands of people have been forced to flee in the last several days, according to the U.N. The Iraqi 

security forces are responding together with Kurdish Peshmerga forces. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, and will work with our international partners 

to try to meet the needs of those who have been displaced. 

Overall, violence in Iraq has reached levels not seen since height of U.S. surge 

in 2007. Suicide vest and vehicle bomb attacks are averaging nearly 70 per month 

since the beginning of this year. Most of these were carried out by foreign fighters, 

who use Syria as a safe haven to conduct attacks in Iraq. The U.N. has reported 

that in May 2014 alone, 799 Iraqi civilians were killed by acts of terrorism. 

ISIL overtook the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi on January 1 of this year. Iraqi 

security forces cooperated successfully with Sunni tribal groups to largely push 

them out of Ramadi. But ISIL still occupies Fallujah and poses a threat to the Iraqi 

state and its neighbors. 

The United States has taken important steps to help Iraq combat this shared 

enemy. We have provided urgently needed military equipment through the Foreign 

Military Sales process. I would like to thank the members of this committee for 

their leadership, and the Congress for making these transfers possible. In addition 

to military equipment transfers, we have strengthened our information-sharing relationships, and are developing programs to improve border security. We have also 

initiated a high-level dialogue between our senior military leadership and key Iraqi 

military commanders, coupled with training for Iraqi security forces. 

Security assistance, however, is only one element of our assistance, and it is connected to intense political and economic engagement. Accordingly, the U.S. has also 

encouraged Iraq to adopt a holistic strategy to isolate ISIL from the population and 

develop a strategy for sustainable security. This includes incorporating tribal fighters from Anbar, Ninewa, and Salah ah Din into their security framework to protect 

the populations in their towns and villages. This strategy, which was employed successfully during the U.S. military surge in 2007, will also require continued engagement between Iraq’s political leaders and Sunni tribal leaders to effectively defeat 

ISIL. We are also encouraging Iraqi political and security leaders to ensure that 

their difficult fight against ISIL is conducted in a manner that protects the civilian 

population and adheres to the rule of law. 

I already mentioned Iraq’s successful elections. Turnout nationally was just over 

60 percent. It is notable that turnout in Anbar province, where ISIL is most active, 

was 45 percent. Iraq’s security forces protected more than 50,000 polling stations 

on April 30, and with support the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq, Iraq’s Independent High Election Commission worked to provide Iraq’s 21 million eligible voters the ability to vote. While Prime Minister Maliki’s State of Law coalition won 

more seats than any other, it fell short of parliamentary majority that is required 

under the Iraqi Constitution to form a government. 

We will encourage all sides to work together to swiftly form a new government 

that is representative of all Iraqis. This is an Iraqi-owned process, and it will be 

346 

up to Iraq’s political leaders to form a government that reflects the will of the people 

as expressed in the April 30 election. We hope they will pay special attention to the 

rights and interests of the religious and ethnic minority populations, including the 

sizeable Christian community. Our mission in Iraq has worked hard—especially as 

ISIL attacks have escalated in the last year—to urge the Government of Iraq to protect these vulnerable groups. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our commitment to ensuring that these communities are afforded the right protection. 

Despite Iraq’s political and security challenges, its tremendous economic growth 

over the last decade has been impressive. Iraq’s economy has averaged around 6.5 

percent growth since 2005. This has been primarily driven by the energy sector. 

Iraq is now producing around 3.2 million barrels of oil per day; it is the secondlargest producer within OPEC. The International Energy Agency estimates that 

Iraq will provide 45 percent of all new incremental oil supply worldwide between 

now and 2035. Iraqi oil will be essential to meet rising international demand and 

maintain market stability. While the United States imports less than 5 percent of 

its oil from Iraq, global economic growth will benefit from Iraqi oil reaching the 

market. Increasing exports from Iraq is therefore one of our highest bilateral strategic priorities. 

Lack of onshore pumping and storage capacity continues to prevent Iraqi production and exports from reaching their full potential. There is also tremendous opportunity to harness Iraq’s significant natural gas resources. If this gas is converted 

to power, this would provide much-needed electricity to the Iraqi people, fueling further economic growth. In addition to partnering to share best practices on fossil fuel 

production and exports, we are engaged with the Government of Iraq on capturing 

gas for power generation, and on political issues related to hydrocarbon revenue 

management. The government also faces a challenge in equitably distributing the 

wealth created by its natural resources to its population and to use its oil wealth 

to promote growth in other sectors. These are all areas where the United States 

would be willing to help play a positive role and exchange lessons learned. 

Iraq’s economic growth offers exciting opportunities for U.S firms, particularly in 

key sectors such as infrastructure development, construction, health care, telecom, 

and agriculture. Iraq imports some of the best equipment and technology in the 

world from the United States, including civilian aircraft and the turbines that generate much-needed electricity. I have spent much of my career promoting U.S. economic engagement overseas. If confirmed, I look forward to promoting Secretary 

Kerry’s Shared Prosperity agenda as Ambassador to Iraq. 

Mr. Chairman, as I have discussed, Iraq is a challenging security environment. 

If confirmed as Ambassador, I will bear responsibility for the safety of all U.S. personnel in Iraq, including at Embassy Baghdad and at our consulates in Erbil and 

Basrah. If confirmed, I will work closely with our security team on the ground— 

as well as with our Diplomatic Security colleagues back here in Washington—to 

ensure that our people are protected. I assure you this will be my highest priority, 

as well as to protect the safety of American citizens in Iraq. 

Since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in 2011, the Embassy and consulates have 

significantly reduced our staffing. As of June 2014, we have approximately 5,300 

staff; just one-third of our 2012 footprint. If confirmed, I will continue to examine 

staffing levels to ensure that we have the appropriate number of personnel to carry 

out our mission. 

Again I wish to commend my colleague Steve Beecroft and his whole-of-government team for their tremendous achievements and selfless service; I am proud to 

be named as Steve’s successor. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity 

to address you today. I appreciate and value this committee’s oversight of our efforts 

in Iraq and, if confirmed, I look forward to welcoming you and your respective staff 

members to Baghdad. Your continued engagement on the policy issues discussed 

today is a vital element in ensuring our success in Iraq. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you may have. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF DANA SHELL SMITH, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINEE 

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE STATE OF QATAR 

Ms. SMITH. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and 

members of the committee—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you put your microphone on, please? 

347 

Ms. SMITH. This is my first time doing this. 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today as the President’s nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the 

State of Qatar. I am extremely grateful to President Obama and 

to Secretary Kerry for their confidence in me. 

If confirmed, I look forward to representing the American people 

and to working with this committee and other interested Members 

of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Qatar. 

And it is a privilege to share this panel with Stu Jones and Steve 

Beecroft, two of our finest Ambassadors, whose work I have long 

admired. 

It has been an honor to serve as a Foreign Service officer since 

1992 and to use my regional experience and the Arabic language 

in a variety of assignments. The Foreign Service even introduced 

me to my husband, who is here today, and our two children—well, 

the Foreign Service did not introduce me to them—he is here with 

our two children. And it is exciting to have them here, able to 

watch our democracy in action. I am delighted that my aunt and 

uncle and so many of my friends could be here, as well. 

Qatar plays a growing role in the international community, with 

influence that extends far beyond its 4,400 square miles and 

250,000 citizens. We share a productive relationship on key regional issues, ranging from Syria to Iran. They have been extremely supportive of our commitment to find a solution to the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that 

our policies and diplomatic platform advance U.S. foreign policy 

and national security interests in Qatar and the region more broadly. 

Defense cooperation is a central pillar of our partnership, and it 

is best reflected in Qatar’s hosting of the U.S. CENTCOM forward 

headquarters, the Combined Air Operations Center, and the 379th 

Air Expeditionary Wing at al-Udeid Airbase. 

The renewal, in December 2013, of our Defense Cooperation 

Agreement is a further testament to our enduring security partnership. If confirmed, I will work to deepen our military ties and expand our regional security cooperation. 

We have an active and productive dialogue on both counterterrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Qatar has 

endorsed the Proliferation Security Initiative and is a founding 

member of the Global Counterterrorism Forum. These efforts take 

on increased importance, of course, as violent extremists expand 

their operations in Syria. And we are working together to improve 

the capacity of Qatar’s counterterrorist financing regime and to disrupt illicit cash flows. 

The United States is also continuing efforts with Qatar and other 

regional partners to support the moderate opposition in Syria. 

Qatar believes, as we do, that Bashar al-Assad’s murderous oppression of the Syrian people leaves him with no legitimacy to rule. 

And we share the view that the crisis in Syria should be resolved 

through a negotiated political solution. We are working closely with 

regional partners to maximize the impact of our collective efforts. 

Qatar has also publicly welcomed the Joint Plan of Action reached 

between Iran and the P5+1 on Iran’s nuclear program, and has 

348 

made clear it supports United States efforts to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. 

As you know, Qatar played an instrumental role in recovering 

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Their efforts are a testament to our partnership. With regard to the five individuals transferred from Guantanamo in connection with Sergeant Bergdahl’s release, the United 

States has and will continue to coordinate closely with Qatar. We 

are confident that the security measures that have been put in 

place, including restrictions placed on the activities of the individuals, will substantially mitigate any threat that the individuals 

may pose to our national security. The Amir personally provided 

his assurances to the President, and the administration is confident that the Qataris have the capacity and will to deliver on the 

commitments made. But, let me be clear. If confirmed, I will work 

each day to ensure that these commitments are upheld. I will consult regularly with the members of this committee as we move forward on this issue. 

Our thriving commercial relationship with Qatar continues to 

grow, presenting tremendous opportunities for American business. 

Qatar is one of our most important trading partners in the region, 

importing over $5 billion worth in U.S. goods in 2013. If confirmed, 

I will make it my priority to advocate for U.S. companies vigorously 

to ensure that we continue to seize on the multitude of opportunities offered by the Qatari market. 

Qatar also hosts six branches of U.S. universities. If confirmed, 

I will work to expand our cultural and educational partnerships to 

promote enduring ties between our people for the next generation. 

At a U.S. mission with employees from a variety of U.S. Government agencies, my first priority, if confirmed, would remain, at all 

times, protecting the safety and security of the dedicated men and 

women at our mission, as well as of all Americans living, working, 

and traveling in Qatar. 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, members of the 

committee, it has been my privilege and great honor to spend my 

entire adult life in the service of our country, promoting and defending U.S. interests and values. If confirmed, I welcome your 

views and insights on Qatar and the region, and look forward to 

your visits to Doha. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have for 

me today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANA SHELL SMITH

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you as the President’s nominee to be the 

U.S. Ambassador to the State of Qatar. I am extremely grateful to President Obama 

and to Secretary Kerry for their confidence in me. If confirmed, I look forward to 

representing the American people, and to working with this committee and other 

interested Members of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Qatar. It is a privilege 

to share this hearing with Stu Jones and Steve Beecroft, two of our finest Ambassadors whose work I have long admired. I look forward to working closely with 

them. 

It has been an honor to serve as a Foreign Service officer since 1992, mostly in 

the Arab World, and to use my regional experience and the Arabic language in a 

wide variety of assignments. The Foreign Service even introduced me to my husband, Ray Smith, who is here today, an agent with the Diplomatic Security Service. 

349 

As a tandem couple we have been fortunate to serve together and to raise a family 

while pursuing careers we love. Our two children are also with me here today. They 

have learned so much from living overseas, and should I be confirmed, I know that 

Qatar will serve as an incredible educational and cultural experience for them. They 

have been great sports moving as often as they have, and I am very proud of them. 

Qatar is playing a growing role in the international community with influence 

that extends far beyond its 4,400 square miles and 250,000 citizens. As President 

Obama has said, ‘‘If our two countries are communicating frankly and constructively, and pursuing common strategies, we can be a force for good for the entire 

region and for a vision of a Middle East that is democratic, that is prosperous, that 

is tolerant, that is representative of all peoples, and that is a force for good around 

the world.’’ We enjoy a productive relationship with Qatar on key regional issues 

ranging from Syria to Iran. Qatar has been extremely supportive of our government’s commitment to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Qatar 

agrees that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would advance security, prosperity, and stability in the Middle East. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that our 

policies and diplomatic platform advance U.S. foreign policy and national security 

interests in Qatar and the region more broadly. 

Defense cooperation is a central pillar of our partnership and is best reflected in 

Qatar’s hosting of U.S. Central Command Forward Headquarters, the Combined Air 

Operations Center, and the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing at Al Udeid Air Base. Al 

Udeid plays a critical role in advancing our regional security as the platform for 

U.S. air operations in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility, including for Afghanistan. The renewal in December 2013 of our Defense Cooperation Agreement with 

Qatar, governing interactions between U.S. and Qatari forces, is a further testament 

to the enduring security partnership enjoyed by our two countries. If confirmed, I 

will work to deepen our military ties and expand our regional security cooperation. 

We have an active and productive dialogue with Qatar in the areas of counterterrorism and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Qatar has endorsed the 

Proliferation Security Initiative and is a founding member of the Global Counterterrorism Forum. In March 2013 Qatar hosted a Forum workshop to develop a plan 

of action for rule of law-based, community-oriented policing programs to counter violent extremism (CVE). Qatar has also pledged $5 million to support the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund, the first public-private global fund to support local, grassroots CVE efforts. As violent extremists expand their operations in 

Syria, these efforts take on increased importance, and we are working with Qatar 

to improve the capacity of its counterterrorist financing regime and disrupt illicit 

cash flows, including through the provision of training. 

The United States is also continuing efforts, together with Qatar and other regional partners, to support the moderate opposition in Syria. Qatar believes that 

Bashar al-Assad’s murderous oppression of the Syrian people leaves him with no 

legitimacy to rule and Qatar shares our view that the crisis in Syria should be 

resolved through a negotiated political transition. Qatar is an active member of the 

London 11 Core Group on Syria and a strong supporter of the Syrian opposition. 

We are working closely with regional partners like Qatar to maximize the impact 

of our collective efforts to support the moderate opposition and address the humanitarian crisis. 

Qatar has publicly welcomed the Joint Plan of Action reached between Iran and 

the P5+1 on Iran’s nuclear program, and has made clear it supports U.S. efforts to 

negotiate a comprehensive agreement. 

As we saw a few weeks ago, Qatar played an instrumental role in recovering Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Qatar’s efforts in this regard are another testament to our 

partnership. With regard to the five individuals transferred to Qatar from Guantanamo in connection with Sergeant Bergdahl’s release, the United States has and 

will continue to coordinate closely with Qatar. We are confident that the security 

measures that have been put in place, including restrictions placed on the activities 

of the individuals, will substantially mitigate any threat that the individuals may 

pose to our national security. The Amir personally provided his assurances to the 

President, and the administration is confident that the Qataris have the capacity 

and will to deliver on the commitments made. If confirmed, I will ensure that my 

Country Team tracks closely and verifies that these commitments are being upheld. 

In this regard, I look forward to consulting with the members of this committee and 

their staff, if confirmed. 

Our thriving commercial relationship with Qatar continues to grow, presenting 

tremendous opportunities for American business. Qatar plans to invest up to $200 

billion in preparation for hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup, and to date U.S. companies have performed exceptionally well in securing contracts for mega infrastructure projects, such as the new airport, port, metro system, roads and bridges. Qatar 

350 

is one of our most important trading partners in the region, importing over $5 billion in U.S. goods in 2013, and it is the fifth-largest destination for U.S. exports in 

the Middle East. If confirmed, I will make it my priority to advocate for U.S. companies vigorously to ensure that we continue to seize the multitude of opportunities 

offered by the Qatari market. 

Qatar’s 2030 National Vision aims to transition to a knowledge-based economy, 

and critical to this effort is Qatar’s development of a strong education sector. Qatar 

has served as a center of innovation in the region, in part thanks to its warm welcome of diverse academic institutions and think tanks, particularly U.S. institutions. 

Qatar’s ‘‘Education City’’ is home to six U.S. universities, and Qatar has also welcomed the presence of U.S. institutes Brookings and RAND. Our partnerships in 

education have expanded dramatically, with the number of Qatari students choosing 

to study in the United States more than doubling over the past decade. Qatar’s contribution of $5 million to the J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative will 

help equip more than 1 million youth with the skills they need to succeed in the 

21st century through online educational exchanges between the U.S., the Middle 

East, and North Africa. If confirmed, I will work to expand our educational and 

cultural partnerships to promote enduring ties between our peoples for the next 

generation. 

At a U.S. mission with employees from a variety of U.S. Government agencies, 

my first priority, if confirmed, would remain at all times protecting the safety and 

security of the dedicated men and women at our mission as well as of all Americans 

living and working or traveling in Qatar. 

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, members of the committee, it has 

been my privilege and great honor to spend my entire adult life in the service of 

our country, promoting and defending U.S. interests and values. If confirmed, I 

would welcome your views and insights on Qatar and the region and look forward 

to your visits to Doha. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have 

for me today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you all for your testimony, and 

again, welcome to your family and friends. 

Let me start with you, Ambassador Beecroft. Well, let me ask 

you—all three of you—an overarching question. A simple yes or no 

will do. If confirmed, will you make yourselves available to the 

committee and answer inquiries from the committee while you are 

in post? 

Ambassador JONES. Yes. 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. SMITH. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Ambassador Beecroft, you know, you are going from one difficult 

assignment to another one. That is why we have some extraordinary persons like yourself. But, speaking for myself as the chairman, let me just say, if we are going to continue to see mass deathpenalty sentences, if we are going to continue seeing massive arrests of the young people who, in essence, created the situation in 

Tahrir Square that ultimately led to President Sisi’s election, if 

President Sisi believes that only his engagement in the Sinai, 

which I applaud, is sufficient for his relationship with the United 

States, then there will be a rude awakening. And I hope that, in 

your role as our Ambassador, that you will be able to relay to 

President Sisi that we need a broader agenda to see progress moving forward, not just because that is my view, but the FY14 appropriations legislation contains certification requirements to release 

the rest of Egypt’s FY14 assistance, including that ‘‘A newly elected 

Government of Egypt is taking steps to govern democratically.’’ 

So, I would like to hear from you, as you approach this new assignment, what is it that you will be saying when you go to Egypt, 

and how do we make progress to create the political space for the 

351 

Egyptian Government to address some of these concerns that, by 

law, they must do if we are ultimately going to continue our assistance? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

agree with you 100 percent, that we want to have the strongest, 

broadest possible partnership and relationship with Egypt, and we 

want an Egypt that is stable and secure because it has and respects fundamental human-rights, democracy, and because it 

builds a prosperous economy. If confirmed, I will engage on all 

these issues with the Egyptian Government and work with them 

to partner and develop the economy, to build human rights, expand 

those rights, to stop practices such as the mass trials that you have 

referred to, which we have condemned, and to ensure that justice 

is individualized, to ensure that there is a society and a country 

and a government that the Egyptian people buy into, that they see 

that their interests are best represented inside the democratic process, and not outside it, and that will lead to fundamental, longterm stability. Egypt does have promising prospects, including economic prospects, and it has demonstrated, over the last two decades at times, that it can function as a emerging economy, that it 

can have real GDP growth in excess of 7 percent. And we need to, 

again, build on that and do whatever we can to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. 

Ambassador BEECROFT [continuing]. Strengthen the partnership. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, in addition to those concerns, you talked 

about the economic questions. And I am concerned by what I read 

in President Sisi’s statements, where it sounds like he thinks that 

greater state intervention in the economy is going to create the opportunities that Egyptians need. And I am not quite sure, having 

just returned from the gulf region, that our gulf partners, who have 

actually been very helpful to the Egyptians, will have that view. 

What messaging will we be giving as it relates to how this economy 

can revive itself and grow? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Thank you very much. It is, of course, 

very much in our interest to see Egypt build its economy, strengthen its economy. It is in our interest to work with the gulf countries 

you referred to, to target assistance as effectively as possible, and 

to encourage the economic reforms that are necessary for the economy to progress. 

I would note that Egypt has a number of economic advantages 

we can build on. It has a relatively well-developed infrastructure; 

specifically, telecommunications, roads, ports. It has access to markets in—because of its proximity—in Europe, in Asia, in Africa. It 

has labor that should attract investment, as well. And it has natural resources, particularly natural gas, that can be developed. So, 

there is the basis for a strong economy. We have to encourage the 

reforms that will attract investors into the country and to target 

the assistance so that it addresses the parts of the economy that 

need to be addressed—particularly reforms. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ambassador Jones, you know, we had Prime 

Minister Maliki here last year. It was a difficult meeting. I do not 

know whether or not he will actually be the Prime Minister again. 

I guess, by many accounts, he may very well ultimately put together the coalition necessary to do that. But, as I said to AmbasVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
352 

sador Beecroft as it relates to our relationship with the Egyptian 

Government, in this case, the Iraqis must understand that the use 

of barrel bombs, that the overflights and transiting of airspace by 

Iran sending troops and military equipment into Syria with impunity, and the lives of the people at Camp Liberty, until they are 

resettled, is going to be part of what this committee uses to judge, 

our relationship, with regards to future arms sales. 

So, I would like to hear from you—we understand the importance, we honor the lives of those who were lost, in pursuit of a 

more democratic Iraq, from the United States, and an enormous 

national treasure, but there has to be some change in the course 

of events here, including having a government that is more inclusive, in which every Sunni is not an enemy of the state. There are 

many Sunnis who want to be part of Iraq, as a nation, but they 

have to be included as well. 

Can you tell me about what you will be messaging there as it relates to these issues? 

Ambassador JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me take your last point first, which is, of course we completely agree that, for Iraq to succeed, the different political elements, the sectarian groups, need to come together and create a 

shared vision. They need to create a shared vision for their national security. They need to pull together to address the terrorist 

threat posed by ISIL. And, although the news from Mosul is very 

bad, I think one positive aspect of this may be that the groups are, 

indeed, coming together to address this challenge. At least we are 

seeing signs of that in the last 24 hours. 

In regards to the barrel bombs, the use of barrel bombs is completely unacceptable. It is an indiscriminate weapon against civilians and cannot be tolerated. This is something that my colleague 

Steve Beecroft has raised with the senior levels of the Iraqi government. There has been an instruction handed down through the 

military that barrel bombs will not be used. And we have also 

heard, from military contacts, that they recognize that instruction. 

In regards to the overflights, this is an issue that remains a 

problem. We are concerned that Iran is supplying the Bashar 

Assad regime with overflights over Iraq. This is something that we 

would like to see the Iraqis stop. And this is, again, something we 

have raised at the most senior levels. And I will continue to do that 

and look for ways to find a way to stop this traffic. 

On the issue of Camp Liberty, I know this is an issue of particular concern, and it is a very important issue. When I was the 

Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq in 2010 and 2011, we witnessed 

a terrible attack on Camp Ashraf in which many people were killed 

and others wounded. I think the steps that we have taken since 

then have been quite positive. Moving the residents of Ashraf to 

Camp Liberty has improved their security. The Government of Iraq 

has also responded to our request, and others’ requests, to improve 

the security around Camp Liberty, and that is encouraging. But, 

the solution, of course, is to remove the members of the Mujahedine Khalq from Iraq and get them to a safer place. They will not be 

safe until they are outside of Iraq. And I am—our government is 

taking the lead on this. The Special Envoy to the Secretary, Jonathan Weiner, is meeting with representatives of countries around 

353 

the world and asking them to take members of the Mujahedin-e 

Khalq. And we also now have a team in Baghdad to interview 

members to see—working toward receiving a group of those here 

in the United States. And I think this is the best solution that we 

can present. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, two final points, so that it is crystal clear. 

I do not want to hear Iraq tell us that, ‘‘We need actionable intelligence.’’ When we have it, we will provide it. But they have a responsibility, in doing random surveillance of overflights, and that 

is an excuse that is unacceptable. 

Secondly, I agree with you that resettlement of the MEK is the 

ultimate solution. I hope—and I have urged the State Department 

to consider bringing some of them to the United States as an example to those in the rest of the world that we are also asking to consider resettlement. But, in the interim, I hold the Prime Minister 

responsible for the lives of those individuals at the camp. 

Ms. Smith, I do not want you to think I do not have questions 

for you, but, in fairness to my colleagues, my time is expired. I will 

come back to you afterward. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. I am sure Ms. Smith was fine with that, actually, so thank you. [Laughter.] 

Ms. SMITH. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I may not be from the South, but I would 

bet you I will be more genteel. [Laughter.] 

Senator CORKER. So, again, I want to thank all three of you. And 

I will start—I will just go in order. 

Ambassador Jones, you know, I visited Ambassador Beecroft and 

have been to Iraq, like many of us, many times. And today when 

you are there, unlike Jordan, where you have just—where you still 

are—it feels like a vacant, deserted lot, relative to our emphasis on 

it. It feels like we have checked the box and moved on, and that 

we really have lost influence. That is, I think—I think everybody 

acknowledges that. But, that we just have not been really robust 

at all levels, relative to our efforts there. 

We had a great conversation yesterday, and we talked a little bit 

about the lack of the SOFA, and the fact that our troops are gone, 

and that has contributed to the lack of influence in a pretty big 

way. You have had two tours there. And I mentioned I was going 

to bring this up just to kind of set the record straight. Many of us 

have felt—and maybe even after you say what you say, may still 

feel—that one of the reasons that Iraq is the way that it is, is that 

we, you know, did not leave behind some presence and that we actually—this was actually what the administration wanted to occur. 

You have a very different perspective of that, and I thought 

that—do not take too long, if you will—but, I think it would be 

good for you to share your thoughts, relative to why we do not have 

a presence in Iraq today. 

Ambassador JONES. Thank you, Senator. As you said, we spoke 

about this yesterday. My view on this is that the Iraqi people really 

did not come together and ask us to stay in a way that made it 

possible for us to stay. And it is as simple as that. No major Iraqi 

leaders, with the exception of the Kurds, came forward and invited 

us to stay in a public manner, and they did not go on television. 

354 

We obviously needed to have a Status of Forces Agreement for the 

security of our troops, and the Iraqis did not meet us halfway on 

that. So, I think this was the result of that negotiation, and that 

is how it ended. 

Senator CORKER. And so, from your perspective, the fact that we 

have no presence there, and, candidly, much lesser influence, is a 

result, really, of just the Iraqi people not wanting it to be that way. 

Ambassador JONES. Yes, sir. 

Senator CORKER. OK. Well, it is interesting and a very different 

perspective than, you know, I have heard from most, but I appreciate you sharing that. 

And, you know, I would agree with the chairman, we had a pretty terse meeting with Maliki here. I had had one on the ground 

with him just before that. He has obviously not been a good Prime 

Minister. He has not done a good job of reaching out to the Sunni 

population, which has caused them to be more receptive to alQaeda efforts. Obviously, the Syrian conflict—I know there is analysis today saying that that is really not having an impact on Iraq. 

I believe it is having a major impact on Iraq. 

But, with our diminished status in Iraq, and the fact that we 

used to sort of play shuttle diplomacy, if you will, between the 

Sunnis and Shias and causing things to work in a better way—I 

think you did that before, in your previous capacity—how do you 

view your role there, going there now, under the circumstances 

that we have and trying to mitigate some of the problems that 

exist between the—especially the Shia and the Sunni? 

Ambassador JONES. Yes. Well, I think I am blessed to be following in the footsteps of Steve Beecroft. I think Steve has established very good relations with all of the groups in Iraq, and I 

think this is a role that we should continue to play, brokering— 

using our good offices to broker solutions to the myriad problems 

that face Iraq. I think we have made great progress, in recent 

months, in trying to broker an arrangement by which the hydrocarbon law could be finalized and the relations between 

Kurdistan—the Kurdish regional government and Baghdad could 

resolve their problems. I think we can also find ways to support a 

process of political conciliation between some Shia—and Sunni 

groups with the government. This is the role that the United 

States has played in Iraq for the last 10 years, and I would certainly hope to continue to play that role. 

I think we do have significant influence because of our continuing presence in the commercial and petroleum sector, as well 

as a continuing presence in the military sector, though obviously 

not with troops on the ground. 

Senator CORKER. Yes. Thank you. 

Ambassador Beecroft, we talked a little bit about another topic, 

and a similar topic, but for different reasons: our influence in 

Egypt, itself. I think people have had really strongly held beliefs 

about what we should and should be doing relative to Egypt and 

aid. And I have felt we should continue the relationship, certainly 

with some contingencies. But—or conditions—but, the fact is, we 

have sort of been on again, off again. People there have perceived 

us to be, in some ways, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, but 

not the citizens of Egypt. You have had the—some of the gulf counVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
355 

tries step in and fill a vacuum when Egypt felt we were stepping 

away. 

What is your sense of how the leadership of Egypt today views 

the United States? And again, similar to Ambassador Jones, how 

do you expect to be able to step into that situation and exert appropriate influence and shaping in the country? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Let me first say that we do have a partnership with Egypt. The 

Egyptians are continuing to engage with us. We need to take advantage of that to pursue our own interests. Our interests and 

Egyptian interests do happen to overlap considerably, I believe. It 

is not going to always be—we are not going to always agree on 

matters, but, again, engaging with them, working with them, we 

can push in the right direction. And what we want to see in Egypt 

is, we want to see security and stability that is built on the fundamentals of a sound society, such as the economy and such as democracy and human rights, and be as inclusive as possible. 

Our assistance—I see our assistance as pursuing our interests in 

Egypt and, again, believe that our interests overlap considerably. 

If confirmed, I will engage with the Egyptians and I will push them 

in the directions that we want them to go, encourage them, work 

with them, and use the assistance, to the extent it is approved by 

Congress, to further our interests in the country. 

Senator CORKER. Well, thank you. 

And I appreciate the relationship and conversations that we have 

had in the past with both the Ambassadors. And thank you for 

your willingness to serve in this capacity. 

Ms. Smith, Qatar has played an interesting role in Syria because 

of the lack of policy, from our standpoint. I think they became exasperated and sort of went out on their own, if you will. There are 

reports that that is being sort of—is moving back into a more coordinated effort with us. Do you have any sense of their efforts on 

the ground in Syria relative to opposition? And are they moving 

more into the mainstream, if you will, relative to the type of support they are giving? 

Ms. SMITH. Thanks very much for that question. 

Yes, we do have the sense that we are making progress, in terms 

of coordination. It is all of our goal to support the moderate opposition in Syria and, of course, to address the humanitarian disaster 

that is happening there. Qatar has been incredibly generous. They 

have given $1.2 billion toward the—addressing the humanitarian 

needs in Syria. And so, going forward, what our engagement consists of with the Qataris is continuing to find ways to coordinate, 

to work together in support of the moderate opposition. Obviously, 

with the ultimate goal being Assad not being in charge anymore. 

Senator CORKER. In order to give you a chance to say something 

on the record that I think you are authorized to respond to, it is 

my understanding the SAS Committee is developing language that 

allows title 10 training of the opposition on the ground in Syria. 

Do you know if the administration supports that, or does not support it? 

Ms. SMITH. It is my understanding that the administration does 

support the Levin language in the NDAA to authorize training and 

equipment—— 

356 

Senator CORKER. OK. 

Ms. SMITH [continuing]. Of the moderate opposition. But, again, 

I am not in those policy discussions at the moment. 

Senator CORKER. I understand. I just understood you were authorized—— 

Ms. SMITH. Appreciate it. 

Senator CORKER [continuing]. To say that they support it, 

and—— 

Ms. SMITH. I appreciate it. 

Senator CORKER [continuing]. I wanted that on the record. 

So, with that, I will close and thank you. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. I do want to say to the other committee members that our staff has been able to go down and read the memorandum of understanding that we have between the United States 

and Qatar. I wish it was available to all committee members. For 

some reason, it is not. It is 3 pages long. My understanding is, it 

is very unremarkable. And our staff had no antennas raised in 

reading it. But, I just thought I would share that. 

And again, thank you for your service. 

And thanks for having this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks, to all of the witnesses, for your service and willingness to serve. 

Ms. Smith, let me just ask you a question I was curious about. 

And we had a chance to talk, but I forgot to ask you this. In Qatar, 

under the leadership of the new Amir, have there been any particular changes in direction in the United States/Qatar partnership 

or relationship that have seemed notable during this time of transformation? Is it kind of steady and we are continuing to kind of 

do—the relationship is in the same place it was? Or have we seen 

some changes in direction because of that leadership transition? 

Ms. SMITH. If I am confirmed, I would love to give a more fulsome response when I am actually there and able to make my own 

assessment. But, my understanding is that our relationship continues to be as close and cooperative as it was before. The Amir has 

been in power for just about a year; and, of course, he is not new 

to the government. He was working there for over a decade before, 

under his father’s rule. 

So, while I would not say that we are seeing a change, what we 

are seeing is continued progress on the areas where we have good 

and close coordination. And so, I have every expectation that, if I 

am confirmed, we will able to deepen and expand those positive 

areas where we are working together. 

Senator KAINE. One of the areas where I know there has been 

some tension—the chairman has hosted meetings before, where the 

Foreign Relations Committee members have had a chance to dialogue with the Amir—had been in, you know, who the Qataris—referring to earlier questions—the Qataris have been supporting in 

Syria. That created some tensions. Is that changing? Are we, 

maybe, more in accord with the Qataris now and the government 

357 

about, you know, what is the right way to have influence to bring 

this humanitarian issue and, ultimately, the civil war to an end? 

Ms. SMITH. Well, this is something we are always watching very 

closely. I have not heard from anyone that we are ready to just declare, you know, everything is wonderful and perfect, but we do feel 

that we are making progress in our shared understanding of which 

groups are—constitute moderate opposition and who is worthy of 

our support. 

Senator KAINE. OK. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Beecroft, you talked a little bit about the economic issues in 

Egypt. You know, it seems like that that would be a real test for 

the new President, is how quickly he can try to demonstrate some 

economic improvement. You and I had a chance to talk about this 

the other day. Could you talk a little bit about the role that the 

United States can play in helping Egypt in economic transformation, and also the role that other allies—the Gulf State allies 

should be able to play? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Thank you very much, Mr. Senator. 

As I mentioned earlier in the hearing, Egypt does have the fundamentals for a successful economy, and it needs to be encouraged 

to take the steps necessary to build that economy. We have a team 

that is actively engaged with the Egyptians and the Gulf States to 

help, again, target assistance to Egypt and to encourage the necessary reforms. 

One of the things that President Sisi has called for is investment. 

And investment is key to developing the economy. In order to get 

investment, you have to have certain sound fundamentals in place, 

or the investment will not come. And among those are, of course, 

a stable society based on an inclusive democracy that respects and 

guarantees human rights for all Egyptians and that provides the 

security and stability that encourages people to invest. 

And again, as I mentioned earlier, Egypt does benefit from certain advantages that should help it get through these crucial times 

if it chooses to make the right reforms. Among those are an infrastructure that is relatively well developed—as I mentioned, 

telecoms, roads, ports; access proximity to markets in Europe and 

Asia, including or allowed by the Suez Canal, and in Africa; natural resources, particularly natural gas—my understanding is, 

Egypt has the third-largest proven reserves of natural gas in Africa; and a labor market that should be very, very attractive to investors. 

And so, we need to focus Egypt on, again, making the necessary 

changes so investors see that it is a safe and secure environment; 

again, that the people enjoy their rights; and that they are making 

the right economic decisions that attract that investment. And 

again, we can do that by working with the Gulf States that are 

particularly engaged in Egypt, and staying engaged with Egyptians, I hope. 

Senator KAINE. And, Ambassador Beecroft, one last question on 

the human-rights front. And I know there has been a question before I walked into the room. But, I was most troubled, when I was 

there in February, about the situation with journalists, and probably because the day that I was meeting with Egyptian leaders, including General al-Sisi, was the day there was a very prominent 

358 

set of journalists going on trial. The U.S. Embassy in Egypt even 

asked if I would do an—come-one-come-all press conference, just to 

show an example of—an elected official does not have to be afraid 

to answer tough questions from an even hostile press. And I got 

some tough questions from hostile press there, but I was very used 

to it, because I have been in politics in the United States. 

But, have you seen any sign, since the Presidential election—is 

there any even early evidence about the direction that this together 

will take with respect to press freedoms? Or is it too soon to say? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Well, President al-Sisi, in his inaugural 

address, did make mention of his desire to be a president for all 

Egyptians and to see all Egyptians enjoy fundamental rights and 

freedoms. And I think what we want to do is, to the extent we can, 

push and take him up on that, and encourage him to follow 

through. Obviously, we believe in the strongest possible freedom of 

the press—the broadest possible freedoms for the press. It is very, 

very disturbing and unfortunate that journalists have been detained and charged with crimes in Egypt. A society cannot function 

effectively without—a democratic society—without freedom of the 

press. And so, we need to engage, we need to encourage it, we need 

to try to find ways to show that having a free press is in the interest of Egypt as a country, in the interest of the government, and 

interest of the people. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Ambassador Jones, thanks for your service. I very much was impressed with your work leading the mission in Jordan when I visited last July. And I do not have much time left, so let me just get 

right to it. 

What do you think about the commitment of the Iraqi Government to political inclusion of the different factions within Iraqi civil 

society? That has been troubling me, and I would like your, just, 

current assessment of that. 

Ambassador JONES. Thanks. And thanks also, Senator, for your 

visit to Jordan. It was a very helpful and positive experience. 

I think that, especially as the government faces this terrorist 

challenge with ISIL, there is a strong incentive and political will 

to try to unify the groups. Just recently, the Prime Minister has 

issued a statement, you know, encouraging national unity and inviting participation in unifying the groups against ISIL. So, I think 

that there is political will. And, you know, even before the most recent crisis in Mosul, the Prime Minister has reached out to Sunni 

groups, he has brought 6,000 tribal members into the Iraqi security 

forces, he is aiming for a number of—an even larger number. So, 

I think that there is—that there is movement on this. And this is 

obviously something where I think the United States can continue 

to play a positive role, and we should. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Smith, first of all, congratulates on your appointment. Interesting time to be going to—my first question, just out of the box; 

we have been debating here for a second—what is the definitive 

pronunciation? Is it ‘‘Cutter,’’ ‘‘Kittare’’ or ‘‘Gutter’’? We have heard 

all three over the—— 

359 

Ms. SMITH. In Arabic, actually it is ‘‘QUH-tar.’’ 

Senator RUBIO. OK. Well, how would I say it? Help me. [Laughter.] 

Ms. SMITH. ‘‘Cutter.’’ 

Senator RUBIO. ‘‘Cutter.’’ OK. 

Ms. SMITH. ‘‘Cutter,’’ for ease—— 

Senator RUBIO. Got it. 

Ms. SMITH [continuing]. Is probably the best for an American. 

Senator RUBIO. So, ‘‘Cutter,’’ all right. 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. 

Senator RUBIO. Great. 

So, let me ask you about Qatar. Have you been briefed on the 

memorandum of understanding? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, I have. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, do you—will that be provided to Congress? 

Ms. SMITH. I believe it has been made available to the chair and 

the ranking member. 

Senator RUBIO. Do you know if that will be made available to 

other members, as well? I do not know if that has been—you have 

been informed on that. 

Ms. SMITH. I do not. I am sorry, I am not in those conversations. 

Senator RUBIO. What can you tell us about how much of the supervision of these individuals will the United States have the ability to participate in? 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address 

this, because I know this is very much on people’s minds, not only 

in this room. 

If I am confirmed, this goes to the very top of my list of priorities. We will be working very closely with the Qataris. We will be 

engaging them very closely, verifying both their—what they have 

been—the restrictions that they have put on these individuals and 

the information that they will be collecting on these individuals, 

but also verifying, from our own standpoint. And we will be assessing continuously, every day—every morning when I wake up, every 

night when I go to sleep—to reassess whether these people pose 

any threat whatsoever to our national security. And so, I can guarantee you that I will be leading a country team representative of 

our whole government that will be working on this tirelessly, if I 

am confirmed. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, can you share with us, in this setting, what 

exactly are the expectations of the U.S.’s participation in that effort, in terms of providing capabilities? Is that something you could 

share with us at all, in terms of your understanding of—— 

Ms. SMITH. I think what I can share is that we have a very good 

and close and productive information-sharing relationship with 

Qatar. And obviously, as Secretary Kerry said, Qatar will not be 

the only one with eyes on these individuals. And I think it is probably best to leave it at that. 

Senator RUBIO. Can you give us your indication or your feelings 

about the capabilities of the Qatari Government to carry out this 

obligation they have committed to? 

Ms. SMITH. It is my understanding that they have the capacity 

to do this, that we have a high degree of confidence in their capacity. And we also assess that they have the will to do this. Their 

360 

Amir called and gave the President, personally, his assurances, his 

personal commitment to upholding this agreement. So, we are cautiously optimistic that there is the ability to do this. 

Of course, I think it would not be an effective way to enter into 

it, just with blind faith, so that is why we will be working constantly to verify and assess, from our own standpoint. 

Senator RUBIO. What are your views, in the aftermath of this 

swap, as to the precedent that it sets and, therefore, the risk that 

it poses for Americans, both in and out of uniform, in terms of becoming even more appealing targets for other groups to try to—to 

capture Americans for the purposes of carrying out an exchange 

similar to this one? 

Ms. SMITH. Sorry, that is something that I am not, probably, 

qualified to address. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, let me ask you this way, then. Are we concerned, in the aftermath of this, that Americans serving our country, whether it is at—in the Embassy or as part of any of our governmental efforts in Qatar, are now at increased risk, given the 

fact—given this—the aftermath of this? 

Ms. SMITH. We are—as diplomats, we are always concerned 

about our national security. It is our top priority, both of the people 

working on our teams and also for all American citizens, whether 

in the countries where we are representing America or whether 

back here at home. So, I—absolutely, safety and security of Americans is the number one thing that we are concerned about and care 

about. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, in that light, obviously we have all seen 

the—all are aware of what happened in Benghazi, and we understand that, when we send service—when we send men and women 

to represent us in the diplomatic corps around the world, particularly in areas of the world where are more prone to terrorism, or 

the presence of terrorist-linked groups, that it places particular 

dangers upon those who serve our country in that realm. What— 

can you give us an assessment of how you view our security in the 

Embassy there? And obviously, you have talked about what a priority that would be. If you could share with us just a little bit 

about the—to extent that you can, the processes by which that becomes a priority, and how we ensure the safety of those who will 

be working underneath you in that facility. 

Ms. SMITH. Sure. And this is something that every chief of mission is concerned about and particularly focused on, in light of the 

events in Benghazi. Chris Stevens was a close friend of mine, so 

it is something that I am very mindful of. 

So, as we have moved through since the events, every embassy 

has been looked at, and looked at again. And it is a primary responsibility of the chief of mission to look at both the physical security, working with the security team that you lead, as well as any 

threats that are posed, day in and day out, and how that threat 

level might be changing. And it is a constant give-and-take, it is 

a constant conversation. And I think it is probably best to leave it 

at that. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

361 

Mr. Beecroft, based—quickly, about Egypt—what would the administration consider to be sufficient measures by Egypt in order 

to meet the conditions for full resumption of U.S. military aid? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. I am familiar with the 2014 Appropriations Act, but I am not a party to those discussions yet. What I 

look forward to is, if confirmed, going to Egypt, contributing to 

those discussions, considerations. Again, I know this is something 

the administration is looking at very, very closely and on a daily 

basis, but I am not in a position to answer the question. I apologize. 

Senator RUBIO. OK. Well, let me ask you briefly, then—there 

have been recent reports about sexual assault during inaugural 

celebrations this past week that have been very alarming. In particular, a video showing a mob assault a woman in Tahrir Square, 

and a policeman struggled to save her has been—and a policeman 

struggled to save her—has been circulating the Internet. How 

would you work with the Egyptian government to ensure the prevention and prosecution of sexual assault? Is—how would you work 

with them to ensure that this is a priority for them in this new 

government? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. The act you are referring to, and others 

like it which have been reported as well, are extremely disturbing, 

and we are extremely concerned about those type of incidents. 

Women should have a—the ability to go anywhere they want in the 

country, just like a man. And they should be full participants in 

Egypt’s democratic and social processes. 

We need to engage with the Egyptian Government. We need to 

make clear that these activities are unacceptable. And I recognize 

that Egypt, including President al-Sisi, has made statements to the 

effect that these are unacceptable, and he has called on security 

forces to do everything they need to do to enforce the law and make 

sure that women are safe in the aftermath of this incident. We 

have ongoing programs about sexual and gender violence and women’s rights, and we need to pursue those programs, as well, through 

our assistance, consistent with the law. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let me, for the record—and I am just verifying this right now, 

but, my understanding is that the memorandum of understanding 

re: Qatar is available to leadership as well as members and appropriately cleared professional staff members of several committees, 

including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which would 

mean that any member, and those professional staff who have been 

cleared for intelligence briefings, will have access to the memo. So, 

all members would be able to read it. 

With that, Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses and your willingness to 

serve. 

Ms. Smith, when did you review the memorandum of understanding? 

Ms. SMITH. Earlier this week, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. On Monday or—— 

Ms. SMITH. I believe it was Monday. 

362 

Senator JOHNSON. Is your security clearance higher than that of 

a United States Senator? 

Ms. SMITH. I cannot answer that question. I do not know what 

your security clearance is. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

I appreciate the fact, Mr. Chairman, that now we have the opportunity to review that memorandum of understanding, but I think 

the point of my question is, as a nominee to be Ambassador, you 

know, I think you should certainly be able to review that, but I 

think we should have been, as well. And we simply were not until, 

apparently, late last night. 

Ms. SMITH. I would like to make this commitment to you, Mr. 

Senator. If I am confirmed, I will be delighted to consult with you 

and any of the members of the committee, and your staffs, as closely and regularly as you like. 

Senator JOHNSON. You—in your testimony, you said, ‘‘We are 

confident that the security measures that we have been—that have 

been put in place, including restrictions placed on the activities of 

the individuals, will substantially mitigate any threat that the individuals may pose to our national security.’’ Did you by any 

chance see the video of the celebration as these five detainees were 

welcomed at Qatar? 

Ms. SMITH. I did not see the video. I saw reports about it. 

Senator JOHNSON. You should review that. It does not look like 

particularly restrictive environment to me. 

Ms. SMITH. If I am confirmed, we are going to be focused on our 

national security, and we will be looking at, not only the directly 

threatening types of things they could be doing, but things that 

constitute propaganda and that constitute that type of thing. 

Senator JOHNSON. Because I was not able to take a look at the 

memorandum of understanding, I will go down and I will look at 

it. Can you tell me, were there restrictions in terms of public displays for propaganda purposes within that memorandum of understanding? In other words, has Qatar already violated that, based 

on your understanding? 

Ms. SMITH. I think the best thing that I can say here is that 

there will be restrictions on some of the activities of those individuals. I would be delighted to consult with you, again, in a different 

setting. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Ambassador Beecroft, how would you assess—or, how would you 

describe the result that is occurring in Iraq now after we have 

withdrawn all of our combat forces? How is that going? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. Well, Iraq is facing a very, very severe 

challenge from terrorist groups—particular—terrorist groups—particularly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And it has suffered setbacks. If there is a silver lining in this, it is that we are 

seeing Iraqis, over the past few days, start to pull together in ways 

they have not before, overcome sectarian divides. We have seen the 

Kurds and Baghdad start to talk to each other, start to cooperate 

on the battlefield. And we have seen Iraq putting together a conference for Sunnis to reconcile with as many Sunni groups as possible and engage them in the fight. 

363 

So, it is an uphill battle, it is a struggle. We are doing what we 

can to help them in ways of providing assistance for military equipment, military weapons, ammunition, providing training, and sharing as much intelligence as we can with them to fight this battle. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, I mean, just kind of a one-word, 

couple-word assessment of the result. Success? 

Ambassador BEECROFT. On the battlefield, it is very, very difficult. It cannot be considered a success. It is going—it is a huge 

challenge. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ambassador Jones, what would you describe 

the result after our pullout of all combat troops in Iraq? 

Ambassador JONES. Thank you, Senator. 

As Ambassador Beecroft just characterized, I think the Government of Iraq continues to face a severe threat from ISIL, which has 

now penetrated Iraq through the influx of foreign fighters across 

the Syrian border as a result largely, though not exclusively, of 

course, of the Syrian civil war. ISIL poses a significant threat, not 

only to Iraq, but to Iraq’s neighbors. And I think the United States 

has a commitment to support Iraq and its security, and we will 

continue to work, through the measures that Ambassador Beecroft 

just outlined, to try to support the Iraqi security forces in this challenge that they face. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now that we have seen Fallujah, Mosul, fall 

to, basically, elements of al-Qaeda, now that we have seen the Iraqi 

security forces shed their uniforms, go door to door, getting civilian 

clothes so they could meld into the population, do you see any silver linings? 

Ambassador JONES. I think what Ambassador Beecroft said was 

that—I think the escalation of the threat posed by ISIL is having 

an impact in Baghdad of drawing the political factions more closely 

together. And I think, in the last 72 hours, we have seen a series 

of meetings, where the various political elements are coming together and drawing up plans and looking for ways to cooperate for 

the national security. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, do you expect the Iraqi security force now 

to turn the tide and be able to capture back Fallujah and Mosul? 

Ambassador JONES. We certainly hope for that outcome, and I 

think it is incumbent on the United States to support that outcome. 

Senator JOHNSON. You are obviously going to Iraq, and, you 

know, God bless you for being willing to serve. You said there are 

5,300 U.S. personnel in Iraq. Are they going to be safe? 

Ambassador JONES. That is a very good question, Senator. And 

thank you for your kind words. 

The compound in—as mentioned earlier, I was the Deputy Chief 

of Mission in Baghdad from 2010 until 2011, and I have worked 

in that compound. We have taken extraordinary measures to ensure the safety and protection of our personnel. We are going to 

have to make sure and be vigilant to maintain those. 

We cannot stay behind the walls. We have to be out. And I know 

that Ambassador Beecroft is out frequently to meet with Iraqi contacts in Baghdad and other parts of the country. So, we are going 

to have to do the best we can to reduce the risks and ensure that 

we can do—both do our jobs and stay safe. 

364 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you tell me, of the 5,300 personnel, how 

many are really security forces? And is—are those military personnel? Are those State Department? 

Ambassador JONES. Yes, it is a complicated question. I would 

love to go into the details with you in another setting, but—— 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Ambassador JONES [continuing]. Suffice to say that we have a 

significant number of Diplomatic Security officers who are State 

Department officers. We also have, of course, the Marine security 

guards, and then we also have contract guards who are assigned 

to protect the perimeter. So, it is a significant number, and I will 

be happy to get back to you with the details of all those numbers. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, well, I appreciate that. And I—again, I 

wish you, you know, godspeed and safety and best of luck, but I 

hope this—the security of yourself and those serving with you on 

the ground in Iraq is your top priority. 

Ambassador JONES. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Smith, my questions have largely been asked and answered, 

so I will not pursue them. 

I would just instruct the nominees that the record will be open 

for the next 48 hours. To the extent that questions are submitted 

to any of you, I would urge you to respond to them expeditiously 

so that we can move your nominations through a business meeting 

of the Foreign Relations Committee. 

And, with our gratitude for your willingness to serve, this panel 

is excused. 

And I would call upon our second panel today: James Nealon, 

nominated to be the Ambassador to Honduras—— 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. If we could have everyone who is not staying for 

the rest of the hearing please leave the room and—— 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. As we have everybody exit, let me, for 

the sake of time and votes that are going to be coming—our second 

panel today is James Nealon, nominated to be the Ambassador to 

Honduras. Mr. Nealon’s nomination comes at a time when Honduras is facing serious challenges from crime and violence and a 

humanitarian crisis of children crossing borders by themselves, and 

being apprehended and held. The Government of Honduras is 

struggling to guarantee the security and economic well-being of its 

people, and, as a result, we are left to address how we will handle 

waves of children immigrants crossing into the United States on 

their own, and how the Honduran Government will handle the underlying issues of crime and violence. 

Just last week, President Obama announced the creation of a 

new interagency task force to address what he called ‘‘an urgent 

humanitarian situation’’ stemming from unaccompanied minors 

crossing the southern border of the United States, many of whom 

are from Honduras. I look forward to hearing Mr. Nealon’s views 

on the best way forward to address this humanitarian crisis. 

365 

Also on our panel is Gentry Smith, nominated to be the Director 

of the Office of Foreign Missions, with the rank of Ambassador. Mr. 

Smith is an expert in embassy security issues. He is a career member of the Foreign Service Class of minister counselors, serving as 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Assistant Director for Countermeasures at the State Department, a position he has held since 

2009. He has served as the regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo and the U.S. Embassy in Rangoon. He has also 

served as security officer and deputy regional security officer during two separate tours at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. 

So, we welcome both of you to the committee. Again, if you have 

family members, we urge you to introduce them to the committee. 

We appreciate their willingness to join in your service on behalf of 

our country. 

Your full statements will be included in the record, without objection, but I ask you to summarize your openings in about 5 minutes or so, so that we can enter into a dialogue with each of you. 

And, with that, Mr. Nealon, you are recognized first. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. NEALON, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS 

Mr. NEALON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, distinguished members 

of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is an honor to appear before you as the President’s nominee as Ambassador to Honduras. I am deeply grateful to the President and to the Secretary 

of State for their trust and confidence. 

After 30 years in the Foreign Service, I appreciate the privilege 

and the responsibility that it is to be considered for confirmation 

as Ambassador. I deeply respect the role of the Senate in ensuring 

that the United States has a foreign policy that reflects our Nation’s values. 

I would like to recognize my wife, Kristin, who is here today, and 

our four children, Rory, Katie, Maureen, and Liam, all born while 

we were living overseas. We are a Foreign Service family, and we 

have been in this together from the very beginning, so this is their 

day as much as mine. I believe I also have a sister, a brother, a 

brother-in-law, and many friends here, so I thank all of them. And 

I see my son arrived from California. I am glad to see him. 

Mr. Chairman, the headlines do not often tell a positive story 

about Honduras. This is a country that faces tremendous challenges, many of them associated with the direct and indirect effects 

of narcotics trafficking and organized crime. It is a challenge to establish strong democratic institutions, establish a rule-of-law culture, attack impunity and corruption, reduce crime, attract investment, and ensure a prosperous future for Honduran citizens. 

We share, with many Members of Congress, a concern about the 

consequences of slow economic growth, impunity, weak institutions, 

corruption, and extreme violence in Honduras. We share the view 

that everything is related: impunity and lack of accountability and 

transparency promote a weak rule-of-law culture, discourage investment, and encourage illegal migration to the United States. We 

366 

are partners with you in seeking to influence this trajectory in a 

positive direction. 

Mr. Chairman, in such circumstances, some will ask if U.S. engagement in Honduras makes a difference. I believe that it does 

and that it is in our interest to stay engaged. A Honduras with 

greater accountability and transparency will establish stronger 

rule-of-law institutions and be more likely to protect human rights. 

A Honduras with a vibrant middle class means a larger overseas 

market for American-made products. A more secure and prosperous 

Honduras means fewer migrants trying to cross our borders. A 

Honduras with strong interdiction capacity means fewer drugs arriving in our communities. As President Obama recently said, respect for human rights is an antidote to instability—a Honduras 

with strong human rights protections means enhanced security in 

our region. 

The United States is committed to partnering with the Government of Honduras to promote prosperity, governance, and security. 

In order to do so, we need willing partners in Honduras who have 

the political will to transform their society, the capacity to seize 

drugs, and the commitment to arrest, prosecute, and sentence 

criminals. They also need to guarantee the human rights of their 

own citizens. 

Mr. Chairman, Honduras is at a crossroads. We have seen some 

early signs that the Government of Honduras is ready to take important steps to improve the lives of its citizens. In May, for the 

first time, they extradited a notorious Honduran drug trafficker to 

the United States, an important strike against impunity. The new 

government has dedicated scarce resources to better combat trafficking in persons. They have fired corrupt police, they have indicted the entire board of directors of the Social Security Institute 

for corruption, and they have invited the United Nations to set up 

a human rights office. They have also formed a task force to investigate unsolved murders in a particularly conflictive area of the 

country, the Bajo Aguan. But, there is no doubt, the Government 

of Honduras still has a very big job ahead. 

I am fully aware of the serious doubts expressed, including in the 

U.S. Congress, regarding the willingness and ability of the Government of Honduras to take needed steps to improve the human 

rights situation. If confirmed, I commit to work tirelessly in this 

area. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been a Deputy Chief of Mission at three 

embassies in this hemisphere. I am currently the Deputy Civilian 

Commander at U.S. Southern Command. I have spent the last 30 

years in nine foreign postings, working to promote democracy and 

human rights, enhance law enforcement and security partnerships, 

and promote U.S. exports and investment. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor of appearing before 

this committee today. If confirmed, I pledge to work with you and 

your colleagues to advance the vital interests of the United States 

in Honduras. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your questions today and at any time in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nealon follows:] 

367 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. NEALON

Mister Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is an honor to appear today before you as the President’s nominee as 

Ambassador to Honduras. I am deeply grateful to the President and to the Secretary 

of State for their trust and confidence. 

After 30 years in the Foreign Service, I appreciate the privilege and the responsibility that it is to be considered for confirmation as Ambassador. I deeply respect 

the role of the Senate in the work of ensuring that the United States has a foreign 

policy that reflects our Nation’s values. 

I would like to recognize my wife, Kristin, who is here today, and our four children—Rory, Katie, Maureen, and Liam, all born while we were living overseas. We 

are a Foreign Service family and we have been in this together from the very beginning. This is their day as much as mine. 

Mr. Chairman, the headlines do not often tell a positive story about Honduras. 

Our vision for Honduras is of a country that is middle class, democratic, and secure. 

Still, this is a country that faces tremendous challenges, many of them associated 

with the direct and indirect effects of narcotics trafficking and organized crime 

structures operating throughout the country. It is a challenge to establish strong 

democratic institutions, establish a rule of law culture, attack impunity and corruption, reduce crime, attract investment, and ensure a prosperous future for Honduran 

citizens. 

We share with many Members on the Hill a concern about the consequences in 

the United States and in Honduras of slow economic growth, impunity, weak institutions, corruption, and extreme violence in Honduras. We share the view that 

everything is related: impunity and a lack of accountability and transparency promote a weak rule of law culture, discourage investment, and encourage illegal 

migration to the U.S. We are partners with you in seeking to influence this trajectory in a positive direction. 

In such circumstances, some still ask if U.S. engagement in Honduras makes a 

difference. I believe it does and that it is in our interest to stay engaged. A Honduras with greater accountability and transparency will establish stronger rule of 

law institutions and be more likely to protect human rights. A Honduras with a 

vibrant middle class means a larger overseas market for American-made products. 

A more secure and prosperous Honduras means fewer migrants trying to cross our 

borders. A Honduras with strong interdiction capacity means fewer drugs arriving 

in U.S. communities. As President Obama recently said, respect for human rights 

is an antidote to instability—a Honduras with strong human rights protections 

means enhanced security in our region. 

The United States is committed to partnering with the Government of Honduras 

to promote prosperity, governance, and security. In order to do so, we need willing 

partners in Honduras who have the political will to transform their society, the 

capacity to seize drugs, and the commitment to arrest, prosecute and sentence 

criminals, and to guarantee the human rights of their own citizens. 

Honduras is at a crossroads. We have seen some early signs that the Government 

of Honduras is ready to take important steps to improve the lives of its citizens. 

In May, for the first time, Honduras extradited a notorious Honduran drug trafficker to the United States, an important strike against impunity. The new government dedicated scarce resources to combat trafficking in persons and launched a signature program to bring more people into the formal economy. The government has 

taken steps to improve security, enhance the rule of law, and emphasize its commitment to improving human rights conditions. The President has fired corrupt police, 

indicted the entire board of directors of the social security institute, invited the 

United Nations to set up a human rights office, and set up a task force to investigate unsolved murders in a particularly conflictive area of the country, the Bajo 

Aguan. But there is no doubt the Government of Honduras still has a big job ahead. 

Honduras’s location and role in regional security make its success vital to our own 

national security, and it is in our interest to work with the government and civil 

society to improve democratic governance, the rule of law, stability, and protection 

of human rights. It is also important that we emphasize the value of building 

national consensus in support of the serious challenges the country confronts. I am 

fully aware of the serious doubts expressed, including in the U.S. Congress, regarding the willingness and ability of the Government of Honduras to take needed steps 

to improve the human rights situation. If confirmed, I commit to work tirelessly in 

this area. 

The United States engages in Honduras to support social and economic development, improve food security, promote civil society, and give alternatives to joining 

gangs to at-risk youth. We have a wide variety of programs focused on increasing 

368 

law enforcement and rule of law capacity and strengthening violence prevention 

efforts to improve the security environment, and we recognize that these efforts are 

only effective and sustainable when human rights are at the center. The United 

States should remain Honduras’ best partner because it is very much in our interest 

that Honduras be stable, well governed, prosperous and safe. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been a deputy chief of mission at three embassies in this 

hemisphere. I am currently the civilian deputy to the Commander at U.S. Southern 

Command; in that context, my view is that the most appropriate role for the U.S. 

military in Honduras is to help ensure that the Honduran military is professional, 

under civilian direction, and can secure its own borders. I have spent most of the 

last 30 years working to promote democracy and human rights, enhancing law enforcement and security partnerships, and promoting U.S. exports and investment. 

Above all, I am proud to have spent my career working in the interests of American 

citizens to defend our values throughout the world. 

I understand the magnitude of the challenges the United States faces in Honduras. I delegate authority, not responsibility. I believe in the power of diplomacy 

and of using our influence to achieve our national security goals. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you again for the honor of appearing before the committee today. If confirmed, I pledge to work with you and your colleagues to advance the vital interests 

of the United States in Honduras. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to any questions you may have, now 

and in the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Nealon. And, you know, we 

did not give you a complete introduction. You have 30 years of experience, having joined the service in 1984. You have most recently 

been the deputy chief of mission in Canada, Peru, and Uruguay. 

You have also been located in Spain, Hungary, the Philippines, and 

Chile, as well as the current assignment that you just talked about. 

So, a tremendous background. We appreciate your willingness to 

serve. 

Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF GENTRY O. SMITH, OF NORTH CAROLINA, 

NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN 

MISSIONS 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and 

distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear 

before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the next Director of the Office of Foreign Missions, OFM. I am profoundly 

grateful for the confidence the President and Secretary Kerry have 

demonstrated in nominating me for this unique and important position. 

My entire professional life has been dedicated to public service. 

Beginning with my first career as a police officer in Raleigh, North 

Carolina, to my assignments at our Embassies in Tokyo, Rangoon, 

and Cairo, and to my current role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countermeasures with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, I have strived to improve the conditions in which our colleagues live and work. I believe my dedication and commitment in 

this regard will serve me well if given the opportunity to lead the 

Office of Foreign Missions, an organization whose primary goals 

are using reciprocity to ensure equitable treatment of United 

States diplomatic and consular missions abroad, and their personnel; regulating the activities of foreign missions in the United 

States to protect our foreign policy and national security interests; 

protecting the U.S. public from abuses of privileges and immunities 

by the members of the foreign missions; and the provision of servVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
369 

ice and assistance to the foreign mission community in the United 

States on a reciprocal basis. 

As you are aware, OFM was established in 1982 as a requirement under the Foreign Missions Act. In passing the act, Congress 

made it clear that the operations of foreign missions in the United 

States is a proper subject for the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. 

For more than 30 years, the act has guided the Department’s management extension to the foreign missions in the United States of 

privileges, benefits, and immunities associated with the acquisition 

and use of real property, motor vehicles, driving services, tax exemptions, custom clearances, and domestic travel courtesies and restrictions. In my estimation, the Foreign Missions Act is a landmark piece of legislation which has positively influenced and conditioned the environment in which U.S. diplomatic and consular missions operate abroad. 

This committee is well aware of the Department’s ongoing efforts 

to ensure our personnel abroad work in facilities that are safe, secure, and functional. I can authoritatively attest that the relocation 

of an American embassy is a complex, costly, and difficult task. To 

accomplish this job, the United States Government and in many 

countries—have, in many countries, the support of that host country. And in countries where that support is lacking, the Office of 

Foreign Missions plays a critical role in assisting in the resolution 

of these impasses we sometimes face with these governments during our attempts to acquire real property and in those countries 

where we are relocating our facilities. 

When a country has an interest in improving and relocating its 

own mission in the United States, the Office of Foreign Missions 

uses its ability to regulate the acquisition and the use of real property of those missions as leverage to achieve the Department’s own 

property-related needs in that country. Without OFM and the authorities it has under the Foreign Missions Act, we may not have 

been able to build a new embassy in Beijing, China, or a new 

annex in that same location. This and more was achieved as a result of reciprocity and the Foreign Missions Act. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am honored to have the opportunity 

to address you and the esteemed members of the committee. If confirmed, I will do all that I can to further these important objectives 

of Congress as set out in the Foreign Missions Act. I look forward 

to continuing to work with you to ensure the proper treatment of 

our foreign personnel abroad and that foreign missions here are 

good neighbors. 

Thank you for this opportunity and your consideration for my 

nomination. I respectfully request that my entire statement be entered into the record, and I would be happy to answer any of your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENTRY O. SMITH

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to 

appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the next Director of 

the Office of Foreign Missions (OFM). I am profoundly grateful for the confidence 

the President and Secretary Kerry have demonstrated in nominating me for this 

unique and important position. 

370 

My entire professional life has been dedicated to public service. Beginning with 

my first career as a police officer in Raleigh, NC, to my assignments as a Regional 

Security Officer at our Embassies in Tokyo, Rangoon, and Cairo, and to my current 

role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary and Assistant Director for Countermeasures 

in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, I have strived to improve the overall conditions in which my colleagues, and those of us with families, live and work. I believe 

my dedication and commitment in this regard will serve me well if given the opportunity to lead the Office of Foreign Missions, an organization whose primary goals 

are: 

• Using reciprocity to ensure equitable treatment for United States diplomatic 

and consular missions abroad and their personnel; 

• Regulating the activities of foreign missions in the United States to protect our 

foreign policy and national security interests; 

• Protecting the U.S. public from abuses of privileges and immunities by members of the foreign missions; and 

• Providing service and assistance to the foreign mission community in the 

United States on a reciprocal basis. 

As you are aware, OFM was established in 1982 as a requirement of the Foreign 

Missions Act. In passing the act, Congress made it clear that the operations of foreign missions and international organizations in the United States, including the 

permissible scope of their activities and the location and size of their facilities, is 

a proper subject for the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. The act provides the Department of State with broad authority to determine the treatment to be accorded to 

a foreign mission in the United States. 

OFM vigorously pursues its mandate under the act that, ‘‘consistent with our obligations under the Vienna Conventions, the treatment afforded a foreign mission in 

the United States shall be determined after due consideration of the benefits, privileges, and immunities provided to missions of the United States in the country represented by that foreign mission.’’ With this very mandate, OFM leads the Department’s engagement in a process in which it either develops an approach or exploits 

leverage to achieve a specific end. OFM’s approach to issues is a very realistic one. 

OFM knows that for every action there is a reaction, and so it works daily with a 

number of stakeholders, both within the Department and the broader community 

of Federal agencies, to carefully craft and implement responses to a wide range of 

actions that impact the proper or efficient operation of our diplomatic and consular 

operations abroad. 

For more than 30 years, the Act has guided the Department’s management and 

extension to foreign missions in the United States, privileges and benefits associated 

with the acquisition and use of real property, motor vehicle and driving services, 

tax exemptions, customs clearances, and domestic travel courtesies and restrictions. 

In recent years, OFM’s role and its use of the act’s broad authorities has allowed 

it to expand into new areas including the provision of assistance with the establishment and availability of financial services for foreign missions and to the development of the proposed Foreign Missions Center at the former Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center for the purpose of creating a second dedicated ‘‘embassy neighborhood’’ here in our Nation’s Capital. 

The act is also the reason I am before you today, in that it requires the Director 

of OFM to be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

In my estimation, the Foreign Missions Act is a landmark piece of legislation 

which has positively influenced and conditioned the environment in which U.S. diplomatic and consular missions abroad operate. I appreciate the fascinating history 

associated with the act’s origins, and its role in achieving a number of major, and 

often unsung, improvements to the operations of many of our embassies and consulates abroad. For example, in the past 11 years, OFM’s leadership of the Department’s Diplomatic Tax-Relief Initiative has resulted in the establishment of close to 

100 bilateral and reciprocal construction tax-relief arrangements; this has resulted 

in an estimated savings to the Department of nearly $280 million in foreign taxes 

associated with our efforts to construct new embassy and consular compounds. 

I am eager to lead OFM’s efforts in using the tools Congress provided the Department in realizing improvements to the many challenges, both new and old, that face 

so many of our posts abroad and my colleagues and their families who dutifully execute the diplomatic and consular relations of the United States. 

The prospect of improving the conditions of my colleagues and their families 

abroad is of significant personal importance to me. Our personnel, many with 

accompanying and unaccompanying family members, face pressures and challenges 

each day that did not exist when I first joined the Department of State. Without 

question, the life of the Foreign Service has dramatically changed. The daily presVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00378 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
371 

sures on our personnel are significant, and I will work every day to use the tools 

Congress provided OFM to help improve, in both small and big ways, the daily lives 

of the brave men and women who are assigned to our embassies and consulates 

around the world. 

This committee is well aware of the Department’s ongoing efforts to ensure that 

our personnel abroad work in facilities that are safe, secure, and functional. I can 

authoritatively attest that the relocation of an American Embassy is a complex, 

costly, and difficult task. To accomplish this job, the United States must have the 

interest and support of the host government. In many countries, such support and 

assistance is there for the asking. In countries where support is lacking, I, as a 

member of Diplomatic Security, along with colleagues in Overseas Buildings Operations and other parts of the Department, have come to realize and respect the critical role that OFM quietly plays in assisting with the resolution of impasses we 

sometimes face with foreign governments during our attempts to acquire real property in their countries for the relocation and construction of our facilities. 

When a country has an interest in improving or relocating one of its missions in 

the United States, OFM uses its ability to regulate the acquisition and use of real 

property by foreign missions as leverage to achieve the Department’s own propertyrelated needs in that country. Without OFM and the authorities it has under the 

Foreign Missions Act, the Department might not have been able to speak today of 

having a new U.S. Embassy in Beijing, as well as a new annex building under construction there as well. This and more was achieved as a result of reciprocity and 

the Foreign Missions Act. 

If I am confirmed and with your support, I will further use OFM’s authorities as 

a means to support and realize the goal shared by both Congress and the President 

of ensuring that our personnel work in safe and secure facilities abroad. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am honored to have the opportunity to address you 

and the esteemed members of the committee. If confirmed, I will do all that I can 

to further the important objectives Congress set out in the Foreign Missions Act, 

and I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure proper treatment of 

our Foreign Service personnel abroad, and that foreign missions are good neighbors 

here at home. 

Thank you for this opportunity and your consideration of my nomination. I 

respectfully request that my full statement be entered into the record, and I will 

be happy to answer your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Both of your statements will be fully entered into the record. 

Mr. Nealon, let me start off with the—for me, the most pressing 

issue of the day as it relates to Honduras, which is in the headlines 

and minds of all of us who care about the issues of human rights 

and human dignity. And it is the thousands of young people, and 

increasingly younger people, who seem forced to leave their families and head for the U.S. border because of the inability of the 

Honduran government and other Central American governments to 

deal with crime and violence in a region that is home to the highest murder rate in the world. 

I am personally appalled by the staggering numbers of minors, 

sometimes as young as 5 and 6 years old, who are left by their personal circumstances with no other choice than to try to cross the 

desert by themselves. And, as you approach this post, I would like 

to get a sense from you as to what discussions you have had with 

the administration and with the State Department. What is our 

strategy to try to address both the present challenge, as well as the 

underlying causes that has given us this humanitarian tragedy? 

Mr. NEALON. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I very much share your concerns about these children who are 

leaving Central America, including Honduras, and making a dangerous trip in an attempt to cross our borders. If confirmed as Ambassador to Honduras, of course, my piece of this would be an effort 

in Honduras to try to get Hondurans to see their future in their 

own country, and not try to make this dangerous trip. We all know 

372 

what the push factors are. The push factors are the threat of violence and a lack of economic opportunity. 

Senator, we currently have programs in Honduras that are designed to address these issues. Some of them are very good programs. But, we have to ask ourselves if it is enough. We have programs such as the GREAT Program, which addresses at-risk youth 

and try to wean them away from the threat of joining gangs. We 

have programs that offer economic opportunity. We support outreach centers, which try and create a culture where kids stay out 

of gangs, where they try to get job skills so they can enter the labor 

force. But, it is extremely difficult. As you said, Senator, it is one 

of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, and it is perhaps the 

most violent. So, the challenge is staggering. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me just say that—here is part of our 

challenge. And I hope that, if confirmed, you will make this case 

within the administration. Last week, the White House informed 

the Congress that it would need $2.28 billion to address the issue 

of unaccompanied minors crossing to the United States. Now, in 

2015, the administration’s request to Congress was only $130 million for its five-country Central American Regional Security Initiative, which is a decrease of $30 million over 2014. So, given that 

we need to spend $2.2 billion to address the consequences of the 

crisis here in the United States, it would seem that 130 million is 

absolutely insufficient to address the root causes of the problems. 

This is one of the things that boggles my mind. So, we are going to spend$ 2.28 billion—almost $2.3 billion, if we 

honor the President’s request, to deal with young people crossing 

the border, instead of spending that type of money to ultimately 

make sure they stay in their country and have the aspirations that 

you so aptly talked about. 

So, I know this is above your pay grade. You do not make this 

decision. But, since you are going to be going to this job, upon confirmation, I hope you are going to make the case that $130 million 

for five countries, which is less than what we have done, as compared to $2.2 billion to respond to the problem—it just does not 

make any sense. 

This is our problem with—as someone who was the Western 

Hemisphere chair here before I became the full-committee chair, 

getting the focus of the Congress and this administration on the 

Western Hemisphere is a challenge. It is our front yard. It is our 

own national interest. And we seem to have a problem understanding that. So, we will spend more on a crisis than we will on 

meeting the challenge in the first place. 

So, could I get you to be an advocate for this proposition? 

Mr. NEALON. Senator, you can absolutely have me as an advocate 

for this proposition, if confirmed. I am obviously not in a position 

to assess how much money—how much additional money we might 

need in Honduras to address this problem, but I do know that both 

USAID and the State Department are, right now, assessing those 

programs that we do have. So, I will very much look forward to 

seeing the results of that assessment to see if we can get a handle 

on how much additional money we might need. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, let me ask you. What do you consider 

to be OFM’s highest priorities? And how do you perceive your role 

373 

in achieving them? This is a mandate that has evolved and expanded since the creation of the office in 1982. I want to get, as 

the nominee here, what your highest priorities would be, and what 

your role would be in pursuing them. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

As we know, the Office of Foreign Missions, as it came into existence from the Foreign Missions Act of 1982, gives the Secretary 

broad responsibilities for ensuring that foreign missions here act in 

a manner that is appropriate. My highest priority will be making 

sure that our citizens who work abroad are treated fairly in a reciprocal manner, and also ensuring that the activities of foreign entities here are in support—or do not conflict with our national interests, and also that there is no abuse of privileges, immunities 

by the missions and the personnel that are here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I would like to hear from you, what role 

does the Director of the Office of Foreign Missions play in interacting with diplomatic security with respect to security in our embassies and consulates abroad? 

Mr. SMITH. The relationship between the Office of Foreign Missions and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security has existed for a long 

time, from the time before the Office of Foreign Missions was officially a—an office within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, until 

the point where it is now, where it is a separate entity. Diplomatic 

Security has always played a supporting role in helping the Office 

of Foreign Missions carry out some of its responsibilities. We help 

to protect the diplomats who are here in the United States with— 

through our police liaison unit. Diplomatic Security has relationships with police organizations and local police throughout the 

country. And so, we help to protect the diplomats who reside here, 

and we also offer protection to visiting diplomats who come here to 

visit the country during short periods of time through our protective details. 

In every location where there is an Office of Foreign Missions, 

there is also a field office for Diplomatic Security. 

The CHAIRMAN. One final question. Your—this office is often referred to as the Office of Tit for Tat, meaning that for—one of our 

main goals is to ensure reciprocity of treatment of our diplomats 

overseas. Can you talk about that reciprocity? And here is one example, for example: Argentina. A February 2013 Department of 

State Inspector General report suggested that there was an array 

of reciprocity inequities negatively affecting personnel at the U.S. 

Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In particular, the report cites 

inequities regarding the importation, exportation, sales, and transfer procedures relative to private and government-owned vehicles 

and household effects. I am under the understanding that the office 

sent a diplomatic note to the Argentine Embassy in Washington 

drawing attention to the situation, but, at the time of the Inspector 

General’s report, no response had been received. 

So, that is an example of one of the important roles you play so 

that our people can have a decent standard of living as they are 

representing our country abroad. Tell me a little bit about the reciprocity issue, in general. And do you know about this Argentina 

issue, in specific? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

374 

Yes, reciprocity is one of our major tools that is—that we can use 

in ensuring that our diplomats overseas, and that our missions 

that operate overseas, are treated fairly. I have heard, during my 

briefings for preparations, that there has been an issue in Argentina. As a matter of fact, I know that, as you stated, the issue was 

raised in the February 2013 report. 

The reason that the issue is still under discussion is the fact that 

there is still information that we have asked for, that the Office of 

Foreign Missions has asked for, from our mission in Buenos Aires. 

And yes, we have been in contact with the Argentine mission here, 

but there are additional details that are needed from the people 

that we have out there on the ground—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Something is wrong when, 16 months later, we 

are looking for information versus action. So, if confirmed, will you 

commit to me that you will make this one of your highest priorities? 

Mr. SMITH. I will, indeed, Senator, if confirmed. We very much 

would like that information, because, you are absolutely right, we 

are looking and willing to engage on this issue to ensure that our 

personnel overseas are treated in the fairest manner possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I know Senator Rubio needs to 

be on the floor, so I am going to defer and let him go, and then 

I will ask my questions after Senator Kaine. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Thank you both for your service to our country. 

Mr. Nealon, I have two quick questions. And I appreciate the 

ranking member’s indulgence on this. The first has to do with an 

issue I am sure you are aware of, and that is a U.S. crew that was 

arrested in Honduras during a river job. This is the salvage company, Aqua Quest International. They had a contract to dredge the 

Patuca River and raise valuable mahogany and cedar logs that 

were on the bottom of the riverbed. They have been there for more 

than a century. It was a very valuable contract, mutually beneficial 

to both Honduras but also to this crew that was involved in this. 

It is standard operating procedure for crews in the Mosquito 

Coast in this part of the world to have firearms onboard to defend 

themselves from both pirates and potentially from drug traffickers 

in the region. This group pulled into the port there, they arrived 

at the port, they declared their two pistols, or two shotguns and a 

semiautomatic sport rifle that looks like an AK–47. They declared 

it to the Honduran navy inspection post. The sailors agreed to let 

them continue to the port. But, when they arrived there, they were 

arrested for weapons charges, and they remain in the custody of 

the Honduran Government. 

I just was hoping to get your commitment today that, if confirmed, one of your—hopefully, by the time you get there, this will 

have been cleared up, but, if not, that you will make it among your 

highest priorities to address this outrage that has occurred there. 

And these men should not be in jail. They have done nothing 

wrong. They followed maritime law. And I just want your commitment publicly that we will address this issue, if, in fact, this has 

375 

not been cleared up—and we hope it will be—by the time you get 

there. 

Mr. NEALON. Thank you very much, Senator. I am very much 

aware of the detention of the crew of the Aqua Quest in Honduras 

on May 5. You do have my word that, if confirmed as Ambassador 

to Honduras, the safety and welfare of American citizens will be 

my highest priority. I, too, hope that this situation will be cleared 

up by the time I get there, if confirmed. But, I want you to know 

that, if I am confirmed, you will be able to call me personally and 

hold me personally accountable for the actions of the Embassy in 

any case involving American citizens or constituents. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, we appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

I want to talk about a broader issue that is emerging in the press 

lately, because of the urgency of it. And the chairman has already 

alluded to it a moment ago. Just the—the facts are pretty staggering. About 5 years ago, there were about 100-—968 unaccompanied children that crossed the southern U.S. border from Honduras. This year alone—we have not even gone through—halfway 

through the year—there has been more than 13,000 unaccompanied minors that have come across the border from Honduras. 

This is, like I said, almost twice as much as last year, the entire 

year. We understand that violence and poverty are a driver of this. 

It is important to understand the desperation that a parent must 

have to put their kids on—in the hands of these groups that are 

going to move them across the border. That is how desperate people are to—to turn your child over. Some of these unaccompanied 

minors are very young children—talking very young children—6, 7, 

8, 9 years of age. So, this is a very serious humanitarian crisis that 

we are all kind of struggling around here to figure out what to do 

about it in the short term, just to deal with the humanitarian aspects of it. 

I do want to ask you, What insight do you have as to—beyond 

the motivation for doing it, why is this happening? In essence—we 

have heard anecdotal reports—I have, certainly, in south Florida, 

among members, some in the Honduran community—that there 

are what are, for lack of a better term, rumors that if, in fact, the 

children are able to get here, they are going to get to stay. Is that 

a—is, in fact, those rumors circulating? And what—and if, in fact, 

they are, as—I believe that there is some element of that; I do not 

know how much of it is quantified to that, but whatever percentage 

of it is—what can we do, working with the Honduran Government, 

to make clear to parents in Honduras that, despite the desperation 

that they face and what we need to do to help the Honduran people 

overcome that in their own country, this is not something they 

should be doing? They should not be—they are putting their children in grave danger. When they are crossing through Mexico into 

the United States, they become prime targets for traffickers, they 

become prime targets for all sorts of transnational criminal organizations. And then, when they get to the United States, to be abundantly clear, the laws of the United States do not allow them to 

stay here. They arrived illegally. That whatever it is they are hearing, it is not accurate. What can we do through our Embassy to 

help make that clear so that we can prevent this mass migration? 

I think this is a question to ask of our posts in El Salvador and 

376 

Guatemala, as well, but you are going to Honduras. What can we 

do to make it clear that this is not something that they should do? 

It is not wise, and it puts their children in grave danger. 

Mr. NEALON. Senator, thank you very much. And, as I said to 

Chairman Menendez, I share your very deep concern for this situation. 

I am not sure that I have any wisdom to add to what I already 

said to the chairman, except that I can say that the Honduran Government is running public service ads in Honduras to counter the 

kind of rumors that you have described. Obviously—— 

Senator RUBIO. Where do these rumors come from? Why are 

they—where did the perception that they can come and stay if they 

arrive—where is that coming from? 

Mr. NEALON. Senator, unfortunately, I am not in a position to 

answer that question for you. I simply do not know. But, I can tell 

you that, if confirmed, this issue, which I think has gotten the attention, rightly, of all of us, would be at the very top of my list of 

priorities to try to address. And I would really look forward to 

working with you. I know you have deep roots in the community 

in Florida. I would really look forward to working with you to see 

if we could come up with some ideas to address the situation. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 

witnesses. 

And, Mr. Smith, I will apologize to you in advance. I have a kind 

of an obsession about Honduras, and so I am not going to grill you. 

I hope you do not mind. 

And I will start with Mr. Nealon. First, congratulations. I mean, 

this is a country of many, many wonderful people, and I think 

being Ambassador to Honduras at this time, though a very challenging one, is going to give you a superb opportunity to continue 

what has really been an estimable career in Foreign Service. And 

so, I congratulate you there. 

I lived in Honduras, in el Progreso, in the Yoro province, in 1980 

and 1981, and I worked with Jesuits there who are responsible for 

a lot of good work in that province and around the country. And 

I just—I kind of hate to say this, and I—every time I say it, I kind 

of feel bad saying it, but, when I was there, it was a military dictatorship, and it was a very brutal place, including brutal to the people that I worked with, many of whom were targeted during that 

time, and after, by the government, because of their activity and 

advocacy on behalf of the least of these, especially the campesinos 

and the banana camps near el Progreso. But, it is worse now than 

then. They are less safe now than then. It is not a military dictatorship anymore. You know, we moved out of the military dictatorship era into a time of Presidential elections. But, my friends who 

are there—it is not that they want to go back, but they are less 

safe than they were. And a country that was—that has been a superb ally to the United States, a country that is one of the original 

partners with us on an issue—it is like the Peace Corps—now is 

one of the few countries in the world that cannot even have Peace 

377 

Corps Volunteers there, because of the level of violence and danger. 

And that is just a tragic thing to think about. 

One element of the tragedy, in particular, that I am concerned 

about, is—as you might imagine, is the people that I worked with. 

There is a radio station in el Progreso, Radio Progreso, that was 

run by the Jesuits, bombed and attacked when I was there. And 

a very prominent journalist who worked at the radio station, who 

also worked for a Jesuit-run think tank, the Equipo de Reflexiones 

Investigaciones Cristianos, was just murdered, on the 11th of April. 

Carlos Mejia Orellano, murdered in his home in el Progreso. And 

the speculation has been that he was murdered because he was a 

journalist, because he was doing what that radio station does, 

which is call attention to human rights problems. There has been 

virtually no progress, or even interest that I am aware of, in solving that case, and he is one of 34 media representatives that have 

been killed in Honduras since 2010. 

The fate of people I know—and maybe it is unfair to focus on 

this, just because I know these folks—but, these are people doing 

good work, and they are raising questions that have to be asked, 

and yet they are being targeted and—as other journalists are, as 

well. 

Maybe if you could just start off there. What can you do, in your 

position as ambassador, to demand accountability for the deaths of 

journalists, demand that they take it seriously and hold up the virtues that we proclaim here about the importance of a free press 

and the protections that they are entitled to? 

Mr. NEALON. Thank you very much, Senator. 

And, first of all, I am very aware of your obsession with Honduras and your work as a lay missionary there, back in the 1980s. 

And, if confirmed, I would be delighted to welcome you back and 

have you—— 

Senator KAINE. I would love to come. 

Mr. NEALON [continuing]. Introduce me to your old friends and 

your old haunts. 

You raise a number of very important issues, but I think the 

most important is the issue that goes to impunity. As you probably 

know, Senator, impunity is a long-standing human rights issue in 

Honduras. By some estimates, as many as 95 percent of crimes in 

Honduras go unresolved, not just crimes against journalists or politicians or members of other such communities, but crimes against 

the population in general. So, this is something that we simply 

have to address. 

I will say, Senator—and if you come down, if I am confirmed and 

we get a chance to work together on this—I believe we have seen 

some early signs of positive steps that this government is willing 

to take important steps to begin to address these issues. And if, 

with your patience, I will name a couple of them. 

First of all, last month, Honduras extradited—— 

Senator KAINE. Good news. 

Mr. NEALON [continuing]. Carlos Lobo, a notorious narcotrafficker, the first such extradition in the country’s history. They had 

to change the constitution in order to do it. And we understand 

more extraditions may be coming. I think this is a very, very positive step. 

378 

They have fired scores of corrupt police officers. They have indicted the entire board of directors of the Social Security Institute, 

16 people, for corruption. And the President has requested that the 

United Nations open up an Office of the U.N. High Commission on 

Human Rights in Honduras. And I understand that the Congress, 

our Congress, has appropriated a million dollars toward that, 

which I think is a fantastic step. 

So, Senator, I believe we are seeing early signs of positive steps, 

but I completely agree with you that the issue of impunity is something that we need to get at. 

Senator KAINE. I want to associate myself with comments that 

the Chairman made about the importance of investments. 

Trying to help the Hondurans deal with the violence challenges 

in Honduras is not just because we are good people, and it is not 

just because, if we do it, it may slow down unaccompanied minors 

coming to our borders. I mean, the violence in Honduras is largely 

driven by a drug trade that is fueled by Americans’ demand for 

drugs. Hondurans are not big drug users. The drugs that are 

transiting through Honduras are not transiting through Honduras 

because of the Honduran mass appetite for illegal substances. Honduras has become a convenient staging ground, transit point, and 

stopover place for drugs that are coming north into Mexico to the 

United States or Canada. 

And so, it is, you know, the—it is hard to look yourself in the 

mirror and, you know, kind of just point the finger, what the 

Hondurans need to do about their—you know, their justice system, 

when you know that so much of the violence that is causing parents to set their kids free, trying to find their way to the U.S. border, is driven by a drug trade that is largely fueled by U.S. dollars 

and the demand for drugs. 

So, we have more than just a need to do something, you know, 

to help a partner. We have an obligation, here, because the violence 

that folks are suffering under in Honduras is something that is directly connected to domestic activities here in the United States. 

And it is my hope, as well, that we will not just, ‘‘Oh, gosh, now 

there are unaccompanied minors. I guess we have to do something 

about it, because they are trying to come to our border.’’ If it has— 

if the country has one of the highest murder rates in the world because of a drug trade that, at the end of the day, is ending up in 

the United States, that ought to call us to do some things, too. And 

the chairman said we ought to be proactive and not wait til the 

problem just gets to our door. If it is a problem that we have some 

responsibility for, then we ought to be in solving it even before it 

gets to our doorstep. 

And I associate myself, Mr. Chair, with your comments on that. 

Thank the witnesses and wish you the best. And I will visit you. 

I will. 

Mr. NEALON. I will look forward to that, Senator. Thank you very 

much. 

The CHAIRMAN. My thanks to Senator Kaine, for his always erudite insights, and particularly, I know that he has a real, passionate interest in Honduras. And, as such, throughout the Central 

America region, which is a challenge for us. 

379 

I have one final question, Mr. Nealon. You know, I was arguing 

earlier that we need to invest more so that we do not spend so 

much more—multiples more, as it relates to facing the problem 

versus meeting the core elements of why we have situations like 

young people crossing the border. By the same token, as I advocate 

for increased resources for addressing the citizen security issue 

throughout Central America, including, obviously, in Honduras, we 

need a strong, shared approach with the governments in the region—in this case, with Honduras. 

In that sense, I want to get an understanding of your evaluation 

of the Hernandez administration’s ability and willingness—understanding you are not on the ground, but hopefully the briefings 

have given you some insight—to address the challenges at hand. 

The State Department’s 2013 Human Rights Report on Honduras 

raised concerns about corruption, the weakness of the justice system, and unlawful and arbitrary killings by security forces. President Hernandez has prioritized the creation of a military police 

force over what should be the U.S. priority of strengthening and reforming a civilian police force. And finally, the U.S. Government 

has limited intelligence-sharing and radar information as a result 

of recent legislation providing the Honduran governmental authorities to shoot down civilian planes believed to be involved in drug 

trafficking. And, while we certainly can applaud any efforts to try 

to interdict drug traffickings, to go to the extreme point of shooting 

down planes creates all types of risks, especially if you have got the 

information wrong. 

So, what do these developments imply for our relationship with 

the Government of Honduras as we try to meet this mutual challenge? 

Mr. NEALON. Thank you very much, Senator. 

First of all, you raised the issue of the military police. These are 

actually members of the armed forces who have law enforcement 

authorities who have been put on the street by the Honduran government to try to address the highest murder rate in the world and 

the other violent crime that is pervasive there. We do not support 

putting the military in the streets in a law enforcement capacity. 

We believe that that distracts from the very important work that 

we do support with our programs, of working with the civilian police force, because we believe that military police in the streets simply is not a viable permanent solution. We have to work with the 

civilian police. 

You also mentioned, Senator, the recent legislation in Honduras, 

the air sovereignty law, which some people call a ‘‘shoot-down law.’’ 

That is very problematic for the United States, and that point has 

been made very clear to the Honduran Government. There were 

some immediate consequences of that law. For example, Southern 

Command, General Kelly, had to turn off air feeds that we provided to the Hondurans because there was some risk that those air 

feeds could be used to shoot down civilian aircraft. And there may 

be other consequences to that, as well, moving forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I hope this will be part of the work that 

you will pursue upon confirmation, in terms of trying to get us to 

a point that we can get the Honduran Government to agree with 

us on the common methodology, if we are going to fund it, one that 

380 

we can be supportive of. Because, if not, it will be a further challenge to trying to help them with citizen security. 

Senator Corker asked me to say that he will submit his questions 

for the record. He has deep respect for both of you, but he had a 

conflict in his schedule, so he could not stay any longer. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would urge you, not only to answer his 

questions, but any other members’ questions that are posed for the 

record, as expeditiously as possible so that we can, therefore, consider your nominations before a business meeting of the full committee. 

And, with the thanks of the committee for your willingness to 

serve, this panel is excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF STUART E. JONES TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. Assistance to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).—As a result 

of the current crisis related to the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 

(ISIS) in Northern Iraq, as many as 500,000 people have fled into KRG-controlled 

areas, creating an urgent humanitarian crisis already severe due to the presence of 

some 250,000 refugees from the Syrian side of the conflict. Current estimates place 

the burden to the KRG at roughly $1,000 per person, per year. The KRG are reliable 

U.S. partners, and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters are now the frontline against ISIS. 

♦ What support are we currently providing to the KRG to ensure it can respond 

to urgent security and humanitarian pressures? 

♦ How will you address urgent KRG needs for food, shelter, generators, water, 

irrigation systems, camp infrastructure, vehicles and more, to help the KRG 

address these urgent humanitarian needs? 

♦ The KRG has also requested assistance in releasing U.S. military and security 

equipment withheld by the Maliki government in Baghdad. What leverage do 

we have to facilitate the immediate release of this equipment to the KRG? 

♦ What specific steps can the U.S. take immediately to strengthen KRG border 

security efforts, including providing body armor, communication systems and 

other nonlethal aid? 

Answer. The United States is extremely concerned about the deteriorating security situation deepening the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. On June 12, we announced 

a contribution of an additional $12.8 million to international organization partners 

like the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that are working to meet 

the needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and conflict victims in Iraq. Our 

total humanitarian assistance to those affected by conflict in Iraq in fiscal year 2014 

is more than $136 million. Since 2010, the United States has contributed to the 

United Nations, other international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations more than $1.1 billion in humanitarian assistance for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people throughout Iraq. Separately, we have provided more than 

$105 million to support Syrian refugees in Iraq since the start of the Syria crisis 

in 2011. This funding goes toward international organizations and nongovernmental 

organizations supporting the more than 225,000 refugees from Syria who have fled 

to Iraq since March 2011. 

Our funding for refugees from Syria supports transportation to refugee camps, refugee camp infrastructure, including providing safe water and sanitation, as well as 

support for education, child protection, and gender-based violence prevention and 

response. The recently announced $12.8 million in support for the current humanitarian crisis in Iraq includes $6.6 million to UNHCR for essential humanitarian 

supplies like blankets, tents, and hygiene items, and $6.2 million to other international organizations for food, clean water, core relief items, and urgent medical 

care for the affected. These organizations are working closely with the KRG and the 

Government of Iraq (GOI) to assess needs and support. 

The GOI is not withholding any military or security equipment from the KRG. 

The GOI was temporarily holding some military logistical equipment, which was 

381 

purchased through DOD’s Iraqi Security Forces Fund (ISFF), but transferred all of 

it to the KRG in 2013. 

If requested and approved by the GOI, the U.S. Government could provide a wide 

range of assistance to eligible KRG security forces through traditional security 

assistance authorities like the Foreign Military Sales program. The delivery of such 

assistance would of course be dependent on host nation funding as well equipment 

availability and production timelines. We have not received any such requests from 

the GOI for assistance to KRG security forces. 

Question. MeK.—I have received assurances from the Iraqi Government that it 

will ensure the security of Camp Liberty and its residents, while we continue to 

work to resettle members of the MeK here in the United States and in other countries outside of Iraq. 

♦ Is the Iraqi Government committed to the safety and security of the residents 

at Camp Liberty while in Iraq? 

Answer. The United States continues to work closely with the Government of Iraq 

(GOI) and the United Nations (U.N.) to ensure the protection of those currently 

residing at Camp Liberty, a.k.a Camp Hurriya. We interact regularly with senior 

Iraqi officials about the safety and security of the Camp Hurriya residents, and they 

assure us that they are committed to this issue, despite the current situation in 

Iraq. To date, the GOI has moved in 520 bunkers, 700 small T-walls, 90,000 sandbags and 1,488 large T-walls, about 750 of which were installed by April 23 in 

accordance with a plan agreed to by the GOI and the camp residents. They have 

also granted permissions for requested security enhancements at the camp as appropriate. 

♦ What will your role be regarding Camp Liberty and the resettlement of MeK 

residents outside Iraq? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with the Government of Iraq 

and the U.N. regarding the safety and security of the residents. We are fortunate 

to have a very able senior advisor for MEK Resettlement, Jonathan Winer, and he 

and I will coordinate closely on finding safe, permanent, and secure locations for the 

Camp Hurriya residents outside of Iraq. 

♦ Please provide an update on the resettlement process, and the work of the U.S. 

interagency team currently in Iraq. How many residents are able and willing 

to meet U.S. requirements in order to be settled in the United States? 

Answer. Currently, 377 Camp Hurriya residents have been relocated outside of 

Iraq in countries like Albania and Germany. An interagency team was deployed 

May 18 to evaluate candidates for U.S. resettlement. Our initial goal is to identify 

at least 100 qualified individuals, subject to security conditions, cooperation of the 

MEK and availability of interested candidates. At this point, it is too early to say 

how many are qualified as the team has not yet finished its work. 

Question. I understand that the Government of Iraq has yet to sign U.S. contracts 

for Apache attack helicopters that we intend to sell and lease. We were told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that these helicopters were absolutely vital to the 

Iraqis in order to fight the insurgency, and that they needed to be sent as soon as 

possible. 

♦ Given this delay, do the Iraqis feel the same way? 

Answer. Yes, the Apache remains Iraq’s combat helicopter of choice. 

Congressional approval for the Apaches was urgently needed in order to get the 

case into the Government of Iraq’s (GOI) long and complex bureaucratic process. We 

are disappointed by the delay on the Iraqi side and continue to urge the GOI to act 

quickly to sign and fund the cases. Unfortunately, several factors including internal 

budget issues, recent elections and the ongoing government formation process, and 

the current counterterrorism crisis combined to muddle Iraq’s already complicated 

approval process, delaying Iraq’s decision to finalize large, long, lead-time purchases 

like the Apache. 

The Apache will provide superior precision-targeting and firepower capability and 

increased in-air flight time to allow for flexibility and longer mission endurance at 

greater distances. The Apaches will also provide much-needed protection against 

small arms fire; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) continues to damage 

and shoot down Iraq’s unarmored helicopters. The Iraqi Security Forces will use the 

Apaches to support ground forces, interdict border incursions, conduct precision 

strikes against ISIL targets, and to deter terrorist activities and it will fill a needed 

capability gap. 

382 

♦ Was the administration mistaken in their assertions to us about the urgency of 

approving the sale? 

Answer. Congressional approval for the Apaches was urgently needed in order to 

get the case into the Government of Iraq’s (GOI) long and complex bureaucratic 

process. We are disappointed by the delay on the Iraqi side and continue to urge 

Iraq to act quickly to sign and fund the cases. Unfortunately, several factors including internal budget issues, recent elections and the ongoing government formation 

process, and the current counterterrorism crisis combined to muddle Iraq’s already 

complicated approval process, delaying Iraq’s decision to finalize large, long, leadtime purchases like the Apache. Although the Apaches will not arrive in time to aid 

in the current crisis, Iraq will continue to face a critical ISIL threat and have a continuing need for the Apache well into the future. The Apache will provide the Iraqi 

Security Forces an armored, long-range, precision-strike platform capable of supporting a wide range of counterterrorism operations. 

♦ Why did the Iraqi Government miss a payment for the F–16s? What are the 

next steps to get this back on track? 

Answer. To date, Iraq has paid approximately $5 billion of the approximately $7.1 

billion total for all 36 F–16s. A payment of $1.6 billion was due earlier this spring, 

but has been delayed due to the operations in Anbar and Iraq’s delay in passing 

a new budget. GOI officials have affirmed that the payment will be made. We have 

informed the GOI that the delivery of the first two aircraft could be delayed as a 

result of the delayed payment and we will continue to urge the GOI to complete 

the payment. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

COUNTERTERRORISM LAW

A new counterterrorism law awaiting ratification by the President has been criticized as overly broad, allowing for nonviolent protestors and other critics of the government to be arrested on terrorism-related charges. The current Egyptian Constitution exempts the Egyptian military from trial in civilian courts while giving 

military courts broad authority to try civilians. 

Question. Are you concerned that these laws are essentially making the Mubarakera ‘‘emergency laws’’ part of Egypt’s permanent body of laws? 

Answer. I share the U.S. Government’s concerns regarding these laws. My understanding is that the draft counterterrorism law and the recently ratified Egyptian 

Constitution would effectively grant the government and security forces significant 

new authorities and that the draft counterterrorism law would give the Egyptian 

Government the right to enforce an undeclared state of emergency. It would also 

prescribe tougher punishments for terror-related offenses and increase the number 

of crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment. The laws would also likely further restrict political space and freedoms of expression and assembly and narrow 

legal channels for dissent, which could give new cause for radicalization in Egypt 

rather than counter or deter terrorism. 

The U.S. Government has expressed its deep concern over such measures and has 

made clear its opposition to military trials of civilians to the highest levels of the 

Egyptian Government. 

Question. How will you engage with the Egyptian Government to ensure that nonviolent critics of the government can speak freely without fear of reprisal or arrest? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will emphasize to the Egyptian Government that overly 

restrictive measures, such as the draft counterterrorism law, will undermine Egypt’s 

stability, increase radicalism, and make it harder for the new government to forge 

the consensus needed to tackle daunting economic and social challenges. I will press 

that no matter how difficult the security environment, Egypt must find a way to 

distinguish extremists and terrorists from peaceful demonstrators. At every opportunity, I will make clear that the U.S. remains deeply concerned by actions the 

Egyptian Government takes that limit freedom of expression, assembly, and association, including the restrictive demonstrations law decreed in November 2013. I will 

also encourage the Egyptian Government to develop legislation in keeping with the 

spirit of those parts of the new constitution which guarantee basic rights and protections and promise to uphold Egypt’s commitments and obligations to international 

human rights covenants and agreements. 

383 

ASSISTANCE

Earlier this year, this committee’s bipartisan Egypt Assistance Reform Act of 2014 

called for a strategic reassessment of security and economic assistance provided to 

Egypt in light of new realities on the ground. 

Question. What can you tell us about the administration’s review of U.S. assistance to Egypt? Should we continue to provide $1.3B in security assistance to Egypt? 

Answer. The administration is reviewing how our assistance can best advance 

U.S. interests. Our military assistance to Egypt has supported stability in the Middle East. It has strengthened protections along Israel’s border, enhanced the security of the Suez Canal, and increased Egypt’s capacity to participate in regional 

operations, including peacekeeping. 

If confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure that any assistance through the 

Egypt Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program is appropriately structured to 

counter shared security threats, such as terrorism and weapons trafficking. 

Question. Is the balance between security assistance and economic assistance still 

appropriate given the last several years of upheaval in Egypt? 

Answer. U.S. assistance to Egypt, both military and economic assistance, supports 

key U.S. interests of stability in Egypt and along Israel’s border; safe Suez transit; 

countering transnational threats, such as terrorism and weapons trafficking; promoting inclusive democratic institutions, human rights, and basic freedoms; and 

supporting broad-based economic stability and growth. The administration considers 

the FY 2015 request—in conjunction with a more targeted approach—to be necessary and appropriate to meet our goals regarding Egypt. 

To that end, we are focusing our Economic Support Fund (ESF) funding on programs that will address Egypt’s most critical sources of instability: its economy, particularly the need for private sector-led growth and youth employment, and its lack 

of sustainable democratic institutions and human rights. Our programs will support 

basic and higher education; job creation; private sector development; democracy and 

civil society promotion; and improving health outcomes. Our FMF request will support Egypt in its counterterrorism and border security efforts, including in the 

Sinai, adding to our ongoing counterterrorism and nonproliferation efforts supported 

through other assistance accounts. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on advancing U.S. interests 

in Egypt, including through our assistance programs. 

MILITARY SALES

The administration has also placed policy holds on a number of weapons systems 

scheduled for delivery to the Egyptian Armed Forces. Egyptian military leaders 

believe the delivery of Apache helicopters is particularly urgent for continuing 

Egypt’s counterterrorism campaign in the Sinai. 

Question. Do you agree with the assessment that the Apache helicopters will help 

fight terrorism in the Sinai? 

Answer. Egyptian efforts to combat violent extremism in the Sinai are ongoing, 

and Apache helicopters have been a key part of those efforts, which is why President Obama directed the delivery of the pending additional Apaches. If confirmed 

as Ambassador, I look forward to discussing with Congress the conditions in Sinai 

and the use of U.S.-funded defense items in Egypt. 

Question. What is the way ahead on determining when the administration will 

release the F–16s and other military equipment still under a policy hold? 

Answer. President Obama made clear that credible progress toward an inclusive, 

democratically elected, civilian government is important to the administration’s 

review of assistance to Egypt and release of held defense items. We are continuing 

to urge the Egyptian Government to make progress along those lines, including by 

urging President el-Sisi to establish transparent, accountable, and responsive democratic institutions, based on rule of law and respect for the rights of all Egyptians. 

If confirmed, I look forward to providing updates on the situation in Egypt and will 

consult with Congress closely as part of the ongoing assistance review. 

SYRIAN REFUGEES

Egypt is now host to hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have fled there over 

the past 2 years. Initially welcoming to them, the Egyptian Government has in the 

past year made a concerted effort to restrict the entry of Syrian refugees through 

visa restrictions and security clearance requirements. 

384 

Question. In your view, what steps should the U.S. take through its engagement 

with the Egyptian Government to ensure that Egypt can be a place of refuge for 

Syrians? 

Answer. We recognize and appreciate the tremendous challenges faced by countries in the region as individuals continue to flee Syria and seek asylum in neighboring countries. If confirmed, I will continue U.S. efforts to encourage Egyptian 

authorities to continue extending support and hospitality toward refugees from 

Syria and all who are fleeing conflict. UNHCR has registered almost 138,000 refugees in Egypt, but according to the Egyptian Government, there may be as many 

as 300,000 Syrian refugees in Egypt. Separately, there may be as many as 6,000 

Palestinian refugees from Syria currently in Egypt. If confirmed, I will continue expressing our concerns about the climate of anti-Syrian and anti-Palestinian public 

sentiment in Egypt and urge the Egyptian Government to communicate to the 

Egyptian people the importance of protecting all vulnerable refugees. 

RESPONSES OF DANA SHELL SMITH TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. Terror Financing.—A large degree of funding for terrorist groups in the 

region, from Hamas to the Salafist and al-Qaeda inspired groups in Syria, comes 

from wealthy gulf benefactors. 

♦ How big a problem is this in Qatar? 

♦ What has the Qatari Government done to crack down on this, and is the Qatari 

Government committed to controlling private and charity funding streams? 

♦ What will you do to expand our terrorist finance and money laundering cooperation with Qatar? 

Answer. We engage regularly with Qatar and our other gulf partners on the issue 

of terror financing, but there is no doubt that more needs to be done. Syria is attracting more violent extremists the longer the conflict goes on. Qatar and other 

regional partners are working with us to support the moderate Syrian opposition 

and to work toward a political solution to ensure that Syria no longer serves as a 

magnet for violent extremists. 

In recent years, we have seen some improvements in Qatar’s counterterrorist 

financing efforts, including steps to improve its anti-money-laundering/counterterrorist financing legal framework. In 2012, the Middle East and North Africa Financial Action Task Force determined that Qatar had improved its anti-money-laundering/counterterrorist financing (AML/CTF) regime and was either ‘‘Compliant or 

Largely Compliant’’ with all of the Task Force’s recommendations. 

However, Qatar’s monitoring of terrorist financing by Qatari individuals and charitable associations remains inconsistent, and we will not hesitate to act to disrupt 

terrorist financing networks. For example, in December 2013, the Treasury Department announced the designation of a Qatar-based financier who secured funds and 

provided material support for al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and 

Yemen. 

We remain committed to working with Qatar to confront ongoing terrorist financing and on strengthening its AML/CTF regimes. For example, we conducted an 

interagency training in early June for Qatari officials involved in the design and 

implementation of Qatar’s CTF regime to improve capacity and coordination on 

counterterrorism financing. In the coming weeks, we will send an interagency delegation to a number of Gulf States, including Qatar, to improve our coordination on 

stemming the flow of foreign fighters to Syria. If confirmed, I will ensure that 

counterterrorism finance issues remain a priority of our bilateral engagement with 

the Government of Qatar. 

Question. Labor Rights.—The system of kafala, or employer sponsorship, is prevalent in many GCC countries. Foreign workers under the kafala system are often 

subject to abuses such as wage theft, substandard housing, and dangerous working 

conditions. I have written letters to Secretary Kerry and International Federation 

of Association Football (FIFA) President Sepp Blatter highlighting my concerns. I 

was particularly alarmed by the deaths of 44 Nepalese workers in Qatar last year. 

The Qatari Government recently announced labor reforms that it says will ‘‘abolish’’ 

the kafala system but did not give any timeline for implementation. 

♦ How will you engage the Qatari Government to ensure that these reforms are 

implemented, that protections for workers under Qatari law are enforced and 

that workers building infrastructure for the 2022 World Cup are not subjected 

to the same conditions that led to the deaths of those 44 Nepalese? 

385 

Answer. We have consistently raised concerns about the restrictive nature of 

Qatar’s sponsorship system and encouraged more robust enforcement of labor and 

antitrafficking laws with senior Qatari officials. Advancing the protection of labor 

rights, particularly for migrant workers, is a priority of our diplomatic engagement. 

In the past year, Qatar has taken some positive steps to address these issues, including cracking down on visa selling, doubling the number of labor inspectors, and 

blacklisting 2,000 companies for violations of the labor law. On May 14, the Government of Qatar (GoQ) announced that the ministerial cabinet had endorsed reform 

of the sponsorship system. The proposed reforms would eliminate no objection certificates, which prevent employees from switching jobs without approval, and amend 

the exit permit system such that the GoQ—rather than employers—would have the 

authority to prevent workers from departing the country. The reforms would also 

increase fivefold the fines for passport withholding. 

The announcement did not provide a timeframe for implementation of the proposed changes, which must still undergo passage by the Shura Council. If confirmed, I will urge the implementation of these reforms and continue to encourage 

Qatari efforts to ensure the thorough protection of workers’ fundamental labor 

rights in Qatar. 

RESPONSES OF STUART E. JONES TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. Women’s Rights in Iraq.—The Iraqi Cabinet has passed a personal status law that would effectively legalize child marriage and severely set back women’s 

rights to divorce, inheritance, and child custody if passed by Parliament. 

♦ If confirmed, how would you use your leverage as Ambassador to discourage 

Iraq from passing such a harmful law? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to raise—with the Government of Iraq and 

its Members of Parliament—our strong objections to this draft law. The Embassy 

will also continue to support civil society efforts to advocate for respect for the fundamental rights of all people including women, children, minorities, and individuals 

of all faiths. 

We have previously expressed our concern regarding the draft law, which has not 

been enacted, as has the United Nations Mission in Iraq, and a wide range of Iraqi 

political, religious, and civil society leaders. It threatens to undermine constitutionally protected rights for women in Iraq and jeopardizes the rights and protection 

of children, especially girls. 

Women’s rights activists and nongovernmental organizations have also condemned the draft law as a significant step backward for women’s and girls’ rights 

in Iraq. 

Question. Women in the Iraqi Justice System.—Women in Iraq face significant 

abuses throughout all stages of the criminal justice process—including during arrest, interrogation, trial, and imprisonment. These abuses have included illegal 

arrests, lack of protection for female prisoners, and sexual assault. It is clear that 

more must be done to protect Iraqi women from such abuses—particularly as these 

violations undermine the rule of law in Iraq. 

♦ How do you plan to work with the Government of Iraq to build support for rule 

of law and ensure that women are afforded all the same protections as men? 

Answer. I am aware of the reports of abuse of women in the criminal justice process and in prisons. If confirmed I will continue to raise our concerns about these 

problems with appropriate Iraqi Government officials at all levels. I will also consult 

with civil society and international organizations on these issues to ensure that we 

are kept informed. 

Despite serious obstacles for women and girls’ political participation in Iraq, we 

were heartened that Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission reported that 

22 women were directly elected to the new Parliament, a significant increase from 

the 2010 election when only 5 women won seats by popular vote. We hope that this 

is a trend that will continue. In total, 82 of Iraq’s 328 members of Parliament will 

be women based on a requirement that 25 percent of parliamentarians are women. 

The State Department has historically provided $10 million per year to support 

efforts to eliminate gender-based violence, protect women’s rights, and empower 

women politically and economically in Iraq. To address reported abuses by security 

forces, a number of past and current programs focus on human rights training in 

prisons throughout southern Iraq, implementing the U.N. Convention against Torture and demanding accountability for human rights abuses throughout the country. 

If confirmed, I will work in partnership with Congress to ensure that this important 

386 

level of support continues. I will also work with the Government of Iraq to ensure 

that it understands the U.S. commitment to the rule of law and the equal rights 

for all persons, regardless of gender. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. U.S. Strategy to Respond to Gender-Based Violence.—The United States 

has made gender equality and efforts to combat gender-based violence a priority 

within its foreign policy. 

♦ In light of the ongoing issues in Egypt, how can the United States work to utilize the tools and actions laid out in the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond 

to Gender-Based Violence Globally to better respond to the situation in Egypt? 

Answer. The United States, through our Embassy in Cairo, is working to utilize 

the tools and implement the actions outlined by the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and 

Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally. This includes supporting the Egyptian 

Government’s legislative responses to gender-based violence (GBV), training for special law enforcement units to respond to sexual assault cases, and supporting capacity-building programs for government and nongovernment stakeholders to prevent 

and respond to gender-based violence. 

For example, USAID in Egypt supports a U.N. Women-led program working to 

expand legal services for survivors of gender-based violence, launch a youth-led public awareness media campaign, and improve small-scale infrastructure in pilot communities, such as improved lighting in high-risk areas. Our USAID mission also 

plans to increase engagement with local Egyptian organizations working on matters 

related to gender-based violence to improve their sustainability and effectiveness. 

The Embassy plans to continue supporting programs aimed at deterring genderbased violence, including those that strengthen law enforcement capacity to more 

effectively prosecute GBV-related crimes. Through public awareness programs and 

professional exchanges, the Embassy is continuing to increase community participation in addressing the root causes of GBV. Continued close coordination with partners, such as U.N. Women and the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime, will allow the 

U.S. Government to continue supporting improved intergovernmental strategic planning, prevention, and training to prevent and respond to GBV. 

If confirmed, I will strongly support this work and encourage the use of all possible tools and actions recommended by the Strategy to Prevent and Respond to 

GBV. I will continue to raise issues of gender-based violence in my engagement with 

the Egyptian Government, encouraging it to undertake serious efforts to end all 

forms of violence in Egypt—including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and 

harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation—and work to end 

impunity for violence perpetrated against women and girls. 

RESPONSES OF STUART E. JONES TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

Question. ISIL’s rapid expansion across Iraq is deeply troubling both for regional 

stability and the security of thousands of Americans working there. Maliki needs 

to reach out to marginalized groups in Iraq if a unified defense of Iraq’s territory 

is going to be successful. 

♦ How will you work with these different groups to ensure unified efforts are 

made within Iraq against ISIL? 

Answer. We are deeply engaged in direct dialogue and active diplomatic strategy 

with the Prime Minister and all of Iraq’s leaders on taking a holistic approach to 

fighting ISIL by working together to address social, political, and economic issues 

in addition to security cooperation to drive ISIL out from Mosul and surrounding 

areas. Our engagement includes working with all sides to urge that they take critical next steps so that a timely, inclusive government formation process in line with 

the Iraqi Constitution can continue. Without significant, demonstrated efforts by the 

government on these issues, ISIL will continue to exploit fissures within Iraqi society and leaders for its own gain. We are also working with Iraq’s neighbors to 

encourage unified support for the government’s counterterrorism efforts. Iraq held 

national elections on time April 30; the U.N. praised the elections as free and fair. 

♦ How will you engage the international community in this aspect? 

Answer. We are also working closely with the P3, Iraq’s neighbors including Turkey, and other key players at the highest levels to support the Government of Iraq 

387 

(GOI) as they fight ISIL. The U.N. Security Council issued a statement today 

strongly condemning ISIL’s incursion into Iraq and threw its support behind the 

GOI to combat terrorism. We are urging donors to support the U.N.’s humanitarian 

efforts in response to the estimated 500,000 individuals who have fled ISIL’s recent 

advances in Ninewa and Salah ad-Din governorates, in addition to the nearly 

480,000 who have fled violence in Anbar governorate since January. 

♦ How will you work to ensure that the U.S. Embassy and our consulates are protected against the threat of ISIL’s advance? 

Answer. For a number of years, Mission Iraq has maintained a heightened security posture comprised of extensive physical security features, robust and wellarmed Diplomatic Security officers, and the ability to be self-responding in the event 

of an emergency such as an attack. Our Embassy and consulates in Iraq, as with 

all U.S. Diplomatic Missions, have a highly trained and well-equipped contingent of 

DS agents under the Regional Security Officer (RSO). The Regional Security Offices 

also include personnel working under the World Wide Protective Services contract 

who staff protective security details and static guard positions. 

Embassy Baghdad has a Marine Security Guard Detachment that is larger than 

that of most detachments assigned to U.S. missions. In addition to this robust security platform some additional U.S. Government security personnel were recently 

added to the staff in Baghdad. I am happy to discuss exact numbers of security personnel with you in a more appropriate setting. Like all other U.S. Diplomatic Missions, the Embassy and our consulates also conduct regular planning exercises for 

response to possible emergency situations, including evacuation. 

In addition to having plans in place, Mission Iraq is well postured with its own 

assets to support evacuations or long-term sheltering in both permissive and nonpermissive environments. We continue to monitor the situation closely and are in 

continuous communication with our personnel on the ground. We are corresponding 

regularly with the Government of Iraq to ensure that our sites remain safe for our 

staff. 

Question. Water issues remain a major issue inside Iraq. The Tigris and Euphrates is drier than normal as a result of both drought and new dams upriver. 

♦ How can the U.S. work to promote water conservation and improved management of resources and will you work with other U.S. agencies, as well as the 

national labs to help Iraq devise strategies to improve the management of water 

resources? 

Answer. Partnering with the GOI on water resource management is a U.S. Government priority and there are a number of USG programs focused on this issue. 

For example, Iraq’s Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Science & Technology (MOST) has asked for NASA assistance to study dust storms from space. 

MOST currently is developing a Memorandum of Understanding with NASA on this 

issue and is working on another with the U.S. Geological Survey to train Iraqi professionals on flood inundation, desertification, and sandstorm analysis. In the past, 

the State Department has provided $1.5 million to the U.N. Development Programme for the establishment of a National Water Council and to support capacitybuilding on transboundary water cooperation. The intent of this project is to give 

the Iraqi Government the needed diplomatic and technical tools to effectively negotiate international transboundary water issues with neighboring countries. The 

State Department’s Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs 

Bureau is currently exploring engagement with Iraq on transboundary water issues 

through the U.N. Shared Waters and U.S. Water Partnership programs for FY 2014. 

Additionally, USAID provided $10 million between 2012 and 2014 for a harvest program that included improving water usage for efficient irrigation. 

We are open to leveraging the expertise of any U.S. department or agency— 

including the national labs—that can assist Iraq in better managing its water 

resources. As U.S. development and economic assistance to Iraq decreases, we are 

exploring options in which the GOI directly funds such programs in the future. 

RESPONSES OF JAMES D. NEALON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

Question. As Ambassador, how will you address the root causes leading to the recent surge in minors migrating from Honduras to the U.S.? While putting pressure 

on our system to house and address each minor’s individual case, the insecure conditions these children are fleeing are only getting worse. As chief of mission how will 

you prioritize and leverage each agency’s involvement in Honduras as well direct 

388 

the resources of State and USAID to address these root causes including fear of 

gang violence, and inability to access education and livelihood opportunities. How 

will you engage the new Honduran Government more deeply into your efforts? 

Answer. I am committed to supporting the U.S. response to the influx of unaccompanied children arriving at the Southwest border. Violence, gang recruitment, and 

lack of economic opportunity are among the root causes that drive people—adults 

and children—to emigrate from Honduras, along with the perceived economic opportunities in the United States. I share your concerns about the conditions in 

Honduras. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with the Government of Honduras to raise public 

awareness about the potential for child migrants to be exploited and to support messaging that makes clear the dangers of the journey. I will also encourage the 

Honduran Government to invest in providing sufficient and capable consular representation along the U.S. border and in Mexico to help respond to this humanitarian situation. 

For the long-term, a sustainable solution requires a comprehensive approach to 

address issues of security, economic opportunity, and governance, all of which play 

a role in the migration of children and their parents. The Department of State and 

USAID have a broad range of programs intended to support host government efforts 

in these areas. If confirmed, I will work with the Honduran Government to continue 

addressing the complex root causes of migration and will work closely with the U.S. 

Congress to ensure our requests for future assistance are sufficient and targeted 

appropriately. 

Question. I have long advocated for increased resources for the Western Hemisphere region, however the administration has again de-prioritized this region in 

relation to others in the President’s budget. As Chairman Menendez illustrated during the hearing, we are seeing the repercussions of this through the thousands of 

migrants arriving in the U.S. from Central America, escaping one of the most violent countries in the world. 

♦ How will programs in Honduras be impacted by the decreased request for the 

CARSI program in FY 2015? What changes will you advocate for in the FY 2016 

request? 

Answer. I am firmly committed to advancing U.S. engagement with the Western 

Hemisphere, including, if confirmed, as U.S. Ambassador to Honduras. I understand 

the administration’s FY 2015 request for the region places a strong emphasis on citizen security, the rule of law, and crime and violence prevention, which account for 

just under half of the total request. 

The FY 2015 request for the Central America Regional Security Initiative 

(CARSI) reflects an assessment of existing resources and current rates of expenditure in some areas, but the CARSI request level reflects no decrease in priority. In 

addition to CARSI, the administration’s request includes $44.3 million for Development Assistance for USAID programming in Honduras. This assistance prioritizes 

addressing root causes of crime and insecurity, which lead to migration, complementing CARSI assistance. 

If confirmed, I would assess U.S. assistance to Honduras and advocate for 

resources to advance U.S. objectives. 

Question. What is the impact of human rights violations on the public by local 

security force units, and does impunity and failure to prosecute human rights violators increase the ability for local gangs or organized crime in Honduras to recruit 

and operate because of a lack of trust in law enforcement? How will you use the 

Leahy Law as a tool to address the well-documented human rights abuses in the 

country including against human rights defenders and public officials as noted by 

the State Department’s Human Rights Report? 

Answer. The high level of impunity for crimes against all Hondurans means there 

is little or no disincentive to committing a crime. When human rights abuses are 

committed by government authorities, this impunity can leave a perception in the 

public mind of institutional weakness or government tolerance of illegal activities. 

Either way, the result is greater difficulty deterring narcotrafficking, organized 

crime, and gangs. 

Honduras continues to face significant challenges establishing strong democratic 

institutions, establishing a rule of law culture, attacking impunity and corruption, 

and ensuring a safe and prosperous future for Honduran citizens. The Honduran 

Government has made some efforts to change its trajectory, but more needs to be 

done. If confirmed, I commit to partnering with the U.S. Congress to assist Honduras to address these challenges. I will support efforts to increase accountability, 

promote the rule of law, and improve the capability of the Honduran Government 

389 

to protect the rights of its people. I will be an advocate for U.S. programs to train 

Honduran officials to protect against and effectively prosecute crime—exactly the 

skills they need to address the impunity that exists, stop the high levels of crime 

in their country, and build trust between law enforcement officials and the communities they serve. 

In accordance with U.S. law and policy, including the Leahy law, the Department 

of State vets units and officers in Honduras who may receive assistance. We do not 

provide assistance to security force units when we have credible information that 

they have committed gross violations of human rights. 

RESPONSES OF JAMES D. NEALON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. I am concerned about the rule of law in Honduras, particularly corruption within the legal system. Pan-American Life Insurance Company (Pan-American), an American company with offices in Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Minnesota, has experienced significant injustices at the hands of 

the Honduran Judiciary. Pan-American has attempted to resolve this matter 

through various diplomatic channels, but the courts of Honduras continue to enter 

judgments against Pan-American that are contrary to Honduran law, basic insurance tenants and governing policy provisions. 

♦ 1. Have you been briefed on Pan-American’s situation in Honduras? 

♦ 2. I understand that at least two other U.S. Senators have written to the Honduran authorities on the harassment of Pan-American, but have yet to receive 

a response to their concerns. What concerns does this raise about Honduran 

authorities? 

♦ 3. What are your thoughts on using visa revocation as a tool to curb corruption 

in Honduras? 

♦ 4. What is your position on providing U.S. foreign assistance to countries in 

which the judiciary’s integrity may be compromised at the highest levels? 

♦ 5. If confirmed, would you agree to meet with Pan-American representatives to 

discuss this matter in detail? 

Answer. I am aware that the Department of State and Embassy Tegucigalpa have 

been in touch with the offices of Senator Vitter and Senator Landrieu regarding the 

Pan-American case and that Ambassador Kubiske has spoken personally about the 

case to both members. Ambassador Kubiske has also raised the case on several occasions with the Honduran Government and judiciary to note our government’s interests in U.S. companies receiving fair treatment in Honduran courts. If confirmed, 

I will meet with the Pan-American representatives and press the Honduran Government to answer the Senator’s letters. I will also promote U.S. business interests in 

Honduras, including advocating for fair treatment of U.S. businesses and citizens 

in Honduras through promoting the use of applicable dispute settlement provisions 

of our Bilateral Investment Treaty and the Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Agreement. 

The United States recognizes institutional weaknesses in Honduras’ judicial system and supports efforts to increase accountability and promote the rule of law. U.S. 

assistance provides training, mentoring, and professionalization to Honduran officials and supports reforms to strengthen police, judicial, and rule of law institutions. 

If confirmed, I will continue to work in these areas and be an advocate for judicial 

independence in Honduras. 

Concerning visas restrictions, the Department faithfully enforces the provisions of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by which aliens are ineligible for visas 

based on criminal activity. Moreover, we have ample additional authority under 

Presidential Proclamation 7750 (2004) and section 7031(c) of the FY 2014 State 

Appropriations Act to impose restrictions based on significant corruption. The 

Department takes seriously allegations of corruption and reviews such allegations 

in order to determine whether credible evidence exists to justify revoking a visa or 

imposing visa restrictions under U.S. law. 

RESPONSE OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Question. I want to raise with you an issue that I believe is incredibly important: 

ensuring that the Egyptian Government respects the rule of law regarding the abduction of American children. Having a child abducted by a current or former 

spouse to a foreign country is one of the most heartrending events a parent can face. 

390 

Not only does it deprive a child of the opportunity to have frequent contact with 

both of their parents, it does violence to our entire system of justice. People need 

to play by the rules—they can’t be allowed to steal a child just because they don’t 

like the decision a court makes regarding custody. And other countries need to 

respect the decisions of our courts. 

Now, this is a global problem, and I look forward to the Foreign Relations Committee considering a bill this Congress to address international child abduction. But 

this problem appears to be especially acute in Egypt. Because Egypt is not a partner 

to the Hague Abduction Convention, it’s more difficult for the State Department to 

reunite kids, many of whom are United States citizens, with their American parents. In fact, last year, there were 22 active custody disputes involving an American 

child in Egypt, and apparently half of the cases have been pending for at least 12 

years. That is appalling. 

One of those 22 cases involves one of my constituents, Colin Bower. Mr. Bower 

was married to an Egyptian citizen and had two wonderful little boys with her, 

Ramsay and Noor, both of whom are American citizens. In 2008, the marriage ended 

in divorce and an American court granted sole custody to Mr. Bower. A little under 

a year later, Mr. Bower’s ex-wife unlawfully absconded to Egypt with the boys by 

making use of illegal passports and then got an Egyptian court to grant her custody. 

Mr. Bower did everything he could to get his kids back. He got state and federal 

warrants issued for her arrest. He got Interpol to issue a red notice for her arrest. 

He even got an Egyptian court to grant him visitation rights every 2 weeks. Yet, 

every effort he’s made to enforce even the Egyptian court order has been thwarted. 

He’s traveled to Egypt 12 times to see his kids. Eight times he went to the appointed meeting place and waited for his boys. And 8 times they never arrived. It’s 

been 5 years since Mr. Bower’s boys were kidnapped and over two and a half since 

he has even seen them. 

♦ If confirmed, will you commit to making the international parental child abduction case of Noor and Ramsay Bower a priority? Also, what concrete steps can 

you take as Ambassador to ensure that Egypt respects decisions of U.S. courts 

regarding child abduction cases? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will make the abduction case of Noor and Ramsey Bower 

a priority. I will press members of the Egyptian Government at all levels to gain 

their cooperation in resolving the Bower case and all other child abduction cases 

involving Egypt , while also encouraging Egypt to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention). The State 

Department and I share your concern regarding international parental child abduction (IPCA) and we share Congress’ goals of preventing IPCA, returning children 

expeditiously to their countries of habitual residence, and strengthening and 

expanding membership in the Convention worldwide. 

My understanding is that the State Department is currently aware of 19 IPCA 

cases in Egypt, including the case of Noor and Ramsay Bower, and senior State 

Department leaders have raised these cases with Egyptian Government officials at 

every opportunity to ensure the Egyptian Government understands the U.S. Government’s concern for the welfare of U.S. citizens overseas, especially children, who 

are some of our most vulnerable citizens. 

I also understand that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo has ongoing engagement with 

relevant offices in the Egyptian Government, such as the Good Intentions Subcommittee, to request their action on these cases and have discussed the case of 

Noor and Ramsay Bower specifically. The Office of Children’s Issues in the Department of State is also in frequent contact with, and always available to, the leftbehind parents and their representatives to discuss the status of their case and 

options for continuing action. 

RESPONSES OF STUART E. JONES TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

IRANIAN OVERFLIGHTS

Question. Please describe the actions the Government of Iraq is taking to stop the 

flow of Iranian arms from going to the Syrian regime. 

Answer. We know that Iran is supplying arms to the Syrian regime and violating 

the U.N. Security Council prohibition against selling or transferring arms and 

related materials, including through flights over Iraqi territory. Iraqi leaders have 

issued statements condemning the flow of foreign fighters and weapons through, 

and from, Iraqi territory. However, the Government of Iraq is not doing enough to 

prevent Iran from using its territory to supply the Assad regime, and we continue 

391 

to urge all senior Iraqi officials to either deny overflight requests or require flights 

to land in Iraq for credible inspections consistent with Iraq’s international 

obligations. 

Question. How is the U.S. continuing to apply pressure on Iraq to stop these overflights that are building and arming Iranian militias in Syria? 

Answer. The Government of Iraq is not doing enough to prevent Iran from using 

its territory to supply the Assad regime and Iraqi Shia militants, and we are urging 

all senior Iraqi officials to either deny overflight requests or require flights to land 

in Iraq for credible inspections consistent with Iraq’s international obligations. Secretary Kerry, and other senior U.S. officials, have consistently raised this issue with 

Iraqi officials, emphasizing the connection between the flow of weapons and the 

escalation of extremist violence in the region, particularly in Syria. If confirmed, I 

will continue to make it an issue of urgent concern and regular diplomatic engagement. 

Question. How is the United States engaging with our gulf partners to stop these 

over flights? 

Answer. In our senior-level engagements with our gulf partners, we are stressing 

that we are not satisfied with the Government of Iraq’s inaction to prevent the use 

by Iran of Iraq’s airspace to resupply the Assad regime, and that senior officials, 

including the Secretary, continue to raise this with Iraqi officials, emphasizing the 

connection between the flow of weapons and the escalation of extremist violence in 

the region, particularly in Syria. We have urged that Iraq either deny overflight 

requests for Iranian aircraft going to Syria, or require such flights to land in Iraq 

for credible inspections, consistent with its international legal obligations. 

Question. What is the relationship between Iraq and Iran? 

Answer. Despite decades of mutual mistrust stemming from the Iran-Iraq war, 

Iran continues to try and forge closer ties with Iraq—in the interests of neighborliness but mostly to expand and deepen its sphere of influence. There have been 

high-level exchanges of visits between the Government of Iraq, including the 

Kurdistan Regional Government, and Iranian leaders. Iraq is one of Iran’s top-five 

trading partners, with bilateral trade between $6–$12 billion in 2013. Iran supplies 

about 11 percent of Iraq’s electricity. The two countries have also signed an extradition treaty (this does not include the status of the Mujahedin-e Khalq members 

still in Iraq), but are still negotiating border issues going back to the 1975 Algiers 

Accord. 

Question. What kind of influence does Iran have either politically or economically 

in Iraq? 

Answer. While Iran continues to be an influential neighbor, Iraq does take actions 

that run counter to Iranian interests, such as increasing oil production just as 

Iranian exports were being taken off the market due to U.S. and EU sanctions. Had 

Iraq not done so, worldwide oil prices would have spiked, ultimately reducing the 

impact of sanctions on Iran and hurting U.S. consumers. On issues like Syria and 

nuclear proliferation, Iraq has demonstrated that it acts in its own interest. For example, Iraq has fully supported a negotiated political solution to the crisis in Syria, 

and the U.S. position on converting Syrian chemical weapons production facilities 

in Syria (Iraq, in fact, has an expert on the Organization for the Prohibition of 

Chemical Weapons staff). Iraq has ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 

Treaty and the Additional Protocol, which requires inspections of nuclear facilities, 

and hosted the P5+1 talks in May 2012. Iraq has also publicly called to prevent 

flows of foreign fighters and weapons through Iraq. 

Question. If the U.S. cannot stop these flights diplomatically, does Congress need 

to withhold foreign military sales to Iraq if these flights continue? 

Answer. No; withholding foreign military sales risks reducing U.S. influence as 

Iraq engages in an important fight against ISIL. We are seeking to increase our 

influence with Iraq’s leaders and this is a critical component. U.S. security assistance enables Iraq to better combat ISIL, which is an increasingly direct threat to 

the United States and our allies; U.S. assistance serves broader U.S. goals, too; limiting or conditioning it would limit our progress toward those goals. Even without 

the growing terrorism threat, U.S. security assistance provides an important vehicle 

for cementing the United States enduring partnership with Iraq. Security cooperation on critical systems, such as air defense, will provide a basis for a long-term 

relationship. 

392 

SECURITY SITUATION

Question. When did the United States, either through intelligence, diplomatic 

channels, or military analysis, become aware of the deteriorating security issue in 

Iraq? 

Answer. We have maintained a close watch on Iraq’s security situation since the 

standup of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in 2004. The threat of the Islamic State 

of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its effect on Iraq’s overall security situation was 

neither a surprise nor a sudden event. We have watched and warned of ISIL’s growing strength and its threat to Iraq and U.S. interests in the region—and now to 

Europe and the U.S. homeland—since the group’s resurgence in 2012 as a result of 

the escalating conflict in Syria. 

Since the start of the Syrian conflict, we watched with growing concern as ISIL— 

formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—took advantage of the escalating conflict to establish a safe-haven in Syria’s eastern deserts. With ample resources, recruits, weapons, and training, ISIL slowly began to execute its strategy across the Syrian border 

into Iraq. Violence in Iraq began to increase toward the end of 2012, but did not 

accelerate until early 2013, including a marked rise in ISIL suicide bombings. These 

attacks increased throughout 2013, jeopardizing the political discourse in the country, further fueling mistrust from political leaders to ordinary citizens, and making 

the tangible reforms that Iraq needs to reconcile its society even harder to reach. 

Taking advantage of the instability it was causing, ISIL then seized parts of Anbar 

province including the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah in early January 2014, initiating what has been a constant counterterrorism counteroffensive by the Government of Iraq. Although ISIL has long operated in Mosul and northern Iraq, its 

recent, sudden, large-scale offensive there further escalated the fight, dramatically 

demonstrating the existential threat that we have been assisting the Government 

of Iraq to combat. 

Question. What action, if any, did the administration take when it first learned 

of the deteriorating security situation? 

Answer. As the ISIL threat increased, we took several steps over the last year 

to increase counterterrorism assistance to Iraq and to build a foundation for future, 

expanded cooperation. Military efforts alone will not defeat ISIL. We have encouraged a holistic counterterrorism approach with the Government of Iraq, fusing political and security efforts. We have urged the recruiting of tribal leaders and greater 

Sunni incorporation into the military ranks to reduce sectarian tensions. 

To increase Iraq’s military capabilities, we expanded training in Iraq and Jordan, 

provided military advice, enhanced information-sharing relationships, and sought 

opportunities to increase border security. 

Additionally, we have expedited shipments of weapons, equipment, and ammunition to Iraq’s military. Thanks to congressional support, recent shipments included 

the delivery of 300 Hellfire missiles, thousands of helicopter-fired rockets, thousands 

of rounds of tank ammunition, thousands of machine guns, grenades, flares, sniper 

rifles, M16 and M4 rifles to the Iraqi Security Forces. We also delivered additional 

Bell IA–407 helicopters late last year and 10 Scan Eagle surveillance platforms are 

on schedule for delivery this summer. The Iraqis have told us that our equipment 

and advice is making a critical difference. In particular, the Hellfire missiles are the 

most effective airborne weapon the Iraqis have, and they have been using them to 

great effect. 

Question. When the President ordered the last withdrawal of troops from Iraq, did 

that improve or diminish our ability to predict changes in the security situation in 

Iraq? 

Answer. The withdrawal of U.S. forces was consistent with the 2008 U.S.-Iraq 

Security Agreement. It honored our commitment to Iraqi sovereignty and began a 

new chapter in our partnership. The follow-on U.S military forces discussed in 2011 

was primarily a small training contingent that would not have had a significant impact on our ability to predict changes in Iraq’s security situation. 

Question. Do you anticipate that a similar deterioration of security will occur in 

Afghanistan once the United States withdrawals from Afghanistan in 2016? 

Answer. We believe that at the end of 2016, the Afghan National Security Forces 

(ANSF) will be capable of maintaining security in Afghanistan with the continued 

international financial assistance pledged at the NATO summit in Chicago. The 

ANSF took the lead for security around the country in June 2013, have lost no significant ground to the insurgents since that time, and have won the trust of Afghan 

citizens in their ability to protect them, which was manifest in the high turnouts 

393 

for both rounds of the elections despite determined Taliban efforts to disrupt the 

electoral process and intimidate voters. 

While the situation in Iraq is cautionary, it differs from that in Afghanistan in 

some important ways. In Afghanistan, the people overwhelmingly want us to stay, 

to the extent that every single contender in the Presidential election said he would 

sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA). 

In addition, the international community has made a range of significant commitments to Afghanistan that extend well into the future that will continue to shore 

up the military and civilian sides of the Afghan Government as well as support 

Afghan civil society. 

COUNTERING ISIL

Question. Since the United States withdrew our troops in 2011, a security vacuum 

has emerged in Iraq. From the al-Qaeda fighters seizing Fallujah and Ramadi in 

January to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS) gain of the second-largest 

city of Mosul to the declaration of a state of national emergency, Iraq is facing significant security challenges. 

♦ How committed is Prime Minister Maliki to ending the strong al-Qaeda and 

ISIS backed insurgency that is taken place in the western part of Iraq? 

Answer. Prime Minister Maliki has stated that he is dedicated to combating and 

driving back the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, it has long 

been the case that all Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Maliki, need to do 

more to address unresolved issues to better meet the needs of the Iraqi people. 

Unfortunately, Iraq’s leaders have too often been unable to overcome the mistrust 

and sectarian differences that have long been simmering, creating vulnerabilities 

within the Iraqi Government as well as its security forces. 

ISIL, the primary threat to Iraq’s stability, has an ideology that has little to do 

with Iraqi domestic politics and no appeal to the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi 

people. ISIL’s aim is to take territory and terrorize the Iraqi people, regardless of 

sect, as it seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate from Lebanon to Baghdad. 

We support Iraqi efforts to implement a coordinated approach to effectively address the security and political situations. Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq, and nobody is going to benefit from seeing Iraq 

descend into chaos. Our focus is on the Iraqi people, and we urge all Iraqi leaders 

across the political spectrum to unite, put differences aside, and stand together 

against the threats they face. 

Question. What steps is the administration willing to take to address the reemergence of al-Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq? 

Answer. The United States has been engaging in intensive and active diplomacy 

inside Iraq, across the region, and with the international community since this crisis 

erupted. We are coordinating with our international partners and countries in the 

region on next steps and how we can effectively help Iraq push back against ISIL’s 

aggression. 

While it is evident that Iraq needs assistance to break ISIL’s momentum, there 

is no military solution that will solve Iraq’s problems. Any action we take would 

have to be done in conjunction with a serious and sincere effort by Iraqi leaders to 

govern in a nonsectarian manner; promote stability and unity among Iraq’s diverse 

population; build and invest in the capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces; and address 

the legitimate grievances of Iraq’s Sunni, Kurd, and Shia communities. No shortterm assistance we might provide—to include military action—will succeed absent 

a serious Iraqi political effort. 

CAPTURED WEAPONS

Question. Media reports indicate that terrorist fighters were able to gain arms 

supplied by the United States during the capture of Iraq’s second-largest city yesterday. 

♦ Who has these weapons? 

Answer. We are concerned by the reports of captured U.S. military equipment 

captured from the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). We are working to confirm what 

material may have fallen into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) 

hands. We are also following up on reports that Kurdish Peshmerga forces may 

have secured some of the equipment left behind by the Iraqi Army. 

At this time, we do not have information indicating that the loss of any equipment 

would constitute a violation of our agreements with Iraq regarding security and enduse of U.S.-provided equipment. However, we are aggressively following up on the 

394 

issue. Halting the transfer of defense articles to the ISF because of these setbacks, 

though, would only decrease ISF capability and willingness to fight an enemy that 

endangers the stability of the region as well as our own national security. 

We take end-use monitoring of all U.S.-provided equipment very seriously. Our 

Office of Security Cooperation (OSC) works closely with senior Iraqi Ministry of 

Defense leadership to stress the importance of responsible use and stringent management of all weapons systems. 

Question. What weapons have the terrorist fighters obtained? 

Answer. The situation on the ground in Iraq is fluid, and we do not have confirmation of what may have fallen into ISIL’s hands. Initial reports indicate that 

ISIL captured U.S. manufactured small arms, associated ammunition, and 

HMMWVs. We have not seen credible reports that ISIL captured any U.S. manufactured heavy combat equipment like M1A1 tanks or helicopters, although there are 

reports that ISIL captured some of Iraq’s older, Russian-made tanks. 

Question. How capable are the terrorist fighters and the ISIS of effectively using 

those weapons and equipment? 

Answer. We assess that ISIL fighters are highly effective at employing small 

arms, crew-served weapons, and light tactical vehicles. They are likely less effective 

at using more complex weapons systems that require advanced operator and crew 

training as well as significant maintenance. ISIL would likely not be able to effectively employ advanced U.S. weapons systems like M1A1 tanks or helicopters. U.S. 

equipment, although the best in the world, requires advanced training, frequent 

maintenance, and a steady supply of spare parts—none of which ISIL possesses. 

Question. Do you believe that these weapons will make their way to Syria and 

support the Assad regime? 

Answer. Although ISIL may take some of the reportedly captured weapons to 

Syria, it is highly unlikely that any of the captured equipment will be used to support the Assad regime. ISIL is a violent Sunni extremist terrorist group with the 

stated goal of overthrowing the Assad regime and installing an Islamic caliphate 

from Lebanon to Baghdad. ISIL would employ any captured weapons against the 

Assad regime in Syria and against the Iraqi Security Forces and the Iraqi people 

in Iraq. 

GTMO DETAINEES

Question. As you know, Jordanian officials recently rearrested a former Guantanamo detainee named Osama Abu Kabir for conducting terrorist activity. Kabir was 

initially picked up in Afghanistan in November 2001 and subsequently transferred 

to Guantanamo Bay. The United States at the recommendation of the Joint Task 

Force-GTMO released Kabir to Jordan in 2007 even though he was considered a 

‘‘high risk.’’ 

♦ Given your firsthand experience as an ambassador to a country that has accepted high-risk Guantanamo Bay detainees, what are some of the lessons 

learned that should be applied to any future transfers? 

Answer. The USG has implemented a series of ‘‘lessons learned’’ from the early 

transfers from Guantanamo. All detainees currently designated for transfer have 

been extensively reviewed through an interagency process—comprised of military, 

national security, intelligence, law enforcement, counterterrorism, and foreign policy 

experts—and have been unanimously approved for transfer by the six agencies 

responsible for that review. This rigorous, updated review given to each detainee 

has resulted in a significantly lower recidivism rate than that prior to the 2009– 

10 interagency review process. We also obtain appropriate security assurances from 

the receiving nations. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT STEPHEN BEECROFT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

EGYPTIAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS

Question. How would you characterize the bilateral relationship between Egypt 

and Russia? 

Answer. The two countries maintain decades-old economic and military ties, with 

Russia a major source of tourists for Egypt and also a supplier of military equipment, primarily for air defense. 

395 

Question. What is the reason for the recently increasing cooperation on energy, 

trade, and arms sales between Egypt and Russia? 

Answer. While there has been press speculation on increased activity between 

Egypt and Russia in areas such as arms sales, we have seen no confirmation of 

these claims. Even if the speculation is accurate, Egypt already has a long-standing 

relationship with Russia, and such cooperation would not represent a substantial 

change in that relationship. 

If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize to Egyptian officials the benefits of the 

U.S.-Egypt relationship to advancing our shared interests. 

Question. Do Egypt’s expanding military and economic ties with Russia signal a 

larger shift in Egyptian foreign policy? 

Answer. While there has been press speculation on increased activity between 

Egypt and Russia, we have seen no confirmation of these claims. Egypt has a longstanding relationship with Russia on a variety of mutual interests, including economic and military ones, and such cooperation would not represent a substantial 

change in that relationship, nor would it be an area of concern for us. Egyptian officials have repeatedly told us that they value the U.S.-Egypt relationship, and a relationship with the United States provides unique benefits and capabilities not available through other partners. 

If confirmed, I will continue to press Egyptian officials on the benefits of the U.S.- 

Egypt relationship to advancing our shared interests, and I will make myself available to Congress to provide updates on the state of our relations with Egypt. 

ASSISTANCE

Question. Is U.S. foreign assistance to Egypt still in the U.S. national interest? 

Why or why not? 

Answer. All U.S. assistance to Egypt, both military and economic assistance, supports the key U.S. interests of stability in Egypt and along the Egyptian-Israeli border; countering transnational threats, such as terrorism and weapons trafficking; 

ensuring safe Suez transit; promoting inclusive democratic institutions and protection of universal human rights; and supporting broad-based economic stability and 

growth. Continuing assistance to support these objectives—while also regularly reviewing how our assistance can better support our goals—remains in the U.S. interest. 

If confirmed, I look forward to consulting with Congress on ways our assistance 

can best be used to promote U.S. interests in Egypt. 

Question. Do you support reinstating all of the U.S. foreign assistance to Egypt? 

Which U.S. financial assistance is the most critical to the Government of Egypt? 

Answer. I support assistance to Egypt which is determined to best serve U.S. 

interests. As part of those interests, the United States has a pressing need to address Egypt’s most critical sources of instability: its economy, particularly the need 

for private sector-led growth and youth employment, and its lack of sustainable 

democratic institutions. Our programs support basic and higher education; job creation; private sector development; democracy and civil society promotion; and 

improving health outcomes. Our FMF supports Egypt in its counterterrorism and 

border security efforts, including in the Sinai, adding to our ongoing counterterrorism and nonproliferation efforts supported through other assistance accounts. 

Our ongoing assistance review will also inform future assistance plans. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on advancing U.S. interests 

in Egypt, including through our assistance programs. 

Question. What conditions need to be attached to U.S. foreign assistance to the 

Government of Egypt? 

Answer. While the Department of State does not support conditioning U.S. foreign 

assistance, the administration made clear the importance of credible progress 

toward an inclusive, democratically elected, civilian government to reviews of assistance to Egypt and release of held defense items. We are continuing to urge the 

Egyptian Government to make progress along those lines, including by urging President el-Sisi to establish transparent, accountable, and responsive democratic institutions, based on rule of law and respect for the universal rights of all Egyptians, 

which will allow the participation of all voices and overcome the current political 

and social polarization in Egypt. 

If confirmed, I look forward to providing updates on the situation in Egypt and 

will consult with Congress closely as part of the ongoing assistance review. 

396 

EGYPTIAN ECONOMY

Question. Is the Government of Egypt at risk of default? 

Answer. The Government of Egypt has not provided indications that it is considering default, and they have not defaulted in recent years when faced with similar 

fiscal pressures. It is true that Egypt continues to face economic challenges, including high expenditures, particularly subsidy costs, which are causing fiscal deficits 

to rise. External imbalances are also putting pressure on foreign currency reserves, 

and low economic growth has been exacerbated by disruptions in manufacturing and 

tourism. Egypt also continues to finance the deficit with domestic T-bills and Central Bank financing, which creates higher interest obligations for the government 

and poses an increased risk of inflation. Recent disbursements from the gulf have 

helped to temporarily relieve fiscal and exchange rate pressures. 

If confirmed, I will continue the State Department’s work of emphasizing to the 

Government of Egypt that sustainable and credible reforms will set the stage for 

long-term stability and growth. I will work with our gulf partners and international 

financial institutions to emphasize a common call for reforms so that Egypt can 

move quickly to reduce its fiscal deficit and address external imbalances. 

Question. What issues must be addressed by the Government of Egypt in order 

to stabilize their internal security and improve their economic growth? 

Answer. The U.S. Government is urging Egypt to undertake credible and sustainable economic reforms to spur private sector-led growth, attract investment, and create jobs, especially for Egypt’s youth. We are also urging the Egyptian Government 

to address its lack of inclusive and sustainable democratic institutions and to guarantee fundamental human rights as a means of combating radicalization and 

improving internal security. 

If confirmed, I will emphasize to Egyptian officials that issues of democracy, 

human rights, economic growth and development, security, and stability are all 

inextricably linked. 

REFORMS AND VISION

Question. What is President Sisi’s vision for the future and top priorities? 

Answer. In his inauguration speech and initial statements, President el-Sisi made 

clear that his top priorities are strengthening the state, restoring security, combating corruption, promoting economic growth, and respecting human rights. He 

also noted that he planned to protect the rights of, and govern for, all Egyptians. 

As President el-Sisi will surely be presented with multiple competing interests, he 

must seek to build institutions that will ensure all Egyptians can participate in the 

political process and provide clarity on Egypt’s national priorities. 

If confirmed, I will work with President el-Sisi and his government to identify and 

refine our shared interests, and I will seek practical and effective ways that we can 

work together to achieve our common objectives. This includes working with the 

Egyptian Government to help demonstrate the benefits of pursuing political and economic reform. 

Question. How would you characterize the current state of religious freedom, freedom of speech, right to assembly, and the rule of law in Egypt? 

Answer. The Department of State and broader administration have repeatedly 

noted concerns about the current restrictive environment in Egypt, including on 

freedoms of expression, assembly, and religion and on issues of due process. Egypt’s 

new constitution, passed in January 2014, does guarantee basic freedoms, such as 

freedom of religion and the rights of women, but leaves much room for legislative 

and judicial interpretation that could curtail those freedoms. Both the State Department and the White House have consistently expressed concerns about the restrictive political environment in Egypt, including on limits to freedoms of peaceful 

assembly, association, and expression. In addition, the United States has made clear 

that it is the Egyptian Government’s responsibility to ensure every citizen is 

afforded due process. 

I believe ensuring these rights is an essential element of any successful democracy 

and necessary for Egypt’s stability and prosperity. Should I be confirmed as Ambassador, I will urge Egypt’s leaders to ensure these freedoms for all Egyptians and 

press for the government to make good on its promise to govern inclusively, protect 

freedoms of the press, and allow open debate and free flow of information. 

Question. What is your assessment of the current Egyptian judicial system? 

Answer. The State Department has noted that Egypt’s judicial system functions 

extremely slowly and is subject, in some cases, to political influence. Additionally, 

397 

Egypt’s new constitution permits military trials for civilians, which the United 

States has consistently opposed. We are also deeply concerned by the use of mass 

trials that deny individualized justice and due process and the preliminary death 

sentences against hundreds of people without due process. An independent and impartial judiciary is essential to any democracy and to the protection of individuals’ 

rights and freedoms. It assures decisions based on law, rather than politics, and on 

democratic principles rather than current events. 

If confirmed, I would continue U.S. engagement with the Egyptian Government 

and society on the crucial role that judicial systems play in a democracy and on the 

government’s responsibility to afford every citizen due process. 

Question. What actions would you take to address the continued use of mass trials 

and sentencing in Egypt? 

Answer. The White House and Secretary have both made clear that the denial of 

individualized justice and due process through mass trials and sentencing in Egypt 

is unconscionable, defying even the most basic standards of international justice. 

Mass trials and sentencing, including decisions by an Egyptian court to issue preliminary death sentences to hundreds of people, cannot be reconciled with Egypt’s 

obligations under international human rights law. 

If confirmed, I will make clear our position to the Egyptian Government that they 

have the responsibility to ensure every citizen is afforded due process. While we 

respect that the Egyptian judiciary is a separate institution from the executive 

branch, I will urge Egypt’s leaders to take a stand against proceedings that deny 

defendants individualized justice or violate due process and basic standards of international justice. 

IRANIAN OVERFLIGHTS

Question. As Ambassador to Iraq, what specific actions did you take to apply pressure on Iraq to stop Iranian overflights that are building and arming Iranian militias in Syria? What actions were the most effective? What actions were the least 

effective? 

Answer. Despite repeatedly declaring that it will not allow any party to transport 

arms and related materials through its airspace to Syria, the Government of Iraq 

has failed to take adequate steps to prevent Iran from overflying its territory to supply the Assad regime. Along with Secretary Kerry and other U.S. Government officials, I consistently urged the Prime Minister and senior Iraqi officials to either 

deny overflight requests or require flights to land in Iraq for credible inspections 

consistent with Iraq’s international obligations. 

Secretary’s Kerry’s visit to Iraq in March 2013 as well as Prime Minster Maliki’s 

meeting with the President in Washington, DC, later that year resulted in a temporary increase in Iraq’s inspections of flights bound for Syria. 

In a few specific cases, we were able to provide detailed information in advance 

regarding flights carrying objectionable cargoes, and the Iraqi Government was generally more cooperative in denying overflight. We continue to engage every level of 

the Iraqi Government on this very important issue and to press them to fulfill their 

international obligations to deny overflight clearance or require aircraft to land for 

inspections. 

Question. Why has the Government of Iraq failed to stop the flow of Iranian arms 

from going to the Syrian regime? 

Answer. Despite statements from Iraqi leaders condemning the flow of foreign 

fighters and weapons through and from Iraqi territory, we know that Iran continues 

to supply arms to the Syrian regime in violation of the U.N. Security Council prohibition against selling or transferring arms and related materials through flights 

over Iraqi territory. 

Iraqi leaders have cited Iraq’s lack of an air interdiction capability, stating they 

have neither fighter aircraft nor ground-based interceptors that could defend Iraq’s 

airspace and force any transiting aircraft to land for inspections. Additionally, senior Iraqi officials have argued that the collapse of the Assad regime would create 

an even greater security vacuum and strengthen ISIL, which would further increase 

the ongoing terrorist threat to Iraq. 

Question. As Ambassador to Iraq, how did you engage with our gulf partners to 

stop these overflights? 

Answer. I frequently met with foreign ambassadors resident in Baghdad, including those ambassadors resident from Gulf States, and urged them to engage the 

Iraqi Government and press it to prevent the use of Iraq’s airspace to resupply the 

Assad regime. 

398 

Question. What is the relationship between Iraq and Iran? 

Answer. Despite decades of mutual mistrust stemming from the Iran-Iraq war, 

Iran continues to try and forge closer political and economic ties with Iraq in part 

to expand and deepen its sphere of influence. There have been high-level visits 

between Iranian leaders and the Government of Iraq, including the Kurdistan 

Regional Government. Iraq is one of Iran’s top-five trading partners, with bilateral 

trade of approximately $6 billion in 2013. Iran also supplies about 11 percent of 

Iraq’s electricity. The two countries have also signed an extradition treaty (this does 

not include the Mujahedin-e Khalq members still in Iraq), and recently resumed 

negotiating border issues going back to the 1975 Algiers Accord. 

Question. What kind of influence does Iran have either politically or economically 

in Iraq? 

Answer. As noted in the answer to the previous question, Iran and Iraq have economic and political relations. They also have significant disagreements over border, 

water, investment, visa, and other issues. For example, while Iran is an influential 

neighbor, Iraq does take actions that run counter to Iranian interests, such as increasing oil production just as Iranian exports were being taken off the market due 

to U.S. and EU sanctions. Had Iraq not done so, worldwide oil prices would have 

spiked, hurting U.S. consumers and likely leading to a reduction in the impact of 

sanctions on Iran. In another example, Iraq has fully supported the U.S. position 

on converting Syrian chemical weapons production facilities in Syria. (Iraq, in fact, 

has an expert on the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons staff.) 

Iraq has also ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Additional Protocol, which requires inspections of nuclear facilities. 

SECURITY SITUATION

Question. What was the security situation on the ground in Iraq when President 

Obama withdrew the last American troops from Iraq? 

Answer. Although dramatically improved since the 2007 troop surge, Iraq remained a violent country when U.S. military forces departed in December 2011. 

Approximately 4,400 Iraqis were killed each year in 2011 and 2012, most in attacks 

by violent extremist groups led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) 

predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). While this violence was persistent and targeted, it did not threaten the stability of the state or threaten to rekindle civil war. 

However, 2011 and 2012 also witnessed the escalating civil conflict in Syria, inflamed by regional rivalry and opportunism by terrorist groups. AQI—rebranding to 

call itself ISIL—reemerged in Syria as one of the most organized and lethal terrorist 

groups exploiting the conflict and loss of state authority there. Primarily focused in 

Syria in 2012, ISIL was able to reconstitute itself from the losses it had suffered 

against U.S. military and Iraqi Security Forces, setting the stage for the group to 

shift its resources and focus back to Iraq in 2013. Flush with resources, recruits, 

weapons, and training, ISIL slowly began to execute increasingly sophisticated and 

frequent attacks inside Iraq from its safe-havens in Syria. Violence in Iraq ticked 

up toward the end of 2012, but did not accelerate until early 2013, including a 

marked rise in suicide bombings. 

Question. At what point did you first determine that there was a significant problem of security deterioration in Iraq? 

Answer. Although the U.S. interagency had been watching ISIL with growing concern since the start of the civil war in Syria, in early 2013 we began to see ISIL 

shift more of its resources and focus from Syria to Iraq. In 2012, Iraq witnessed an 

average of 5–10 ISIL suicide attacks per month. By the summer of 2013, Iraq was 

averaging 30–40 suicide attacks per month, which were increasingly coordinated 

and effective attacks. On March 14, 2013, for example, five ISIL suicide bombers 

attacked and took hostages in the Ministry of Justice in Baghdad, controlling the 

building for several hours before detonating themselves. This was the first in a 

series of sophisticated military-style operations throughout 2013, with suicide bombers used to clear a path, followed by well-trained fighters to take and hold an 

objective. 

These attacks increased throughout 2013, devastating the political discourse in 

the country, further fueling mistrust from political leaders to ordinary citizens, and 

making the tangible reforms that Iraq needed to reconcile its society even harder 

to reach. Taking advantage of the instability it was causing, ISIL then seized parts 

of Anbar province including the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah in early January 

2014, intensifying what has been a constant counterterrorism offensive by the Government of Iraq. Although ISIL has long operated in Mosul and northern Iraq, its 

399 

recent, sudden, large-scale offensive there further escalated the fight, dramatically 

demonstrating the existential threat that we have been assisting the Government 

of Iraq to combat. 

Question. What action, if any, did you take when you determined that the security 

situation in Iraq had deteriorated? 

Answer. As the ISIL threat increased, we took several steps to increase counterterrorism assistance with Iraq and to build a foundation for future, expanded security cooperation. Military efforts alone cannot defeat ISIL. We have encouraged a 

holistic counterterrorism approach with the Government of Iraq, fusing political and 

security efforts. We have urged the recruitment of tribal leaders and greater Sunni 

incorporation into the military ranks to reduce sectarian tensions. In early 2014, 

Prime Minister Maliki pledged that Sunni tribal fighters injured or killed in the 

conflict with ISIL would receive the same benefits as members of the Iraqi Security 

Forces. 

To increase Iraq’s military capabilities, we expanded training in Iraq and Jordan, 

provided military advice, enhanced information-sharing relationships, and sought 

opportunities to increase border security. 

Additionally, with the support of Congress, we have expedited shipments of weapons, equipment, and ammunition to Iraq’s military. Recent shipments included the 

delivery of 300 Hellfire missiles, thousands of helicopter-fired rockets, thousands of 

rounds of tank ammunition, thousands of machine guns, grenades, flares, sniper 

rifles, and M16 and M4 rifles to the Iraqi Security Forces. We also delivered additional Bell IA–407 helicopters late last year and 10 Scan Eagle surveillance platforms are on schedule for delivery this summer. The Iraqis have told us that our 

equipment and advice is making a critical difference. In particular, the Hellfire missiles are the most effective airborne weapon the Iraqis have, and they have been 

using them to great effect. 

Question. When the President ordered the last withdrawal of troops from Iraq, did 

that improve or diminish our ability to predict changes in the security situation in 

Iraq? 

Answer. The withdrawal of U.S. forces was consistent with the 2008 U.S.-Iraq 

Security Agreement. It honored our commitment to Iraqi sovereignty and began a 

new chapter in our partnership. The follow-on U.S military force discussed in 2011 

was a primarily a small training contingent that would not have had a significant 

impact on our ability to predict changes in Iraq’s security situation. 

Question. Based on your previous experience as Ambassador to Iraq, what are 

your recommendations to prevent a similar deterioration of security in Afghanistan 

once the United States withdraws its troops from Afghanistan in 2016? 

Answer. We believe that at the end of 2016, the Afghan National Security Forces 

(ANSF) will be capable of maintaining security in Afghanistan with the continued 

international financial assistance pledged at the NATO summit in Chicago. The 

ANSF took the lead for security around the country in June 2013, have lost no significant ground to the insurgents since that time, and have won the trust of Afghan 

citizens in their ability to protect them, which was manifest in the high turnouts 

for both rounds of the elections despite determined Taliban efforts to disrupt the 

electoral process and intimidate voters. 

While the situation in Iraq is cautionary, it differs from that in Afghanistan in 

some important ways. The withdrawal of our forces from Iraq in 2011 was consistent with the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement signed in late 2008, honoring our 

commitment to Iraqi sovereignty. We could not reach agreement on key issues that 

would allow our troops to stay in Iraq, the people did not want U.S. forces to remain, and it was the mutual decision of both countries to start a new chapter in 

our partnership under the Strategic Framework Agreement. By contrast, in Afghanistan, the people overwhelmingly want us to stay, to the extent that every single 

contender in the Presidential election said he would sign the Bilateral Security 

Agreement (BSA). 

In addition, the international community has made a range of significant commitments to Afghanistan that extend well into the future that will continue to shore 

up the military and civilian sides of the Afghan Government as well as support 

Afghan civil society. 

400 

RESPONSES OF DANA SHELL SMITH TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

Question. GTMO Recidivism.—In March 2014, the Director of National Intelligence released the most recent recidivism rate on Guantanamo detainees who have 

been released. Out of the total of 614 transferred detainees, 104 are confirmed to 

have reengaged in hostilities and 74 are strongly suspected of returning to the fight. 

We are now at a 29-percent recidivism rate for released GTMO detainees. 

♦ With a 29-percent recidivism rate, do you believe releasing five high-level 

Taliban operational commanders is in the interest of U.S. national security and 

the security of our allies? 

Answer. The administration’s policy is clear: we will not transfer any detainee 

from Guantanamo unless the threat the detainee may pose to the United States or 

U.S. persons or interests will be sufficiently mitigated. The Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the President’s national security team, determined that the transfer was in the national security interest of the United States and that the threat 

posed by the detainees to the United States or U.S. persons or interests would be 

substantially mitigated. Although we cannot publicly detail all of the assurances we 

received from the Government of Qatar, they were sufficient to meet these requirements. The national security team was unanimous in endorsing this transfer. 

The previous administration transferred over 500 detainees from Guantanamo. 

This administration has now transferred 89 detainees. There are 149 detainees remaining at Guantanamo, including 78 eligible for transfer. The DNI has concluded 

that 18.6 percent of detainees transferred by the prior administration have been 

confirmed, under the IC’s definition, to have engaged in terrorist or insurgent activities and an additional 13.5 percent are suspected of having done so. The DNI has 

found that only 6.1 percent of detainees transferred under this administration have 

been confirmed to have engaged in terrorist or insurgent activities, with another 2.4 

percent suspected of having done so. The dramatic reduction in reengagement rate— 

over 90 percent of detainees transferred in this administration are not confirmed or 

even suspected of having reengaged—is a reflection of the President’s strong and 

continuing commitment to transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay responsibly 

and consistent with our national security interests. 

The President’s position is clear: The Guantanamo facility weakens our national 

security by wasting our resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and 

partners, and emboldening violent extremists—and that this administration will 

continue to pursue appropriate dispositions for the detainees remaining, based on 

the facts and circumstances of each case and consistent with our national security 

interests. This includes transferring detainees abroad when the threat the detainee 

may pose can be sufficiently mitigated and when consistent with our humane treatment policy. 

Question. In your preparation for the position of U.S. Ambassador to Qatar, have 

you been briefed on any of the security measures that will be put in place by the 

Qatari Government to prevent the five recently released Taliban detainees from 

returning to the battlefield? 

Answer. Following completion of the transfers and prior to my confirmation hearing, I was able to view the classified U.S.-Qatar Memorandum of Understanding 

governing the transfers. This MOU has also been made available to Members. 

Question. United Nations War Crimes.—Two of the five Taliban detainees are 

wanted by the United Nations in connection with possible war crimes that include 

the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan under the rule of the 

Taliban. 

♦ Has the United States ever knowingly released a detainee that is wanted by the 

United Nations for possible war crimes? 

♦ Do you believe it is appropriate for the United States to release individuals that 

are wanted by the United Nations for committing war crimes? 

Answer. As I have been briefed, the United Nations has neither established, nor 

authorized, any tribunal that would have jurisdiction over war crimes committed in 

Afghanistan. Accordingly, the United Nations has not undertaken criminal investigations, nor has it sought or obtained arrest warrants for individuals accused of 

war crimes in Afghanistan and thus we know of no individuals who are wanted by 

the United Nations for war crimes committed in Afghanistan. 

Question. Qatar Terrorism Financing.—According to the State Department 2013 

Country Reports on Terrorism, ‘‘Qatar’s monitoring of private individuals’ and charitable associations’ contributions to foreign entities remained inconsistent. QatariVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00408 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
401 

based terrorist fundraisers, whether acting as individuals or as representatives of 

other groups, were a significant terrorist financing risk and may have supported terrorist groups in countries such as Syria.’’ 

♦ While Qatar has taken steps to improve its terrorism financing laws and 

enforcement, do you believe there are security measures in place to prevent the 

Taliban Five from using Qatar as a fundraising safe haven? 

Answer. The administration’s policy is clear: we will not transfer any detainee 

from Guantanamo unless the threat the detainee may pose to the United States or 

U.S. persons or interests will be sufficiently mitigated. The Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the President’s national security team, determined that these 

transfers were in the national security interest of the United States and that the 

threat posed by the detainees to the United States or U.S. persons or interests 

would be substantially mitigated. Although we cannot publicly detail all of the 

assurances we received from the Government of Qatar, they were sufficient to meet 

these requirements. In addition to the travel ban, the transferred individuals will 

be subject to security measures in Qatar that will substantially mitigate the risk 

they might pose to U.S. interests. We are confident that the Qataris will enforce the 

restrictions agreed upon and these individuals will be restricted from activities that 

could pose a threat to our national security. 

Question. Qatar Capabilities to Mitigate the Risk.—In 2005, a Guantanamo 

detainee was transferred to Kuwait with the promise that the country would mitigate the risk of him returning to terrorist activity. In 2008, he exploded a truck 

bomb near an Iraqi army base, killing 13 Iraqi soldiers and himself. 

♦ In what ways is Qatar more capable than Kuwait of mitigating the risk that 

a transferred Guantanamo detainee may reengage in terrorist activity? 

Answer. Although we cannot publicly detail all of the assurances we received from 

the Government of Qatar, in addition to a travel ban, the transferred individuals 

will be subject to security measures in Qatar that will substantially mitigate the 

risk they might pose to the United States or U.S. persons or interests. We are confident that the Qataris will enforce the restrictions agreed upon and these individuals 

will be restricted from activities that could pose a threat to our national security. 

Question. In your written testimony, you stated: ‘‘We are confident that the security measures that have been put in place, including restrictions placed on the 

activities of the individuals, will substantially mitigate any threat that the individuals may pose to our national security.’’ 

♦ Please describe the specific security measures that have been put in place. 

♦ What restrictions are placed on the activities of the individuals? 

♦ What specific requirements did the United States request from the Government 

of Qatar? 

♦ Were all of the security measures requested by the United States agreed to and 

implemented prior to the release of the detainees? 

Answer. While we cannot publicly detail all of the assurances we received from 

the Government of Qatar, we required that certain security measures be put in 

place to substantially mitigate the threat that these individuals may pose to the 

United States and our interests. Those demands were met, and we are confident 

that the Qataris will enforce the restrictions agreed upon and these individuals will 

be restricted from activities that pose a threat to our national security. The classified U.S.-Qatar Memorandum of Understanding governing the transfers has been 

made available to Members. 

Question. Are you confident that these five Taliban detainees will not pose any 

threat to our national security after 1 year when they are fully free to travel and 

return to the fight? 

Answer. The President and his national security team, including the Secretary of 

Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Director of National Intelligence, all concurred that the assurances we received from the Qataris were sufficient to substantially mitigate the threat these individuals may pose to the United States or U.S. 

persons or interests. That is not to say they may never rejoin the Taliban movement. But the threat they may pose to the National Security of the United States 

has been mitigated to the satisfaction of our top military commanders and national 

security advisors. 

402 

This is not a decision the President made lightly; many actions were taken to restrict the activities of these individuals. As the President said, we have confidence 

that we will be in a position to use appropriate tools to pursue these individuals 

if, in fact, they are engaging in activities that threaten our national security. The 

President would not have determined that the transfer should go forward if he 

thought it was contrary to U.S. national security interests. 

(403) 

NOMINATIONS OF MARK LIPPERT, JONATHAN 

STIVERS, THEODORE OSIUS, AND JOAN 

POLASCHIK 

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2014 

U.S. SENATE , COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Mark William Lippert, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Korea 

Jonathan Nicholas Stivers, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Asia, United States 

Agency for International Development 

Theodore G. Osius III, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

Joan A. Polaschik, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the People’s 

Democratic Republic of Algeria 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room SD– 

419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Murphy, Kaine, Rubio, and McCain. 

Also present: Senator Patrick J. Leahy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. First, let me welcome you all to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on four very important nominees 

to represent the United States in diplomacy and in our foreign assistance. 

We thank each one of our nominees for their willingness to serve 

our country, and I particularly want to thank their families. We 

will ask that you introduce the members of your family before you 

start your formal presentations, but we recognize that this is a 

family commitment and we thank you very much for your willingness to serve our country. 

So today we will hear from the President’s nominees: Mark 

Lippert to the Republic of Korea to be Ambassador; Theodore Osius 

to be Ambassador in Vietnam; Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Asia at USAID; and Joan Polaschik, Ambassador to Algeria. We welcome all of you to our committee. 

404 

I have the honor of chairing the Subcommittee on East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs. In three of the cases here, your direct responsibility will be in that region. So it is a particular pleasure that Senator Menendez has allowed me to chair this hearing. 

I notice that we do have the distinguished President Pro Tem of 

the United States Senate, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, with us. It is always a pleasure to have 

Senator Leahy in our midst. He is one of the great Members of the 

U.S. Senate. And I am going to allow him to introduce Mr. Lippert. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Of 

course, you and I have been friends for so many years both in your 

previous service and as a Senator. And I appreciate you doing this. 

I also appreciate the work of Chairman Menendez and Ranking 

Member Corker. 

I do not do this very often, but today I really wanted to be here 

to introduce Mark Lippert, President Obama’s nominee to be U.S. 

Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. I have talked to an awful lot 

of Senators over the years about Mark’s character and intellect, but 

I also just want to say on the record my admiration for his dedication as a public servant, not only as a former member of my staff, 

but as a naval officer, as a senior staff member of the National Security Council and Department of Defense, but also because he and 

his wife, Robyn, are dear friends. 

His qualification to serve as Ambassador to South Korea is extensive. He worked on foreign policy on the Appropriations Committee. He worked for me and advised me and helped our committee. And he has military service. He worked at the Pentagon, 

the White House. His breadth of knowledge and perspective on security, economic, humanitarian challenges we face in East Asia and 

the Pacific are significant. 

He is a graduate of Stanford University. He earned a masters degree in international relations. 

While I will put my whole statement in the record, I remember 

when he was here in the Appropriations Committee focusing on 

U.S. policy in East Asia where he has traveled many times. 

While he was serving in my office, he decided to join the Navy, 

which was a lifetime goal of his. Now, it was not required. We do 

not have a draft. He just wanted to do that and did and did it very, 

very well. And I just want to dwell on this just for a moment because I advocate for members of the National Guard and Reserves 

with Senator Lindsey Graham. Mark is an example of a true citizen soldier. He deployed twice, once to Iraq, once to Afghanistan. 

This is not somebody who just reads about it. He does it. 

When he left my office, he was working for a former colleague 

of ours, a first-term Senator from Illinois, who was racking up 

some frequent flyer miles to Iowa. But he helped that former Senator, but then that Senator left us and went on to an executive position, some would say the executive position. But I have heard 

then-Senator, now President Obama, speak so highly of Mark 

Lippert. 

405 

Now, Mark, like I, married above himself, married a Vermonter, 

his wife, Robyn. And both of them have achieved so much in their 

life. 

So I just think at a time—I just came back from a trip not in 

Korea but in China and in Vietnam, and I know how important 

that area is. I will now add South Korea to my agenda once we 

have the new Ambassador there. 

Mr. Chairman, I am just going to be so pleased when I can cast 

my vote for him on the floor. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. I just 

really want to join you in thanking Mr. Lippert for his willingness 

to come forward. 

You have a very impressive resume of public service, including 

in our military. We had a chance to talk and I am very impressed 

with your command of the subject and your knowledge of the complexities of our relationship with the Republic of Korea and how 

important that bilateral relationship is for our interests in the region and globally. 

Senator Leahy, thank you very much for joining us. I appreciate 

it. 

Let me introduce the other three of our nominees. 

I know that Senator Rubio will be joining us shortly as the ranking member of this hearing, and I will yield to him when he is 

here. 

Jonathan Stivers, I have known you since your days with David 

Bonior when I was in the House of Representatives, and I have always been impressed by your commitment to public service and 

your competency. I am very proud of what you have been able to 

accomplish and your being prepared for this important nomination 

as an Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Asia at USAID. 

Jonathan is currently a senior advisor to the House Democratic 

Leader, Nancy Pelosi, a position he has held since 2011. Mr. Stivers has also served as senior advisor to Leader Pelosi in the Office 

of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Office of the 

House Democratic Leader, and the Office of the House Democratic 

Whip. Previously, he served as Leader Pelosi’s senior legislative assistant and press secretary. Prior to this, he was a staff assistant 

in the Office of the Democratic Whip David Bonior and a campaign 

assistant for David Bonior for the U.S. Congress. 

He received his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University 

and a Masters in international policy and practice from the George 

Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs. 

Welcome, and we appreciate your coming forward. 

The next person is Mr. Theodore Osius from my home State of 

Maryland. I should have read that first because I would have introduced you first, if I realized you were the only Marylander on the 

panel. [Laughter.] 

But you certainly have priority as the President’s nominee to 

represent us in Vietnam. I was just recently in Vietnam and I had 

a chance to meet with our Embassy personnel, and it is a critically 

important partnership for the United States, both in Hanoi and Ho 

Chi Minh City where we have a consulate office. The United States 

is very much valued by Vietnam and the opportunities there are 

incredible. 

406 

Mr. Osius is a career member of the Foreign Service, class of 

minister and counselor, and is an Assistant Professor at the National War College, a position he has held since 2013. He was a 

senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies 

from 2012 to 2013. Prior to that, Mr. Osius served as the deputy 

chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia; Political Minister, Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India; 

Deputy Director of the Office of Korean Affairs in the Bureau of 

East Asia and Pacific Affairs; and Regional Environmental Officer 

at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok. He has also served as a senior 

advisor in International Affairs in the Office of the Vice President 

at the White House. 

Mr. Osius received his degrees from Harvard University and the 

School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He knows Vietnam well. He speaks the language and has 

served in Vietnam in both our consulate in Ho Chi Minh City and 

our Embassy in Hanoi. Perhaps most importantly, he is a Marylander well prepared for this position, and we thank you for your 

long, distinguished service to our country. 

We are also pleased to be joined by Ms. Joan Polaschik, the 

nominee for Ambassador to the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. Ms. Polaschik is a career member of the Foreign Service, 

class of counselor, and currently serves as the Director of the Office 

of Egypt and Levant Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, a position she has held since 2013. She has also served as Acting Director in the Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs in the Bureau of 

Near Eastern Affairs; deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy 

in Tripoli, Libya; counselor for the political and economic affairs at 

the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan; and Regional Refugee Coordinator based at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan. You have 

a long and distinguished career serving our country. 

You also served as the Iran Desk Officer and Staff Assistant in 

the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Your other assignments have 

included political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia; 

and counselor and general service officer at the United States Embassy in Tashkent, Azerbaijan. So you have really gotten around 

the entire region. 

You received your B.A. from the University of Virginia and M.S. 

from Georgetown University. 

It is a pleasure to have all four of you here. 

We will start with Mr. Lippert. If you have members of your family that are with you today, we would welcome your introductions, 

and then you may proceed as you wish. As is the tradition of this 

committee, your formal written statements will be made part of our 

record. You may proceed as you so desire. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WILLIAM LIPPERT, OF OHIO, TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 

Mr. LIPPERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My wife, Robyn, is right there, if she can stand up. She is a 

former Hill staffer herself, worked for Senator Leahy on the Judiciary Committee, and we actually met up here on the Hill. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief here and will ask consent to 

put my full statement in the record. 

407 

I will just simply say I am deeply honored to appear before you 

as the President’s nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. I am humbled by the confidence the President and 

the Secretary of State have shown in putting me forward for this 

nomination. 

Having proudly served as a personal representative of the member to this committee, it is very meaningful to be back in this committee room today. In large part through my service on Capitol 

Hill, which spanned nearly a decade, I am keenly aware that the 

close partnership with Congress is critically important to success in 

diplomacy, and if confirmed, I pledge always to be a strong partner 

and friend of this committee. 

I would also like to thank my former boss, Senator Leahy, for his 

gracious introduction. I know how busy he is juggling his many important responsibilities. 

Please also let me say a few words about my lovely wife. She has 

been the best partner that anyone could ask for and has patiently 

put up with years of military deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, 

and elsewhere, long hours at the Pentagon and the National Security Council, and the intensity of work at the Senate Foreign Relations and Appropriations Committees. 

Mr. Chairman, simply put, the alliance between the United 

States and the Republic of Korea is one of the most important relationships that we have in the world. Through my many visits to 

the Republic of Korea, I have come to greatly respect the people 

and culture of South Korea. Our two countries share deeply held 

values of free markets, democracy, and respect for human rights 

and the rule of law. And we share a common history of fighting together to uphold these values and to defend our security. 

I am proud to say that our ties between the two countries have 

never been stronger. If confirmed, I pledge to work tirelessly in 

close partnership with this committee to make our alliance even 

stronger. 

As the former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Asia-Pacific, 

I have had the opportunity to work closely with our South Korean 

allies, commanding generals of the United States Forces Korea, 

and senior members of our diplomatic team. I have seen the enduring strength of this relationship firsthand. 

Mr. Chairman, my statement goes on to talk about the shared 

threats of North Korea, the economic challenges, and the great men 

and women who work at the U.S. Embassy. And with consent, I 

would ask to put my full statement in the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, your entire statement will be 

made part of the record, as will, as I indicated a little bit earlier, 

the statements of the other three nominees. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lippert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK WILLIAM LIPPERT

Chairman Cardin, Senator Rubio, distinguished members of the committee, I am 

deeply honored to appear before you as the President’s nominee to serve as U.S. 

Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. I am humbled by the confidence the President 

and the Secretary of State have shown in putting me forward for this nomination. 

Having proudly served as a personal representative of the member to this committee, it is very meaningful to be back in this committee room today. In large part 

through my service on Capitol Hill, which spanned nearly a decade, I am keenly 

aware that close partnership with Congress is critically important to success in 

408 

diplomacy. And if confirmed, I pledge to always be a strong partner and friend to 

this committee. 

I would also like to thank my former boss, Senator Leahy, for his gracious introduction. I know just how busy he is juggling his many important responsibilities. 

Please let me also say a few words about my wife. As Senator Leahy mentioned, 

I met Robyn when we worked together on Capitol Hill. She has been the best partner that anyone could ask for and has patiently put up with years of military 

deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, long hours at the Pentagon and 

the National Security Council, and the intensity of work for the Senate Foreign 

Relations and Appropriations Committees. 

Members of the committee, simply put: the alliance between the United States 

and the Republic of Korea is one of the most important relationships that we have 

in the world. Through my many visits to the Republic of Korea, I have come to 

greatly respect the people and culture of the Republic of Korea. Our two countries 

share deeply held values of free markets, democracy, and respect for human rights 

and the rule of law. And we share a common history of fighting together to uphold 

these values and to defend our security. 

I am proud to say that the ties between our two countries have never been 

stronger. If confirmed, I pledge to work tirelessly, in close partnership with this 

committee, to make our alliance even stronger. 

As the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Asia-Pacific, I have had the 

opportunity to work closely with our South Korean allies, Commanding Generals of 

United States Forces Korea, and senior members of our diplomatic team. I have 

seen the enduring strength of this alliance firsthand. 

I continue to be vigilant about the stark threat that North Korea poses the U.S. 

homeland, to security on the peninsula, in the region, and around the world— 

including through its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile 

technology, its worldwide proliferation activities, and egregious human rights violations against its own citizens. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with the leadership of the Republic of Korea to 

ensure we are fully aligned in our efforts to achieve the complete and verifiable 

denuclearization of North Korea and prevent proliferation of key technologies. I 

have built a good working relationship with General Scaparrotti, the Commander 

of U.S. Forces Korea, and if confirmed, look forward to partnering closely with him 

and the Department of Defense as they work to strengthen our deterrence on the 

peninsula and ensure that the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed there are ready to ‘‘fight 

tonight,’’ if necessary. 

Although our alliance was established with a mutual commitment to security, our 

nations have built deep and growing economic ties. The U.S.-Korea Free Trade 

Agreement, or KORUS FTA, is now in its 3rd year, and American and Korean consumers, businesses, and workers have benefited from it. Last year, the United 

States achieved a large investment surplus with the Republic of Korea, and U.S. 

goods exports are up 11.7 percent this year so far. That said, the full potential of 

the FTA has yet to be fully realized; more tariff cuts and additional provisions will 

come into force in the years to come. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the KORUS 

FTA is fully implemented so that American exporters, entrepreneurs, and workers 

can receive the benefits for which this administration negotiated so hard. 

This alliance is also increasingly tackling global challenges as well. Our global 

partnership includes cooperation on everything from counterterrorism and counterpiracy to climate change and development. The United States is also negotiating a 

successor 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea that will allow 

us to continue our cooperation in this field, while maintaining our strong nonproliferation standards. 

Finally, our strong people-to-people ties reinforce our shared values and interests. 

Each year, the Republic of Korea sends more university students to the United 

States per capita than any other major country. We have innovative exchange programs between our students and our science experts. If confirmed, I will make public diplomacy a top priority and work to foster these exchanges and bring more 

Korean education and tourism dollars to the United States. And if confirmed, I will 

be proud to also represent the over 1.7 million U.S. citizens that are of Korean 

descent and who contribute vitally to the deepening ties between our peoples. 

Our Embassy in Seoul has a talented team comprised of career diplomats, civil 

servants from a range of U.S. agencies, and local Korean staff who are dedicated 

to advancing U.S. interests every day. If confirmed, I will work to ensure my team 

has the resources, training, and guidance to strengthen and broaden our alliance 

with the Republic of Korea. 

Mr. Chairman, the U.S.-ROK alliance is the linchpin of security and prosperity 

on the Korean Peninsula, in the Asia-Pacific, and around the world. Being nomiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00416 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
409 

nated to represent the United States in Seoul is the honor of my lifetime, and if 

confirmed I will work night and day to advance this critical relationship. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of my nomination, and I look forward 

to taking your questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Stivers. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN NICHOLAS STIVERS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

OF THE BUREAU FOR ASIA, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. STIVERS. Chairman Cardin, it is an honor to appear before 

you today as President Obama’s nominee for the Assistant Administrator for Asia at USAID. I am grateful for the trust placed in 

me by President Obama and Administrator Shah. 

I am joined today by my wife, Ramsey Alwin, and my daughters, 

Josephine and Parker, who were making a little bit of noise back 

there. 

Senator CARDIN. I did not know who it was, but it is perfectly 

OK. She is adorable. 

Mr. STIVERS. The best decision I made in my life was convincing 

Ramsey to marry me. Her support is my bedrock, and everything 

I do professionally is in the hope that someday my daughters will 

be proud of their father. 

I would also like to thank my family who could not be here 

today: my father, Richard Stivers; my mother, Sharon Stivers; and 

my siblings, Adam and Emily Stivers. 

I would also like to recognize Denise Rollins, the Acting Assistant Administrator of the Asia Bureau, who has served our country 

for 25 years with great distinction, and Nisha Biswal, who previously served as the Assistant Administrator for Asia. 

I am particularly honored to be appearing before you, Chairman 

Cardin. I had the opportunity to see your work behind the scenes 

and up close in the House of Representatives, promoting human 

rights on the Helsinki Commission and promoting free and fair 

trade on the Ways and Means Committee. 

For the last 15 years, it has been a privilege to work on Asia policy and our foreign assistance initiatives. I believe that this experience in the legislative branch and my background in Asia have prepared me well for the responsibilities of USAID’s Asia Bureau. I 

will always be grateful that Leader Nancy Pelosi placed her faith 

and trust in me to lead on foreign policy priorities in her office. 

USAID’s Asia Bureau works in 32 countries—excluding Afghanistan and Pakistan—with a program budget of approximately $1.1 

billion. 

In a time of budget constraint, USAID is effectively leveraging 

funding by building public-private partnerships and taking advantage of science and innovation. If confirmed, I pledge to work tirelessly to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is spent effectively and 

wisely in the pursuit of our national interests. 

The President’s Asia Rebalance recognizes that our future prosperity and security are inextricably tied to this region. It is a pivotal time for U.S. policy in Asia. It is a vibrant, diverse region with 

some of the strongest and fastest growing economies in the world. 

The region has enormous development challenges with over a maVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00417 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
410 

jority of the world’s poor and hungry, susceptibility to natural disasters, and democracy and human rights concerns. 

If confirmed, I will place a premium on four key priorities: promoting resilient democratic societies; institutionalizing the Presidential Initiatives, Feed the Future, Global Health, and Global Climate Change; supporting basic education and empowerment for 

women and girls; and fostering greater regional economic 

connectivity. 

First, we know that government by the people offers the best 

chance for freedom and prosperity. I believe that the solutions to 

the challenges facing Asia will ultimately come from the people of 

Asia themselves, and our best chance in promoting democratic 

change is to empower the reformers by helping them build institutions that can withstand nondemocratic events. 

Second, Administrator Shah has provided exemplary leadership 

in promoting President Obama’s three initiatives. We have seen 

tremendous development gains in the Asia region, and if confirmed, 

I will make it a priority to build upon these gains in food security, 

health, and the environment. 

Third, the empowerment of women and girls through education 

is one of the most effective development tools to boost economic 

growth and to provide for a fair society. I have promoted basic education in my current position, and if confirmed, this will continue 

to be a key priority. 

And finally, we must continue to promote an effective regional 

architecture that strengthens regional stability, connectivity, and 

economic growth through regional initiatives such as USAID’s 

Almaty Consensus and the Lower Mekong Initiative. 

Four years ago, President Obama set forth a new vision of results-driven development, and USAID has risen to this challenge. 

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will tirelessly pursue 

policy solutions that make our foreign assistance more effective in 

line with this new model. 

During my almost two decades of working in the legislative 

branch, I have learned the importance of engagement with Congress, and if confirmed, I can assure you that I will seek out, early 

and often, advice and guidance from you and your staff. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I welcome any and all questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN NICHOLAS STIVERS

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Rubio, distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee for 

Assistant Administrator for Asia at the United States Agency for International 

Development (USAID). I am grateful for the trust placed in me by President Obama 

and Administrator Shah. 

I am joined today by my wife, Ramsey Alwin, and my daughters, Josephine and 

Parker. The best decision I made in life was convincing Ramsey to marry me. Her 

encouragement and support is my bedrock. Everything I do in my professional life 

is in the hope that someday my daughters will look back and be proud of their 

father. I also would like to thank my family who could not be here today, my father, 

Richard Stivers, my mother, Sharon Stivers, and my siblings, Adam and Emily 

Stivers. 

I would like to also recognize Denise Rollins, the Acting Assistant Administrator 

of the Asia Bureau who has served our country with great distinction for over 25 

years, and Nisha Biswal, the current Assistant Secretary of State for South and 

411 

Central Asia, who previously served as USAID’s Assistant Administrator for Asia, 

for her advice and guidance throughout the process. 

For the last 15 years, it has been a privilege to work on Asia policy and our foreign assistance initiatives at the highest levels of the U.S. Congress. I believe that 

my experience in the legislative branch and my background in Asia have prepared 

me well for the responsibilities of leading USAID’s Asia Bureau. I will always be 

grateful that Leader Nancy Pelosi placed her faith and trust in me to lead on foreign policy priorities in her office. I am proud to have played a leadership role on 

numerous legislative initiatives including the landmark reauthorization of PEPFAR 

that tripled funding levels to fight global AIDS, the JADE Act that tightened sanctions on the Burmese Government after the Saffron Revolution, and the initial 

development assistance inside Tibet and to the then newly created country of East 

Timor. 

For almost two decades, my second home has been in Congress. Over the years 

I have learned that initiatives are strongest when they are bipartisan, that open 

communication, transparency, and trust are crucial between the administration and 

Congress, and that making the case for foreign assistance in a manner that relates 

to the everyday lives of the American people is essential. I can assure you that, if 

confirmed, I will proactively reach out to Congress to ensure that we are working 

together to promote our national interests and our values. 

I believe deeply in USAID’s mission of partnering to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity. The 

moral case alone is reason to address these global challenges, but in a more interdependent world, we are preventing instability, fighting extremism, stopping the 

spread of infectious diseases while promoting economic and job growth at home. 

Administrator Shah’s strong leadership is rebuilding USAID as the world’s premier development agency. In a time of budget constraint, USAID is effectively 

leveraging funding by building public-private partnerships, utilizing multilateral 

and regional approaches, and taking advantage of science and innovation. If confirmed, I pledge to work tirelessly with the dedicated men and women of USAID 

to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is spent effectively and wisely. 

USAID’s Asia Bureau works in 32 countries—excluding Afghanistan and Paki- stan—with a program budget of approximately $1.1 billion. It is an exciting and pivotal time for U.S. policy in Asia. Asia is a vibrant, diverse region with some of the 

strongest and fastest growing economies in the world. The region includes mature, 

consolidating, budding, and troubled democracies, along with authoritarian governments, struggling post-conflict nations, and emerging regional powers—all in the 

shadow of the rise of a great power. 

The development challenges in Asia are enormous. Home to half of the world’s 

population, the Asia region also struggles with 60 percent of the world’s hungry and 

70 percent of the world’s malnourished children. The region is susceptible to natural 

disasters and the effects of climate change, pollution, and pandemics. It has a vast 

array of governance difficulties including fragile institutions, human rights concerns, gender inequality, and human trafficking challenges that hold back the 

region from achieving its full potential. At the same time, trade volume in Asia is 

expected to double in the next decade, and by 2050, the region’s share of global GDP 

is predicted to almost double. 

The President’s Asia Rebalance recognizes that our future prosperity and security 

are inextricably tied to this region. At its core, the rebalance policy is about 

strengthening our relationships with countries, and more specifically the people of 

the region. If confirmed, I will place a premium on four key priorities: promoting 

resilient, democratic societies; institutionalizing the Presidential Initiatives—Feed 

the Future, the Global Health Initiative, and the Global Climate Change Initiative; 

supporting basic education and empowerment for women and girls; and fostering 

greater regional economic connectivity. 

First, we know that government by the people offers the best chance for freedom 

and prosperity. The United States also has stronger partnerships with stable, democratic countries that respect human rights. Fighting extreme poverty is often less 

a question of funding but in effectively addressing the underlying structural problems of governance that hold back many developing countries from becoming resilient, democratic societies. 

I believe that the solutions to the challenges facing Asia will ultimately come from 

the people of Asia themselves and that our best chance in promoting democratic 

change is to empower the reformers by helping them build institutions that can 

withstand nondemocratic events. 

Over the next 3 years we will learn a lot about democracy in Asia as many countries will hold national elections. Already this year, India has experienced the largest democratic exercise in human history, and next month, Indonesia, the most popVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
412 

ulous Muslim-majority country, will mark another significant democratic milestone 

with the expected transfer of political power. While the recent elections in Bangladesh, unrest in Thailand, and unrealized democratic hopes in Cambodia represent challenges for democracy, the expected national elections in Burma, Nepal, 

the Kyrgyz Republic and the Philippines will further determine the future of democracy in Asia. 

But democracy promotion is more than elections. USAID has been active in the 

region doing the difficult work strengthening civil society, providing technical support for good governance, combating corruption and promoting human rights. 

Second, Administrator Shah has provided exemplary leadership in promoting 

President Obama’s three initiatives—Feed the Future, the Global Health Initiative, 

and the Global Climate Change Initiative. 

Through Feed the Future, USAID is supporting country driven approaches that 

address the root causes of poverty and hunger by focusing on agricultural productivity. We know that growth in agriculture is at least twice as effective at reducing 

poverty as other sectors. For example, in Bangladesh, a country with one of the 

highest malnutrition rates in the region, USAID has trained hundreds of thousands 

of small farmers on improved technologies and increased crop yields by 20 percent 

through a fertilizer deep placement project. In Cambodia, new horticulture techniques have raised household incomes of over 7,000 farmers by an average of 250 

percent. This type of assistance is particularly valuable because it promotes economic growth while at the same time feeding hungry and malnourished men, 

women, and children. 

The Global Health Initiative is aimed at addressing regional health priorities, including ending preventable child and maternal deaths, preventing the spread of 

HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as well as improving surveillance and response 

capacity for pandemic influenza and other emerging threats. 

In February 2014, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted the urgency of 

addressing climate change. In a region of the world that experiences over 60 percent 

of the world’s natural disasters, and with more than 10 billion pounds of airborne 

pollutants from Asia reaching the United States annually, it is imperative that we 

continue to reduce emissions from deforestation, promote sustainable and resilient 

societies, and foster clean energy in the Asia through the Global Climate Change 

Initiative. 

If confirmed, I will make it a priority to build upon these gains in food security, 

health, and environmental well-being for both the people of Asia and the United 

States. 

Third, the empowerment of women and girls through education is one of the most 

effective development tools and one of the best strategies to boost economic growth. 

While many Asian countries have recently made progress, nearly 20 million children 

in Asia—a third of the world’s children—do not have access to primary school. Millions of children in Asia lack basic reading and writing skills thereby holding back 

the region for reaching its full potential. I am proud to have promoted basic education while in Congress and, if confirmed, this will continue to be a key priority. 

As Administrator Shah noted on International Women’s Day, ‘‘If we are going to 

truly achieve the goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030, we cannot leave behind 

half of the global population. We have to invest in women and girls as champions 

of development who can lift their families out of extreme poverty.’’ 

And finally, we must continue to promote an effective regional architecture that 

strengthens regional stability, connectivity and economic growth through regional 

initiatives such as USAID’s Almaty Consensus which supports the New Silk Road 

Initiative by increasing regional economic connectivity between South and Central 

Asia to bolster Afghanistan’s stability; the Lower Mekong Initiative that provides 

a regional forum the development challenges that cross national boundaries; and by 

working with regional institutions such as ASEAN and APEC. 

I would like to highlight a few priority countries where USAID operates. 

In Bangladesh, the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse sparked outrage all over the world. 

Members of Congress led the way in calling for action to address labor and building 

safety conditions in the country. I played a role in this effort on a staff level working 

to call on corporations to improve building safety standards in Bangladesh and asking the administration to suspend the Generalized System of Preferences program 

until reforms are made. Please be assured that, if confirmed, workers’ rights and 

safety will be a high priority for me throughout the region. 

In Burma, we have seen historic political and economic reforms during this critical period of transition. The country faces a long and difficult road ahead, as transitions are never smooth nor are they ever easy. The next 2 years will be challenging 

in regards to national reconciliation and the national election in 2015. The USAID 

mission in Burma—which was reopened in 2012—is committed to supporting reform 

413 

that will bring lasting peace, stability, justice and improve the welfare of the people 

of Burma. If confirmed, my priorities in Burma will be to deepen USAID’s engagement with civil society, expand economic opportunity, support reconciliation efforts, 

help the country prepare for the 2015 national elections, and continue providing 

humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable in the country. 

In India, USAID helped secure a major success in the battle against polio when 

the World Health Organization officially removed India from the list of countries 

where the disease was active. In the coming years, USAID hopes to move more 

toward a 21st century partnership where USAID and India join together in tackling 

development challenges both in India and in the region. 

When Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines, USAID had already been working for 

decades to strengthen disaster management and response capabilities. A USAID 

team was prepositioned, enabling an immediate response and ensuring a coordinated relationship between USAID, the Department of Defense, and other USG 

actors. Through relief efforts, USAID provided food assistance to more than 3 million people and helped save countless lives. If confirmed, I will continue to make 

both short- and long-term assistance to the Philippines a top priority. 

While Vietnam is an emerging power with a high economic growth rate and a 

strategic position in the region, it is also a country with serious human rights concerns. USAID is continuing to focus its assistance to support the Vietnamese people 

as they confront the significant challenges they face related to health, susceptibility 

to climate change, and natural disasters. USAID also supports programs focused on 

economic governance and trade, and addressing legacies of the war between our two 

countries through the remediation of dioxin contamination. 

Four years ago, President Obama set forth a new vision of results-driven development focused on achieving measureable results. Under the visionary leadership of 

Administrator Shah, USAID has risen to this challenge, pioneering a new model of 

development that brings a greater emphasis on partnerships, innovation, and 

results. In conclusion, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed to this position, I 

will tirelessly pursue policy solutions that make our foreign assistance more effective in line with this new model. 

During my almost two decades working in the legislative branch, I have learned 

the importance of engagement with Congress and, if confirmed, I can assure you 

that I will seek out, early and often, advice and guidance from you and your staff. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome 

any and all questions you might have. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Osius. 

STATEMENT OF THEODORE G. OSIUS III, OF MARYLAND, TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM 

Mr. OSIUS. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as the President’s nominee to be the next Ambassador to 

Vietnam. 

I am very pleased that members of my family, including my 

mother, Nancy Zimmerman; my spouse, Clayton Bond; our 6- 

month-old son, Taybo; my sister Meg; cousin Deborah; cousins, 

Dick and Kate; and dear friends, Louise, David and Sam and Amy 

have all been able to join us here today. 

I am very grateful to you, the Senator from Maryland, for 

chairing this hearing. 

This, sir, is a dream come true for me. Early in my career, I had 

the privilege of supporting Pete Peterson, the first U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam following normalization, as he laid the foundation 

for a new relationship between our two nations. I represented Al 

Gore on the team that prepared a bilateral trade agreement with 

Vietnam. And I accompanied President Bill Clinton on his historic 

visit there. 

I have served in Asia for most of my 25 years in the Foreign 

Service. A highlight was helping lead the small team that opened 

our post in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon. I relished the 

414 

chance to make friends for America in a land that once reminded 

Americans only of conflict. 

I traveled all over Vietnam, once riding a bicycle 1,200 miles 

from Hanoi to Saigon. In the former demilitarized zone, I stood on 

a bridge gazing at what appeared to be ponds dotting the landscape. An older woman said in Vietnamese that those were not 

ponds, but places where bombs had been dropped, including on her 

village. When I told her that I represented the Government and 

people of the United States, she replied using the familial terms 

that make Vietnamese such an intimate language: ‘‘Hom nay, 

chung ta la anh chi em.’’ Today you and I are brother and sister. 

From those beginnings, I witnessed our relationship with Vietnam grow into an important partnership, founded on mutual respect and shared strategic interests. 

As Secretary Kerry said, ‘‘A strong, prosperous, and independent 

Vietnam that respects the rule of law and human rights will be a 

critical partner for the United States.’’ While in the Senate, John 

Kerry joined with Senator John McCain to ensure that Americans 

could see Vietnam not just as a war, but as a nation and a people 

the United States could work with peacefully. They looked beyond 

the bomb craters and they saw hope for the future. 

Their work included ensuring the fullest possible accounting of 

servicemen we lost in Vietnam, and we must complete that process 

honorably. Our history with Vietnam is a tough one, and even 

today we face real differences. If confirmed, I will face those differences squarely and directly with the leaders in Hanoi. I will say 

that when Vietnam’s Government respects human rights, it will 

grow stronger, not weaker, and our partnership’s potential will 

grow as well. I will press the government to protect universal 

human rights, including by releasing prisoners of conscience and by 

making systemic changes so that Vietnam can fully integrate within the world community because even as in families, differences 

can be worked out and history can be overcome. 

If confirmed, I will strive to strengthen the ties that bind our 

peoples. Those linkages between people are central to the comprehensive partnership launched by President Obama and President Sang last year. Educational exchange is a good example. Already 16,000 Vietnamese study in the United States. 

Trade is another key element of the relationship. Two-way trade 

continues to grow from $451 million in 1995 to nearly $30 billion 

last year. The successful conclusion of the high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will further deepen this trade and strategic relationship, bringing Vietnam into a community of nations 

that comprises 40 percent of world GDP. 

If confirmed, I will also maintain a firm commitment to the safety and security of all staff working for our mission. 

Half of the world’s ship-based cargo passes through the South 

China Sea. The United States has a national interest in the unfettered flow of commerce and in freedom of navigation and overflight 

in these waters. We have a deep stake in ensuring that the territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea are solved 

without coercion, force, or intimidation, and in accordance with 

international law. Unfortunately, we have seen lately a pattern of 

415 

unilateral steps by China to advance its territorial and maritime 

claims. 

The U.S. Congress plays a vital role in turning our difficult past 

with Vietnam into a promising future. If confirmed, I look forward 

to hosting many of you, I hope, in Hanoi. 

Thank you once again for considering my nomination for this 

challenging and rewarding opportunity to continue to serve the 

United States of America. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Osius follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEODORE G. OSIUS III 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as the President’s nominee to be the next Ambassador to Vietnam. 

I am very pleased that members of my family and dear friends are able to join 

us today. I am grateful to the Senator from Maryland for chairing this hearing, and 

grateful to all of you for considering my nomination. 

This is a dream come true for me. Early in my career I had the privilege of supporting Pete Peterson, the first U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam following normalization, as he laid the foundation for a new relationship between our two nations. I 

represented Vice President Al Gore on the team that prepared a bilateral trade 

agreement with Vietnam, and I accompanied President Bill Clinton on his historic 

visit there. 

I have served in Asia for most of my 25 years in the Foreign Service. A highlight 

was helping lead the small team that opened our post in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon. I relished the chance to make friends for America in a land that once 

only reminded Americans of conflict. 

I traveled all over Vietnam, once riding a bicycle 1,200 miles from Hanoi to Saigon. In the former demilitarized zone, I stood on a bridge, gazing at what appeared 

to be ponds dotting the landscape. An older woman said in Vietnamese that those 

were not ponds, but places where bombs had been dropped, including on her village. 

When I told her that I represented the government and people of the United States, 

she replied using the familial terms that make Vietnamese such an intimate language: ‘‘Hom nay, chung ta la anh chi em.’’ You and I are now brother and sister. 

From those beginnings, I witnessed our relationship with Vietnam grow into an 

important partnership, founded on mutual respect and shared strategic interests. 

As Secretary Kerry said last year in Hanoi, ‘‘a strong, prosperous, and independent Vietnam that respects the rule of law and human rights will be a critical 

partner for the United States on many regional and global challenges.’’ While in the 

Senate, John Kerry joined with Senator John McCain to ensure that Americans 

could see Vietnam not just as a war, but as a nation and a people the United States 

could work with peacefully. They looked beyond the bomb craters and saw hope for 

the future. 

Their work included ensuring the fullest possible accounting of servicemen we lost 

in Vietnam, and we must complete that process honorably. Our history with Vietnam is a tough one, and even today we face real differences. If confirmed, I will 

face those differences squarely and directly with the leaders in Hanoi. I will say 

that when Vietnam’s Government respects human rights it will grow stronger, not 

weaker, and our partnership’s potential will grow as well. I will press the government to protect universal human rights, including by releasing prisoners of conscience and by making systemic changes, so that Vietnam can fully integrate with 

the world community. Because even as in families, among brothers and sisters, differences can be worked out, and history can be overcome. 

If confirmed, I will strive to strengthen the ties that bind our peoples. Those linkages between people are central to the Comprehensive Partnership launched by 

President Obama and President Sang last year. Educational exchange is a good 

example; already 16,000 Vietnamese study in the United States, and others attend 

the Fulbright Economics Training Program in Ho Chi Minh City. 

Trade is another key element of the relationship. Two-way trade continues to 

grow—from $451 million in 1995 to nearly $30 billion last year. The successful 

conclusion of the high-standard Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will further 

deepen this trade and strategic relationship, bringing Vietnam into a community of 

nations that contributes 40 percent of world GDP. 

Under the Comprehensive Partnership, our two nations are working to support 

peace, stability, cooperation, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific. We have expanded 

our work with Vietnam in areas such as security, nonproliferation, and law enforceVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00423 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
416 

ment. If confirmed, I intend to continue the efforts of my predecessors to broaden 

and deepen our engagement. I will also maintain a firm commitment to the safety 

and security of all staff working for our mission. 

Half of the world’s ship-based cargo passes through the South China Sea. The 

United States has a national interest in the unfettered flow of commerce and in 

freedom of navigation and overflight in these waters. 

We have a deep stake in ensuring that the territorial and maritime disputes in 

the South China Sea are solved without coercion, force, or intimidation and in 

accordance with international law. Unfortunately, we have seen lately a pattern of 

unilateral steps by China to advance its territorial and maritime claims, the latest 

of which is China’s introduction of an oil rig into disputed waters near Vietnam. 

The U.S. Congress plays a vital role in turning our difficult past with Vietnam 

into a promising future. If confirmed, I look forward to hosting many of you in 

Hanoi. Thank you, once again, for considering my nomination for this challenging 

and rewarding opportunity to continue to serve the United States of America. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Polaschik. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN A. POLASCHIK, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF 

ALGERIA 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity appear before you today. I am honored that 

President Obama has nominated me to be the U.S. Ambassador to 

Algeria, and I deeply appreciate the confidence that he and Secretary Kerry have shown by making this nomination. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to thank my family: my mom, Marion Polaschik; my sister, 

Anne; her husband and son, Keith and Grant, are here today. They 

have been a tremendous support throughout my career, and I am 

very grateful to them. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has a robust partnership with 

Algeria. If confirmed by the Senate, I will advance the following 

policy priorities: working with the Government of Algeria to 

counter the threat of terrorism and strengthen regional stability; 

increasing commercial ties; boosting civil society and democratic institutions; and working with the Algerian Government to support 

the reforms necessary to Algeria’s long-term stability. 

As Ambassador, I will make my top priority the protection of the 

people who serve in U.S. Embassy Algiers and all Americans who 

live and work in Algeria. 

The Government of Algeria is a steadfast partner in our counterterrorism efforts. It is a member of the Global Counter-terrorism 

Forum and the Trans-Sahel Counter-terrorism Partnership and is 

working with its neighbors to stabilize the broader Maghreb and 

Sahel region, including through training programs in Mali and 

Niger and close cooperation with Tunisia. If confirmed, I will work 

to support and expand these efforts. 

Algeria is a critical supplier of energy to global markets. It has 

potentially vast untapped shale gas reserves, and its government 

is eager to partner with U.S. firms to develop them. 

Beyond oil and gas, Algeria is working to diversify its economy, 

and there is significant potential for U.S. companies, particularly 

in the energy generation, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, and machinery sectors. If confirmed, I will advocate for American companies in all of these areas. 

417 

Algeria has an important role to play in strengthening relations 

between North and sub-Saharan Africa and its mediating role in 

conflicts around the continent remains vital. Algeria would gain 

from increasing trade within the region, and its willingness to lead 

in this area will be critical to realizing regional integration, including with Morocco. To that end, we appreciate Algeria’s support for 

the U.N.-led negotiations over the disputed territory of the Western 

Sahara. 

Unlike other countries in the region, Algeria did not experience 

the upheaval of the Arab Spring. President Bouteflika introduced 

political reforms in 2011 and recently announced a series of constitutional amendments to further develop Algeria’s political system. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to work with the Algerian Government and people as they take the next steps in negotiating, adopting, and implementing reforms that will strengthen Algeria’s long-term stability. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for 

this opportunity to address you. I am deeply honored to have been 

selected to lead the team at U.S. Embassy Algiers, a dynamic, 

hardworking, and dedicated group working on the front lines of 

U.S. policy. If confirmed, I hope I will have many opportunities to 

host you and your colleagues in Congress in Algiers. I would be 

pleased to address any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Polaschik follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN A. POLASCHIK

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Rubio, members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored that President Obama 

has nominated me to be the U.S. Ambassador to Algeria, and I deeply appreciate 

the confidence he and Secretary Kerry have shown by making this nomination. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to take a moment to thank my family, which has been a tremendous support throughout my career. My mother, Marion Polaschik, and my sister, Anne, and her husband and son, Keith and Grant 

Barcal, have provided love, support, and a place to stay no matter where I was in 

the world and no matter how much worry I caused them by pursuing challenging 

assignments. I’m very grateful to them. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has a robust and multifaceted partnership 

with the people and Government of Algeria. I am fortunate to be nominated at a 

time when the potential for expanding that bilateral relationship has never been 

stronger. In April 2014 we completed the latest round of our Strategic Dialogue, and 

just 2 weeks ago the Secretary of Energy visited Algeria to lead the U.S. delegation 

to the Algeria International Trade Fair—where the United States was the guest of 

honor for the first time. If confirmed by the Senate, I will continue to advance our 

key U.S. foreign policy interests in Algeria. They are: (1) working with the Government of Algeria to counter the threat of terrorism and strengthen the stability of 

the Maghreb and Sahel regions; (2) increasing commercial ties between the United 

States and Algeria; (3) boosting civil society and democratic institutions; and (4) 

working with the Algerian Government to support the political and economic 

reforms necessary to ensure Algeria’s long-term stability. And as Ambassador, I will 

make my priority the protection of the people who serve in U.S. Embassy Algiers, 

and all Americans who live and work in Algeria. 

We know that we work in a dangerous part of the world, and I am pleased to 

report that the Algerian Government is deeply committed to the safety and security 

of our personnel and facilities, and has been extremely responsive to our requests 

for security support. 

Mr. Chairman, the relationship between the United States and Algeria continues 

to grow stronger. Since 9/11, our nations have joined together in the struggle 

against violent extremism. Algeria is on the front lines of the battle against violent 

extremism, having suffered the scourge of terrorism since the 1990s, and most recently in the attack on the gas-production facility near In Amenas in January 2013. 

The Government of Algeria understands the need to remain vigilant against those 

418 

who wish to do us harm and is a steadfast partner in our counterterrorism efforts 

including as an active participant in the Global Counter-terrorism Forum and the 

Trans-Sahel Counter-terrorism Partnership. While terrorist activity in Algeria has 

decreased since the dark decade of the 1990s, the Algerian Government knows as 

well as the United States that violent extremism remains a threat. President 

Bouteflika was the first Arab leader to call President Bush following the terrorist 

attacks on 9/11, reflecting our shared view of the dangers posed by terrorism. This 

call was an expression of support that led to even greater cooperation. 

Today, Algeria is working with its neighbors to stabilize the broader Maghreb and 

Sahel region. Algeria has taken positive steps to help train security forces in countries like Mali and Niger in the Sahel. Algeria has also provided airlift support to 

African peacekeeping troops. The Algerian military has taken action to secure its 

eastern border to combat smuggling and weapons proliferation. Tunisia and Algeria 

have formed a close security relationship to aggressively confront violent extremists. 

We continue to engage with Algeria about the security situation in Libya and the 

challenge of foreign fighters in Syria as well. If confirmed, I will work to support 

these efforts. 

While counterterrorism and security remain the cornerstone of our relationship, 

in recent years we have expanded beyond CT to form a robust diplomatic, political, 

and economic partnership as well. In recent years, we have held two bilateral Strategic Dialogues, former Secretary Clinton visited Algeria twice, Secretary Kerry just 

visited in April 2014, and Energy Secretary Moniz opened the U.S. pavilion of the 

Algerian International Trade Fair—where 80 companies and organizations represented our commercial and economic interests in Algeria. These visits and dialogues are indicative of our rapidly expanding commercial and social ties. 

As one of the largest oil and gas producers in the Middle East and Africa, Algeria 

is a critical supplier of energy to Europe and global markets. Algeria has significant 

remaining energy resources and potentially vast untapped unconventional hydrocarbon resources, and its government is eager to partner with U.S. firms, whose 

expertise in this sector is unparalleled in the world. If confirmed, I will advocate 

for U.S. companies who can partner with Algeria to safely develop shale gas and 

other resources to ensure stability in global energy markets and bring further development and prosperity to the people of Algeria. 

Beyond oil and gas, Algeria is interested in diversifying its economy, and there 

is significant potential in the Algerian market for U.S. companies. Last year General Electric won a contract worth several billion dollars to develop Algeria’s electricity sector. U.S. companies in the fields of pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, and 

machinery are investing in Algeria and have won multimillion dollar deals in recent 

years. 

Algeria has long had a significant political and diplomatic role in Middle Eastern 

and African affairs—it is literally at the confluence of Africa, the Mediterranean, 

and the Arab world. Algeria is a key player in the Arab League, the African Union, 

and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is a long-standing member of the 

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and a founding member of the New 

Economic Partnership for African Development. Algeria is also active in the Arab 

Maghreb Union, which has the potential to bring the Maghreb states closer 

together. 

Algeria has an important role to play in strengthening relations between North 

and sub-Saharan Africa, and its mediating role in conflicts around the continent will 

remain vital to finding peaceful solutions there. Algeria has forgiven the debt of 

multiple African countries, and is looking for ways to boost economic development 

of its neighbors to the south. Algeria would gain from increasing trade within the 

region, and its willingness to lead in this area will be critical to realizing long-held 

dreams of regional integration, including with Morocco. To that end, we appreciate 

Algeria’s support for the U.N.-led negotiations over the disputed territory of the 

Western Sahara. We also welcome Algeria’s participation in the U.S.-Africa Leaders 

summit later this summer. I know the President looks forward to genuine dialogue 

with leaders of African nations, and we look forward to hearing from Prime Minister 

Abdelmalek Sellal—who will represent Algeria—about the many ways that Algeria 

stands ready to partner with and support its neighbors on the continent. 

Unlike other countries in the region, Algeria did not experience the upheaval of 

the Arab Spring. President Bouteflika introduced political reforms in 2011, and recently announced a series of constitutional amendments to further develop Algeria’s 

political system. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to work with the Algerian 

Government and people as they take the next steps in negotiating, adopting, and 

implementing reforms that will strengthen Algeria’s long-term stability. 

The potential of the Algerian people is limitless. As Secretary Kerry saw firsthand 

during his recent trip, the people of Algeria are eager to partner with the United 

419 

States to develop people-to-people ties. We have expanded our cultural connections 

with Algeria, including boosting English Language Education, increasing opportunities for Algerians to study in the United States, and develop other educational 

exchange opportunities. Additionally, programs like those promoted by the Middle 

East Partnership Initiative help build civil society and will help bring our countries 

even closer together. If confirmed, I will work with the Algerian Government and 

people to continue and expand these programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had the great honor of serving as a Foreign Service officer 

for the last 20 years. I have worked in and on the Middle East, North Africa, and 

Central Asia, focusing on countries that present some of the same challenges and 

rich opportunities that exist in Algeria. My previous assignments in Azerbaijan and 

Libya provided an extensive background in the counterterrorism and energy issues 

that are critical to our partnership with Algeria, while multiple tours in transitional 

and post-conflict countries have instilled a profound appreciation for the importance 

of political and economic reform to long-term stability, and for the power of peopleto-people diplomacy to build lasting partnerships. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Rubio, and members of the committee, for this opportunity to address you. I’m deeply honored to have been selected 

to lead the team in U.S. Embassy Algiers, a dynamic, hard-working, and dedicated 

group working on the front lines of U.S. policy. If confirmed, I hope I will have many 

occasions to host you and your colleagues in Congress in Algiers. I would be pleased 

to address any questions that you may have. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you and I thank again all four of you 

for your testimony and your appearance here. 

As I said at the beginning of the hearing, this panel represents 

two of our three pillars of national defense, that is, diplomacy and 

development assistance. And that is by far the best return we get 

from the point of view of the dollars that are invested in our national security. So we look at each of you as critically important 

players in advancing the national security of the United States. 

Mr. Osius, let me start with you. You and I have had a chance 

to chat, and I very much appreciate your career commitment to the 

Foreign Service and what you have been able to do to advance U.S. 

interests. 

Vietnam is a very interesting country. They truly want to develop a much closer tie to the United States for many reasons. The 

security issue in the China Sea is one reason and their relationship 

with China, which is problematic right now because of the incident 

concerning the oil rig, is another reason. And they look at the 

United States as a reliable partner. So they were anxious to get 

into the TPP, which would be really revolutionary in the sense that 

we have a multilateral agreement that involves countries at different levels of development. And that issue was brought home to 

me in my conversations with the leaders of Vietnam. 

I made it clear that there needs to be advancements in good governance and human rights in order to see the type of strategic 

partnerships between the United States and Vietnam that both 

countries would like to see. 

Ambassador Shear has been very direct with the Vietnamese 

about this issue. As you and I have commented, he has that little 

card he points out with his checklist. I just would like to get your 

observations as to how you see your role, if confirmed, in advancing 

the U.S. objectives of improving the strategic ties between our two 

countries but doing it mindful that good governance and human 

rights must be improved. 

Mr. OSIUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And may I 

thank you very much for the time that you invested in traveling 

to Vietnam. It was very clear from the reception that you received 

420 

that they knew they were welcoming a heavyweight. They wanted 

very much to have constructive conversations with you, and by all 

reports, it was a terrific trip. So thank you so much for taking the 

time to travel there. 

On TPP, as you mentioned, Vietnam is the least developed of the 

12 countries that are negotiating. Along with Malaysia, it stands 

to benefit most should TPP succeed, should we conclude a TPP 

agreement. So I think that, as well as the strategic situation that 

the Vietnamese are facing in the South China Sea, means if we 

want to help advance good governance, respect for rule of law and 

for human rights, now is the time. There is really no better time 

than this year, given the Vietnamese interest in a deepening partnership with us. 

Since the time that our two Presidents agreed on a comprehensive partnership, there have been some modest advances in human 

rights. You mentioned Ambassador Shear’s little card. I have been 

carrying it around ever since my nomination. And by my calculation, one-third of the items that Ambassador Shear had listed on 

that card the Vietnamese have already dealt with. We would all 

like to see all of these issues dealt with, but I think we are making 

some progress. 

I think some of that progress may be as a result of direct American engagement and the fact that the Congress is so much interested in this issue is a fact that is not at all lost upon Vietnamese 

leaders. Since the time the partnership was announced, the Vietnamese have signed the Convention Against Torture. They have 

published an ILO report on forced labor and child labor. They have 

released a small number of prisoners. The trick going forward will 

be to ensure that those prisons are not refilled but that the 

changes that are made are systemic. And I do believe we have a 

real opportunity to make those changes in the time ahead. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, as you point out, they released a few of 

the prisoners of conscience, but there are still many more that are 

imprisoned. They will have on their law books crimes that under 

international standards should not be crimes, but people just expressing their peaceful disagreements with government and they 

should be able to do that. They still have a problem on the registration of religious organizations. 

And what I think is the most challenging part is how they deal 

with corruption. As I pointed out, this is not a unique issue in Vietnam. Many countries have extreme challenges here. But Vietnam 

must be on a path to rid itself of the amount of corruption it has. 

We saw in Ukraine that the motivating force behind the populist 

uprising was a corrupt government more so than the philosophy of 

that government. And I think it is clear that that issue has to be 

high on our list for good governance reforms within Vietnam. 

Mr. OSIUS. Yes, sir. Transparency International lists Vietnam as 

116 out of 177 on its corruption index. I think the people of Vietnam would like to see that situation improve as well. And as you 

mentioned, there have been bloggers who have been imprisoned. 

Internet freedom is one of the issues that we have tried hard to advance and that, if confirmed, I would continue to work to advance. 

Senator CARDIN. Do you have any recommendations in regards 

to the maritime security challenges? The relationship right now beVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00428 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
421 

tween Vietnam and China is dangerous in regards to the rhetoric 

we hear. The U.S. position is pretty clear. We want a peaceful resolution of the territorial issues. We do not take sides on who is 

right, but we do take sides on it being handled in a peaceful manner and not through unilateral actions such as what China did. 

Any thoughts as to how you could be helpful in preserving a 

peaceful resolution of these issues and dealing with the commerce 

that goes through the China Seas? 

Mr. OSIUS. First, I agree with your characterization. We have a 

great stake in how these issues are resolved and that they are resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law. 

I would suggest that the strongest thing that we can do to send 

a signal in the region is continue to build powerful partnerships. 

We are building partnerships with ASEAN nations, including with 

Vietnam, over time. I think if there is a calculus that is being made 

by the Chinese, that calculus will be affected by the strength of our 

partnerships in the region. 

With Vietnam in particular, we have strengthened our maritime relationship. Last December, Secretary Kerry announced a $25 million program, $18 million of which will go to Vietnam for strengthening collaboration between our two Coast Guards. I think we 

should explore further expansion of Vietnam’s maritime domain 

awareness and how we can help Vietnam build its capacity to deal 

with the challenges in the South China Sea. And I think we should 

continue to stand by our allies. Here I am going beyond Vietnam— 

but to support our allies such as the Philippines and, of course, 

Japan as they deal with these challenges. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all of our witnesses today. I know you will serve 

the United States very well. I just have a few questions for a couple of our witnesses relative to our growing economic relationship, 

especially through the negotiation of TPP. 

But, first, let me say, although I do not have any questions for 

Mr. Stivers, I had the chance to work with him as he was of great 

assistance and counsel to the House majority. I know you will serve 

USAID just as well as you did the House majority and then the 

House minority caucus. 

I wanted just to talk a little bit, maybe direct the question to 

you, Mr. Lippert, regarding negotiations over TPP and where South 

Korea may fall into those negotiations. A lot of us were skeptical 

of the Korea FTA not necessarily because of the writing on the 

page but because of our concerns about how it would be enforced. 

Some of those concerns have been borne out. In particular, one of 

the primary selling points for the FTA was the potential boon to 

U.S. auto manufacturers with their ability to sell into the Korean 

market, and we have seen sort of this strange concoction of tax 

credit and tax penalty that has so far meant that we have not, I 

think, witnessed the benefit that some had predicted. 

I would just be interested in your thoughts on how we can continue to work through the existing enforcement issues with our 

FTA that has been signed and whether that prevents us from moving Korea into a broader conversation about being part of TPP. 

422 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, thanks for the question. 

You make a good point, and I would just say that if confirmed, 

one of my top priorities would be full implementation of the 

KORUS FTA. As you rightly point out, there are some uneven implementation issues, autos origin. The origin issue is also a big one 

as well that we have to continue to sort through. We have made 

a little progress on the data issue, it seems to me, but I do think 

that the autos issue remains outstanding. We have seen some 

progress. I think the stats are something—there is an 80-percent 

increase in U.S. automobiles into the country, and there is some 

progress there. 

But I think you are right. We do have to stay on this, and I think 

having dealt with the South Korean Government in a defense capacity, I do feel that sustained U.S. engagement and raising the 

issue in consultation with USTR is one prong of the issue, that we 

just have to stay on it. 

The second issue that I have seen work is senior-level visits. We 

tend to make progress around visits by the President, by the Vice 

President, by the Secretary of State. So lining up those engagements to try to make progress on these key trade issues would also 

be a way ahead as well. 

But I do take the point. I think there is more work left to be 

done. 

Senator MURPHY. How important is it to bring them into the rubric of the TPP negotiations? We have our own FTA obviously, but 

what are the stakes with respect to that decision? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, I think two things. I think you raise an 

excellent question. 

I think the first point I would make is that the priority, if confirmed, for me is KORUS implementation. I think we have just got 

to get that done, first and foremost. 

Second is as Ambassador Froman will tell you, we have got to 

finish the round here at TPP and work with Congress to try to 

make progress on it. At that point, I think we have said we welcome South Koreans’ interest in the TPP. We look forward to consulting with them in the standard mechanisms, but I do think that 

if you can bring South Korea down the road, get all the aforementioned issues taken care of, I think it would be a boon to TPP overall. 

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Osius, I may have missed this. I did not 

get to hear your prepared testimony, but some have suggested that 

Vietnam has the farthest to travel in terms of domestic economic 

reforms in order to be ready for TPP. We have always had serious 

concerns about the ability of their government to protect intellectual property rights. What do you think about their ability to make 

the necessary changes in order to be part of that agreement and, 

to the point that we were discussing with respect to Korea, be able 

to actually enforce U.S. companies’ rights as part of that agreement? 

Mr. OSIUS. Senator, I think TPP offers us the best opportunity 

to put the Vietnamese in a position where they must, in order to 

meet the terms that they have agreed to, do a much better job at 

enforcing intellectual property rights. One of the things that will 

be a challenge for the Vietnamese is meeting the very high labor 

423 

standards that are set by the TPP. If they accede to the agreement, 

they will have to support ILO fundamental labor rights such as 

freedom of association, collective bargaining. They will have to deal 

with child and forced labor and essentially uphold rule of law when 

it comes to labor in ways that they have not done in the past. It 

will be a hard road for them to travel. The United States has 

shown that we are willing to help them build capacity, including 

in the area of customs enforcement where it will also be very important for them to work harder than they have in the past to meet 

the high standards of the TPP. 

Senator MURPHY. And switching gears, just one question for you, 

Ms. Polaschik. Can you talk about Algeria within a regional context? It is maddening, frankly, to see the lack of cooperation in particular between Algeria and Morocco when it comes to combating 

terrorism and AQIM. What is the ability of the United States State 

Department and the embassy to try to get a little bit more regional 

cooperation, especially between those two nations when it comes to 

counterterrorism activity? 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Senator, thank you for that question. 

I think there are a couple of parts to that answer, and the first 

part is that Algeria is actually demonstrating quite impressive 

leadership on regional issues with respect to counterterrorism. Algeria, as you know, had its own long, difficult struggle with domestic terrorism and, with the growth of these new transnational 

groups, has been cooperating very, very closely with Tunisia to conduct operations against the extremists that are operating on their 

shared border. Algeria has put tens of thousands of military troops 

on its southeastern border to prevent the flow of weapons and terrorists from Mali and Libya and is working very, very closely with 

Mali and Niger to strengthen those two countries’ capacity to combat transnational threats. 

Yes, Senator, you are right. Algeria and Morocco do have a very 

complicated relationship, and we consistently urge both countries 

to work to improve them because they have shared interests in 

combating transnational terrorism, illegal migration, the smuggling 

of drugs. And we also share those interests. So we are doing everything possible to promote better relations between those two countries, and we urge them to delink the issue of western Sahara from 

their bilateral relationship. If confirmed, I certainly would reach 

out to my colleague, Ambassador Bush, in Morocco and his team 

to talk about ways that we could work together to improve this 

very critical relationship. 

Senator MURPHY. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our nominees. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, there is no country that has a more difficult relationship with one of its neighbors in the region, that are 

both closely aligned to the United States, than Korea with Japan. 

So, Mr. Lippert, what can you do representing our country? How 

do you intend to proceed with improving the relationship between 

Korea and Japan? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, thanks for that question. 

As you know—and you have been out to the region many, many 

times and have dealt with this issue firsthand. So you are deeply 

424 

knowledgeable and steeped in this issue, having talked to you last 

week on this issue. 

I think the first principle is that it is by far in U.S. national security interests that the Republic of Korea and Japan have a good 

relationship. There is a lot in common. They are both democracies, 

both free market economies. There is good trade back and forth, so 

on and so forth. And it is important for regional security that they 

do work together. 

In terms of what I would do, if confirmed as Ambassador, is— 

you know, Ambassador Kennedy and the State Department team 

back in Washington—we would not play a mediation role. We obviously have conversations to encourage a better dialogue between 

the Japanese and South Koreans to work through some of these 

very difficult and painful historical issues. In my capacity as Assistant Secretary, for example, we worked very hard to add trilateral cooperation to the agenda at the Shangri-La Dialogue in 2 

successive years. We completed ministerial level talks that brought 

Japanese and Korean defense ministers closer together. The President at The Hague also had a trilateral session with the Japanese 

and South Korean leaders in order to find areas of common interest, common cooperation, and common security. 

But at the end of the day, both sides, the Japanese and the 

South Koreans, are two great countries with two very effective foreign ministries and are capable of making progress on this issue. 

And we can play an important role in encouraging that dialogue 

back and forth. 

Senator CARDIN. I think it is important to have an honest and 

open discussion about this. The sensitivities here are great and actions taken by one country are interpreted rather strongly by the 

other. So whatever you can do in that regard to make it clear that 

they really need to go at least halfway—each country—in order to 

resolve this—and to improve their bilateral relationship. I think it 

is very important. 

I want to get to North Korea just for one moment and how you 

see the best way to try to advance the concerns we have with 

North Korea. And I want to just preface that. North Korea is more 

than a threat against the region because of its nuclear capacity. It 

is a threat against its region because of its total disregard for the 

rights of its people and its economy that is in shambles. How would 

you suggest that we try to deal with these risks against regional 

stability? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, thanks for the question. 

You are right. North Korea does pose a serious threat to the 

United States and its allies because of its nuclear and missile programs, but also its gross human rights violations, as outlined in 

the United Nations Commission of Inquiry. If you read that document, the evidence is staggering against the regime and the abhorrent behavior that it has demonstrated to its own people. 

In terms of moving forward on the North Korea issue, I would 

just say, if confirmed, there are sort of three lines by which primarily out of Washington. But obviously I would be helpful, if confirmed as Ambassador. 

425 

The first is continue to build the international consensus to isolate North Korea and its regime. And perhaps one of the best examples is to isolate them on the human rights issue. 

The second is to continue the pressure and the sanctions, both 

multilateral sanctions and unilateral sanctions, as well as military 

exercises to keep the North Koreans in check and to send a strong 

signal that the United States is watching their behavior. 

And finally, what I have been working on at the Defense Department, which is strong defense and deterrence, and that means increasing the number of ground-based interceptors in Alaska. That 

means adding a second TPY–2 radar in Japan to booster our missile defense, two new ballistic missile defense cruisers by 2017, and 

the movement of the THAAD on Guam to ensure that we stay one 

step ahead of the North Korean threat both in terms of our own 

homeland and our allies. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Stivers, I am a big fan of Administrator Shah’s efforts to leverage our development assistance in countries by trying to do 

what we can to move toward self-sufficiency and country sustainability so that our foreign development assistance is not needed forever, and doing so by leveraging government efforts with private 

sector funds and local participation. 

Asia is an interesting region. There are a lot of challenges that 

are there. Can you just share with us how you would carry out that 

goal that Administrator Shah has mentioned about leveraging our 

development assistance for sustainability and private partnerships? 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, thank you, Senator, for that question, and 

thank you for your leadership on Asia issues. 

USAID has implemented a new model of development that does 

focus more on public-private partnerships, regional solutions to regional challenges, and certainly with the advances in science and 

innovation. And I know you have been a leader on the Global Development Lab, and I think that is one way where USAID is working to promote science and innovation. And in particular in Asia, 

I know USAID has launched something called the Millennium Alliance in India which brings together university partners and corporation partners to support new innovations, new development 

challenges regarding education and health. And I think that is one 

way where it has been very successful. 

We are in a tight budgetary era, and we want to do more in 

terms of the rebalance in terms of the emphasis on the region. And 

to the extent that we can leverage more resources in this new 

model of development, I think Administrator Shah has done an exemplary job of moving AID in that direction. 

Senator CARDIN. I wanted to get your views on how you would 

use development assistance to advance good governance and 

human rights. You have already mentioned young women and 

girls, and I very much appreciate that. The gender equity issues 

have been a huge priority under Secretary Clinton and now under 

Secretary Kerry, and it is an area that we need to continue to advance. 

I remember a hearing that we had several years ago with former 

President Clinton as a witness and talking about how he goes 

about development assistance in other countries, and that there is 

426 

zero tolerance for corruption. We are not doing a country any favors if we are participating in just feeding a corrupt regime. 

I want to get your commitment that that will be the policy of 

USAID, that yes, we want to help countries, but they must be on 

a path toward improving good governance and that our development assistance will not fuel further corruption of regimes. 

Mr. STIVERS. Absolutely. Thank you for that, Senator, and thank 

you for your longtime support on good governance and human 

rights issues. 

There are certainly governance challenges and concerns throughout Asia in a number of countries that USAID provides assistance 

to. Good governance is central to development. It is hard to do 

other development initiatives, whether you are making advances in 

health or food, unless you are addressing the underlying structural 

problems that sometimes cause poverty, and a lot of times, that has 

to do with poor governance. And to the extent that USAID is in 

these countries strengthening civil society, training journalists, promoting citizen participation and oversight, I think AID’s programs 

in many countries are very good in this regard. And it will be a 

top commitment for me if confirmed. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Ms. Polaschik, I want to come back. Senator Murphy covered 

somewhat terrorism and counterterrorism and what we have to do 

working with other countries. It is one of our highest priorities. I 

understand there is still a warning against U.S. visitors to that 

country about the threat of safety from terrorist activities. Obviously, that is unacceptable. So we need to do a more effective job. 

But I want to get your view on how we can improve good governance in Algeria. It is an oil- and gas-rich country. It is questionable 

as to whether the wealth is getting to the people in the most efficient way. I would just like to get your assessment as to how we 

could be helpful in promoting good governance in Algeria. 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. It is 

a very good one. 

By all accounts, Algeria is a challenging place to do business. 

The World Bank’s most recent Ease of Doing Business report, for 

example, lists it at number 153 of 187 of all countries worldwide. 

And American companies do raise concerns with us, in particular, 

about transparency in the decisionmaking process. 

That said, the Algerian Government realizes that it needs to take 

steps to reform and particularly to diversify its economy. As you 

know, it is heavily dependent upon the hydrocarbon sector. And in 

order to diversify the economy, they are going to have to make 

some pretty marked improvements to their overall business climate. And I think there are some things that could be done pretty 

easily to improve that. One would be to improve their overall regulatory environment. Two would be to ease the administrative processing, like one-stop shopping for registering businesses, and improving access to decisionmakers. 

The U.S. Government already is working in this area to support 

these efforts. We have some MEPI, the Middle East Partnership 

Initiative, assistance programs that are working with grassroots 

Algerian NGOs that are working to promote greater transparency. 

427 

So if confirmed, I certainly would continue and support these efforts to make the changes that are necessary. 

Senator CARDIN. It is my understanding that the government is 

directly involved in the extractive industries in Algeria. Transparency is going to be critically important here. We found that in 

other countries. And I am not as familiar with Algeria as I would 

like to be, but I would like to get your commitment that we will 

make it clear that transparency is absolutely essential so that 

there can be a better tracing as to how the resources are being 

used in Algeria for its own development. 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I now yield to Senator Rubio who informs us he has been tied 

up in the Intelligence Committee. Not much going on around the 

world like Iraq, so I do not know why that would tie you up too 

long. 

Senator RUBIO. I am just glad to be here. 

I do not have extensive questions. I think a lot of it has probably 

already been asked and answered. But I wanted to revisit a couple 

points. 

I am sure, Mr. Lippert, you have been asked about relations between Korea and Japan. Let me start with a separate question. It 

was an issue that I have confronted in Florida, which we actually 

raised during my visit to Korea in February of this year. As you 

know, the free trade agreement with Korea I believe was a win for 

them, as it is for us. But we have had some implementation issues 

regarding—for example, Florida citrus growers have had an issue. 

The fundamental issue is that the Koreans have disputed in the 

past or have asked questions about whether that citrus is truly 

being produced and packaged in Florida or maybe it is coming from 

Brazil and just being brought through. And we were able to use the 

Embassy to facilitate a visit by South Korean officials to Florida 

where they were able to confirm all of it. 

So my question is, as we proceed with the implementation of this 

agreement, I anticipate there may be further instances of this in 

the future that may arise on either side. And I think I know the 

answer will be yes, but I just wanted to get a commitment that you 

will be actively engaged through your office and the Embassy to resolve any sort of disputes that might arise in this process because 

I think they are critical to the future of any other trade agreements, whether it is TPP or anything else. 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, the answer is unequivocally yes. 

Senator RUBIO. And then the second point—I am confident that 

you have been asked about it, but I was not here. So let me ask 

you about it as well. 

When I was there, one of the issues that truly captured everyone’s attention was the friction between the Abe government and 

South Korea, some of the issues that have arisen around that. In 

fact, I felt it was perhaps even more dominant than the concerns 

about China’s illegitimate claims in the region or maybe not to the 

level of the risk posed by North Korea, but it was certainly one of 

the dominant features of our visit and for the United States, a very 

troubling one because both of these are critical alliances for us, in 

fact, perhaps the two most important alliances in that region. 

428 

Can you give us an update about where we stand with regard to 

that? Has there been improvement? Has that continued to degrade? 

Has there been any evidence that over the last few months the 

leadership of both countries have made efforts to try to bridge that 

divide and reestablish a cooperative working relationship? Because 

they have some mutually—they share some mutual defense concerns and economic ones. 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, it is an excellent question. And thanks for 

your travel out to the region. I did follow it closely and actually 

read one of your op-eds that you published on Asia recently. 

To your point, I think it remains challenging. I will say that 

there has been some progress, especially on the United States engaging in a trilateral way. The President had a very good trilateral 

summit with the two leaders on the margins of The Hague. I actually hosted the Defense Trilateral Talks here in Washington at the 

Pentagon between the South Koreans and Japanese, and there was 

some very good exchanges and frank discussions that I think were 

helpful. Secretary Hagel had a trilateral meeting on the margins 

of the Shangri-La Dialogue that I think also helped move the ball 

forward, at least in terms of some of the security issues. And then 

Ambassador Davies also had a recent exchange with some of the 

six-party talks negotiators here both on the Japanese and South 

Korean side. So I think there has been progress, but I would say 

that a lot more work needs to be done. 

Senator RUBIO. And the other point I would make—and I wanted 

your opinion on this. Of course, in Japan, there has been a lot of 

conversation about how they can reinterpret their existing constitutional provisions to allow them to engage in collective self-defense. 

For us, of course, we largely benefit from that because if in fact one 

of our ships or personnel came under attack right now, given the 

strictest definition of the constitutional provisions in Japan, a very 

capable Japanese defense force theoretically would not be able to 

come to our defense. 

How is that goal of the Abe government to be a little bit more 

liberal in their application of that provision—how do they view that 

in Korea? Is there a sense there that there could be a defense partnership between those countries as a result of greater capabilities 

on the part of the Japanese? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, I think you outlined the up-sides of the reinterpretation of collective self-defense, as well as our own review 

that we do bilaterally with the Japanese called the Guidelines Review in helping instill greater capabilities to the U.S.-Japan alliance. 

But to your precise question, what we have done at the Pentagon 

and elsewhere across the administration is encourage transparency 

and consultation with the South Korean Government on this issue. 

I still think it is a touchy subject. That is my own personal view. 

And we do have to do a good job, a better job of making sure that 

there is good outreach and information exchange. That was one of 

the focuses at the Shangri-La Dialogue where Secretary Hagel 

hosted his two counterparts to encourage that exchange on the reinterpretation of the constitution. It is what I did at the Defense 

Trilateral Talks as well here in Washington that preceded that in 

order to exchange information, demystify, get clarifying questions 

429 

answered because I think there are concerns that are still out there 

that we have to work through in a consultative manner. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

And I wanted to briefly pivot to Mr. Osius. 

Thank you all for your service, by the way, and I congratulate 

you on your nomination and wish you all the best. Hopefully we 

will be able to visit some of you in your new posts. 

I wanted to ask you two things. First, I am sure you have been 

asked already about the situation with regard to the conflict with 

the Chinese, and I missed that portion. Could you just update me 

on what you think our role is with regard to conflicts such as those 

where we do not have an existing defense agreement in the way 

we do with Japan or South Korea? But yet, we have an interest 

in territorial claims not being abused. 

Mr. OSIUS. I agreed very much with the way the chairman characterized our position. We have a strong interest in the behavior 

of nations. Even if we have not taken a position on specific territorial disputes, we have a strong interest in the rule of law being 

observed. We have a strong interest in nations resolving territorial 

disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law. 

My suggestion was that we can change the calculus of the Chinese in the South China Sea by forming powerful partnerships, and 

that partnerships with our allies, the Philippines and Japan and 

Thailand and others, but also with partners such as Indonesia and 

Vietnam can also change the calculus. And our partnership with 

Vietnam in the strategic areas is growing. We already have agreement on high-level dialogue on search and rescue, humanitarian 

assistance and disaster relief, and peacekeeping operations. And 

where the relationship is growing fastest is in the area of maritime 

security. 

Senator RUBIO. I have one brief question. Is that OK? I apologize. 

This is a particular case that has arisen in Vietnam that I hope, 

when you are confirmed, that you will take up as a cause. In 2012, 

a Lutheran pastor, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, was sentenced to 

11 years in prison for, ‘‘undermining national unity,’’ under article 

87 of Vietnam’s penal code. In reality, Pastor Chin was arbitrarily 

detained, and he was jailed simply for practicing his faith. Reports 

indicate that the pastor was beaten while praying on two separate 

occasions. 

If confirmed, would you advocate for the release of Pastor Chinh, 

as well as other prisoners of conscience? 

Mr. OSIUS. I would, sir, absolutely. 

Senator RUBIO. And how would you engage with the Vietnamese 

Government on issues of religious freedom? I ask that because I do 

believe that these sorts of abuses are an impediment to the sort of 

partnership that you have discussed that you think it would be 

wise for us to pursue with Vietnam and others. I think religious 

liberties is an important thing for us to clearly be on the side of. 

So how do you think we can most productively engage with the Vietnamese authorities on cases such as these? 

Mr. OSIUS. Senator, I agree. Activities such as that are an impediment to the appropriate development of our partnership with 

Vietnam. 

430 

I think there is some good news and there is some not-so-good 

news. In the 18 years that I have been visiting Vietnam or serving 

in Vietnam, the trajectory is basically pretty good. In the central 

highlands, when I first went there, the monasteries, the churches— 

they were all empty. Now they are full and they are full of young 

people, and more than half of Vietnam’s population is under 30 and 

those people want to be able to practice their religious beliefs freely. And so I think there is a possibility for systemic change, and 

if confirmed, I would push as hard as I could for that kind of systemic change. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And to the witnesses, thank you for your service and congratulations on your nominations. 

I am going to apologize to the males on the panel. I am dutybound by my jurisdiction to grill the University of Virginia graduate, Ms. Polaschik, and I am also the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Near East. 

And I am very interested in relationship with Algeria. I recently 

met with the Algerian Ambassador to the United States. Forgive 

me. I am sure you have covered a bit of this in your testimony, possibly in an earlier question. But talk about the nature of the current U.S.-Algeria counterterrorism partnership. 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And 

wahoo-wa. 

Overall, the state of the U.S.-Algerian relationship on counter 

terrorism is very, very good. Algeria, as you know, fought its own 

long and difficult battle with terrorism on its own soil and developed a very strong capacity. Algeria is now working with its neighbors to address the new transnational threats that are posed by the 

various Ansar al-Sharia groups throughout North Africa, MUJAO 

from Mali, and others. So Algeria is working with Tunisia to 

counter activity on their shared border. It has pushed out tens of 

thousands of soldiers to its southeastern border to stem the flow of 

terrorists and weapons coming out of Mali and Libya. And it is 

working very effectively with Mali and Niger to train their own security services. So it is a very good partner, and certainly, if confirmed, I would build on the excellent work that my predecessor, 

Henry Ensher, has done and seek to expand that further. 

Senator KAINE. We have a very strong partnership—I am glad to 

hear you talk about that in some detail—with Algeria. 

We also have a very strong partnership with Morocco, and yet 

those two nations have had their challenges. I think a question has 

been asked about that earlier. But I am just struck by a relationship where air travel between the two countries is common. Commercial traffic that way is common, but the border is closed. 

What can the United States or what could you do as Ambassador 

that would hopefully help these two allies of ours continue to 

strengthen their own relationship and resolve difficulties? 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Senator, it is an excellent question and certainly 

one that we in the State Department are very concerned with because both Morocco and Algeria are good friends of the United 

States and they are very, very capable partners. So if confirmed, 

I would continue doing what we are doing all along, urging both 

431 

Morocco and Algeria to work together to address their issues of 

shared concern such as counterterrorism, illegal migration, drugs 

trafficking, et cetera. And I would urge the Algerians to delink the 

issue of Western Sahara from their relationship with Morocco. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you for that. Algeria has one of the largest 

energy reserves in the world and is one of the largest energy exporters in the world. Is there anything that Algeria can do to help 

Europe wean themselves away from over-dependence upon Russian 

energy? That was a topic that I talked about with the Ambassador 

last week, and I thought that might have some promise. 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Absolutely, Senator. It is an excellent question. 

Algeria is a significant and stable exporter of oil, natural gas, 

and liquefied natural gas, and its geographic location, right next to 

Europe, makes it critically important for European energy security. 

Algeria is Europe’s number two supplier of natural gas. And Algeria has significant reserves of shale gas. They have the third-largest recoverable reserves of shale gas anywhere in the world. So this 

is a new and exciting area of great opportunity. And the Algerian 

Government has announced plans to exploit these resources, and it 

is also very interested in partnering with American companies to 

develop them. So there are great opportunities for American companies there and to further advance European energy security. 

If confirmed, I certainly would make it a top priority to make 

sure that we support the Algerian efforts to develop their shale reserves and to work to get American companies a share of the market. 

Senator KAINE. I continue to believe that with respect to Ukraine 

and other nations in Europe, one of the best things we can do for 

them is to help them obtain other sources of energy. And often the 

debate here is about U.S. exports or technical assistance to develop 

European energy, but an additional way to make this happen is to 

find other partners who can export more to Europe, and Algeria 

seems to be, because of historical background and the fact that 

they are already a significant exporter, a perfect partner. So if 

there are things that we can do diplomatically or through American 

companies to help them develop that shale gas capacity and export 

more, that would be for the good of Ukraine, for the good of Western Europe, and I would love to explore that with you. 

How, if at all, is Algeria responding right now to this uprising 

by the anti-Islamist general Haftar in Libya? 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Senator, Libya very much shares the United 

States Government’s concerns about the situation in Libya. It is 

very concerned about the spread of transnational extremists, the 

spread of weapons coming out of Libya and I think is willing to 

work with us and the neighbors to try to find a solution. 

That said, nonintervention in other countries’ internal affairs has 

been a long-standing pillar of Algerian foreign policy. So I do not 

expect that they would do anything rash. What I expect is that 

they would continue their very active diplomacy. And Algeria has 

been a leader in helping to resolve conflict throughout the continent, and we certainly welcome their role in that regard. 

Senator KAINE. The last question I will ask is President 

Bouteflika’s election to a fourth 5-year term in 2014 sort of underscored a continuity and a stability in Algerian politics, and yet he 

432 

is elderly. He has had some physical challenges. Talk a little bit 

about what are the political prospects in the future given the fact 

that after 20 years of a very difficult challenge, I am sure there are 

thoughts about transitioning, et cetera. We do not have a favorite, 

but what is the current lineup of political parties in Algeria and 

thoughts about kind of next chapters in political leadership? 

Ms. POLASCHIK. Senator, Algeria since early 2011 has been pursuing a path of gradual reform, and just in the last couple of weeks 

President Bouteflika has announced some proposals to amend the 

constitution that would further open up the Algerian political system. For example, he would propose giving more power to the Parliament and to the Prime Minister, reimposing Presidential term 

limits and further liberalizing the media environment. And all of 

these steps we certainly welcome. 

The Algerian Constitution has a very clear process for succession. 

In the event that the President is incapacitated, the speaker of the 

upper House of Parliament would serve as Acting President for 60 

days, during which time elections would be organized. We fully anticipate that the Algerian authorities would abide by their constitutional procedures, and we would be prepared to work with whomever the Algerian people elect as their next President. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you very much for those answers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lippert, the commander of U.S. Forces in Korea testified before the committee in March. He said that while the U.S. Forces 

that are on the peninsula are prepared to carry out their mission 

of fight tonight in the event of a conflict, that the follow-on force 

for reinforcing our troops is not ready to do so effectively due to sequestration. Do you share that view? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Senator, I would have nothing to contradict General 

Scaparotti. So, yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. You would agree with that. 

That is of some concern. 

Mr. Osius, the Vietnamese Government wants us to waive its 

ban on lethal arm sales or transfers. Obviously, the situation continues to become more tense in the South China Sea or the Asia 

Sea. Depending on which country you are from is whatever name 

you want to give it, but we know the area. Have we considered lifting that ban? And if so, what considerations do we have? And if 

not, I guess have we laid out for them the criteria that we would 

expect in order to have that arms transfer lifted? 

Mr. OSIUS. Thank you, Senator. 

We have made it clear that we cannot lift the ban absent significant progress on human rights, on the development of respect for 

rule of law and human rights in Vietnam. We have been quite clear 

on what we expect in terms of progress on human rights. 

Senator MCCAIN. For example, what would be a criteria? A judgment of a human rights organization or judgment of the State Department? In other words, what are the criteria? 

Mr. OSIUS. What we have done is we have listed nine areas for 

the Vietnamese where we would expect to see serious progress so 

that our partnership could achieve its full potential. I think at this 

433 

point there has been progress in a number of those areas, in three 

or maybe four of those areas. So that may mean it is time to begin 

exploring the possibility of lifting the ban. But it has to be done 

at a pace with which this committee is comfortable and with which 

the Vietnamese are comfortable. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, for the record, would you provide just for 

my information those areas where they have made progress and 

those areas where progress still needs to be made? But they have 

shown some progress. 

Mr. OSIUS. There has been some progress. There has been some 

progress in the area of labor and labor rights. There has been some 

progress in the area of disabilities, treatment of people with disabilities. There has been some growth in the space for civil society 

to operate. There has been an increase in the number of churches 

that have been registered. 

Now, as Americans, we have, I think, a discomfort with the idea 

of churches having to register in the first place, but there is more 

space for churches, evangelical churches, Catholic churches, to operate than there was in the past. 

What we have not done is lay out a precise road map for what 

would get the Vietnamese to lifting the lethal weapons ban, and it 

may be time to consider that. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I hope we would do that given a whole 

lot of factors. 

A question for you and Mr. Lippert. The Chinese, obviously, continue to stoke tensions in the South and East China Seas, and the 

situation certainly is worsening rather than better, which leads one 

to conclude that the actions taken so far have not braked Chinese 

behavior. I am wondering if you agree with that, and if you agree 

with that, what actions do you think we should contemplate, maybe 

beginning with you, Mr. Lippert? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Thanks, Senator. 

I think that we have spelled out a pretty robust strategy for 

pushing back against the Chinese starting in the East China Sea 

or east—— 

Senator MCCAIN. But you would agree that we have done so far 

has not had a deterrent effect. 

Mr. LIPPERT. I would say it depends on which situation, Senator. 

For example, in the Senkakus situation, I think the clear statement of the article 5 commitment by Secretary Hagel and others 

has, I think, had some deterrent effect on the Chinese with the current situation. 

I think in the South China Sea, the situation remains more challenging, as you point out. We have done some things in terms of 

help with our Filipino allies in terms of increased access. The access agreement I think was helpful. There has been a little bit 

more presence in the region that I think also has given a little bit 

of help to our allies in the region. But I think you are right. It is 

a very challenging situation and more needs to be done. 

Senator MCCAIN. And for example, like what? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Well, first, Senator, I do think we need to protect, 

where I sit currently in the Pentagon, robust defense spending in 

the Asia-Pacific region. We just have to have our maritime assets 

434 

out there in more force to give aid and comfort to our friends and 

allies in the region. 

Second, I think stepped-up presence does help in terms of overflight, P–8’s, so on and so forth. 

And then, of course, our undersea assets I think also can play an 

important role as well. 

Senator MCCAIN. Including joint operating bases such as we are 

moving forward—well, already done with Australia, moving forward with the Philippines and other countries in the region? 

Mr. LIPPERT. Absolutely. I think the initiatives we have had in 

Singapore, Australia, Philippines—also, we are now getting increased access to parts of Malaysia that we have not seen before. 

I think those send very important and powerful signals as well. 

Senator MCCAIN. Before I turn to Mr. Osius, the Camp Humphrey transition is proceeding okay? 

Mr. LIPPERT. My sense is that things are generally on track. I 

think the HHOP issue, as you know, remains challenging. The 

amount of money we are asking U.S. service members to pay is 

very expensive. The outside-the-gate accommodations are not great, 

and I think that trying to get as many people as possible as our 

Commander of U.S. Forces Korea wants inside the gate is still a 

challenge. I know the Deputy Secretary of Defense a couple of 

months ago asked the Army to take another look at this to see 

what we could come up with because I think this is a very challenging issue and we need to sort of resolve this to move forward, 

Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I hope we can because the movement obviously has to take place, and also this issue of operational control 

hangs out there as well. So I am sure you will do a great job. 

I am not sure you will, Mr. Osius. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. I am confident that you will. It was a joke. 

Mr. OSIUS. Thank you, sir. 

First, in terms of security preparations, I would like to associate 

myself with what Mark Lippert said in terms of how we can 

strengthen our position in Asia. But I do not think we have exhausted the diplomatic route yet when it comes to the South China 

Sea. What the Chinese are doing both in Vietnam and the Philippines is actually making the job of the Filipinos and the Vietnamese easier in terms of taking their case to the world community. The Chinese in some ways are trying to have it both ways in 

the U.N., trying to keep the U.N. out, but also bringing the issue 

to the U.N. where they believe that they can control it. I think that 

is going to be a real challenge. 

The New York Times today reported on island building in South 

Johnson Reef. It is one thing to put an oil rig into the Paracels. 

An oil rig can be removed. When you build an island, it becomes 

much harder to remove it. You can build runways on it, houses on 

it, and you have changed the status quo. And in 2002, the Chinese 

signed on to the Declaration of Conduct which said they would exercise self-restraint and not change the status quo. I think the nations of ASEAN certainly have taken notice that the Chinese are 

not living up to their obligations. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I think it is very clear in the exchange 

that Secretary Hagel had with the Chinese Deputy Defense MinVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00442 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
435 

ister in Shangri-La was not encouraging at all. Would you agree, 

Mr. Lippert? 

Mr. LIPPERT. It was a testy exchange, Senator. I would agree. 

Mr. OSIUS. Yes, sir. I agree. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just follow up on one thing with Mr. 

Lippert. You mentioned the exchanges we are having between 

Japan and Korea and you mentioned the Shangri-La opportunities, 

and I agree with that. I would just call to your attention President 

Park’s recommendation for using an OSCE type dialogue mechanism for northeast Asia, which I would just suggest that you may 

wish to follow through. In my conversations with Mr. Abe, he was 

supportive of that type of a mechanism. So there may be some way 

of strengthening the dialogue mechanisms between Japan and the 

Republic of Korea, along with other countries in northeast Asia. 

The record of the committee will remain open untill close of business Thursday. That will mean that if members have additional 

written questions, we would urge you all to try to complete them 

as quickly as possible so that we can take action on the nominations as quickly as possible. 

Once again, thank you all for your attention to this committee. 

And with that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF MARK WILLIAM LIPPERT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey recently testified in front 

of the House Armed Services Committee that ‘‘I consider land mines . . . to be an 

important tool in the arsenal of the Armed Forces of the United States.’’ In separate 

testimony, General Scaparrotti, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, testified that ‘‘it 

is my assessment that landmines are a critical element in the defense of the Republic of Korea and our interest there. And they are a critical element of our contingency plans, as well.’’ 

♦ Do you agree with these statements by Chairman Dempsey and General 

Scaparrotti? 

♦ What is your assessment of the implications for the U.S.-ROK alliance if the 

United States were to accede to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention? 

Answer. I highly value, and take very seriously, the military advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander of United States Forces Korea 

with respect to the use of landmines on the Korean Peninsula. 

Based on the above military advice, I believe that any consideration of the 

removal of antipersonnel landmines from our arsenal for the defense of Korea would 

raise serious and complex operational issues. These issues require careful review 

and consideration by policymakers in Washington to ensure that they are addressed. 

If confirmed, I would work closely with the Government of the Republic of Korea, 

General Scaparrotti, and other relevant parties to ensure that these operational 

issues and their implications for the defense of Korea are brought to the attention 

of policymakers in Washington and addressed. 

Question. As you know, the Republic of Korea has granted access to the Chinese 

telecommunications company Huawei for development of its wireless network. 

♦ What is your view of this arrangement? 

♦ If confirmed, what would you do as Ambassador to ensure that United States 

and Korean telecommunications networks are not compromised by this arrangement? 

436 

Answer. I share your concern about security of networks in the United States and 

among its partners and allies. 

While serving at the Department of Defense, I have closely followed cyber issues 

relating to China and the Republic of Korea. I am concerned about the growing 

cyber threat to our national security and will continue to focus on this issue in the 

future. 

As a sovereign country, the determination of criteria for foreign investment 

projects related to its nationwide LTE network is ultimately the decision of the 

Republic of Korea. 

The Republic of Korea is a strong partner of the United States in cyber security 

issues. For example, the Department of Defense recently signed a formal agreement 

with the Republic of Korea military to jointly address cyber security threats. Additionally, the State Department uses the U.S.-Republic of Korea Cyber Dialogue and 

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Policy Forum to exchange views 

on our respective policies in cyber space. 

If confirmed, I will continue to facilitate the close cooperation between the United 

States and the Republic of Korea on our respective cyber policies and practices, 

including on the subjects of cyber threats or areas of concern and security issues. 

I will also work closely with the Commander of United States Forces in the Korea 

to ensure that our military continues to use a comprehensive risk mitigation 

approach to cyber security to ensure our military communications are secure in the 

Republic of Korea. 

(437) 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. ALFONSO E. 

LENHARDT AND MARCIA DENISE OCCOMY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Hon. Alfonso E. Lenhardt, of New York, to be Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development 

Marcia Denise Occomy, of the District of Columbia, to be United 

States Director of the African Development Bank for a term of 

5 years 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Markey, Kaine, and Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s hearing. 

We have two excellent nominees being considered by the committee for positions in the field of international development. 

We are joined, first, by Ambassador Alfonso Lenhardt, a familiar 

face around the United States Senate, having served here previously as our 36th Sergeant at Arms. Ambassador has now been 

nominated to serve as Deputy Administrator of the United States 

Agency for International Development. 

And we welcome you and your wife, Jackie, back to the committee. 

Ambassador Lenhardt comes to us after 4 successful years representing the United States as our Ambassador to Tanzania, and 

after more than 30 years of service in the United States Army, 

from which he retired with the rank of major general. He received 

a baptism-by-fire upon taking over as the Sergeant at Arms on 

September 10, 2001. The Ambassador has clearly gained a great 

deal of experience leading large organizations in complex environments. Such experience is needed to back up the administrator and 

an agency operating in over 100 countries around the globe. 

Having served as both an Ambassador and a general, Ambassador Lenhardt is uniquely qualified to place our international deVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00445 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
438 

velopment programs in the broader context of our country’s foreign 

policy priorities, so we will all be interested to hear his perspective 

on the policy challenges at the intersection of security and economic development. 

In Tanzania, Ambassador Lenhardt led American efforts to implement some of our government’s key development programs, such 

as the President’s Feed the Future Initiative. And we look forward 

to hearing from him. 

I would also like to welcome Marcia Occomy—how did I do? 

Ms. OCCOMY. Excellent. 

Senator MARKEY The President’s nominee for the position of U.S. 

Executive Director at the African Development Bank. Ms. Occomy 

has worked extensively on financing projects in developing and 

post-conflict countries, including Africa. She brings both privatesector experience and the BearingPoint & Deloitte consulting firm’s 

experience, as well, and also worked in the Office of Management 

and Budget. And that is the right combination for the African Development Bank, which helps generate economic growth by forging 

innovative public-private partnerships. The United States is the 

second-largest shareholder in the African Development Bank, so we 

have an important role in shaping the agenda. And I am particularly interested in hearing and discussing areas where the Bank’s 

priorities intersect with some of our government’s top development 

priorities, such as the President’s Power Africa Initiative. 

Power Africa could dramatically improve the lives of millions in 

sub-Saharan Africa by expanding access to reliable, affordable, and 

sustainable energy. Congress has a role here, as well. Earlier this 

week, I was proud to support the Energize Africa Act as it passed 

out of this committee. But, institutions like the African Development Bank will be critical to generate private investment in the 

energy sector and to provide governments with needed technical 

and regulatory advice. We can use our influence in the Bank to 

help bring this initiative to fruition. 

When each of these organizations succeeds in advancing greater 

stability and prosperity overseas, American interests are well 

served. Promoting development strengthens our security and provides new opportunities for our economy to grow, so we need topnotch leaders in regional development banks and in our developmental agencies. And we are looking forward to hearing from two 

such leaders this afternoon. 

The ranking member is going to come in just a few minutes, and 

he will be able to make, if he wishes, an opening statement at that 

time. 

But, I turn to Senator Kaine, if he has any opening statement 

to make. 

Senator KAINE. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MARKEY. So, let us then turn and—Ambassador 

Lenhardt, whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALFONSO E. LENHARDT, OF NEW YORK, 

NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED 

STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Senator. 

439 

Mr. Chairman and member of the committee, I am honored to 

appear before you today as the nominee for Deputy Administrator 

of the U.S. Agency for International Development. It is, indeed, a 

privilege to come before this committee again, and I am grateful to 

President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Administrator Shah for 

their trust and confidence. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that my full written statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Let me begin by thanking my wife, Jackie, who is not here, by the way, because of another family emergency we are dealing with, but who has been by my side during 

my years in public service. Jackie, like the men and women of 

USAID, has dedicated her life to serving those most in need. Her 

work in Tanzania to support young girls and women recovering 

from abuse not only transformed communities, it embodied America’s commitment to empowering women and girls around the 

world. 

It is a pleasure to return to the Senate and see so many colleagues and friends. Between my time as an officer in the Army, 

as Sergeant at Arms in the Senate, and as Ambassador to Tanzania, I am proud to have dedicated more than 38 years of public 

service to our great Nation. From the battlefield to the halls of the 

Senate to the Embassy of Tanzania, I am fortunate to have gained 

a broad perspective of the opportunities and, indeed, the challenges 

facing the United States. These previous leadership roles have required me to manage and maximize resources effectively. 

Three decades serving in the Army have prepared me for managing critical situations in complex environments similar to those 

where USAID operates, from Afghanistan to Syria to South Sudan, 

USAID workers in some of the most difficult parts of the world and 

toughest parts of the world dealing with fast-pacing—fast-changing, rather, high-pressure situations that require visionary leadership. 

During my time as Sergeant at Arms, I managed Congress’ internal response in the wake of September 11 terrorist attacks and the 

October 2001 anthrax attack, strengthening security throughout 

the Capitol complex and ensuring the continuity of our government. As these events remind us all, we live in an interconnected, 

complicated, and oftentimes tumultuous period. And USAID plays 

a critical role in rooting out the drivers of extremism. 

As the Ambassador to Tanzania, I oversaw more than 700 staff 

and contract personnel across eight agencies. I inspired a collaborative process throughout the Embassy that produced real results 

in support of our diplomatic and humanitarian objectives. If confirmed, I look forward to fostering that same spirit of collaboration 

with my interagency colleagues. Alongside Administrator Shah, I 

will work to advance a new model of development that harnesses 

the power of science, technology, and innovation, and certainly 

partnership, to accelerate progress for the world’s most vulnerable 

people. Key to that effort is forming public-private partnerships 

that leverage more resources, thereby making the agency’s efforts 

more sustainable. These partnerships pave the way for USAID to 

work itself out of business, its efforts replaced over time by thrivVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00447 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
440 

ing civil societies, vibrant public sectors, and transparent, accountable governments. In 2013 alone, DCA loan guarantees in El Salvador, Mexico, and in Nicaragua helped release $98 million in local 

lending to 4,000 small- and medium-size entrepreneurs. 

In addition to solidifying the reforms already underway, I will 

also work to institutionalize our development initiatives, from Feed 

the Future, climate change, and Power Africa, to ending preventable child death and achieving an AIDS-free generation. But, above 

all, the success of the reforms and initiatives I have described depend on having in place effective management, operations, and systems. If confirmed, I will devote a substantial part of my portfolio 

to ensuring that USAID maximizes its impact for every dollar it 

spends. Doing so will require that USAID streamline program 

areas and make strategic investments. 

Finally, I believe USAID has an important story to tell. In this 

regard, I will help build both domestic and international consensus 

for our efforts, ensuring we have more partners across the world. 

Sharing our story not only puts a powerful face to the USAID’s 

work, but it also furthers our national interests. Partner countries 

should know how the American people have contributed to improving their welfare, helping them raise their children—their voices 

and grow their crops, and protect their children from disease and 

other maladies, and certainly to build strong and democratic institutions. Today, 93 percent of the Tanzanian people express a favorable view of America. Imagine the possibilities if we were able to 

build on that and export it across the world. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to be part of this noble effort. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of the committee 

for considering my nomination. I would be happy to answer any of 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lenhardt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALFONSO E. LENHARDT

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the nominee for Deputy Administrator of the 

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It is a privilege to come before 

this committee again, and I am grateful to President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and 

Administrator Shah for their trust and confidence. 

Let me begin by thanking my wife, Jackie, who has been by my side during my 

years in public service. As a trained social worker for more than 15 years, Jackie— 

like the men and women of USAID—has dedicated her life to serving those most 

in need. Her work in Tanzania to support young girls and women recovering from 

abuse not only transformed communities—it embodied this administration’s commitment to empowering women and girls around the world. 

It is a pleasure to return to the Senate and see so many colleagues and good 

friends. Between my time as an officer in the Army, as Sergeant at Arms in the 

Senate, and as U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania, I am proud to have dedicated more 

than 38 years of public service to our great Nation. I am honored that, if confirmed, 

I will have the opportunity to extend that record of service. 

The leadership positions that I have held during the past four decades have prepared me to meet the challenge of advancing USAID’s mission: to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies—while advancing our own security 

and prosperity. 

From the battlefield, to the halls of the Senate, to the Embassy of Tanzania, I 

am fortunate to have gained a broad perspective of the opportunities and challenges 

facing the United States. These previous roles—as well as my time leading business 

and nonprofit organizations—have required me to manage and maximize resources 

efficiently, all while working toward ambitious objectives. 

441 

Three decades serving as an officer in the U.S. Army have prepared me for managing critical situations in complex environments—similar to those where USAID 

operates. From Afghanistan to Syria to South Sudan, USAID works in some of the 

world’s toughest places—dealing with fast-changing, high-pressure situations that 

require visionary leadership. 

During my time as Senate Sergeant at Arms, I managed Congress’ internal response in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the October 2001 

anthrax attack—strengthening security throughout the Capitol complex and ensuring the continuity of our government. As these events reminded us all, we live in 

an interconnected, complicated, and often tumultuous time. USAID plays a critical 

role in rooting out the drivers of extremism, and I am prepared to diligently review 

our efforts to ensure that we are advancing our national security and are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. 

Most recently, as the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania, I oversaw more than 700 

staff and contract personnel across eight agencies. I created a collaborative process 

with Embassy staff, NGOs, and Tanzanian nationals that produced real results in 

support of our diplomatic and humanitarian objectives. If confirmed, I look forward 

to fostering that same spirit of collaboration with my colleagues from the State, 

Treasury, Defense, and Agriculture Departments, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps, and others. 

Since my nomination, I have had the privilege to speak with a number of development experts from the Agency, our diplomatic corps, and the National Security 

Council staff about their priorities and challenges in the years ahead. 

If confirmed, I will focus on advancing the reforms that USAID has worked so 

ardently to achieve over the past 5 years. I will also work to institutionalize priority 

programs—like President Obama’s food security initiative, Feed the Future, among 

other priority initiatives that will double electricity access in Africa, work toward 

an AIDS-free Generation, and drastically improve child and maternal health. 

Alongside Administrator Shah, I will work to advance the Agency’s new model of 

development that harnesses the power of science, technology, innovation, and partnership to accelerate progress for the world’s most vulnerable people. In a time of 

constrained resources, this new approach has enabled USAID to maximize its impact in unprecedented ways. By applying it to all of the Agency’s programs—from 

vaccinating children to empowering entrepreneurs—we can unlock resources for millions of at-risk communities around the world. 

Key to that effort is forming public-private partnerships that leverage more 

resources and make the Agency’s efforts more sustainable. Today, USAID is 

partnering with everyone from multinational corporations to local startups—investing in high-potential talent, groundbreaking technologies, and rigorous evaluation 

tools that deepen the impact of our work. Above all, these partnerships pave the 

way for USAID to work itself out of business—its efforts replaced over time by 

thriving civil societies, vibrant private sectors, and transparent, accountable governments. 

By pairing policy reforms with private investment, the Agency is making historic 

strides toward ending extreme poverty. In my additional role as U.S. Ambassador 

to the East African Community (EAC), I saw the value of this approach firsthand— 

uniting markets, opening borders, and bringing unprecedented economic growth and 

prosperity to East Africans. I recall a CODEL visit to the Selian Agricultural 

Research Station in Tanzania, a joint venture between USAID, local farmers, and 

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Alongside several members of Congress, including Senator Barrasso, Senator Graham, and Senator Hagan, I witnessed how 

the research into drought-resistant, high-yielding varieties of maize was helping 

farmers lift their families out of poverty and move their village beyond the threat 

of chronic hunger. 

A similar effort is under way in Latin America, where USAID is working to 

expand public-private partnerships that produce more mature public institutions, an 

active civil society, and a dynamic private sector—with whom USAID can partner 

to unleash untapped financial resources, spur innovation, and bring scientific and 

technological solutions to bear on the region’s development challenges. For example, 

USAID’s Development Credit Authority (DCA) uses risk-sharing agreements to 

mobilize local private capital to fill financing gaps in emerging economies like Mexico. In 2013 alone, DCA loan guarantees in El Salvador, Mexico and Nicaragua 

helped release $98 million in local lending to 4,000 small- and medium-sized enterprises. 

If confirmed, I will build on public-private partnerships in Latin America and 

around the world through the innovative efforts of the Agency’s new U.S. Global 

Development Lab. The Lab represents a historic investment in the power of science 

and technology to bend the curve of development. If confirmed, I will focus on 

442 

advancing the Lab’s mission to generate, test, and scale game-changing solutions to 

complex development challenges, while attracting private sector investment to improve the sustainability of our efforts. In Latin America, the Lab is already building 

on a solid track record of successful USAID partnerships with private sector companies in the region, including Coca Cola, Intel, Microsoft, and Starbucks. 

In addition to solidifying the reforms already under way, I will also work to institutionalize the President’s core development initiatives. I am committed to promoting a new era of agricultural growth through Feed the Future; ending preventable child death and achieving an AIDS-free Generation; enhancing opportunities 

for the next generation of global innovators through the Young African Leadership 

Initiative; combating global climate change; and through Power Africa, achieving 

the goal of doubling access to electricity on the African Continent. 

Having served on the ground in Tanzania, I can attest to the results of every one 

of these initiatives. For example, using a creative financing mechanism, USAID’s 

Tanzania Mission was able to support the development of a power plant that will 

provide electricity for thousands of citizens that had long lived in the dark. Thanks 

to projects like these, more scientists can conduct pioneering research on life-saving 

treatments; more young entrepreneurs can launch groundbreaking technologies; and 

more children will have the light to read by at night. 

I also witnessed firsthand how the Agency’s Feed the Future specialists collaborated with climate experts to ensure the sustainability of our food security programs. This kind of integrated approach helps countries like Tanzania increase food, 

energy, water and economic security, and reduce the likelihood and costs of climaterelated shocks—such as storms, flooding or drought. 

But above all, the success of the reforms and initiatives I have described—programs essential to fulfilling USAID’s mission—depends on effective management, 

operations, and systems. If confirmed, I will devote a substantial part of my portfolio to ensuring that USAID maximizes its impact for every dollar it spends. 

Doing so will require USAID to streamline program areas and make strategic 

investments. As the President’s Directive on Global Development says, ‘‘The U.S. 

cannot do all things, do them well, and do them everywhere. Instead, the U.S. must 

focus its efforts in order to maximize long-term impact.’’ Under Administrator 

Shah’s tenure, the Agency has been committed to ‘‘selectivity and focus’’—and if confirmed, I will work to apply this principle consistently to the decisions we make each 

and every day. 

Instead of trying to find a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach, I will focus on promoting 

sustainable development through local solutions that empower change-agents on the 

ground, including entrepreneurs, university students, and government ministers. 

This approach builds resilient societies in areas of the world especially vulnerable 

to natural disasters and the consequences of climate change—from drought in the 

Horn of Africa, to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, to a devastating earthquake 

in Haiti. 

By responding quickly and forcefully to humanitarian crises, we avert suffering 

and strengthen our own security. My experience as the commanding general of an 

Army training and operational installation in Alabama illustrated the importance 

of working as a team to identify, respond to, and mitigate the effects of a crisis— 

all while remaining committed to advancing long-term solutions to endemic challenges. 

Finally, I believe USAID has an important story to tell—and I will serve as an 

advocate for our Nation’s work in development. From Nepal to Senegal to Honduras, 

there are tens of millions of families who have found pathways to prosperity, health, 

and security as a result of the American people’s tireless work and generosity. In 

doing so, I will help build both domestic and international consensus for our efforts, 

ensuring that we have more partners across the world. 

I have seen such success stories firsthand. In Tanzania, USAID helped reduce 

malaria infections by 50 percent, putting us much closer to eliminating the disease 

entirely. USAID also helped train scores of health workers on how to perform lifesaving resuscitation on newborns—cutting mortality rates in half. 

Sharing these stories not only puts a powerful face to USAID’s work, but it also 

furthers our national interests. Partner countries should know how the American 

people have contributed to improving their welfare—helping them raise their voices, 

grow their crops, protect their children from disease, and build strong democratic 

institutions. Today, an overwhelming number of Tanzanians express a favorable 

view of America; imagine the possibilities as we build on that success in other parts 

of the world. 

As President Obama’s global development directive stated, ‘‘Development is vital 

to U.S. national security and is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative for the 

443 

United States.’’ If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to help lead our Nation’s 

efforts in this area. 

In his last two State of the Union Addresses, President Obama called on Americans to help end extreme poverty within the next two decades. This is a powerful 

mission—and I would be honored to serve USAID, this President, and our country 

to make our world a brighter and safer place. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for considering my nomination. I 

would be happy to address any of your questions. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, very much. 

Ms. Occomy, whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF MARCIA DENISE OCCOMY, OF THE DISTRICT 

OF COLUMBIA, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES DIRECTOR 

OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR A TERM OF 5 

YEARS 

Ms. OCCOMY. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, and distinguished members of the committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I am honored that President Obama has nominated me to serve as the U.S. 

Executive Director for the African Development Bank. 

I grew up in Chicago in a family of excellent role models who 

taught me the importance of hard work, discipline, and focus to be 

successful in life. My grandmother was one of the first AfricanAmerican women to attend Radcliffe College in the early 1900s, 

and later became a prominent writer during the Harlem Renaissance. My father entered the University of Chicago at the age of 

15, excelling in math and later becoming a computer executive in 

the retail industry in Chicago. My mother taught public schools for 

over 30 years, dedicating her life to public service. They and many 

others in my family have influenced my decision, in part, to pursue 

an international development career later in my life. 

If confirmed as the U.S. Executive Director to the African Development Bank, my vision is to leverage my international development experience to support U.S. interests in seeing the African Development Bank carry out its mission to promote economic development and progress across Africa. 

Boosting growth is important for the African Continent, but also 

for the United States, by opening new markets and providing new 

customers for American goods and services. I have years of experience as a fiscal reform advisor on USAID finance projects in developing and post-conflict countries. 

I have advised Ministries of Finance as they underwent public financial management reforms to strengthen their revenues, to build 

financial systems, and to build the capacity to lead these countries 

toward economic growth while building political capacity. I have 

worked in Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and, in Africa, 

Egypt, Senegal, and, most recently, in the newest independent nation in the world, South Sudan. I have experienced firsthand when 

countries struggle to balance implementation of sound fiscal policies while seeking to maintain political stability and security. I was 

in South Sudan until recently, assisting the country with its recovery efforts. Prior to my fiscal reform project implementation experience, I worked as a policy analyst at the OMB. 

I also have experience leveraging public-private partnerships. As 

a University of Chicago graduate student on a Patricia Harris FelVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00451 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
444 

lowship, I worked with the Habitat Company, a leading real estate 

development firm, which partnered with the Chicago Housing Authority to build scatter-site housing for public-housing residents to 

better integrate them into the broader community. This project was 

a model for how the public and private sector can partner to address the social issue effectively. 

I recognize that leveraging private-sector investment solutions 

and technologies will be a critical aspect of the future development 

of Africa, as well. I look forward to supporting the African Development Bank to leverage its financing instruments to encourage private investment in Africa, including through public-private partnerships. 

Attracting private investors to Africa will require significant investment in infrastructure and a climate that is conducive to investment in Africa. Creating the right investment climate will depend on Africa’s commitment and ability to improve governance, 

transparency, regional integration, and to build a skilled workforce. 

The African Development Bank has played a leading role in assisting African countries to address these issues. But, more work remains to be done. 

During his July 2013 visit to Africa, President Obama launched 

the Power Africa Initiative, an initiative aimed to double access to 

electricity in sub-Saharan Africa, in partnership with African countries and the private sector. In announcing this key initiative, the 

President noted: America’s been involved in Africa for decades. We 

are moving, beyond a simple provision of assistance, to a new 

model, a partnership between America and Africa, a partnership of 

equals that focuses on Africa’s capacity to solve problems and Africa’s capacity to grow. I embrace the President’s vision to promote 

a partnership between the United States and Africa that focuses on 

building Africa’s capacity to solve its problems, address its challenges, and to realize its potential for tremendous economic growth. 

If confirmed, I commit to being a good steward of U.S. financial 

contributions to the Bank and to ensure that the Bank supports 

our Nation’s inherent values, recognizing that open societies are 

the strongest societies, transparent systems are the most successful 

systems, and countries that commit to equally helping their citizens be healthy and educated, with economic opportunities, will be 

the most prosperous. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for considering my nomination. I have enjoyed meeting members of your 

staff recently and look forward to answering your questions today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Occomy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA D. OCCOMY

Thank you Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Barrasso, and distinguished 

members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I am honored that President Obama has nominated me to serve as the U.S. 

Executive Director for the African Development Bank. 

I would first like to acknowledge the presence of my family and friends/colleagues 

who are here today to show support for my nomination—my mother Norma Jean 

Occomy; my sister Tracy Marie Occomy Crowder and her son, Malik William 

Occomy Crowder; my sister-in-law, Dr. Stacey Parks Occomy; and my niece, Mya 

Lynn Occomy, and nephew, William Andrew Eric Occomy, Jr.; my late father’s sister, Marita Joyce Occomy Stricklin. Also present a Vassar College colleague – Karen 

Cox, a dear friend, Sidi M. Boubacar, World Bank Chief Counsel, who I worked with 

445 

in Kosovo during the early years of my international development career and Daniel 

Lamaute. My mother who taught public school for over 30 years in Chicago and my 

late father William Almy Occomy, a computer executive in the retail industry in 

Chicago, taught me to be the best that I can be every day. 

During his July 2013 visit to Africa, President Obama launched the Power Africa 

Initiative, a $7 billion, five-year initiative to double access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa in partnership with African countries and the private sector. In announcing this key initiative the President noted, ‘‘America’s been involved in Africa for 

decades but we are moving beyond a simple provision of assistance, foreign aid, to 

a new model, a partnership between America and Africa, a partnership of equals 

that focuses on (Africa’s) capacity to solve problems and (Africa’s) capacity to grow.’’ 

I embrace the President’s vision to promote a partnership between the United 

States and Africa that focuses on building Africa’s capacity to solve its problems, 

address its challenges, and to realize its potential for tremendous economic growth. 

When President Obama launched the Power Africa Initiative in Tanzania, African 

Development Bank President Donald Kaberuka joined him for the launch as a symbol of how America and Africa can work together to promote inclusive growth in the 

region’s new frontier economies. 

If confirmed, I would leverage my international development experience to support U.S. interests at the African Development Bank by ensuring it carries out its 

mission to promote economic development and progress across Africa. Boosting 

growth is important for the African Continent, but also for the United States, by 

opening new markets and providing new customers for American goods and services. 

I have years of experience as a fiscal reform advisor on USAID- financed projects 

in developing, post conflict countries. I have advised Ministries of Finance as they 

underwent public financial management reforms and transformations to strengthen 

their revenues and to build financial systems to put the country on a path toward 

economic growth, while building political capacity. I have worked in such countries 

as Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Africa, Egypt, Senegal and most 

recently in the newest independent nation of South Sudan. I have experienced firsthand when countries struggle to balance implementation of sound fiscal policies, 

while seeking to maintain political stability and security. Prior to my fiscal reform 

project implementation experience, I worked as a policy analyst at the OMB during 

the 1990s. 

I also have experience leveraging public-private partnerships. As a University of 

Chicago graduate student on a Patricia Harris Fellowship, I worked with Habitat 

Company, a leading real estate development firm, which partnered with the Chicago 

Housing Authority to build scattered site housing for public housing residents in an 

effort to better integrate them into the broader community. This project was a 

model for how the public and private sector can partner to address a social issue 

effectively. I recognize that leveraging private sector investment, solutions and technologies will be a critical aspect of the future development of Africa as well. I look 

forward to supporting the African Development Bank to leverage its financing 

instruments to encourage private investment in Africa including through publicprivate partnerships. 

Attracting private investors to Africa will require significant investment in infrastructure and a climate that is conducive to investment in Africa. Creating the right 

investment climate will depend on Africa’s commitment and ability to improve governance, transparency, regional integration and to build a skilled workforce. The 

African Development Bank has played a leading role in assisting African countries 

to address these issues, but more work remains to be done. The implementation of 

U.S. policy toward Africa such as the Power Africa Initiative combined with our role 

on the Board of the African Development Bank, are key tools to help Africa achieve 

expanded economic growth. It would be my privilege to contribute to these efforts 

to increase the African Development Bank’s impact and effectiveness in the interests of the United States. 

While humbled by the nomination, I am excited about the prospects and challenges facing the African Continent with its emerging economies and tremendous 

potential for growth. I hope to have an opportunity to play a role in continuing to 

foster the partnership between the United States and the African Development 

Bank working together to reduce poverty so that the African Continent can attain 

sustainable economic growth. If confirmed, I commit to being a good steward of U.S. 

financial contributions to the bank and to ensure that the Bank supports our 

Nation’s inherent values—recognizing that open societies are the strongest societies; 

transparent systems are the most successful systems; and countries that commit to 

equally helping their citizens be healthy and educated, with economic opportunities 

will be the most prosperous. 

446 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for considering my nomination. I have enjoyed meeting members of your staff recently and look forward to 

answering your questions today. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you very much, Ms. Occomy. 

Let me begin by asking you, General. There is a new program, 

U.S. Global Development Lab, that began a few months ago at 

USAID, and its intention is to kind of innovate in this area of development. Perhaps you could just give us a little sense of how you 

see that programming unfolding and what you would envision as 

its ultimate product. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Senator. 

I think the Global Development Lab offers an excellent opportunity for us to—USAID to think about ways that it can do better 

at programs and look for synergies leveraging technology, science, 

and partnerships that are—I think are three critical pieces to being 

more innovative about our approaches to any number of programs 

that may be undertaken by USAID. I think it is something for the 

future. 

I will give you an example of what we saw in Tanzania, although 

we did not call it ‘‘the lab.’’ We looked for synergies, we looked for 

opportunities to partner, to collaborate, and looked for efficiencies, 

as well as, How do we improve effectiveness? The Lab will do that. 

It has already begun to pay dividends, in terms of how we think 

differently about partnering, how we think differently about using 

science and technology to do a better job of getting more bang for 

the bucks that are available to us. 

So, I think it is a great opportunity for us to embrace the future, 

to do more. I will tell you that I do not know as much as I hope 

to know. If confirmed, I certainly will become more involved in 

Global Development Labs. But, just looking at it from the standpoint of the last couple of weeks, I think it is a wonderful program 

that has the potential for reaping huge benefits in the future. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Occomy, 10 years ago in Africa, 27 million people were on 

landline phones. Just 10 years ago, 27 total million Africans. 

Today, 1 billion Africans have cell phones. That is just amazing, 

that transformation. And they did so by skipping the wireline era 

and going right to wireless. And it is made a big difference, in 

terms of development opportunities. 

So, let us, if you could, talk a little bit about the President’s 

Power Africa Program, because it kind of offers the same kind of 

potential for off-the-grid development of electrical generating capacity in a very brief period of time. So, could you talk a little bit 

about how the African Development Bank could play a role in helping to accelerate the pace of electrical generating distribution, as 

well? 

Ms. OCCOMY. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. 

I am very pleased that you have raised the Power Africa Initiative. The African Development Bank was an early supporter and 

an engaged partner in the Power Africa Initiative. When the President launched the initiative, in July 2013, the African Development 

Bank president was there with the President to show the symbol 

of how the bank and the United States in Africa could work toVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00454 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
447 

gether towards the goal of increasing electricity access across Africa. 

The African Development Bank, specifically since 2013, has supported several Power Africa Initiative projects. For instance, the 

African Development Bank provided partial credit guarantees for a 

major wind-power project, the Lake Takana Project, in Kenya. And 

the partial credit guarantees enabled the Bank to leverage privatesector investment to fully finance that project. So, if confirmed as 

the U.S. Executive Director, in my role, I look forward to working— 

continuing to work with the African Development Bank to continue 

that partnership with the United States to further the goal of increasing access to electricity across Africa. 

Senator MARKEY. I must say, from my perspective the two of you 

are incredibly well-qualified candidates for almost any position that 

we could imagine in the government. So, thank you. 

Let me turn and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey. 

First, I want to welcome both of you, congratulate both of you, 

and extend a warm welcome to your friends and family who are 

here today. 

You know, should you serve our Nation in these important positions for which you have been nominated, I think it is important 

that each of you provide strong stewardship of American taxpayer 

dollars—and you made mention of that; demonstrate professionalism and good judgment—and you referred to that in your 

statements; and vigorously work to advance the priorities of the 

United States—and you have made that commitment. I hope you 

will lay out your vision and goals, and I have a couple of questions. 

And first, Ambassador—General Lenhardt, good to see you again. 

It is a privilege to be with you. I appreciate your long history of 

service to this institution, the U.S. Senate, as well as to our Nation. I wanted to get a little bit into the issue of sustainability. As 

I look at the fiscal year 2013 Annual Management Challenges 

Statement, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Inspector General took a look at it, listed six areas of serious management and performance challenges that you will face in this new 

role. 

One of the areas had to do with sustainability. The Inspector 

General notes that USAID spent about $34 million on a Water and 

Wastewater Sector Support Program, instilled 33 water meters to 

measure the flow of water in various areas. And then, upon review, 

what they found is that none of the meters were working, because 

the government did not have the funds to repair or replace them. 

So, it does not challenge the validity of the program or the idea behind setting up, but then the funds were not there to actually 

make sure that they could be repaired or replaced. 

And I just wonder, as you head this, as a man who has shown 

a history of commitment to responsible use of taxpayer dollars and 

sustainability, what steps does the agency—does USAID need to 

take to ensure long-term sustainability of these projects? Because 

in your opening statement, you said we need to make sure we have 

accountability for every dollar spent. 

448 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And good to 

see you again. 

The question you ask, I think, puts your finger right on what I 

consider to be a significant challenge, and certainly it is an important one. I mentioned my role—and this is something that Dr. 

Shah and I have talked about—in focusing on management, operations, and systems. There are already reforms underway—well 

underway. These past 5 years, Dr. Shah has put a number of reforms in place to identify areas and develop fixes where the disconnect is there that—you say, How does it—how does this happen? As you described. I am not familiar, by the way, of the particular issue. But, it requires a diligence, a steadfastness to ensuring that American dollar—taxpayer dollars are, in fact, protected. 

And we maximize those. 

And so, without being specific about how I could do it now, I 

have really got to get in and see what does it look like and what 

are the challenges. Sustainability is something that, if you recall 

when you were in Tanzania, I talked about a great deal, because 

I put it on the other foot, meaning the Government of Tanzania, 

‘‘How are you going to sustain these important programs?’’ And so, 

sustainability is something that we always, always subscribe to 

and ensure is happening. 

I will have to look and see, specifically, this one issue, but I look 

forward to working with you and the committee and your counsel 

on how we can do a better job. But, I do know that reforms are 

already underway, and it is something that I am very excited 

about, in terms of the opportunities to work with a creative, innovative, take-another-look-at-things, let-us-not-do-business-thesame-old-way approach that perhaps you described a bit in your 

comments. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I appreciate your comments. And if this 

had not been in the Inspector General’s reports and notes from 

USAID, I would not have been aware of it, either. So, I just, you 

know, would recommend that you may want to take a little bit of 

time to take a look through that to take a look at the broad challenges. And obviously, you have been able to respond to challenges 

in many places in this city, as well as around the world. So, I am 

looking forward to maybe hearing back from you on what your 

thoughts are after you have a chance to take a look at the whole 

thing. 

Ms. Occomy, I want to talk a little bit about energy sources, if 

I could. The African Development Bank’s goal is to promote economic growth, reduce poverty in its 53 African member countries, 

in which we all agree. And I believe the U.S. Director of the African Development Bank should support low-cost, dependable energy 

sources as a means to help countries spur their own economic 

growth. African countries have substantial fossil-fuel resources, including oil, coal, natural gas. The African Development Bank’s energy strategy notes that, ‘‘For many African countries, coal-fired 

power generation,’’ they say, ‘‘is likely to form part of such an approach to help the continent increase its access to modern energy 

at an affordable cost.’’ It is there, and it is affordable. 

So, do you agree with the African Development Bank’s energy 

strategy, as outlined? 

449 

Ms. OCCOMY. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, for that question. 

You know, just stepping back, it is important for the United 

States to support the African Development Bank and to partner 

with developing countries to increase access to electricity. 

It is important for economic growth, and it is important for development. 

The African Development Bank, you know, finances a wide range 

of energy projects. You know that there are vast, enormous needs 

in Africa, and the African Development Bank has played a leading 

role. 

Regarding coal-fired power plants, you know, under the guidance, you know, related to the President’s Climate Action Plan, in 

certain circumstances, you know, with exceptions, the United 

States can support a vote for a coal-fire power plant for the poorest 

countries, which have the greatest energy needs, but it has to be 

demonstrated that there is no other economically feasible alternative and that that project can overcome certain binding constraints for the national economic development of the country. 

And so, if confirmed, I look forward to supporting the African Development Bank as it continues to finance and to support energy 

projects across the spectrum with the aim of increasing access to 

electricity across Africa. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman——I am sorry, my time is expired, but I will have additional written questions for you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MARKEY. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

The Senator from Virginia, Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, to the witnesses, for your willingness to serve. 

And congratulations on your nominations by the President. 

To Ambassador Lenhardt, first, I mentioned to you briefly, at the 

beginning, when we were visiting, that, as I travel as a member 

of the Foreign Relations Committee, I always interact with USAID 

personnel in the field, predominantly in the Middle East, where my 

subcommittee jurisdiction takes me. And you have some very fine 

people. 

I know you know that, but I want to make sure that the American people know how valuable our small-‘‘a’’ ambassadors are. And 

whether it is been in Israel or the West Bank or Egypt, Lebanon, 

Jordan, some wonderful people who are doing work, and often 

under pretty tough circumstances, but they do it with a real sense 

of mission, wanting to represent our country well and help the nations where they work to achieve. And so, I just commend, through 

you, the great people that you have working for you. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. You actually kind of stole my questions right in 

your opening. You said, ‘‘We are in some hard places, from Afghanistan to Syria,’’ and I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan and 

Syria, maybe beginning with Syria. 

We have many hearings, in this committee and others, where we 

talk about Syria. And it is common for someone to say the United 

States does not have a plan in Syria. And I am always quick to remind them, we are the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees in the entire world. And that does not happen by acciVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00457 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
450 

dent. That happens because the President and Congress are committed to it. And we should not be bashful about that. And yet, the 

humanitarian needs in Syria are staggering, and they get more so 

every day. 

If you would, talk a little bit about the USAID’s current approach 

in Syria, in terms of working to avert that horrible humanitarian 

crisis. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Senator. Thank you also for 

your comments about the hardworking USAID personnel, and our 

diplomats, as well, in various parts of the world. 

Syria represents, as you know, a unique problem, and it is one 

that USAID has worked with for many years, and continues to 

work with. Currently, in response to the crisis, USAID is providing 

both humanitarian as well as nonhumanitarian aid, and is also 

looking at the neighboring countries—Lebanon, for one, Jordan, 

and certainly Turkey, and there is also a slippage of Iraq, as well. 

So, we continue to do the work to assist, wherever possible, providing for humanitarian needs, comfort, shelter, food, clean water, 

and all of those things, and also the—as I mentioned, nonhumanitarian aid, assisting the Syrian coalition—the opposition, if I can 

use that term—in terms of how they may be nurtured, how they 

perhaps offer an alternative that we could work with in the future. 

So, those are the things that I am aware of, in terms of how 

USAID continues to support Syria. And, as I said, it is ongoing. So, 

I do not see this as something that is short term as much as it will 

run out in the longer timeframe. 

Senator KAINE. Ambassador Lenhardt, I would like to encourage 

you, encourage all of our administration, sort of, across the board— 

you know, we have been blocked in the Security Council frequently 

as we have tried to make more, in terms of assistance to humanitarian efforts in Syria. But—Russia using its veto power—but, during February, during the Winter Olympics, we were able to put 

something on the Security Council docket that it was not—they did 

not deem it a good idea, when the eyes of the world were on them, 

to veto that resolution. 

That resolution called for more aggressive delivery of humanitarian aid into Syria—not just Syrian refugees who have crossed 

the border, but into Syria. And the London 11, the nations that are 

trying to finance this effort, met in—a month or so later, kind of 

affirmed that that would be a positive strategy that we should pursue. The U.N. report about the success of meeting those particular 

obligations that were put out in that Security Council resolution in 

February have been pretty bleak. The Assad regime is still not 

really cooperating to allow humanitarian aid. But, I would hope 

that the United States could utilize that U.N. Security Council resolution with the nations that were willing to support it, and continue to be creative about finding ways not just to provide humanitarian aid outside the country, but inside. 

Let me switch to Afghanistan quickly. I mean, obviously, the 

country has invested a lot, in terms of blood and treasure. And 

some of the results in Afghanistan, if you look at it in terms of 

quality of life, are pretty amazing. The median age in Afghanistan, 

at the time of the initial United States entrance, militarily, in 

2001, to today, has gone from 40 to over 60—20-year increase in 

451 

median age in a nation of 30 million people. My back-of-the-envelope tells me that is—that is 600 million more years of human life 

in a country because of some advances largely that have been driven by public health advances. 

The advances—the military, that I say—say, ‘‘Look, we have created order,’’ but it is been the NGOs, the USAIDs, and others that 

have been able to come in and put a public health infrastructure 

in place that has improved quality of life. If you could talk a little 

bit about USAID’s plan in Afghanistan as we now move to the cessation of combat operations there. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Senator. 

USAID continues to support Afghanistan, but will do so consistent with the drawdown. Right now, in particular, though, Baghdad seems to be the focus. But, in other parts of the country— 

meaning the pressure point, the conflict—but, in other parts of the 

country, USAID continues normal operations. And so, they continue to provide humanitarian assistance, they continue to encourage, you know, good governance, accountability, and all the things 

that we hope, in terms of inspiring democratic processes. 

But, Baghdad is an issue. We watch it carefully, in terms of the 

security of that. As you know, the U.S. Ambassador declared it a 

disaster area. And so, consistent with that, we are watching it, and 

we are drawing down our forces, based upon the scenario that is 

unfolding. 

But, we are not moving out. And I think that is the point. 

Consistent with the drawdown, also, at the end of the year, we 

will come down to a certain number of USAID people on the 

ground. We still have implementing partners who are there. 

But, the bottom line is, USAID continues to provide support to 

Afghanistan. And I think that is the key. We will continue to do 

that until such time as circumstances determine that it is no longer 

safe, feasible to do that. But, until that happens, we are there. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, could I ask Ms. Occomy one question? 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Ms. Occomy, one of the great things about being on Foreign Relations is learning about things that you really did not know that 

much about. And so, the African Development Bank, I will be honest, I was not an expert about it. And it was good to prepare a little 

bit for your testimony today. 

One of the things I am fascinated by is the current structure, 

where Nigeria, the United States, Japan, and Egypt are the four 

largest contributors of funds that the Bank uses, but China has 

now made a commitment to provide a significant chunk of funds to 

the Development Bank, about 2 to 21⁄2 percent of the funds. And 

I think that will be an interesting relationship as we and China 

and Japan and Egypt and Nigeria work together to figure out what 

is the right investment strategies. 

If you would, talk a little bit about the role that China may play 

in the Development Bank, going forward, and opportunities that 

the United States and China—working together, we might be able 

to make some good headway in Africa, but find that that cooperation has other benefits, as well. 

452 

Ms. OCCOMY. Thank you, Senator Kaine. 

It is really important to note that its importance—you know, 

China can do things bilaterally or China can do things multilaterally. So, the obvious situation is, we would prefer China to do 

things multilaterally, to be, you know, part of the African Development Bank framework, and to have its funds be subject to the policies, procedures, and the safeguards of the African Development 

Bank. 

So, I think it is a positive step in the right direction, seeing that, 

you know, China is being more involved and actively engaged in 

the multi-—in the African Development Bank. It is on the board, 

as well. It also just announced a partnership with African Development Bank in a setting of the Africa Growing Together Fund, $2 

billion, that will be managed by the African Development Bank. 

And those funds will also be subject to the policies, procedures, and 

safeguards of the African Development Bank. So, I see this, generally, as a good, positive direction and, you know, bringing China 

into the fold of the multilateral, you know, rubric. 

So, you know, if confirmed, I look forward to working with the 

African Development Bank and continuing to draw China into the 

partnership and having all of us work together towards, you know, 

economic growth and development in Africa. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. I agree with you. I think it is a very 

positive development. And the more China is engaged in these 

international organizations, generally, the better, and the stronger 

our relationship is going to be. 

I appreciate the witnesses’ answers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank the Senator. 

So, we will finish up by giving each one of you 1 minute to tell 

us your vision for what you see as your role in these agencies that 

you are about to play leadership roles at. 

And we will begin with you, General. If you would just give us 

your 1-minute overview of what your vision is of your time there 

at the agency. 

Ambassador LENHARDT. Thank you, Senator. 

When I retired from the military, I thought I would never meet 

another group of people who are as patriotic, who are as committed, who was dedicated to the task of the mission, and who are 

selfless in everything that they undertook. I was surprised when I 

saw those same attributes in the people in the diplomatic service 

and USAID missions there in Tanzania. And so, this opportunity 

gives me that chance to remain affiliated with, and to lead and to 

manage and to look at operations and systems that would support 

these people in the work that they do, but also give me a deep 

sense of satisfaction in continuing my service. 

And so, if I am confirmed, I look forward to working with these 

people, because they do excellent work; over a half-century of tireless, selfless commitment to making the world a better place, saving lives, improving lives, as the case may be. And I saw that firsthand in Tanzania. And there is nothing like it when you look the 

face of people who realize the connection, the partnership, the outreach from the American people to the Tanzanian people. 

And so, I want to continue to be part of that. 

453 

Senator MARKEY. Beautiful. Thank you, General. 

Ms. Occomy. 

Ms. OCCOMY. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Senator Kaine. 

As I mentioned in my statement, one of my priorities—and I 

think it is important—is to leverage my experience, my fiscal reform experience in developing post-conflict countries, to support the 

African Development Bank, to provide technical assistance and 

leadership to many of the African countries, to improve their governance accountability, their public financial management systems, 

so that they can be sustainable, so that they can have the capacity 

to overcome their challenges and to really steer their growth. 

So, my first priority is to leverage my experience and to really 

work with the Bank to continue its technical assistance and support to African countries, particularly the fragile states and those 

experiencing post-conflict. 

My second priority, which I think is important, is—you know, an 

important role of the U.S. Executive Director is to coordinate U.S. 

Government activities, particularly related to the African Development Bank, so to really strengthen that coordination, to ensure 

that there is no duplication of efforts, and to sort of maximize the 

assistance, and also to strengthen coordination between the African 

Development Bank and the other multilateral development banks 

relating to African development projects, and particularly through 

coordination with the other United states Executive Director offices. 

Senator MARKEY. We thank both of you so much. 

And I think that you are going to receive a lot of support, and 

I think we also have a responsibility to move your nominations 

through the floor of the Senate, as well, so that you can get on the 

jobs that you have been given. And we are going to try to accomplish that goal, as well. 

And we congratulate both of you for your careers, thus far, which 

I think are just really beginning. You have tremendous opportunities ahead of you. 

And, to all members of the committee who could not be here, 

they will have until the close of business tomorrow to submit questions to our two nominees. 

And, with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF HON. ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

USAID launched a Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy in 2012. 

The Gender Equality Policy recognizes the fundamental role that promoting gender 

equality and advancing women’s empowerment, including freedom from genderbased violence, plays in advancing international development. The Deputy Administrator will be tasked with advancing USAID’s implementation of the U.S. National 

Action Plan (NAP) on Women, Peace, and Security (2011) and the U.S. Strategy to 

Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally (2012) to integrate women’s 

meaningful participation in conflict prevention and resolution and combat violence 

against women and girls in times of both peace and conflict. In 2015, USAID is 

required by Executive order to work with the White House, State Department, and 

other government agencies to add input into a comprehensive review of, and update 

to, the NAP. 

454 

Question. The U.S. has made a strong commitment through the implementation 

of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security to advance the inclusion 

of women and gender perspectives in peace processes in which the U.S. is involved, 

such as the Geneva negotiations on Syria or the Middle East peace talks. How will 

you work to advance these efforts and what metrics will you use to specifically determine the impact of this integration? 

Answer. Throughout my career, I have been an ardent advocate for gender equality and women’s empowerment, and I will continue to aggressively support progress 

for women and girls through USAID programming. In particular, I have seen during 

peace processes how women bring skills and perspectives to the negotiating table 

that are critical for transforming conflict and building peace, and I would welcome 

the opportunity to work closely with USAID’s Senior Coordinator for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment to advance implementation of the U.S. National 

Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security and the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and 

Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally—and the full suite of policies put in 

place in recent years to improve integration of gender analysis into USAID’s work. 

I know the tremendous effort that USAID has undertaken to shape and implement the National Action Plan, providing support to increase women’s participation 

in peace dialogues in Uganda, helping female politicians in Yemen develop law, and 

empowering Syrian women leaders to participate in transition planning and peace 

negotiations. For example, USAID’s activities are helping Syrian women mitigate 

the current crisis, evidenced by cease-fires that were negotiated following the establishment of women’s peace circles. 

I am committed to building on USAID’s work to advance inclusive peace and transition processes in coordination with interagency colleagues. To measure results, 

USAID is tracking the number of women substantively participating in peace-building activities supported with U.S. assistance as part of its regular program reporting. Combined with a qualitative assessment of women’s ability to influence decisions and shape outcomes, these measures will enable USAID to better assess 

women’s ability to affect the future of their societies. 

Question. How will you work to prepare USAID for the 2015 U.S. Government review and update of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security? 

Answer. I know the National Action Plan (NAP) has been an integral part of 

USAID’s work in advancing gender equality and female empowerment in countries 

affected by conflict, crisis, and insecurity. As a result, if confirmed, I would ensure 

that USAID participates in a comprehensive NAP review process in close partnership with interagency colleagues, civil society, and women in host countries. This 

review will help identify where USAID has been successful and has faced challenges, as well as how it can strengthen efforts to achieve full implementation of 

the NAP. During the review process, for example, USAID could examine how to 

bring successful programs to scale, increase efforts to engage men and boys, and engage women and girls to help combat illicit activities and counter violent extremism. 

As the Agency reviews its programming—from promoting women’s participation 

in crisis and conflict situations, to preventing and responding to sexual and genderbased violence (GBV) and trafficking in persons (TIP), and addressing the needs of 

women and girls in relief and recovery efforts—program evaluations will be an important part of informing its approach to NAP implementation. 

USAID has made great strides in integrating women, peace, and security (WPS) 

objectives into its business model, creating training for staff who work in crisis and 

conflict-affected countries and composing specific indicators to track investments 

and results related to WPS. I am committed to building on these efforts, and using 

the review and update of the NAP to help determine how and what more we can 

do to improve the lives of women around the world. 

Question. Despite the fact that women are frequently targets of radical ideologies 

and violence, they are often limited in their active participation in decision-making 

on peace and security issues. What impact do you believe this exclusion has on our 

efforts to counter extremism and terrorism around the globe? 

Answer. The exclusion of women from decisionmaking and the failure to protect 

their rights can perpetuate violence and undermine development. In contrast, 

investing in the full participation of women and girls in development, conflict prevention and resolution, and peace-building is critical for building stable, prosperous 

societies. 

USAID understands that many of the drivers of violent extremism are development challenges, and women and girls are critical to responding to these challenges. 

Moreover, as USAID’s new mission statement prescribes ‘‘we partner to end extreme 

poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies around the world’’ precisely beVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00462 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
455 

cause the achievement of these goals contributes to our own prospects for security 

and prosperity. Promoting women’s active participation on peace and security 

issues, whether it’s supporting the recruitment of women in police forces or 

strengthening the ability of women’s organizations to hold governments accountable, 

is an investment in U.S. security and a vital piece of USAID’s mission. 

Question. How do you plan on ensuring that a gender lens continues to be integrated across USAID’s work, especially in ‘‘nontraditional’’ sectors such as agriculture and infrastructure? 

Answer. Integrating gender equality and women’s empowerment across USAID’s 

work is a critical component to improving sustainable development outcomes. For 

example, USAID understands that reducing gender inequality and recognizing the 

contribution of women to agriculture is critical to achieving global food security— 

there is consistent and compelling evidence that when the status of women is 

improved, agricultural productivity increases, poverty is reduced, and nutrition 

improves. As a result, Feed the Future integrates gender-based analysis into all of 

its investments. 

Furthermore, it is new tools, like the Agency’s Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) that will equip USAID with the means to identify ways to 

help women overcome obstacles and constraints. For example, information released 

in May 2014 revealed that among women in agriculture, the greatest constraints to 

empowerment are access to and decisions on credit, workload, and group membership. USAID missions are using these findings to ensure that program designs are 

addressing gender-based obstacles. 

USAID is also making an effort to bring a gender lens to other ‘‘nontraditional’’ 

sectors. For example, it is clear that energy-related projects, programs and policies 

that explicitly address gender roles, power relations, challenges and needs will 

result in better outcomes with respect to livelihoods when they explicitly address 

gender roles and gender specific challenges (challenges related to accessing energy 

services and participating in the energy sector). Under the $7 billion Power Africa 

Initiative, the Agency can support gender equality and female empowerment practices by partnering with host governments to engender their energy sector policies 

and strategies. In addition, because women in particular are underrepresented in 

the energy and infrastructure sectors, the Agency is developing strategies to improve women’s skills in order to increase their employment and leadership role in 

these sectors. The Power Africa Initiative is also supporting the Beyond the Grid 

subinitiative, aimed at bringing power to the underserved. 

Training is also helping to integrate gender into other sectors. USAID recently 

launched the ‘‘Gender 103: Roles and Responsibilities of Mission Gender Advisors,’’ 

an online resource for staff that includes strategies for carrying out gender integration in the Agency’s everyday tasks, and tips on working with mission leadership 

and technical and program offices to integrate gender across all sectors. USAID also 

offers frequent in-person gender integration trainings, and several technical sectors 

have either incorporated gender integration requirements and guidance into their 

live courses or are in the process of doing so. 

Question. While implementing the ‘‘U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence’’ issued by Executive order in August 2012, USAID must not only 

integrate gender-based violence into current programming but, also, conduct standalone programming that focuses primarily on violence. To ensure proper implementation, directives must come from the highest levels of USAID. Do you commit to 

making implementation of the strategy a priority during your tenure? 

Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to prioritizing the implementation of the 

‘‘U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally’’ (the 

GBV Strategy)—and this includes both integrating GBV prevention and response 

efforts into various sectors, as well as creating stand-alone programming. 

To better integrate GBV into various sectors, USAID is providing staff and implementing partners with guidance on how best to integrate GBV interventions into 

the design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of different sectors. 

In addition, the Agency supports stand-alone programs to address gender-based 

violence across the globe. For example, in India, USAID partners with the Japanese 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs to support U.N. Women’s Safe Cities New Delhi program, which increases the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders to respond to and prevent violence against women and girls in public spaces. 

USAID is also making progress on strengthening the monitoring and evaluation of 

GBV stand-alone programs, evidenced by the recent release the ‘‘Toolkit for Monitoring and Evaluating Gender-based Violence Interventions Along the Relief to 

Development Continuum.’’ 

456 

Question. Both Members of Congress and civil society are anxiously awaiting a 

public report on how implementation of the GBV Strategy is progressing. We understand that such a report was due this past winter but it has not yet been released. 

How will you use your position to advocate for a timely, public release of the report? 

Answer. I understand that pursuant to the Executive Order 13623 on Preventing 

and Responding to Violence Against Women and Girls Globally Common Reporting 

Framework, USAID has submitted its annual report, which outlines the Agency’s 

progress toward implementing the GBV Strategy, to National Security Council staff. 

Much of the information contained in the report is sensitive, and as such, has not 

been released publicly. If confirmed, I will support the Agency’s efforts to work with 

our interagency colleagues to determine the best method to release the report. In 

addition, I will continue to encourage USAID to maintain engagement with civil society in order to provide updates on the Agency’s progress on GBV interventions, 

including efforts to address child marriage. 

Question. Last year Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act and 

included language requiring the Department of State to draft and implement an 

interagency strategy to address child marriage. What is the status of the strategy 

and how will you work to advance its implementation? 

Answer. USAID’s ‘‘2012 Ending Child Marriage and Addressing the Needs of Married Adolescents: The USAID Vision for Action’’ is a pillar of the GBV Strategy and 

is an essential component of the suite of USAID gender equality policies and strategies. USAID invests in both prevention and response to child marriage because it 

is a practice that undermines efforts to promote sustainable development. It is difficult to imagine that upward of 10 million girls under the age of 18 are prevented 

from living a productive life—as part of the impact of this practice. 

USAID’s investments to address child marriage support the needs of married adolescents as well as expand knowledge on effective interventions to prevent child 

marriage. For example, USAID’s work is supporting proven practices such as the 

program in Ethiopia where USAID helped raise awareness about harmful traditional practices that resulted in the ratification of a new law increasing the legal 

age of marriage. The Agency is also testing new approaches such as the program 

in India that evaluates an ongoing government-run conditional cash transfer program to delay child marriage. 

Child marriage has been a focus area for program expansion—and if confirmed, 

I will continue to stress the importance of child marriage to ensure that young girls 

all around the world have a chance at a brighter future. 

RESPONSES OF HON. ALFONSO E. LENHARDT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

INSPECTORS GENERAL

Inspectors general were created by Congress to be independent and objective units 

within each agency whose duty it is to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the programs and operations of that agency. Congress provides the inspectors general unfettered access to their agencies’ systems and records in order to carry out independent oversight. Last year, it was reported that a prior Deputy Administrator for 

USAID interfered with an inspector general investigation on bid rigging. 

Question. What is your philosophy on working with the inspector general? 

Answer. The Office of Inspector General plays an important oversight role for all 

executive branch agencies in the Federal Government. The USAID Office of Inspector General has stated that its mission is to promote the efficiency and effectiveness 

of the Agency’s programs and operations while safeguarding the integrity of all concerned. I fully support that mission and believe the objectives of the Office of Inspector General are aligned with those of the Agency. I share the inspector general’s 

commitment to ensuring that USAID’s programs are a responsible use of taxpayer 

dollars, and if confirmed, I will work closely with the Inspector General to promote 

the Agency’s efficiency and effectiveness. 

Question. If confirmed, do you commit to complying with the Inspector General 

Act by providing the inspector general unfettered access to USAID systems and 

records? 

Answer. Under the Inspector General Act, the inspector general has the authority 

to access all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, 

and other materials that relate to the programs under his or her oversight. If confirmed, I would fully comply with the act and work to ensure that the Office of the 

457 

Inspector General has the information necessary to fulfill its oversight functions for 

the Agency and its important work around the world. 

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING

USAID’s ability to demonstrate results through performance management and reporting was one of the most significant challenges identified by the inspector general. The Inspector General’s FY 2013 Annual Management Challenge statement 

said, ‘‘Quality, reliability, and sufficiency of program data are essential to assess 

whether projects are making adequate progress and having the intended impact. 

Even though USAID has extensive guidance to help manage projects, accurate and 

supported results continues to be problematic.’’ 

Question. Are results, impacts, and evaluations important to USAID? 

Answer. USAID’s core values state: ‘‘We strive to maximize efficiency, effectiveness, and deliver meaningful results across our work’’ and ‘‘We seek to improve ourselves and our work continually through reflection and evaluation.’’ Over the past 

few years, the Agency has made great strides to increase the ability of its staff to 

measure results and understand the impact of USAID programs. Under Administrator Shah’s leadership, USAID released new ‘‘state-of the-practice’’ policies on 

evaluations (2011) and performance monitoring (2012). Since then, the Agency has 

trained staff on best practices and methods for evaluations (over 1,400) and performance monitoring (nearly 600). Evaluation reports, including 234 in 2013, are 

accessible to USAID staff worldwide for planning and assessing purposes within 

three months of the evaluation’s conclusion. 

If confirmed, I am committed to building the Agency’s capacity to measure the 

work we do and deliver foreign assistance in a more effective and efficient manner. 

Question. What reforms do you propose in order to ensure quality data and accurate results are reported? 

Answer. Since the creation of the Bureau of Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL) 

3 years ago, the Agency has made good progress in revitalizing core business practices. PPL has embarked on an ambitious path to refocus USAID on strengthening 

strategic thinking and command of evidence in the discipline of international development, and if confirmed as Deputy Administrator, I will fully support this effort. 

As a leader of complex organizations for over 30 years, I know that when project 

managers have access to quality information about the activities they are implementing, they can use the data to improve their work and direct it in a way that 

achieves better outcomes. To advance this objective, USAID emphasizes project design and performance monitoring, which are key to ensuring quality data are collected throughout USAID-funded activities. 

The Agency is also piloting a tool to help missions track information about their 

project performance and locations, known as AID Tracker Plus. By implementing 

this tool in conjunction with others, the Agency will be able to craft a Development 

Information Solution that allows USAID to tell one cohesive story from strategy to 

results. This, in conjunction with Joint Summary Reports and the Annual Performance Reports, which pull aggregate data worldwide, will help identify program successes and shortcomings. 

Question. Will you commit to making this one of your top priorities? 

Answer. Ensuring the quality of data and accuracy of results are top Agency priorities. We know that data are only useful for decisionmaking if they are of high 

quality and provide the groundwork for informed decisions. USAID has measures 

in place to ensure data meet this standard. For example, missions are required to 

conduct data quality assessments for all performance data reported to Washington 

every 3 years—measured against five standards of validity, integrity, precision, reliability, and timeliness. Furthermore, primary and secondary data go through rigorous USAID assessments to ensure that they meet the five quality standards. If 

confirmed, I will continue to emphasize data quality as a means to learn and adapt 

programming in response to evidence generated in the field. 

Ultimately, the overall impact of our programs depends on effective management, 

operations, and systems, and if confirmed, I will work to ensure that USAID is a 

good steward of taxpayer dollars. 

CASH ON DELIVERY

At a subcommittee in May last year, I served as ranking member for a hearing 

titled ‘‘Different Perspective on International Development.’’ Dr. Todd Moss talked 

about the idea of the U.S. Government implementing pay for performance contracts 

in order for the U.S. taxpayer to only pick up the bill for actual achievements. 

458 

Question. How can the USAID work toward outcome from assistance instead of 

inputs or even outputs? 

Answer. Increasingly, USAID is applying a new model for how it does business, 

which places a greater focus on outcomes and sustainability. Past models have 

focused on input/output models transacted mainly through acquisition and assistance instruments. Now project implementation often involves policy dialogue, government-to-government assistance, direct engagement of USAID technical staff, a 

grant, contract, loan guarantee, public-private partnerships, and/or a prize competition. 

Projects are framed around a clear purpose with measurable outcomes and are 

based on an analysis of the inputs and outcomes required to achieve the project purpose. USAID’s Global Development Lab has used several performance-based 

approaches, including the Development Innovation Ventures and the Grand Challenges, which have milestone-based payments and ‘‘staged investments’’ based on 

increasing levels of evidence. Prizes are another example of pay-for-performance— 

where funding is only awarded once the output or outcome has been achieved. For 

example, USAID used prizes to source algorithms that used public data to better 

assess when mass violence against civilians may occur in a given location. This 

method is being further developed and utilized by policymakers and academics for 

analytical purposes. The cost of procuring the algorithms via an open, challengedriven prize were far lower than a traditional grant or contract. 

Under the Local Solutions initiative, USAID is also supporting results-based 

financing in its government-to-government assistance to strengthen host systems, 

mitigate risk, and encourage performance management. 

USAID is exploring the use of Cash on Delivery approaches, as relevant in the 

right country, with the right systems, program, and implementation and verification 

tools to inform further applicability. 

Question. How should the U.S. measure the success and effectiveness of international development assistance? 

Answer. The mandate of the newly created Bureau of Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL) is to provide strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation. One way this 

objective is being achieved is through the creation and institutionalization of the 

Program Cycle, a model based on rigorous methodology for designing, implementing, 

monitoring, and evaluating projects. 

The Program Cycle strengthens the discipline of development at all stages, utilizing cutting edge best practices to develop projects on the ground. It also emphasizes monitoring a project’s performance in stages, allowing USAID missions and 

implementing partners to work together to make mid-course corrections to achieve 

outcomes. In addition, a more rigorous approach toward evaluation is leading 

toward greater accountability and continuous learning to inform future projects 

designed throughout our portfolio. 

As noted above, USAID is engaged in a fundamental reform in how it designs its 

interventions so that success is more easily measurable. New approaches such as 

the aforementioned Development Innovation Ventures apply a tiered funding approach that is based on results, fosters innovation, and encourages partnerships. 

The Lab has also developed the Development Innovation Accelerator, which creates 

a platform for identifying and sharing broad questions that allow USAID to connect 

with innovative organizations to undertake proven development models and techniques. 

CORE COMPETENCIES

Question. In development assistance, what are the core competencies and comparative advantages that the U.S. Government should focus on? 

Answer. President Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development 

(PPD–6) outlines USG development focal areas, including: ensuring sustainable regional development outcomes, a more selective, locally owned, innovative approach, 

and establishing a coherent modern architecture. 

Core competencies 

To ensure Official Development Assistance (ODA) remains sustainable even after 

the USG departs a country, USAID must foster strong, democratic governments and 

work with local partners and institutions, which ensures sustainability. Promoting 

institutions where leaders are held accountable and govern responsibly encourages 

a favorable investment climate, thus furthering self-sufficiency. 

The PPD–6 also notes that development is best attained by creating broad-based 

economic growth through providing innovative resources to the world’s poorest. The 

459 

USG’s size and reach allows us to uniquely scale up the best, most innovative ideas 

for tackling today’s development challenges. For example, the Feed the Future (FtF) 

initiative accomplishes its goal of combating extreme hunger by partnering with 

local farmers to increase their productivity, and engaging the private sector by producing cutting-edge agricultural research to benefit targeted communities. 

The USG remains a thought leader across a range of technical development sectors, and our expertise drives our successes in global health, education, energy, environment, among others. When tackling any development challenge, no Agency will 

operate alone. Federal employees call on colleagues from CDC, USDA, EPA, and 

others to provide their expert insight. 

Comparative advantages 

The United States has unique access to a vibrant private sector and a variety of 

philanthropic organizations. The Administration’s Power Africa initiative, for example, aims to give millions of people access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa. Such 

a project would cost around $23 billion, but after an initial investment of only $7 

billion, the USG has leveraged nearly $15 billion in commitments to fully fund this 

initiative. 

The USG is the global leader in providing rapid disaster assistance. No other 

country has the same lift or logistical capacity, nor the equivalent pre-positioned resources necessary to respond to humanitarian and environmental crises. 

Question. What objectives should be left to others to handle? 

Answer. Attaining strong, broad-based economic growth meant to lift the impoverished out of poverty or resolve long-standing violence cannot be achieved by U.S.- 

funded development assistance alone. It must be a coordinated effort planned in 

concert with other donors, actively encouraged and supported by the host nation, 

and jumpstarted by private industry. 

The Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development (PPD–6) states that the 

USG should ‘‘forge a deliberate division of labor among key donors.’’ Specifically, it 

states that the United States will ‘‘seek an explicit division of labor by focusing our 

efforts on select countries and regions.’’ USAID is continuously assessing where we 

have a comparative advantage to work in key regions and sectors, and where other 

donors may complement or better work in those areas—reducing or increasing presence where needed. For example, in Brazil, we are transitioning from a donor-recipient relationship to a partnership program that leverages Brazilian financial and 

technical resources to advance shared development objectives in the region and 

around the world. 

The PPD also instructs to ‘‘Focus our expertise in a smaller number of sectors, 

with an emphasis on selectivity and an orientation toward results.’’ USAID significantly increased its focus through development initiatives such as Science, Technology and Innovation; Power Africa; Global Health; Feed the Future; and Global 

Climate Change. In addition, USAID phased out Feed the Future agriculture programs in 22 countries since FY 2010 and 23 countries from USAID Global Health 

programs. USAID also has begun creating focused integrated development objectives 

within the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) process and strategic 

alignment will be key in the FY 2015 budget process. 

Finally, the PPD directs USG to ‘‘Work with bilateral donors, the multilateral development banks and other international organizations to ensure complementarity 

and coordination of efforts.’’ USAID holds regular consultations at the headquarter 

level with multiple donor and NGO partners such as DFID, the European Union, 

Norway, Denmark, Australia, World Bank, and the Arab Donor League. Successful 

partnerships include the partnership with the Swedish International Development 

Cooperation Agency (SIDA) focused on Science, Technology and Innovation for cutting-edge development solutions to reduce poverty. Another example is USAID also 

recently hosted the first U.S.-Japan Development Dialogue to deepen collaboration 

with the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in multiple sectors, including gender equality and female empowerment. USAID also continuously shares 

technical skill and lessons learned at the working group level when coordinating 

with other donors and NGOs. 

If confirmed, I will continue USAID’s efforts to partner with a variety of sister 

agencies across the Federal Government as well as other actors, ranging from 

donors to private industry, NGOs, host country governments and community-based 

organizations to tackle development challenges across the world. 

460 

RESPONSES OF MARCIA DENISE OCCOMY TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

POWER AFRICA INITIATIVE

The administration has identified the African Development Bank as one of the 

agencies involved in the Power Africa Initiative. The bank’s portfolio has included 

energy infrastructure projects for a long time. 

Question. Please identify the specific infrastructure efforts being pursued by the 

administration that fall under the Power Africa Initiative at the African Development Bank. 

Answer. To help meet Africa’s sizeable electricity needs, the United States, 

through Power Africa, is forging partnerships with African governments and organizations, other donors, and the private sector to advance key reforms and specific energy projects. 

As a critical Power Africa partner, the African Development Bank (AfDB) supports far-reaching power sector reforms and provides technical assistance to improve 

the enabling environment, offers legal assistance to negotiate power purchase agreements (PPAs), and provides various financing tools for energy projects, including 

guarantee instruments to mitigate off-taker risks. 

Some examples of the strong U.S.–AfDB collaboration on Power Africa include: 

• In Kenya, the AfDB and the U.S. Government are providing financing, technical 

assistance, and partial risk guarantees (designed to attract private sector investment in projects by reducing the risk of participating) for the 300 MW Lake 

Turkana Wind Project. • In Ethiopia, the U.S. Government is supporting the AfDB’s African Legal Support Facility’s work to provide guidance to the Government of Ethiopia regarding negotiations of the PPA for the 1,000 MW Corbetti Geothermal Project. 

Question. How many of these projects were already being pursued prior to the 

announcement of the Power Africa Initiative by President Obama in 2013? 

Answer. The AfDB has long been committed to promoting energy access across 

Africa, and some of the Bank’s current efforts under Power Africa existed as proposals or active projects prior to President Obama’s announcement in June 2013. 

However, many of these proposals and projects were not advancing. Power Africa 

created new momentum and unlocked sticking points by providing a coordinated approach across different agencies that, together, have the range of tools needed to accelerate energy development—from advice on policy and regulatory reforms, to 

prefeasibility support and capacity-building, to long-term financing, insurance, guarantees, credit enhancements and technical assistance. 

The risks associated with investing in Africa’s energy sector are significant, and 

a key goal of the U.S.–AfDB collaboration on Power Africa is to help close the knowhow and financing gaps and to accelerate energy investment projects on the continent. 

ENERGY SOURCES

During your confirmation hearing in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 

you stated, ‘‘the U.S. can support a vote for a coal powered power plant for the poorest countries, which have the greatest energy needs.’’ 

Question. Do the 53 member countries of the African Development Bank include 

some of the poorest countries in the world? 

Answer. The United States can support coal projects in IDA-only countries, where 

energy needs are often the greatest, in specified circumstances. Thirty-seven of the 

AfDB’s fifty-three member countries are IDA-only. Eligibility for IDA support depends on a country’s creditworthiness and relative poverty, defined as GNI per capita below an established threshold that is updated annually (in fiscal year 2014: 

$1,205). 

Question. Is there a tremendous need for energy generation and transmission in 

the 53 member countries of the African Development Bank? 

Answer. Yes. Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest electrification rate in the world; 

nearly 600 million people, 70 percent of the population, go without electricity every 

day. Rural electrification rates are well below 5 percent in many areas—much lower 

than in Asia or Latin America. The lack of access to power is one of the largest obstacles to economic growth and poverty reduction on the continent. The U.S. Government is partnering with the AfDB to close this energy gap by increasing generation capacity and access to electricity. 

461 

Many African countries have substantial energy resources that include oil, natural gas, and coal. 

Question. Will you vote in support of energy development projects that include oil, 

coal, and natural gas at the African Development Bank? 

Answer. The U.S. Government is committed to helping to improve energy access 

and energy security to households and businesses in Africa and around the globe 

as an important element of economic development. Each project that comes to the 

Board for consideration is evaluated on its contribution toward sustainable development objectives, including support for a cleaner energy future. The U.S. Government’s approach on coal seeks to promote technologies, such as carbon capture and 

sequestration (CCS), that will make coal feasible with lower emissions, alongside 

the promotion of cleaner sources of energy such as natural gas, wind, and solar. In 

line with the President’s Climate Action Plan, I understand that support for coal 

power-generation projects may be considered, depending on the country, and subject 

to additional conditions, (a) for facilities deploying carbon capture and sequestration 

technology, or (b) employs the best available technology for reducing GHG emissions 

that is practically feasible where the project overcomes binding constraints on national economic development in the world’s poorest countries. The United States 

Treasury ‘‘Guidance for U.S. Positions on MDBs Engaging with Developing Countries on Coal-Fired Power Generation’’ (issued in October 2013) states that in ‘‘IDAonly countries, where energy needs are often that greatest, the MDB could proceed 

with appraising a coal project that does not meet the best internationally available 

technology criteria, if it can be demonstrated that the project overcomes binding 

constraints on national economic development.’’ 

Question. Do you believe coal provides a low cost and reliable energy source which 

is important to countries looking for assistance in poverty alleviation and economic 

development? 

Answer. Facilitating energy access and energy security to people in Africa and 

around the globe is a priority for the United States, and I understand how important such access is to promoting growth and economic development. The United 

States continues to pursue this goal using the cleanest technology possible. In line 

with the Climate Action Plan, I understand that the U.S. Government will consider 

support for coal projects using the best available technology for reducing GHG emissions that is practically feasible where the project overcomes binding constraints on 

national economic development in the world’s poorest countries, or for facilities that 

deploy carbon capture and sequestration. 

Question. Do you believe requiring borrowers to accept higher cost energy projects 

is a responsible use of taxpayer dollars when affordable and reliable alternatives are 

readily available? 

Answer. The United States is committed to the pursuit of sustainable economic 

development. Least-cost alternatives in the short term are not always the most costeffective in the long run. Climate change is one of many risks to the sustainability 

of development outcomes, and may have a disproportionate impact on the world’s 

most vulnerable communities. A priority for the U.S. Government is to help developing economies shift to sustainable energy solutions, including lower-carbon energy 

sources so they can avoid a lock-in of high-emission power plants. Support for cleaner energy technologies that reduce pollution will also improve health outcomes, including reducing asthma and heart attacks, thus generating long-term health savings. It is important that scarce public financing be used to support the deployment 

of low-emission power generation in order to achieve sustainable development outcomes and the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. 

Question. If confirmed, what criteria would you use to determine whether you will 

vote in support of energy development projects at the African Development Bank? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with colleagues throughout the government to 

ensure that we continue to evaluate projects on an individual basis, and we will determine positions based on the merits of each project in advancing sustainable and 

inclusive development objectives, consistent with all relevant policies. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

Question. Will pushing President Obama’s Climate Action Plan be one of your top 

priorities at the African Development Bank? 

Answer. The Climate Action Plan is an important priority of the Obama administration, and as the President’s appointee, if confirmed I will implement all the priorities and instructions from the White House and Treasury Department. The Climate 

462 

Action Plan is relevant for the African Development Bank as it provides guidance 

regarding the President’s view on the circumstances under which support for public 

funding of coal-fired power plants overseas is warranted. Working to support the 

long-term sustainability of Africa’s resources and the serious energy access needs of 

Africa are important goals to me and to the Obama administration. 

INGA DAM

Question. What investments have been made by the African Development Bank 

on the Inga Dam projects? 

Answer. The AfDB has made a number of investments in the Inga 3 project. In 

2008, the AfDB provided a grant of about $15 million for a feasibility study that 

proposed an optimal approach to the development of the project. Two additional 

grants totaling $7 million were subsequently made for advisory services and technical assistance, and in November 2013, the AfDB approved a $68 million technical 

assistance program. As part of this program, the AfDB is providing technical assistance to put in place appropriate institutions, support key technical studies, and implement the reforms necessary to realize the Inga 3 project. 

Question. What are your views on Inga 3 and the Grand Inga Dam? 

Answer. Inga 3 and Grand Inga have extraordinary potential to generate muchneeded electricity for the DRC and the region. At the same time, the risks of undertaking such an enormous project in a country with weak institutions and a poor 

track record of managing large-scale infrastructure projects must not be overlooked. 

If confirmed, I will carefully consider the merits and risks of both the Inga 3 and 

Grand Inga projects. 

Question. What are the potential costs for construction and the energy potential 

of these projects? 

Answer. Costs for the construction of Inga 3 and the associated infrastructure are 

estimated to be between $11–14 billion. Inga 3, if constructed, will have a capacity 

of 4,800 megawatts of electricity. No reliable cost estimates are available for the 

construction of Grand Inga. Preliminary estimates of the total capacity of Grand 

Inga show that such a project could have a capacity of 44,000 megawatts. 

Question. Do you support the African Development Bank assisting in financing 

construction of Inga 3? 

Answer. Any decisions regarding the U.S. Government’s support for Inga 3 will 

be based on the results of environmental and social studies and on the implementation of necessary reforms. The U.S. Government will carefully consider the results 

of both the AfDB and World Bank technical assistance programs, and will perform 

the same due diligence that it performs on any multilateral development bank 

project (which factors in legislation on the MDBs), to make a determination about 

support for Inga 3 at the appropriate time. The AfDB has not proposed any assistance in financing construction of Inga 3. 

Question. Do you support the African Development Bank assisting in financing 

construction of Grand Inga Dam project? 

Answer. Support for Grand Inga is not being considered by the AfDB at this time. 

The AfDB is currently providing technical assistance for the development of Inga 

3 and has at this stage has not proposed any financing for the construction of either 

Inga 3 or the Grand Inga Dam project. 

U.S. INTEREST

Question. How much funding has the United States invested in the African Development Bank? 

Answer. Since 1976, the United States has provided over $3 billion to the African 

Development Bank Group to support nonconcessional and concessional lending to 

African countries. 

Question. How is the African Development Bank in the interest of the United 

States? 

Answer. The AfDB is a strong partner that supports U.S. economic and security 

interests across Africa. By promoting private sector growth and improving the quality of the regulatory environment, the AfDB helps create new markets for U.S. businesses. By supporting economic growth in Africa’s middle-income countries, the 

AfDB helps solidify nascent democracies in North Africa and create stable societies 

that can govern effectively and meet the needs of their people. 

463 

Additionally, the African Development Fund (AfDF)—the concessional lending 

arm of the AfDB—is solely dedicated to working with the poorest countries in 

Africa. The AfDF promotes inclusive growth in the region’s new frontier economies, 

deepens economic and regional integration, and works with post-conflict and fragile 

states to assist them in becoming productive and stable. The AfDF supports many 

of our security objectives where new threats are emerging, including the Sahel and 

the Horn of Africa, by working to address some of the underlying causes of instability. 

Investments by the United States in the AfDB have a significant leveraging effect, 

with each additional dollar of capital supporting additional lending of $20. U.S. contributions to the AfDF also provide significant returns, with every dollar contributed 

leveraging close to an additional $12. 

(465) 

NOMINATIONS OF TODD D. ROBINSON 

AND LESLIE ANN BASSETT 

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Todd D. Robinson, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala 

Leslie Ann Bassett, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Paraguay 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Udall presiding. 

Present: Senators Udall, Kaine, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. I call this nomination hearing to order. Today we 

meet to consider two nominations for the Western Hemisphere: 

first, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International 

Narcotics and Law Enforcement, Mr. Todd D. Robinson, to be U.S. 

Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala; and second, the Deputy 

Chief of Mission to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, Korea, Leslie Ann 

Bassett, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay. 

Both nominees are Career Foreign Service officers who currently 

hold the rank of minister-counselor. Both have extensive experience in the Western Hemisphere, which will be needed to address 

many of the pressing issues of importance to the United States and 

the regions they will serve. 

In Paraguay, if confirmed, Ms. Bassett will be confronted with 

issues surrounding economic development, counternarcotics, corruption, and governance reform, as well as sticky issues of land reform and indigenous rights. Furthermore, she will need to address 

the issues of terrorism and the threat of terrorism in the triborder 

region of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. 

Like my home State of New Mexico, Paraguay is home to indigenous tribes. The Paraguayan population itself is a large mix of 

Spanish and Guarani Indians, many of whom are of mixed descent. 

In fact, 90 of the population speaks Guarani. This relatively poor 

and inland country has had a very difficult political history, including decades of dictatorship, in the last century. Most recently, the 

466 

impeachment of the former President, Fernando Lugo, in 2012 

raised many questions about the state of Paraguayan democracy. 

With the help of the Organization of American States, Paraguay 

held elections in 2013 and elected the current President, Horatio 

Cartes. 

Mr. Robinson, if confirmed, you will be representing the United 

States in a country that has experienced civil war, dictatorships, 

and now is in the throes of increasing gang violence, economic stagnation, and a resultant migration problem that is spreading 

throughout the hemisphere, including in my home State of New 

Mexico, where many of the immigrants are being held in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico. 

In order to deal with this most recent crisis, you will need to first 

address the dangers of traveling north to the United States. To the 

families and children that may be listening, this journey is dangerous. You should not undertake this journey to the United States 

or to Mexico. I have been briefed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FLETC, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding the individuals undergoing removal proceedings 

and I can positively say that, despite what you may have heard, 

there is no amnesty for individuals once they reach the United 

States. 

While it is easy to concentrate on the impacts of this side of the 

border, you will also need to deal with the underlying causes surrounding the migrations of children and families outside of Central 

America. Guatemala, like other countries, is in the area known as 

the northern triangle. It is one of the most violent countries in the 

world, with a rate of homicides of 34 homicides per 100,000 people, 

narcotics trafficking and rampant gang violence and a population 

of distrustful law enforcement authorities due to a history of corruption and abuse. 

It should not be surprising that some of you believe that the dangerous trek to the United States would be worth the risk. I believe 

strongly that not only do we need to address issues on this side of 

the border, which includes passing comprehensive immigration reform and strengthening the border, but that we need to stop turning a blind eye to a region that has continued to receive diminished 

attention in multiple administrations. We need to put together a 

comprehensive plan which helps the countries of Guatemala, El 

Salvador, and Honduras, better deal with violent crime and counternarcotics, governance and corruption issues, human rights and 

judicial issues, and economic development. 

Until that happens, I believe that families will continue to see 

the dangerous trek to the United States as the least bad option, 

which will further stress our ability to deal with these issues in the 

border States. 

Mr. Robinson, I am looking forward to hearing from you about 

how you will address these pressing issues during this hearing. 

Before we hear from the nominees, I would like to give the ranking member, Senator McCain, an opportunity to give his opening 

statement as well. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have 

any opening statement except to thank both of the nominees for 

467 

their long and honorable service to our country, and we look forward to rapid confirmation through the committee and through the 

Senate, hopefully before we are out for the year. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Senator McCain, we also look forward to that, 

and I know you put a real emphasis on having well-qualified nominees and obviously these two I think are very high up on that 

standard. 

I would now like to turn to our two nominees for their opening 

statements, beginning with Mr. Robinson. As always, your full testimony will be included in the record, and please try and stay within the allotted time. 

Mr. Robinson. 

STATEMENT OF TODD D. ROBINSON, OF NEW JERSEY, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain. Mr. 

Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee, it is an honor to appear today before you as the President’s nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to Guatemala. I am humbled by the trust and confidence President Obama 

and Secretary of State Kerry have shown in putting forward my 

nomination for this position. 

I joined the Foreign Service in 1986 and since then I have briefed 

Capitol Hill staff a number of times. Needless to say, this time is 

a little different. This time, while they are not with me today, I 

have the opportunity to acknowledge the support of my mother, 

Willetta BaCote, and my brothers, Mark Robinson and Jeffrey 

BaCote. They have been enormously influential on my career and 

without their support and that of my friends and colleagues I 

would not be before you today. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed it will be an honor to return to the 

Republic of Guatemala. I was deputy chief of mission at the Embassy in Guatemala from 2009 to 2011. Much of my career in the 

Foreign Service has been in the region—Colombia, El Salvador, the 

Dominican Republic, and Bolivia. I was consul general in Barcelona 

from 2006 to 2009 and I have been a Deputy Assistant Secretary 

in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

since 2011. I would hope to use this experience to advance United 

States goals in Guatemala. 

Guatemala is at a critical moment. While the nation has made 

significant progress since signing peace accords in 1996 that ended 

a three decade-long internal conflict, significant challenges remain: 

trafficking of humans, weapons, and drugs, high rates of violence, 

impunity and corruption, poor education and employment opportunities, and chronic malnutrition. These are all serious and all particularly damaging to Guatemala’s youngest, most defenseless citizens. 

These challenges are complex. They require sustained and continued United States cooperation and engagement, and if confirmed 

I will work with this committee and our Guatemalan partners to 

promote respect for human rights and economic and social inclusion for all members of society. 

468 

The United States and Guatemala are making progress. Guatemala is advancing in the fight against trafficking in persons and 

is committing additional funding in a constrained budget environment to its antitrafficking efforts. There is strong cooperation on 

counternarcotics, judicial strengthening, and maternal and child 

health issues, but more steps are needed to ensure that this cooperation is institutionalized. 

Earlier this year, a Guatemalan court convicted four labor traffickers, the first ever conviction for forced labor in the country’s 

history. And the Department of State is working closely with the 

government of Guatemala to resolve the remaining 31 intercountry 

adoption cases pending since 2007. 

Mr. Chairman, we cannot talk about Guatemala today without 

acknowledging the urgent humanitarian situation at the United 

States southern border relating to unaccompanied children. As nations that value human dignity, it is our duty to respond collectively. Both President Perez Molina and First Lady Rosa Leal de 

Perez have acknowledged the need for collective action and we are 

working toward that end. 

The United States and the Government of Guatemala are committed to addressing the factors driving migration, such as the lack 

of economic and education opportunities. We cannot resolve this 

overnight and neither we nor Guatemala can address this singlehandedly. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and the Guatemala Government to see that U.S. assistance is effectively targeted 

so that Guatemalan citizens can build their lives at home. I will 

also continue efforts to correct misunderstandings about U.S. law 

and correct misperceptions that children are permitted to remain 

in the United States. 

Guatemala is a nation of diverse people who are working to consolidate democratic principles and who are cognizant of their responsibilities to advance the cause of international peace and security. It is a nation of enormous pride and cultural patrimony and 

it will be my high honor to represent the United States in Guatemala. 

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the honor of appearing before 

the committee today. I understand the serious interests the United 

States has in the success of Guatemala and the region as a whole. 

If confirmed, I pledge to work with Congress and this committee 

to ensure that as we meet the challenges ahead we do so reflecting 

the values and ideals of the United States. 

Thank you very much and I look forward to any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TODD D. ROBINSON

Mister Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is an honor to appear today before you as the President’s nominee to serve 

as the United States Ambassador to Guatemala. I am humbled by the trust and confidence President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have shown in putting forward my nomination for this position. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely 

with you and your colleagues to advance the interests of the United States. 

I joined the Foreign Service in 1986 and since then, I have briefed Capitol Hill 

staff a number of times. Needless to say, this time is a little different. This time, 

I have the opportunity to acknowledge the support of my mother, Willetta BaCote, 

and my brothers, Mark Robinson and Jeffrey BaCote. They have been enormously 

469 

influential in my career, and without their support, and that of my friends and colleagues, I would not be before you today. 

Mr. Chairman, it will truly be an honor to return to the Republic of Guatemala. 

As you know, I was deputy chief of mission at the Embassy in Guatemala City from 

2009–2011. In fact, much of my career in the Foreign Service has ranged throughout 

the region in Colombia, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Bolivia. Before 

going to Guatemala, I was consul general in Barcelona, and when I left Guatemala, 

I took up my current duties as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. I have gained a wealth of experience from 

my work in these places and, if confirmed, I pledge to use this experience to advance 

U.S. goals in Guatemala. 

Guatemala is at a critical moment. While the nation has made significant 

progress since the signing of the peace accords in 1996 that ended a three-decadelong internal conflict, significant challenges remain. Trafficking of humans, weapons, and drugs; high rates of violence; impunity and corruption; poor education and 

employment opportunities; and chronic malnutrition are all serious issues and all 

particularly damaging to Guatemala’s youngest, most defenseless citizens. These 

challenges are complex and require sustained and continued U.S. cooperation and 

engagement and, if confirmed, I will work with this committee and our Guatemalan 

partners to promote respect for human rights and economic and social inclusion for 

all members of society. 

The United States and Guatemala are already making some progress. Guatemala 

has made advances in the fight against trafficking in persons and is committing 

additional funding in a constrained budget environment to its antitrafficking efforts. 

There has been strong cooperation on counternarcotics, judicial strengthening, and 

maternal and child health issues. If confirmed, I pledge to work to support President Perez Molina’s ‘‘Zero Hunger’’ campaign to see that child health efforts, in particular, become institutionalized. Earlier this year, a Guatemalan court convicted 

four labor traffickers, the first ever conviction for forced labor in the country’s history. The Department of State is working closely with the Government of Guatemala toward resolution of the remaining 31 intercountry adoption cases, pending 

since 2007. And, Guatemala recently became a ‘‘compliant’’ country in the terms of 

the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which means it has agreed 

to work with civil society and international community to ensure all mining projects 

are conducted transparently. 

Mr. Chairman, we cannot talk about Guatemala today without acknowledging the 

urgent humanitarian situation at the U.S. southern border related to unaccompanied children. As nations that value human dignity, it is our duty to respond collectively. President Perez Molina has acknowledged the need for collective action, 

and we are working toward that end. While visiting DHS facilities in Arizona last 

week, Guatemalan First Lady Rosa Leal de Perez, a leading voice on this issue, reemphasized the Government of Guatemala’s commitment to addressing the factors 

driving migration, including of children, such as a lack of economic and education 

opportunities. The significant increase in unaccompanied children is, in large measure, a direct result of the challenges I described earlier. We cannot resolve them 

overnight and neither we, nor Guatemala, can address them alone. If confirmed, I 

will work with Congress and the Guatemalan Government to see that U.S. assistance is effectively targeted to address the underlying causes of migration. I will also 

continue efforts to correct misunderstandings about aspects of U.S. law and correct 

misperceptions that children are permitted to remain in the United States. 

Guatemala is a nation with drive and determination to open its borders and compete on a global scale. It is a nation of diverse people who are working to consolidate 

democratic principles, and who are cognizant of their responsibilities to advance the 

cause of international peace and security. It is a nation of enormous pride and cultural patrimony and, if confirmed, it will be my high honor to represent the United 

States in Guatemala. 

Mr. Chairman, after nearly three decades in the Foreign Service, I deeply appreciate the honor of appearing before the committee today. I understand the serious 

interests the United States has in the success of Guatemala, and of the region as 

a whole. If confirmed, I pledge to work with Congress, and this committee to ensure 

that as we meet the challenges ahead we do so reflecting the values and ideals of 

the United States. 

Thank you very much, I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. We appreciate your 

testimony. 

We now go to Ms. Bassett. 

470 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE ANN BASSETT, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF PARAGUAY 

Ms. BASSETT. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, I appreciate very 

much the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a great 

honor for me personally and professionally. One hundred years ago 

my great-great-grandfather, Senator William J. Stone of Missouri, 

sat as chairman of this committee during a pivotal time in world 

history. His concern and interest in foreign affairs inspired my decision to join the Department of State and is the foundation of my 

enduring respect for the important role Congress plays in our foreign policy. 

I am both grateful and humbled that President Obama nominated me for this position and I appreciate the confidence that the 

President and Secretary Kerry have shown in me. You have my 

commitment that, if confirmed, I will live up to the high standards 

that the administration has set for its appointees, standards that 

I know this committee and the American people expect of nominees. 

I come before you mindful of my family’s legacy of service to the 

Nation. My grandfather graduated from West Point, fought in 

World War II, and rose to the rank of general in the U.S. Army. 

My father is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. My two uncles 

served in the Air Force during the Vietnam war, but only one came 

home. 

For the last three decades I have carried on this family tradition 

of service to our country as a Foreign Service officer representing 

the United States across four different regions of the globe. More 

than half my service has focused both in the field and from the 

vantage of Washington on our relations with the Western Hemisphere. If confirmed, I will draw upon all of my knowledge and experience to advance U.S. interests in our important relationship 

with Paraguay; and if confirmed I look forward to working with 

this committee in this effort. 

This is a time of opportunity in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Paraguay. We have a strong interest 

in supporting Paraguay’s efforts to strengthen its democratic institutions, improve the rule of law, advance human rights, counter 

narcotics trafficking and terrorism, combat corruption, and promote 

an effective, transparent government and judicial system. The tragedy of human trafficking is unfortunately a significant concern in 

Paraguay and I believe more can be done. 

This is a time of opportunity in our trade relationship as well. 

Trade between the United States and Paraguay continues to grow. 

In 2013 our two-way trade totaled $2.2 billion, leaving us with a 

trade surplus of $1.6 billion. If confirmed, I look forward to working 

with the many U.S. businesses represented in Paraguay to support 

a reliable, transparent business environment conducive to continued growth in trade and investment. Steps Paraguay can take to 

ensure protection of intellectual property rights will help improve 

prospects for increased commerce. 

This is a time of opportunity in our people-to-people ties, anchored by a strong Peace Corps presence, sustained by the work of 

dedicated colleagues from the USAID, and made possible by the 

471 

committed efforts of the entire U.S. Embassy in Asuncion. If confirmed, I promise to offer mission leadership focused on protecting 

American citizens and advancing the full range of our goals. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, your distinguished colleagues, and your staffs to advance our priorities with 

the Republic of Paraguay. 

Thank you again for this opportunity and I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bassett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE ANN BASSETT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a great honor for me, personally and professionally. One hundred years ago my great-great-grandfather, Senator William J. 

Stone of Missouri, sat as chairman of this committee during a pivotal time in world 

history. His concern and interest in foreign affairs inspired my decision to join the 

Department of State and is the foundation of my enduring respect for the important 

role Congress plays in our foreign policy. 

I am both grateful and humbled that President Obama nominated me for this 

position and I appreciate the confidence that the President and Secretary Kerry 

have shown in me. You have my commitment that, if confirmed, I will live up to 

the high standards that the administration has set for its appointees; standards 

that I know this committee and the American people expect of nominees. 

I come before you mindful of my family’s legacy of service to the Nation. My 

grandfather graduated from West Point, fought in World War II, and rose to the 

rank of General in the U.S. Army. My father is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. My two uncles served in the Air Force during the Vietnam war, but only one 

came home. For the last three decades, I have carried on this family tradition of 

service to our country as a Foreign Service officer representing the United States 

across four different regions of the globe. More than half my service has focused, 

both in the field and from the vantage of Washington, on our relations with the 

Western Hemisphere. If confirmed, I will draw upon all my knowledge and experience to advance U.S. interests in our important relationship with Paraguay. And if 

confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee in this effort. 

This is a time of opportunity in the bilateral relationship between the United 

States and Paraguay. We have a strong interest in supporting Paraguay’s efforts to 

strengthen its democratic institutions, improve the rule of law, advance human 

rights, counter narcotics trafficking and terrorism, combat corruption and promote 

an effective, transparent government and judicial system. The tragedy of human 

trafficking is unfortunately a significant concern in Paraguay, and I believe we can 

do more to encourage Paraguay to take more action to prevent human trafficking. 

This is a time of opportunity in our trade relationship as well. Trade between the 

United States and Paraguay, while relatively modest, continues to grow. In 2013 our 

two-way trade totaled $2.2 billion, leaving us with a trade surplus of $1.6 billion. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with the many U.S. businesses represented 

in Paraguay to support a reliable, transparent business environment conducive to 

continued growth in trade and investment. Steps Paraguay can take to ensure 

protection of intellectual property rights will help improve prospects for increased 

commerce. 

This is a time of opportunity in our people-to-people ties, anchored by a strong 

Peace Corps presence, sustained by the work of dedicated colleagues from USAID, 

and made possible by the committed efforts of the entire U.S. Embassy in Asuncion. 

If confirmed, I promise to offer collaborative mission leadership focused on protecting American citizens and advancing the full range of our goals. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, your distinguished colleagues, 

and your staffs to advance our priorities with the Republic of Paraguay. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I welcome any questions 

you may have. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Ms. Bassett. 

I am going to start with questioning with Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson, as Ambassador how will you address the root causes leading 

to the recent surge in minors migrating from Guatemala to the 

United States? The mass migration is putting immense pressure on 

472 

the United States and especially the border regions. In Artesia, 

New Mexico, the community is being asked to take on more of this 

burden. I recently visited with the community in the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center to learn more about what is being 

done. However, the insecure conditions these children are fleeing 

are only getting worse. 

How will you direct resources to support the Guatemalan Government in both preventing future migration and supporting the 

repatriation process of those returning to Guatemala? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Senator. We know what the root 

causes are. We know that security—both food security and physical 

security—are important, terrible issues that are affecting the country. We also know that there are networks, criminal networks that 

are preying upon the families in desperate situations to get their 

family members from Guatemala up to the United States. 

We have programs that we have been employing, implementing, 

that include work with the Guatemalan police, with Customs, with 

Border Patrol. We also have programs that focus on food security 

and maternal and child health. I think we need to continue to implement those programs and I would direct resources in that regard. 

But this is not something that the United States can do on its 

own. Clearly, the Government of Guatemala has a role to play. We 

have seen some cooperation in that regard. If confirmed, I would 

work even more closely with government authorities to address the 

issue. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Ms. Bassett, the Cartes government’s openness to public-private 

partnership, particularly in improving their infrastructure, I think 

provides an avenue for U.S. business to offer its unique expertise 

in this area. If confirmed, what kind of support will you provide to 

United States business hoping to work in Paraguay in the area of 

infrastructure, agriculture, and other areas for investment? 

Ms. BASSETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment that this is an opportunity in the 

Government of Paraguay and with our relationship in Paraguay to 

expand our economic ties by virtue of the kind of investment Paraguay seeks to make in infrastructure that needs modernizing, both 

to improve opportunities for commerce, but also to extend the reach 

of government into more remote areas. 

We are working and if confirmed I will continue to work to try 

to promote American business opportunities through making sure 

that they are aware of the tenders that are available, that the opportunity for bids and procurement are as transparent and fair as 

possible, and that when appropriate we advocate on behalf of U.S. 

businesses interested in engaging in new initiatives with the Government of Paraguay. 

Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Robinson, as you probably know, I have long advocated for 

increased attention for the Western Hemisphere region. However, 

the administration continually deprioritizes this region in relation 

to others. We are seeing the repercussions of this through the thousands of migrants arriving in the United States from Central 

473 

America. How will programs in Guatemala be impacted by the decreased request for the CARSI program in fiscal year 2015? How 

will you rebalance this request to address crime prevention with 

equally important issues of economic development, judicial and governance reform, and addressing human rights and issues surrounding endemic corruption? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Senator. We have to acknowledge 

that this has been a very constrained budget environment over the 

last few years. But the State Department and the administration 

have not lost their focus on the important areas of the Western 

Hemisphere, particularly the northern tier: Guatemala, Honduras, 

and El Salvador. Over the last fiscal year Guatemala was the recipient of $19 million in aid. They were also from CARSI resources, 

regional resources—they benefited from $54 million over the last 

fiscal year. 

We will continue—I will continue to devote and send resources 

to those areas that are—the programs that are particularly important: police reform, obviously; again, customs and border. We will 

also work with the judicial sector to continue to work to funnel 

those resources where necessary. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Ms. Bassett, Paraguay’s counternarcotics body reported that drug 

seizures were up by 39 percent in 2013. The country’s status as a 

major transshipment route for Andean cocaine is troubling, as we 

have invested considerable resources to address the drug crisis in 

Colombia, Mexico, and Central America. How will you engage the 

Paraguayan authorities to stop these transshipments and the potential for Paraguay to become a cocaine-producing country itself? 

Ms. BASSETT. I agree that it is a serious concern, although I 

think that the Government of Paraguay’s successes in increasing 

their amount of interdiction is a positive sign of their commitment 

to address this issue. Through my experience working as the deputy chief of mission in Mexico and as political counselor in Columbia, I have a great deal of personal experience on both the costs 

and the consequences of the narcotics business on host governments as well as on the United States, and it is a very serious 

issue. 

I hope that we can continue to cooperate and train with Paraguayan police authorities to try and increase their efforts, but also 

to encourage regional cooperation, since Paraguay is primarily a 

transit country for these products, illicit products. So I think the 

opportunity is also to look at regional cooperation to try and stem 

the flow in that direction as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses. Ms. Bassett, thank you for your family’s 

service to the country going back several generations, despite your 

father’s lack of education. [Laughter.] 

And I thank you for your outstanding service. I have had the 

privilege of seeing you in other posts and I have always been very 

impressed by your service and dedication. 

474 

Mr. Robinson, you stated in your written statement: ‘‘The United 

States and Guatemala are already making some progress. Guatemala has made advances in the fight against trafficking in persons 

and is committing additional funding in a constrained budget environment to its antitrafficking efforts.’’ Your statement, I do not 

question the validity. But I do question the progress. 

There is no progress, Mr. Robinson. Numbers of children are the 

ultimate decider on whether there is progress or not, and those 

numbers continue to go up. And, as you mentioned, we provide $19 

million in assistance. I do not know how much other funding and 

assistance. Can you for the record describe, is that the sum total 

of our financial assistance to Guatemala? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Senator. No, it is not the sum total. 

I cannot be exactly sure, but I think we provided over the last fiscal year almost $80 million total. Some of that obviously goes toward programs that are run by USAID. Some of that goes toward 

funding INL programs that I am familiar with. Some of that is regional funding, so it is hard to break it down exactly. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I want you to carry a message to the Government of Guatemala from me and other Members of Congress. 

That is, unless they show a significant amount of progress in reducing flow of children into our country, I and others will be seeking to reducing that funding dramatically. We have every right to 

expect a greater level of cooperation from the government of those 

three countries, including Guatemala, in many cases expediting the 

flow, including advertising on their radio and television that if you 

can get to the United States you can stay, including paying the 

traffickers thousands of dollars and seeing those transactions taking place in Guatemala, and of course no border enforcement whatsoever. 

So we are—there are many of us that are subject to the immediate impact of these floods of children. 

And by the way, there is no way that the drug traffickers and 

the people who want to send their children to the United States 

could in any way be anything but encouraged when one-tenth or 

one-twentieth of those who appear at our border are actually returned to the country of origin. That is not a disincentive. Actually, 

that is an encouragement. 

Many of us are very disappointed at the President’s message, 

where he came over and asked for legislation, $3.7 billion for a variety of programs, and then at the end of his message: And of 

course we will negotiate with Congress other measures. 

Mr. Robinson, unless those families in Guatemala see planeloads 

of children return to Guatemala, they are going to keep sending 

them, and that is just a fact. Whether it is a Bush law, as described by some, or whether it is a Feinstein law or whatever it is, 

the 2008 law obviously was one of the catalysts for this, and that 

has to be changed. And for the President of the United States not 

to view that as the highest priority in my view, he still does not 

get it. And obviously the fact that he could not take the trouble to 

not engage in a game of pool and drinking beer and go down to the 

border to see the actual situation, of course, is really exceptional. 

So my message to you, Mr. Robinson, is that we are totally dissatisfied with the failure of the Guatemalan Government to do anyVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00482 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
475 

thing tangible, and the only real metric is how many children from 

Guatemala are showing up at our border; then there will be many 

of us who want to review very carefully the investment of American tax dollars. OK? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Senator. I can assure you that I share 

your concerns and it will be among my highest priorities to make 

sure that we are, number one, making sure that our assistance is 

channeled in the right direction, but also making sure that the 

Government of Guatemala knows that it has a significant role to 

play in helping to address these issues. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

Ms. Bassett, in 2014 Freedom House elevated Paraguay’s press 

rating from ‘‘Not Free’’ to ‘‘Partly Free’’ due to reduced political influence in the media. The nation has improved the independence 

and protection of its press in recent years, but criminal gangs 

present a real challenge. Already this year, in the border areas 

with Brazil, two radio journalists, Edgar Fleitas and Fausto 

Alcaraz, reporting on local government services and drug trafficking taking place across the border were gunned down. 

What steps will you take to support the Government of Paraguay’s efforts at ensuring the safety of journalists? 

Ms. BASSETT. Thank you. As you note, Paraguay has been working to improve its record on both press freedoms and other human 

rights, but much work does remain to be done, and the two cases 

you cite are instances where the government has focused, as I understand it, its attention, and at least in one case I believe an arrest has been made. 

But the importance is not only in following up on crimes that 

have taken place, but trying to prevent crimes in the future. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Government of Paraguay on improving its protections, not just to journalists, but to indigenous people to women and to people of diverse groups, so that 

everyone may enjoy an equal opportunity for a good life in Paraguay, which Gallop rated one of the happiest countries in the 

world. So it is an interesting contrast. 

Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you. That is an interesting contrast. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Robinson, we appreciate Secretary Kerry’s decision to award 

to International Women of Courage Award this year to Judge Iris 

Yassmin Barrios Aguilar. Her work to confront high-profile corruption, organized crime, and drug trafficking and human rights 

abuses by former military personnel set an important precedent 

and demonstrated the importance of an independent judiciary. 

However, the early removal of Attorney General Paz y Paz and 

President Molina’s decision to not renew the mandate of the Commission Against Impunity are concerning. How would you work to 

improve the management, accountability, and coordination of the 

Guatemalan security and justice sectors, which is critical to addressing past crimes and stemming the staggering rate of homicides in the country? 

476 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Senator Udall. I think, first of all, I 

should say that as DCM in Guatemala from 2009 to 2011 I had the 

opportunity to work with many that are in the current government 

now. If confirmed, I think I would be able to maintain and extend 

that relationship. 

Obviously, the issue of judicial reform and police reform is very, 

very important. We had an excellent relationship with the Attorney 

General, Paz y Paz. We also have a very good relationship with the 

current attorney general, Thelma Aldana, who I know from my 

time there in the past, and I can assure you that if confirmed I 

would work very, very closely with her and the rest of the Perez 

Molina government to address the issue of judicial reform. 

I should say that the issues that are important to the current attorney general are also issues that impact on the issue on the front 

pages of the newspapers today, the children. She has been a strong 

advocate for children’s issues and sexual gender-based violence 

issues, domestic violence issues. I think that is very important. 

On the issue of extending the mandate for CICIG, the U.N. Commission Against Impunity, I think they have not made a decision 

yet on whether or not to extend the mandate. I would, if confirmed, 

want to consult with both the Commissioner and with the President to make sure that all of the important issues are taken into 

account before a decision is made on extending that mandate. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Robinson, thank you very much for that answer. 

We have been joined by Senator Kaine, who has a real interest 

in the region, and I would turn to him for any questioning he 

would like of the nominees. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

to the witnesses. Congratulations to both of you for your appointments, and thanks also for your significant public service prior to 

this point. 

I know that there have been some questions and the Chair has 

already focused on CARSI. I have been really stunned by the reducing budgets for CARSI, the Central America Regional Security 

Initiative. I think it was in fiscal year 2015 $130 million, which 

was down from $160 million. In that same fiscal year 2015 budget 

where we had $130 million for CARSI, we, I think, originally programmed around $700 million for taking care of detainees coming 

from these countries, and now we are saying that is not enough; 

we will need $3.8 billion. 

So let me start with you, Mr. Robinson. As Ambassador to Guatemala, what can you do to help make more plain the need for 

United States assistance in regional security efforts in Guatemala 

and the other Central American nations? 

Mr. ROBINSON. I absolutely acknowledge that, in this very tough 

budget environment, we have had to really focus on how we implement the funding that we have received. If confirmed, it would be 

among my highest priorities to make sure that those funds are 

used appropriately to increase the, for instance, training to customs 

and border patrol, to increase training for the police, and police reform. I think those are absolutely important issues. 

I will, of course, leave it to you to decide how much money is sent 

in terms of assistance. But I can assure you that my priority, 

477 

should I be confirmed, will be making sure that we use those funds 

to the maximum efficiency possible. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Robinson, let me continue with you if I can 

on this, because I see you have been in Guatemala previously as 

consul general. You have been in El Salvador. You have been in the 

Dominican Republic. This is going to be an odd question: Is there 

any evidence to suggest that Central American parents do not love 

their children like American parents do or like the parents of other 

nations do? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator, there is no evidence to suggest that Central American parents love their children any less than any other 

parents. I think part of the reason for the humanitarian, the urgent humanitarian situation, is probably an indication of how much 

they do in fact love their children, but the desperation of the situation—— 

Senator KAINE. So American parents, if we would imagine—I 

have got three kids. What would it take for me to send my children 

on a journey of thousands of miles where they would be faced with 

dangers? It would be a very gut-wrenching decision for me as a 

parent. It has got to be a gut-wrenching decision for Guatemalan 

parents and others in the Central American region, correct? 

Mr. ROBINSON. I would imagine so, yes, sir. 

Senator KAINE. And it is an expensive proposition. The standard 

of living in these countries is not a significant one. So not only is 

it gut-wrenching to separate yourself from your children, but it 

costs an awful lot of money to do that. 

And I gather that these parents are only doing it because of their 

deep, deep concern about their children’s safety in the neighborhoods and communities where they live. Is that your sense of sort 

of underlying driver of this flood of unaccompanied children that 

are coming to the U.S. border? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator, absolutely. I think there are several underlying reasons. One is the violence, not just in Guatemala, but 

in the northern tier countries. The other is the lack of education 

and economic opportunity. I can assure you that, should I be confirmed, those would be absolute priorities for me and for making 

sure that I raise those issues with government authorities. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Robinson, let me just focus on violence for a 

minute. I lived in Honduras for a year and recently spent some 

time with the Honduran President, the new Honduran President 

Hernandez, talking about this issue. The violence in these communities, a lot of it is connected to the drug trade, is it not? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Absolutely. 

Senator KAINE. Now, the drug trade in Honduras or Guatemala, 

for example, is not a significant trade because Hondurans and Guatemalans consume a lot of drugs, correct? 

Mr. ROBINSON. We do not think that they consume a large 

amount of drugs. 

Senator KAINE. So the drug trade in these nations is really a 

drug trade where they are being used as a transit point for drugs 

that are generally produced further south, and whether it is Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador, these nations are being used as 

a transit point to get drugs largely to the United States—Mexico, 

the United States, and Canada; is that not correct? 

478 

Mr. ROBINSON. That is correct. 

Senator KAINE. Just focusing on the United States demand for 

drugs as an example, we are a big nation and the Nation, the citizens of the Nation are willing to pay a whole lot of money for illegal drugs. And it is that money that then becomes a corrupting influence that fuels gangs, that fuels the drug trade, that fuels the 

corruption of law enforcement authorities in many of these Central 

American nations; is that not correct? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator KAINE. So this notion of these youngsters who are coming to the United States, they are coming to the United States because their parents want them to be free from violence, and the violence is created to some significant degree by domestic choices 

that American citizens make, to try to consume illegal drugs that 

are coming through their countries. Is that not part of what is 

going on? 

Mr. ROBINSON. There is no doubt that the corrupting influence 

of the drug trade is having a major effect on the governments in 

the northern tier. But what we have also seen is that we can have 

an effect in arresting that through our community policing programs, through our model precinct programs. There are ways to go 

after this, and we have had very good cooperation with the government, particularly in Guatemala, but throughout the northern tier, 

in using these programs to address the security issue at a very 

local level, at a municipal level. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Chair, could I continue for a bit? I would like 

to continue if I could. 

As I watch TV programs and things and I see American citizens 

sort of yelling at these kids who have made this long trip, as if the 

kids are somehow anti-U.S., it strikes me that many of these kids 

are only refugees because of U.S. destination drug trade. Would it 

dramatically improve the physical security of these countries if 

U.S.-demand for illegal drugs was eliminated tomorrow? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator—— 

Senator KAINE. And I know your background includes working 

on narcotics issues. This has been a specialty of yours. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Absolutely. No, again there is no doubt that the 

corrupting influence of the narcotics trade is a major influence, and 

the violence that is surrounded with that is a major influence, on 

parents who make the decision to send their kids on this very arduous journey. How you classify them I would leave to another 

agency. 

Senator KAINE. Sure. 

Mr. ROBINSON. But it is an urgent humanitarian situation and 

it is one that we think collective action needs to be taken to address. 

Senator KAINE. My sense is it is not just something we should 

do because we do not want to have unaccompanied minors showing 

up at the border. But to the extent that U.S.-destination drug trade 

is creating major security challenges in these nations, who have 

traditionally been friends and allies of the United States, then we 

even have a little bit of a responsibility to try to provide some assistance, either in reducing the demand for illegal drugs here or 

providing security assistance so that these nations can deal with a 

479 

problem that is not entirely of their own cause. Would you share 

that view? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator, I absolutely believe and both the President and the Vice President and the Secretary of State have all 

made calls for collective action. This is not an issue that can be resolved by any one country. The United States is going to have to 

work with Mexico; they are going to have to work with the countries of the northern tier, in order to address that. 

Senator KAINE. I share that. 

Mr. Chair, I just want to make one point. I think you made this 

point earlier. When we are spending $140 million to help Central 

American nations, $130 million, deal with a regional security challenge that we have some complicity in, bluntly, and that number 

is going down, and we are spending $800 projected to deal with the 

consequence, and then now deciding we have got to spend $3.8 billion to deal with the consequence, I think the answer just suggests 

itself that there is a better way to spend the money, that there is 

a better way to spend the money. 

I am interested in digging into the President’s $3.8 billion request because I know some of it is earmarked toward the causes. 

But if we just keep dealing with symptoms and we do not deal with 

causes, then we are going to be dealing with symptoms for a very 

long time. 

Your background in having been in these countries and your 

background in working on narcotics control issues is a very important background to bring to this task. 

Ms. Bassett, let me just ask you one question if I can about Paraguay. I know that there has been studies suggesting that among 

nations in the Western Hemisphere Paraguay has had a particular 

problem with corruption. This is a domestic political matter that 

we have to be careful about, about how we deal with those. But 

what in your position as Ambassador could you do to try to help 

foster a climate that was more hostile to public corruption? 

Ms. BASSETT. Thank you. I think we should first take note of 

President Cartes’ strong efforts to address that problem directly 

through the appointments he has made to his Cabinet, through reforms that he has made in government, through the process of 

issuing very public and transparent tenders for infrastructure reform. All those are important first steps that I think Paraguay has 

recognized it needs to take to begin to erode that perception of corruption that impacts its reputation in the region, as you say, and 

also its ability to attract new investment and trade opportunities. 

I think we can continue and, if confirmed, I will certainly continue to encourage the government in that direction, to use the resources that we may have through our assistance and other programs to promote those reforms and strengthen democratic institutions so reforms can endure from administration to administration; 

and then finally remind that our own projects and our own processes serve as models. So our visa process can be very transparent 

and objective and that serves as a model. We hope to be constructing a new chancery in Paraguay in the near future and that 

process should model the transparency that we hope will occur 

throughout every transaction in Paraguay. 

480 

So both through our programs, our rhetoric, and our actual actions in country, I hope that we can reinforce the message that 

there is nothing more valuable than good governance. 

Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you to both witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Senator Kaine, for your 

questioning. I think you hit on some very issues there. 

Let me thank both the witnesses for your testimony today. I 

want to once again echo what I think all of the members of the 

committee said: We thank you very much for your public service. 

We would ask you both to reply very quickly to all questions that 

are submitted for the record. This will allow us to move quickly to 

report your nominations on to the full committee. We will keep the 

record open until the close of business Friday so that other Senators can ask questions. 

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF LESLIE ANN BASSETT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. How would you characterize the current state of U.S.-Paraguayan relations? What steps would you propose the United States take to assist the Cartes 

administration in consolidating democracy? What would be your top policy priorities 

as U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay? 

Answer. Bilateral relations with Paraguay are strong. Embassy Asuncion engages 

actively and broadly with the Government of Paraguay on a range of U.S. national 

interests. President Horacio Cartes enjoys strong public support for his efforts to 

foster economic growth, reduce poverty, and eliminate corruption. 

If confirmed, I will seek to expand efforts to support Paraguay’s initiatives to 

make its government more effective in delivering services to its people and to create 

a transparent and democratic state. This includes initiatives to reduce poverty, 

improve public health services, promote human rights, fight corruption, incorporate 

the informal the economy and foster development, enhance law enforcement capacity, and improve educational systems. 

Question. What are the principal barriers to the growth of the Paraguayan economy? What policies does the Cartes government have in place to combat poverty, 

and what support does the United States provide in this area? 

Answer. Paraguay has yet to fully realize its economic potential. Growth in Paraguay’s relatively small economy has been volatile—for example, Paraguay had negative growth in 2012, followed by 13.5 percent growth in 2013. Paraguay’s economy 

is heavily dependent on agricultural commodities exports—many Paraguayans make 

their living from agriculture, often on a subsistence basis. Roughly one-third of 

Paraguay’s 6.5 million people live below the poverty line. The Cartes administration 

has sought to grow the economy, create jobs, and sharply reduce extreme poverty 

by building major infrastructure projects, using both government funds and newly 

attracted investment, and increasing competitiveness as Paraguay further integrates into the regional and global economy. 

USAID began two large 5-year programs in Paraguay in October 2013. The programs, totaling $33 million, are focused on inclusive and sustainable rural economic 

development, strengthening public institutions, and combating corruption. USAID 

works with public institutions in Paraguay to strengthen management and governance systems, improve accountability mechanisms, and professionalize the 

Paraguayan civil service. USAID’s economic growth program supports the GOP’s 

‘‘Cultivating Opportunities’’ initiative by generating opportunities to increase impoverished families’ incomes in the Northern Zone, one of the areas with highest concentration of poverty and limited government presence. If confirmed, I will support 

continuity of these programs in pursuit of U.S. and Paraguayan interests. 

481 

In response to Paraguay’s request, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of 

Technical Assistance funded four teams in 2014 to work with the Ministry of 

Finance and Central Bank to strengthen Paraguay’s financial institutions and promote transparency. 

If confirmed, I will support continuation of these programs in furtherance of U.S. 

and Paraguayan interests in Paraguay. 

Question. What is the extent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s presence in Paraguay and is this cooperation sufficient? With State Department’s counternarcotics assistance to Paraguay recently eliminated, what types of counternarcotics cooperation do you recommend? 

Answer. The U.S. Government works closely with the Government of Paraguay 

on counternarcotics, and focuses on strengthening Paraguayan capability to disrupt 

cocaine trafficking operations, pursue and arrest high-level narcotics traffickers, and 

to combat money laundering and trafficking in persons, with an emphasis in and 

around the Tri-Border area. The U.S. Government has provided training, equipment 

and technical support to Paraguay’s Anti-Narcotics Secretariat (SENAD), the Paraguayan National Police, and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Anti-Money 

Laundering Secretariat (SEPRELAD) as well as training to judges and prosecutors 

who prosecute narcotics and money laundering cases. 

Although additional International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 

(INCLE) funding has not been requested, the U.S. Embassy is using remaining 

funds to strengthen antimoney laundering and asset forfeiture regimes, and to 

strengthen Paraguay’s criminal justice system. The U.S. Government also supports 

sensitive investigation units (SIUs) that work well with DEA to disrupt drug trafficking organizations. 

Question. What steps do you recommend to help Paraguay tackle its persistent 

and endemic corruption? What are the lessons learned from USAID’s anticorruption 

and democracy programming in Paraguay that has aimed to reduce corruption in 

public sector institutions? 

Answer. President Horacio Cartes has emphasized reforming the Paraguayan 

economy and governance controls, seeking to fight corruption, impunity, and international crime. He has sought to create jobs and sharply reduce extreme poverty 

by encouraging economic growth, investing heavily in infrastructure, and increasing 

competitiveness. These efforts are designed to help Paraguay strengthen the rule of 

law and promote transparency. We are working with President Cartes and his 

administration to address our many shared interests in this area. 

In 2012, Paraguay completed the second of two Millennium Challenge Corporation threshold programs totaling over $65 million. Both threshold programs were focused 

on reducing corruption and they achieved tangible results including: reducing the 

length of time for response to complaints and for starting a business; building a 

forensics lab to improve the reliability of evidence provided to prosecutors; and 

strengthening procurement processes and accountability measures in 12 key government ministries and public offices. 

Currently, USAID supports Paraguay’s efforts to develop a National Anticorruption Strategy and will provide technical assistance for its implementation. An important component of this assistance will focus on strengthening the GOP’s ability to 

effectively communicate reforms to its constituents. The overarching strategy will 

encompass USAID and Paraguay’s joint efforts to strengthen management and governance systems improve accountability mechanisms, expand transparency through 

the Open Government Partnership, and professionalize the Paraguayan civil service. 

If confirmed, I will continue to support the Cartes administration’s efforts to reduce 

corruption. 

Question. What is your view of the potential threat of terrorism emanating from 

the tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil? What is the extent of the 

threat posed by the People’s Paraguayan Army (EPP)? How would you characterize 

U.S. support to Paraguay for its counterterrorism programs and is the level of support adequate? 

Answer. The Tri-Border area of Paraguay is home to some of the continent’s most 

active contraband traffickers. Although there is no evidence of terrorist operations 

in Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, there are concerns that some portion of the money 

laundered from smuggling and drug activity may be used for terrorist financing. 

The U.S. Government supports the Paraguayan Government’s efforts to build 

stronger democratic institutions, improve internal auditing controls, establish internal disciplinary systems, and incorporate regular external audits. These efforts represent the types of systemic changes that will decrease the perception of corruption 

in the country and will improve delivery of citizen services. 

482 

A specific example of our support is the Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) 

Trade Transparency Unit (TTU) in Paraguay that serves as a strategic effort to 

combat and prevent exploitation of the international trade and financial systems 

through trade-based money laundering. Through the exchange of trade data, investigators are able to see both sides of transactions and increase transparency. 

Since 2008, persons claiming to be part of the Paraguayan People’s Army (EPP)— 

an internal guerrilla movement—have been active in the northern Departments of 

Concepcion and San Pedro. The group has been involved in violence designed to 

intimidate the population and government. The true size of the group has been difficult to establish, but the Government of Paraguay believes it to be a small, decentralized group of approximately 20–100 members. 

The United States cooperates with the Government of Paraguay to counter potentially destabilizing threats. The U.S. Department of State’s Antiterrorism Assistance 

program has contributed to building Paraguay’s counterterrorism law enforcement 

capacity through training that included: the Police Leaders’ Role in Combating Terrorism, Fraudulent Document Recognition, Investigating Terrorist Incidents, Interviewing Terrorist Suspects, and Cellular Telephone Forensics. 

Question. To what degree are there models of effective land reform from the 

region that might be adapted to Paraguay? 

Answer. President Cartes has stated that he supports land reform to spur economic growth and alleviate rural poverty. This June, President Cartes signed a law 

returning more than 14,000 hectares to an indigenous community. Land reform has 

been successful in many countries. Best practices that have worked well in other 

countries in the region include: developing mechanisms for land registration and 

titling, land taxation which encourages productive use, financing mechanisms to 

help landless peasants purchase land and assistance to small farmers in identifying 

commercially viable crops to move beyond subsistence agriculture. 

RESPONSES OF TODD D. ROBINSON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

Question. Guatemala is considered to be one of the most vulnerable countries to 

climate change in the region. Tropical storms, flooding, and landslides are just a few 

of the extreme weather events impacting the country, many of which are expected 

to worsen. If confirmed, how will you support communities to build resilience, 

strengthen environmental governance and science based decision making? 

Answer. Given the precarious environmental situation in Guatemala, as well as 

the likelihood of continued climate-related impacts, the Department of State and 

USAID have prioritized adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change and environmental degradation under the Country Development Cooperation Strategy and 

the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI). Under GCCI, the United 

States is working to foster low-carbon growth, reduce emissions from deforestation, 

and promote sustainable and resilient societies. In Guatemala, USAID’s Climate, 

Nature, and Communities Program, for example, works to reduce the risks associated with climate-related natural disasters, while also improving adaptive capacity 

through improved natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. 

Additionally, through funding from the State Department, Guatemala benefits from 

USAID’s E–CAM Regional Environment Program’s work on regional adaptation 

measures focused on building capacity and governance structures to respond to the 

threats and potential impacts of climate change. 

If confirmed, I will work through these programs to build resilience within Guatemala to respond to the impacts of climate change and to improve domestic capabilities to the Guatemalan Government to develop their own mechanisms to respond 

to these vulnerabilities. 

Question. If confirmed, how would you address the ongoing conflicts around mines 

and hydroelectric dams in Guatemala? 

Answer. The Department of State continues to closely monitor all potential areas 

of conflict surrounding mega projects in Guatemala. We were encouraged that the 

Guatemalan Government recently became a ‘‘compliant country’’ in the Extractive 

Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which means it has agreed to work with 

civil society and international community to increase the transparency of the mining 

sector. If confirmed, I will encourage the Guatemalan Government to work closely— 

and peacefully—with communities involved in mega projects, including mines and 

hydroelectric dams, to ensure an open and peaceful dialogue and that the Guatemalan Government complies with its domestic and international legal obligations 

483 

relating to these projects. It is imperative the Guatemalan Government, communities, and companies involved find a sustainable way to deal with these types of 

conflicts. 

If confirmed, I will support all parties in their efforts to reach an agreement, if 

the parties believe that would be helpful. 

Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to encourage companies to 

advance and respect human rights? 

Answer. In Guatemala, the U.S. Government has prioritized the promotion of 

respect for human rights. If confirmed, I will work to ensure all companies—foreign 

and domestic—integrate respect for human rights into their business practices, 

guided by the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. We are 

already doing this in Guatemala under the CAFTA–DR Enforcement Plan, which 

seeks to protect the human and labor rights of domestic employees. Given the large 

extractives industry in Guatemala, we will encourage companies and the Government of Guatemala to join the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, 

an initiative that guides companies on providing security for their operations in a 

manner that respects human and labor rights. 

If confirmed, I will encourage continued dialogue between government, private 

sector, and civil society representatives to provide an avenue to address concerns 

relating to the respect for human and labor rights in Guatemala, through the 

Voluntary Principles, among other mechanisms. 

(485) 

NOMINATIONS OF JANE HARTLEY, JOHN 

BASS, KEVIN O’MALLEY, BRENT HARTLEY, 

AND JAMES PETTIT 

TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. John R. Bass, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Turkey 

Jane D. Hartley, of New York, to be Ambassador to the French Republic and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Principality of Monaco 

Kevin F. O’Malley, of Missouri, to be Ambassador to Ireland 

Brent Robert Hartley, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Slovenia 

James D. Pettit, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Moldova 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher Murphy 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Murphy, Shaheen, Kaine, Johnson, and 

McCain. 

Also present: Senators Clair McCaskill and Roy Blunt. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator MURPHY. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee will now come to order. I am pleased to welcome all of 

our nominees and their friends and family who have come here 

today to support them. We have two panels today. The committee 

is going to be considering the nominations of John Bass to be the 

U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey, Jane Hartley to be the 

U.S. Ambassador to France, and Kevin O’Malley to be our Ambassador to Ireland. Then on the second panel we are going to consider 

the nomination of James Pettit to serve as U.S. Ambassador to 

Moldova and Brent Hartley to be the United States Ambassador to 

Slovenia. 

Suffice it to say this is probably one of the busiest days we have 

had in our subcommittee. The three nominees before us represent 

three of the iconic diplomatic posts for the United States around 

486 

the world. Our second panel will have as its subject two countries 

that are no less important to U.S. security interests. 

So we will begin with introductions of the nominees, you will be 

invited to give your opening statements, and then answer questions 

from the panel. 

We are blessed to have with us Senator McCaskill, who is here 

but has to leave for other obligations, to introduce Mr. O’Malley. 

We may be joined by Senator Blunt as well, but at this point I will 

recognize Senator McCaskill for the purposes of an introduction. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Johnson and the other Senators who are here this morning, for giving me a few minutes to talk about an extraordinarily 

American story. Kevin O’Malley is a second generation Irish American. He is a direct descendant from Irish grandparents on both 

sides of his family, and up until this confirmation process actually 

held dual citizenship in Ireland and the United States. Of course, 

he gave up that dual citizenship as part of this confirmation process. 

He has got a wonderful wife and two great sons, and he has been 

the kind of guy that everyone would want to call their friend. He 

is smart, strong, loyal, hardworking. I think one of the things that 

I want to point out to the committee is that he is one of the very 

few lawyers that I know that is comfortable on either side of the 

table. There is a tendency in the legal practice to get biased and 

decide that you are going to be in one area or the other in terms 

of how you represent clients. Kevin has been a lawyer who has 

steadfastly maintained that part of being a lawyer is to defend people who have been sued and also sometimes to sue people for 

causes he believes is just. 

So I think that is a good preparation for the job of Ambassador, 

because he does see both sides and he has been able to work hard 

on both sides of the table. As evidence of how well he is respected 

for that, in 2013—the highest award you can receive from your 

peers in St. Louis is the Award of Honor by the Lawyers Association of St. Louis. This award is given annually to a trial attorney 

whose service to the profession and community merits special recognition. He was honored for 10 years of his service as a Federal 

prosecutor to the Department of Justice and a record of defending 

physicians and hospitals in medical malpractice suits and also as 

his role in representing plaintiffs in some other matters, and also 

as a senior author for the nine-volume Federal Jury Practice and 

Instruction treatise that is actually used in Federal trials. 

So he has academic chops, he has community involvement, he 

has great professional expertise, and he loves his country, but he 

also cares deeply for Ireland, which I think is a great combination. 

I also should point out that he served as an officer in the U.S. 

Army Reserve, so he has that military background also, which I 

think is essential as he represents our interests in one of our important allies. Especially at this time of conflict around the world, 

cementing our relationships with our colleagues that are our allies, 

the NATO allies, are very, very important. 

487 

And that’s why I hope, for all of these nominees, these three and 

the two that follow, I hope that the committee can move quickly, 

because clearly it is a time in the world that we need the voice of 

America at every table, in all of these countries. That is why these 

ambassadorships are in fact so critical. 

I know my colleague Senator Blunt is very supportive of this 

nominee. I am sure he will be here some time during the hearing 

this morning. He has expressed his enthusiastic support for Kevin 

O’Malley’s nomination to this important position, and I know that 

you will be kind enough to give him a chance to say a word when 

he does arrive. 

And I thank you all for giving me a few minutes to introduce my 

friend and somebody who I think will be the essence of a great public servant to the Nation we love. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Senator McCaskill. 

Thank you for taking time to join us this morning. 

I believe that Senator Blunt is on his way, so while we are waiting why do I not introduce our other two nominees. In doing so, 

I will say just a quick word about the countries to which you are 

being nominated for by way of my opening remarks. Then when 

Senator Blunt comes, we can introduce him, have Senator Johnson 

make some opening remarks, and then get to your testimony. 

I am really pleased first to introduce Jane Hartley to the committee. She has got a rather impressive career in both the public 

and private sector, but it all pales in comparison to the most important thing on her resume, which is that she grew up in Waterbury, 

CT. 

She is currently the chief executive officer of the Manhattanbased Observatory Group, where she advises multinational corporations and financial institutions about policy developments and 

investment. She is a graduate of Boston College. She began her career here in Washington, where she worked as the White House 

public liaison in the White House Public Liaison’s Office and as the 

director of congressional relations at the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development. 

She is an experienced leader both in the private and public sector, with significant experience in the global economy, including the 

bulk of her experience in and around Europe. She will bring a 

range of all of this experience to serve her well as she faces a number of challenges and opportunities if confirmed to be our next Ambassador to France. 

A word on France. Our friendship, of course, dates back to the 

very beginning of our Republic and indeed our Nation’s first diplomatic, Benjamin Franklin, who served with distinction as our first 

Ambassador to France. Today France remains a steadfast partner 

of the United States, grounded in our shared values and our rich 

communal history. France and the United States collaborate on 

every arena, from commerce, where commercial transactions between our two countries reach a billion dollars every day, to defense and security, where we cooperate to counter the terrorism of 

extremist groups in Africa to the Middle East, to diplomacy, where 

our diplomats are working side by side right now in the P5+1. 

But even amongst the closest of friends, some challenges remain. 

One example is France’s decision to go ahead with sales of the amVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00495 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
488 

phibious assault Mistral warships to Russia even after Russia’s belligerent and illegal actions against Crimea in Ukraine. 

Ms. Hartley, we look forward to hearing your thoughts on these 

and other important issues. 

Let me introduce John Bass and then we will go to Senator 

Blunt. We are pleased to have with us Ambassador John Bass, a 

distinguished career member of the Foreign Service with deep 

knowledge of Europe and Eurasia and extensive crisis management 

experience. He is currently the Executive Secretary of the Department of State, a position he has held since 2012. 

I got to know him as our Ambassador to Georgia, and previous 

to that he was a leader of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in 

Baghdad. He has demonstrated over and over again an ability to 

lead challenging missions to promote U.S. interests. Back in Washington he has held numerous leadership roles within the State Department. He is the recipient of three Meritorious Honor Awards 

and five Superior Honor Awards, in addition to his Group Honor 

Awards. 

He graduated from Syracuse University, speaks fluent Italian 

and French. I am sure his Turkish is improving by the day. 

I am confident that Mr. Bass is going to bring all of his talent 

to strengthening our bilateral relations with Turkey. As you know, 

Turkey is one of our most important and complex relationships. So 

this nomination is an honor and a challenge even for the most experienced of our diplomats. It is a NATO ally of the United States 

and Europe since 1952, but the ongoing crises in Iraq and Syria are 

at the top of our agenda with Turkey. I have been to the refugee 

camps that they are hosting on the Syrian border and personally 

witnessed the extraordinary generosity of the Turkish people and 

their government. 

We also continue to value Turkey’s contributions to ISAF in Afghanistan and other NATO operations, including their agreement 

to host a U.S. early warning radar system. 

But we hope that you do not neglect, if you serve in this post, 

the stalled rapprochement with Israel and peace negotiations with 

Cyprus. Resolutions of these conflicts could bring some much-needed stability to the region. 

Turkey is holding its first direct Presidential election next month 

and I strongly believe that we need an ambassador in place by the 

first round of voting. I urge my colleagues to agree to consider this 

nomination of our Ambassador to Turkey and all of our nominees 

before the August recess. 

We welcome you to the committee as well. 

Let me now thank Senator Blunt for joining us. Senator 

McCaskill gave us some opening words on Mr. O’Malley and we 

welcome yours as well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BLUNT. Well, thank you, Chairman, and thank you for 

your indulgence in letting me come a little late. Chairman Murphy, 

Senator Johnson, Senator McCain, Senator Kaine, I am glad to be 

here joining Senator McCaskill as we have an opportunity to introduce Kevin O’Malley to be the United States Ambassador to IreVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00496 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
489 

land. I may say a few things that Senator McCaskill has already 

said, but we have probably waited long enough to have an Ambassador to Ireland that things can be repeated here with somebody 

as qualified as Mr. O’Malley is for this job. 

He really comes here with 40 years of public service and private 

service, including service in the United States Army. I think he is 

a very qualified nominee. He understands our country and understands the country that he will represent our country in. 

He was born and raised in St. Louis, MO. He is highly respected 

in that community and in our State. He is a second generation 

Irish American, capable of representing the values and the understanding of our country in that country in a significant way. He 

served as a special attorney for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the United States Department of Justice from 

1973 to 1979, and then became the Assistant United States Attorney in St. Louis. 

He currently serves in a number of capacities, both as part of the 

litigation practice group at Greensfelder Attorneys in St. Louis, but 

also working in a number of capacities to help other attorneys better understand their responsibilities. He serves as a fellow of the 

American College of Trial Lawyers and is continually recognized as 

one of the best lawyers in America. 

In 2009 our Governor, Jay Nixon, appointed him to be the only 

nonphysician member of the Missouri Board of Healing Arts. This 

is a group that licenses and disciplines in that area of health care, 

and he was recently selected to serve as the president of that 

board. 

Again as the only nonphysician on the board, his colleagues on 

that board chose him to lead the board. 

In 1968 he was a community ambassador in Prague, Czechoslovakia. Later, in the 1990s he served as an instructor for the 

American Bar Association Central and European Law Initiative in 

Moscow and later in Warsaw. He is a leading advocate of education. He brings to this nomination an incredible background and 

even, in visiting with him, a more incredible enthusiasm for this 

job, for our State, his State and my State, for our country, a great 

appreciation for the country where he will serve. 

I certainly think the President has made a great choice in nominating him for this job and look forward to seeing the committee 

action and hopefully soon to see him serving as our Ambassador to 

Ireland. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Senator Blunt. I know 

you have a busy morning, but thank you for lending your voice to 

introduce Mr. O’Malley. 

Now let me turn it over to Senator Johnson for opening remarks.0 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like 

to thank Senator Blunt for coming here and introducing Mr. 

O’Malley. 

Just to keep it brief, I want to thank the nominees for taking 

time to visit with me in my office. I want to thank you for your 

coming here to testify today and certainly your willingness to serve, 

and just look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

490 

Senator MURPHY. All right, let us get to it. We will start from 

my left to right, so let me introduce Jane Hartley to begin with testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JANE D. HARTLEY, OF NEW YORK, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE FRENCH REPUBLIC 

AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL 

COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE PRINCIPALITY OF 

MONACO 

Ms. HARTLEY. Thank you, Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member 

Johnson, and members of the committee. It is a great honor to appear before you as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the 

United States Ambassador to France and Monaco. Before I begin, 

please allow me to introduce you to my dear husband, Ralph 

Schlosstein, who has been so supportive in this process. If you do 

me the honor of confirming me, Ralph is looking forward to coming 

with me to Paris. My daughter, Kate, and my son, Jamie, are not 

able to be present, but they are here with us in my heart and they 

make me proud every day of my life. 

I am deeply grateful to both the President and Secretary Kerry 

for the trust they have placed in me to serve as chief of mission 

to our oldest friend and ally. I am also grateful to the Senators and 

staff members who took the time to meet with me. I appreciated 

those meetings and I learned from them, and I hope that dialogue 

will continue. 

Some 60 Americans have served as our Nation’s highest representative to France. Our first two Ambassadors, Benjamin 

Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, arrived in Paris 235 years ago. In 

this century, the list is an honor roll of patriotism and accomplishment: Bruce, Dillon, Shriver, Rohatyn, and many, many others. It 

is humbling to be nominated to join that company. The honor is 

magnified because, if confirmed, I will become only the second 

woman to serve in this position, after the late Ambassador Harriman. 

Last month on June 6, D–Day, President Obama and President 

Hollande stood side by side at Omaha Beach in Normandy and 

paid a tribute to the Americans who fought to liberate France. 

When Hollande visited Washington in February, he went to Arlington and presented the Legion of Honor to the Unknown Soldier. 

France remembers and deeply values our sacrifice. 

Today France is a key NATO ally and stands by our side on almost every major issue. Our work together on counterterrorism activities is intense and growing, especially in Africa. France is an indispensable partner in the Middle East. It remains absolutely committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. If confirmed, I will remind French leaders that this is not the time for 

companies to engage in business as usual with Iran. 

France has been a forward-leaning partner on Syria, trying to increase pressure against the Assad regime, and France has played 

an important role in responding to the crisis in Ukraine, rallying 

the European partners to keep up pressure on Russia, including 

through sanctions. As the members of the committee are aware, 

France signed a contract with Russia years ago to deliver two MisVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00498 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
491 

tral-class ships. If confirmed, I will press French leaders to make 

the right decision regarding delivery of these ships. 

While our work together on political and security issues commands the headlines, our economic ties are no less important. We 

want to ensure that any U.S. firm can take advantage of export opportunities to France. We must keep engaging France on the benefits of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and 

we want to encourage French investment in the United States that 

creates jobs. French firms already employ 500,000 Americans. If 

confirmed, I will build on these already strong trade links that bind 

our countries. 

I believe that my experience as a private sector business executive has especially qualified me for this opportunity. For 20 years, 

I have been the CEO of a global macroeconomic and political consulting firm. Also, as a board member of a public company and as 

former vice chair of the Economic Club of New York, I have developed relationships with central bankers, finance ministers, and 

business leaders throughout Europe and particularly in France. 

If confirmed, I will apply my experience running organizations to 

managing our large, diverse mission to France. This talented, dedicated team advances our national interests and protects U.S. citizens every day. It would be an honor to lead them and to serve 

with them. 

My father ingrained in his children a deep belief that we were 

lucky to be living in the greatest country on Earth. He believed 

deeply and taught us that the highest honor anyone could attain 

was to serve our country. I still remember my parents’ pride when 

I began my public service career 35 years ago, first as director of 

congressional relations for the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, where I learned firsthand the importance of the legislative branch, and then serving on President Carter’s staff at the 

White House. 

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of 

the distinguished committee, if confirmed by the United States 

Senate, I will do everything in my power to strengthen and deepen 

the ties that have bound France and America together since the 

birth of our great country. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hartley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE D. HARTLEY

Thank you, Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the 

committee. It is a great honor to appear before you as President Obama’s nominee 

to serve as the United States Ambassador to France and Monaco. 

Before I begin, please allow me to introduce to you my dear husband, Ralph 

Schlosstein, who has been so supportive in this process. If you do me the honor of 

confirming me, Ralph is looking forward to coming with me to Paris. My daughter, 

Kate, and my son, Jamie, are not able to be present. But they’re here with us in 

my heart and they make me proud every day of my life. 

I am deeply grateful to both the President and Secretary Kerry for the trust they 

have placed in me to serve as chief of mission to our oldest friend and ally. I hope 

that you will consider that trust well placed, and that the committee and the Senate 

will award me the great honor of your confirmation. 

Only some 60 Americans have served as our Nation’s highest representative to 

France since our first Ambassador, Benjamin Franklin, arrived in Paris over 235 

years ago. Franklin was succeeded by another American Founding Father, Thomas 

Jefferson. 

492 

In this century, the list is an honor roll of patriotism and accomplishment—Bruce, 

Dillon, Shriver, Rohatyn, and so many others. It is humbling—and challenging—to 

be nominated to join that company. 

The honor is magnified because, if confirmed, I would become only the second 

woman to serve in this position, after the late Pamela Harriman. 

This year’s events commemorating the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings 

during World War II offered a special reminder of the long and close relationship 

America has had with France over almost two and a half centuries. 

Last month, on June 6, President Obama and President Hollande stood side-byside at Omaha Beach in Normandy and paid tribute to the Americans who fought 

to liberate France. Nine of your colleagues attended with the Presidents that morning at the American cemetery. Our sacrifice is remembered and deeply valued in 

France. 

When President Hollande was here in Washington last February, he went to 

Arlington and presented the Legion d’Honneur to the Unknown Soldier—as the representative of the 16 million Americans who served in World War II. 

Today, France stands by our side on almost every major issue. France is a unique 

ally in terms of its military capability and political willingness to deploy force in 

harm’s way in pursuit of our common foreign policy interests. Our operational 

cooperation within NATO—and beyond— has vastly improved since France’s 2009 

reintegration into the Alliance’s military command structure. Our work together on 

counterterrorism activities is intense and growing, especially in Africa. 

Twice in the past 18 months France has led the international community’s response to crises in Africa. Its troops and airstrikes halted the advance of al-Qaeda 

affiliated terrorist groups in Mali. Another large deployment prevented humanitarian catastrophe in the Central African Republic. France’s facilities, relationships, 

and expertise are a significant capability multiplier for U.S. efforts in the region. 

France is an indispensable ally in the Middle East. President Hollande has been 

unequivocal that Iran must not acquire a nuclear weapon, and France remains resolutely committed to the P5+1 negotiations. If confirmed, I will also remind French 

leaders this is not the time for our companies to engage in ‘‘business as usual’’ with 

Iran. 

France has been a forward-leaning partner on Syria, working closely with us to 

increase pressure against the Assad regime. France has helped lead efforts to support the Syrian opposition, remove the regime’s chemical weapons, provide humanitarian assistance, and reach a political solution. The French Government takes the 

threat of foreign fighters returning from Syria very seriously and its authorities 

have made several arrests in recent months. If confirmed, I will ensure the U.S. 

Government works closely with France on this emerging threat to our common 

security. 

France has played an important role in responding to the crisis in Ukraine, rallying its European partners to keep up pressure on Russia, including through sanctions. We support President Hollande joining forces with Chancellor Merkel to push 

for a diplomatic breakthrough between Russia and Ukraine. As members of the committee are well aware, France signed a contract with Russia in 2009 to deliver two 

‘‘Mistral-class’’ helicopter carrier ships to Russia. President Obama has made clear 

we have concerns about ‘‘continuing significant defense deals with Russia’’ given its 

actions to destabilize its neighbors. At the same time, the President said the U.S.- 

French relationship ‘‘has never been stronger,’’ which means we can discuss this 

issue frankly. U.S. officials repeatedly stress our strong concerns to the French. If 

confirmed, I will continue to press French leaders to make the right decision regarding delivery of these ships. 

The leaders of our two countries are in constant dialogue. President Obama 

hosted President Hollande in February for the White House’s only state visit since 

early 2012—a reflection of the vitality of the U.S.-French relationship. During that 

visit, the President took Hollande to see Monticello—the home of our third President, who had been our second Ambassador to France. Secretary Kerry’s dozen visits to France during the past 17 months also underscore the robust health of our 

cooperation. 

While our work together on political and security issues commands the headlines, 

our economic ties are no less important. France is the world’s fifth-largest economy 

and remains one of our top economic partners. 

Drawing on my decades of experience as a CEO and a business executive, if you 

do me the honor of confirming me, I will focus on building on the trade links that 

bind our countries together—links that, as you know, are already very strong. 

Our transatlantic commerce creates jobs on both sides, for enterprises large and 

small. We want to ensure that any U.S. firm can take advantage of opportunities 

to export to France. In 2013, the United States exported $32 billion worth of goods 

493 

to France, and we are France’s top trading partner outside of the European Union. 

We must keep engaging France on the benefits of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, making the case that an ambitious agreement can create more 

economic growth and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. 

French investment in the United States creates jobs. U.S. affiliates of 2,300 

French firms employ half a million Americans at an average annual wage of nearly 

$80,000. And many French firms are looking at the U.S. rather than France for 

future investments. In fact, the total stock of French foreign direct investment in 

the United States is 10 times the combined FDI of the BRICS countries. 

If confirmed, I will be able to use my decades of professional experience with running organizations to lead our large, diverse Mission to France. Around 900 U.S. 

and locally employed staff work at our Paris Embassy and six constituent posts. 

This talented, dedicated team advances our national interests and protects U.S. citizens every day. It would be a true honor to serve with them. 

For 20 years I have been the CEO of a global macroeconomic and political consulting firm, with a particular focus on Europe. I am a member of the Board of 

Directors of Heidrick & Struggles, a large global executive search firm with a substantial European presence. As the former Vice-Chairman of the Economic Club of 

New York, I have moderated many sessions with key European policymakers. 

I have served on the Executive Committee of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. And I have been an active member of the Committee on Foreign Relations for over 10 years. 

My family and I have a deep and abiding respect for the importance of public 

service. I still remember my parents’ pride when I began my public service career 

35 years ago. First, as Director of Congressional Relations for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development—where I learned first hand the vital role of the 

legislative branch. And, later on, serving on President Carter’s staff at the White 

House. 

My father ingrained in his children a deep belief that we were lucky to be living 

in the greatest country on earth. He believed deeply, and taught us, that the highest 

honor anyone could attain was to serve our country. 

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of this distinguished 

committee, if confirmed by the United States Senate, I will do everything in my 

power to strengthen and deepen the ties that have bound France and America 

together since the birth of our great country. I look forward to this extraordinary 

challenge and hope to have the chance to serve the United States of America at this 

important moment in history. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Ms. Hartley. 

Ambassador Bass. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. BASS, OF NEW YORK, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY 

Ambassador BASS. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would 

like to submit my full statement for the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and all 

the members of the committee. I am honored to come before you 

to be considered for the position of Ambassador to the Republic of 

Turkey, and I am grateful for the confidence President Obama and 

Secretary Kerry have shown in me. If confirmed, I pledge to work 

with all of you to protect and advance our interests by promoting 

security, prosperity, democracy, and human rights in Turkey and 

in the many places where we work together. 

I am joined today by members of my family: my wife, Holly, who 

also serves the Nation as a career officer; my sister, Kristin Bass, 

my mother-in-law, Mary Holzer. I am also joined by colleagues who 

served with me in Baghdad and became family during my time 

there. 

I have spent much of my career working to achieve a cornerstone 

of U.S. policy—completing the project of building a Europe whole, 

free, and at peace. In each chapter of that process, Turkey has figVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00501 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
494 

ured prominently. As you noted, Mr. Chairman, our partnership 

has never been more important or more complex. A NATO ally for 

62 years, Turkey is an important security partner, helping us foster stability from Kosovo to Afghanistan and from Libya to the 

Horn of Africa. 

Turkey faces very real threats from conflict in Iraq and Syria. 

ISIL’s gains in Iraq indeed pose dangers for all of us, as its seizures of Turkish citizens demonstrate, and we continue to urge 

their immediate release. Turkey has borne a significant burden 

from hosting more than one million Syrians displaced by the conflict. 

Turkey is a key member of the Friends of Syria Core Group and 

we work together to support the moderate opposition and to pursue 

a political solution to the conflict. We also work with Turkey to address risks from terrorists and foreign fighters exploiting Turkey’s 

geography. 

Turkey is acutely aware of the threat posed by a nuclear-armed 

Iran and understands the importance of supporting the sanctions 

regimes in place. 

The instability in the region means Ankara needs to renew or to 

build stronger relations with Israel, Cyprus, and Armenia. We encourage Turkey and Israel to normalize their official relations. In 

Cyprus, Turkey’s role in support of the peace process is vital to reunifying the island as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. There is 

a real chance for a just and lasting resolution of this long-standing 

conflict and, if confirmed, I will work closely with you and your colleagues and support the U.N.-facilitated settlement talks to help 

Cypriots achieve this vital goal. 

We continue to encourage Turkey and Armenia to move toward 

normalization, to create the peaceful, productive relationship the 

people of both countries deserve. On this year’s Remembrance Day, 

Prime Minister Erdogan’s condolences to descendants of those Armenians killed indicates that the space for dialogue is opening. But 

more can and must be done. 

As President Obama said before the Turkish Parliament in 2009, 

democracies ‘‘must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society.’’ If confirmed, I will 

stand by these principles and urge the Turkish Government to continue efforts to more fully integrate its Kurdish and other minority 

populations and to reopen the Halki Seminary. 

The United States will continue to uphold our values and urge 

transparency, accountability, and full respect for the rule of law. 

Turkey’s citizens are having a robust conversation on these issues. 

Success in these areas would be a strong signal that Turkey’s democracy is moving forward. 

Mr. Chairman, Turkey’s strong growth has tripled its economy in 

recent years and our exports to Turkey have tripled over the last 

decade. But we can do more, and if confirmed I will be an advocate 

for U.S. business and find new ways to expand educational, technology, and other exchanges. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I pledge to safeguard those 

Americans in my mission and to provide great service to all American citizens in Turkey. 

495 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. I look forward to continuing our work together if 

confirmed and to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Bass follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOHN R. BASS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Johnson, and all the members of the committee. I am honored to come 

before you to be considered for the position of Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey, and I am grateful for the confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry 

have shown in me. If confirmed, I pledge to work with all of you to protect and 

advance our interests by promoting security, prosperity, democracy and human 

rights—both in Turkey and in the many places beyond its borders where we work 

together. 

I’m grateful to be joined today by members of my family—my wife, Holly, who 

also serves the Nation as a career officer; my sister, Kristin Bass; and my motherin-law, Mary Holzer. I also want to recognize colleagues here today who became my 

family during our work on the front lines of diplomacy in Baghdad. 

I have spent much of my career working to achieve a cornerstone of U.S. policy— 

completing the project of building a Europe whole, free, and at peace. In each chapter of my efforts—from conventional arms reductions across the former Soviet bloc, 

through the bloody wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and the enlargement of NATO and 

the EU, to our work with European friends to address new threats further afield 

from terrorism, violent extremism and a prospective nuclear Iran, Turkey has figured prominently. I’ve watched Turkey’s transformation into a modernized G20 

economy and a confident partner of the United States in many new areas of the 

world. Our partnership has never been more important—or more complex. 

Our core security partnership has anchored our relationship for decades—and 

with good reason. A NATO ally for 62 years, Turkey has bordered potential or active 

conflicts for that entire period. In recent years, it has stood with us in Kosovo, 

Afghanistan, and Libya. It hosts key elements of NATO’s missile defense architecture. Turkey has joined fellow allies in rejecting Russia’s attempted annexation of 

Crimea and encouraging de-escalation of the ongoing crisis. It also is contributing 

military assets to reassurance activities in Central and Eastern Europe. 

At the same time it supports collective security, Turkey faces very real challenges 

on its own borders. ISIL’s gains in Iraq pose significant dangers for regional and 

international security, as the group’s seizure of Turkish citizens and diplomats demonstrates; we continue to urge their immediate release. Turkey is working closely 

with us and other partners to help Iraqis achieve the objective of a federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified Iraq. 

Even before ISIL’s metastasis into Iraq, Turkey was grappling with the spillover 

of terrorism and violence from the war in Syria. Over 70 Turks have died as a result 

of cross-border fire or terrorism emanating from Syria. Just as the United States 

has provided more than $2 billion in humanitarian assistance for Syrians affected 

by this conflict, Turkey has also borne a significant burden from hosting more than 

1 million displaced Syrians. The Turkish Government has dedicated enormous resources to operating 22 refugee camps, while facing ongoing challenges in providing 

services to the many Syrians who struggle to survive in urban areas. 

Turkey has been a critical facilitator of U.S. assistance to Syrian people in need 

and to the moderate Syrian opposition. Turkey is a key member of the Friends of 

Syria Core Group, and we are working closely with Turkey to find a political solution to the conflict and reinforce support for the moderate opposition. Concurrently, 

we are working with the Turkish Government to mitigate the risk posed by violent 

extremists and foreign fighters exploiting Turkey’s geography. If confirmed, I will 

work closely with Turkey and other regional partners to stem the flow of fighters, 

money, and expertise to and from Syria. 

Our cooperation has been similarly important on Iran, with respect to nonproliferation matters generally and on sanctions specifically. As a neighbor, Turkey 

is acutely aware of the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, and understands the 

importance of supporting the sanctions regime to spur Iran to meet international 

obligations on its nuclear program. 

The instability along Turkey’s southern border gives renewed urgency for Ankara 

to build stronger relationships with other neighbors—Israel, Armenia, and Cyprus. 

We continue to encourage Turkey and Israel to restore positive official relations by 

completing the normalization process, which would enhance regional stability and 

complement their continued strong trade and investment relationship. In Cyprus, 

496 

Turkey—along with Greece—is playing an important and constructive role in supporting the peace process. As Vice President Biden reiterated during his historic 

May visit to Cyprus, the United States remains committed to supporting the U.N.- 

led effort to reunify the island as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. After four decades of division, there is a real chance for a lasting settlement that would bring 

positive benefits to the entire Eastern Mediterranean. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, 

I will work closely with you and your colleagues to help the parties achieve this 

vital goal. 

One issue that confronts all democracies as they look to the future is how they 

deal with the past. We continue to encourage Turkey and Armenia to move toward 

normalization as a means of creating the peaceful, productive, and prosperous relationship that the people of both countries deserve. On this year’s Remembrance Day, 

Prime Minister Erdogan expressed his condolences to the grandchildren of those 

Armenians killed during World War I. That gesture and other positive efforts by the 

Turkish Government in recent months indicate that the space for dialogue is opening. But more can be done, and we encourage both sides to pursue a full, frank, and 

just acknowledgement of the facts surrounding the tragic events of 1915. 

Turkey is one of the oldest democracies in the region. But as President Obama 

noted when visiting Ankara in 2009, ‘‘Democracies cannot be static—they must 

move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil 

society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening the Halki 

Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond.’’ Five years 

later, events have led to questions—including from members of this committee— 

about the trajectory of Turkish democracy: whether media and online freedoms are 

adequately guaranteed; whether rule of law is sufficiently protected; whether citizens have the right to free assembly and expression; whether the judicial system 

is free from political interference; and whether the voices of all minorities are being 

heard. 

These are, ultimately, questions Turks will answer through the choices they 

make, but we will continue to advocate—as we do around the world—for transparent and accountable government. As Turkey prepares for its first direct Presidential election in August, the ongoing debates in Turkey could lead to an even 

stronger and more successful democracy—if Turks embrace tolerance and respect for 

a diversity of viewpoints. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will urge Turkey to live up 

to all the universal democratic principles, enshrined in its own foundational documents and international commitments, that undergird true national strength. 

Allowing space for free and independent media, strengthening the rule of law and 

checks and balances, empowering women, and encouraging a robust role for civil 

society—these steps not only make countries freer, but also help them grow. In the 

same vein, we commend the important steps to advance peace talks between the 

government and Turkey’s Kurds, which could bring an end to 30 years of armed conflict and lead to a more stable and prosperous Turkey. 

Mr. Chairman, Turkey’s democratic progress over the past decade has spurred 

strong growth, tripling the size of its economy. U.S. exports to Turkey also tripled 

in the last decade. But for all the growth in bilateral trade, Turkey is still just our 

34th-largest trade partner, at about $18 billion in total trade in 2013. We can, and 

should, do much better than this. If confirmed, I will be an advocate for U.S. business who leads our mission in Turkey to strengthen business-to-business ties, identify opportunities for Turkish investment in the U.S., and promote the National 

Export Initiative. I further expect that my work promoting the integrity of independent institutions, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental freedoms will 

serve to bolster Turkey’s reputation as a country with which U.S. companies want 

to do more and better business. 

Investment in our political, security, and economic ties with Turkey and the surrounding region would yield little without the ties between our two peoples and societies that are so fundamental to U.S.-Turkey relations. In 2012–2013, Turkey sent 

more students to American universities than any other European country. If confirmed, I will sustain and amplify our public outreach in Turkey, finding new ways 

to connect our two societies through education exchange programs, science and technology partnerships, and entrepreneurship programs. 

And finally, a word about a core purpose of our overseas missions: service to 

Americans—whether they are your constituents with an interest in Turkey, or our 

fellow citizens visiting or living in Turkey. I pledge to provide the highest level of 

service to all of them with the same focus and energy which I and my colleagues 

will apply to promoting American interests and values. Mr. Chairman, thank you 

again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to continuing 

our work together. 

497 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Mr. O’Malley. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN F. O’MALLEY, OF MISSOURI, 

NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO IRELAND 

Mr. O’MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am 

honored and pleased to be here as President Obama’s nominee to 

be the United States Ambassador to Ireland. I would like to publicly thank the President and Secretary Kerry for their confidence 

and their trust, and I am grateful to Senators McCaskill and Blunt 

for their support and for being here with me today. 

I am so fortunate to be able to be here today as an American 

asked to represent my country, one that I love and that has given 

so much to me, in Ireland, a land and a people that has given so 

much to America and that so many of us hold so dear. Both of my 

parents were Irish, and I trace my most recent Irish roots to my 

grandparents and my aunts and my uncles, who came from Westport in County Mayo at the beginning of the 20th century. I have 

always enjoyed traveling in their footsteps, crisscrossing Ireland 

from Dublin to Galway, from Cork to Mayo. I found there is an unbreakable bond and a deep kinship between the people of the 

United States and the people of Ireland. 

From the time of our Nation’s founding, thousands of courageous 

Irish men and women came to the New World. They signed our 

Declaration of Independence, they fought in our Revolutionary 

War, and they drafted our Constitution. The sons and the daughters of Ireland are etched into the cornerstone of the United States 

of America. 

I learned to love Ireland and all things Irish initially seated at 

the feet of my parents and my aunts and my uncles and both sets 

of grandparents. But Ireland, I learned, was more than just a 

place; it was a way of life—hard work, spiritual values, family, determination, and wit. 

Today, to no one’s surprise, Ireland is one of our closest friends 

and most stable trading partners. More than $38 billion in trade 

passes between the United States and Ireland each year. The 

United States exports more than $6 billion of goods to Ireland each 

year. I am confident that even that can be improved upon. Trade 

and investment ties between the United States and Ireland will be 

further strengthened if we can reach agreement on the ambitious 

Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 

While always adhering to its neutrality, Ireland is our constant 

partner in dangerous peacekeeping missions throughout the world. 

Irish troops participate, for example, in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, and it has sent much-needed troops to the Golan 

Heights and has given millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to 

Syria’s refugees. 

But the United States and Ireland also face several challenges 

together. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 has brought years of 

reduced strife and reduced bloodshed to Northern Ireland, but this 

work is not yet done. Very courageous people were willing to take 

the first steps toward peace and reconciliation 16 years ago. While 

real tangible progress has been made, much more needs to be done 

in order to completely devolve the government, to achieve a vibrant 

498 

economy, and to create a pluralistic shared society in Northern Ireland. 

President Obama has asked me, a trial lawyer, a writer, and an 

educator, to firmly represent our values in Ireland. But he has also 

asked me to listen to our friends there. In dealing with the peace 

process, for example, he trusts that I will be both steadfast and 

flexible, standing by our convictions while seeking conciliation. 

Another issue affecting the special kinship between our two 

countries is the changing face of Ireland. Today Ireland looks very 

different from what President Kennedy saw when he visited 50 

years ago. We must be careful not to rely only upon our historical 

friendships, but must constantly renew our alliance to keep it 

healthy and vital. For example, 30 percent of Ireland’s population 

today is under the age of 24 and one in six is born outside of Ireland. As Ireland transforms into a more multicultural society, we 

must include Irish citizens with ancestry in Asia and Africa and 

the Middle East in that special bond shared between previous generations of Irish and Americans. 

The new generation of Irish seeks connection to the United 

States through business and technology partnerships, music, and 

the arts. We must therefore build bridges to ensure that our special 

friendship remains timeless. Both the young and the old in Ireland 

should understand that they have no better friend in the world 

than the United States of America. It is my intention, if confirmed 

as the United States Ambassador to Ireland, to broaden and 

strengthen our special bonds, to increase the opportunities for 

trade and prosperity, and to work for a just and a permanent 

peace. No American, and particularly no Irish-American, could ask 

for a more meaningful undertaking. 

Thank you very much for considering my nomination. I would 

like to submit my complete statement for the record and I will be 

happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Malley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN F. O’MALLEY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to be here today as 

President Obama’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Ireland. I would 

like to publicly express my gratitude to the President and to Secretary Kerry for 

the confidence and trust they have shown in me by this nomination. I also thank 

you and this committee for considering the nomination. 

I am so fortunate to be before you today as an American asked to represent the 

United States—a country that I love and that has given so much to me—and to represent my country in Ireland—a land and a people that has given so much to us 

and that so many of us hold so dear. Personally, I trace my Irish roots to my grandparents who came from Westport, County Mayo, in the beginning of the 20th century. I have enjoyed discovering the land of my grandparents, crisscrossing Ireland 

from Dublin to Galway, from Cork to Mayo. There is an unbreakable bond and a 

deep kinship between the people of United States and the people of Ireland. How 

did this come to pass? What makes this relationship so very special? 

The United States is, of course, a nation of immigrants. From the time of our 

Nation’s founding, thousands of Irish men and women came to the new world. This 

legacy is forged into the very cornerstone of the United States of America. Nine of 

the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Irish. Six of the 36 delegates 

to the convention which drafted our Constitution were Irish. An estimated 30 percent of the soldiers in the Revolutionary Army were Irish. These immigrants from 

Ireland were not just looking for a better life; they were prepared to build one in 

the new world. From this start, Irish immigrants made contributions to the United 

States in construction, railroads, and commerce. They contributed to our Nation as 

499 

policemen, firefighters, politicians, educators, as well as winners of Oscars, Emmys, 

Grammys, Pulitzer, and Nobel Prizes. 

I learned to love Ireland and all things Irish seated at the feet of my parents, 

aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Ireland, I learned, was more than just a place— 

it was a way of life: Hard work; Spiritual values; Determination, and, Wit. 

When Ireland won its independence, the United States was one of the first 

nations to recognize its status as a country and to send an ambassador. We have 

been with Ireland and Ireland has been with us ever since. 

Ireland is today one of our most reliable allies and stable trading partners. More 

than $38 billion of trade passes between United States and Ireland each year, with 

the United States exporting more than $6 billion worth of goods to Ireland. I am 

confident we can build on that. Irish companies employ over 120,000 persons in the 

United States. Some 700 U.S. firms employ approximately 115,000 people in Ireland. These U.S. companies generate approximately 26 percent of Ireland’s GDP. 

Ireland is one of the largest sources of direct foreign investment in the United 

States. Last year Forbes Magazine listed Ireland as the best country in the world 

within which to do business. Trade and investment ties between the United States 

and Ireland will be further strengthened if we can reach agreement on an ambitious 

Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 

Although always adhering to its neutrality, Ireland is our constant partner in 

peacekeeping missions throughout the world. Irish troops participate in the NATO 

mission in Afghanistan. Ireland also sent much-needed troops to the dangerous 

Golan Heights during the Syrian crisis, when no other developed country answered 

the call. They also send peacekeepers to places like Lebanon, Mali, Western Sahara, 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Kosovo. 

As a meaningful way to honor the victims of its own famine, Ireland provides nutritional assistance to infants and mothers in Zambia. And recalling its own efforts 

to emerge from its own economic crisis, Ireland has offered millions of dollars of 

humanitarian assistance to those suffering in Syria’s crisis. 

The United States and Ireland face several challenges together. The Good Friday 

Agreement of 1998 ended years of strife and bloodshed to Northern Ireland, but this 

work is not done. Courageous people were willing to take the first steps toward 

peace and reconciliation 16 years ago. While there has been real progress, more 

must be done to fully devolve government and achieve a vibrant economy and pluralistic, shared society. As President Obama said in his speech to Northern Ireland 

youth in Belfast last June, the people of Northern Ireland will ‘‘have to choose 

whether to keep going forward.’’ The United States will be there to help. 

Another issue affecting the kinship between our two countries is the changing face 

of Ireland. We must be careful not to rely only upon the historical friendship, but 

must constantly renew our alliance to keep it healthy and vital. We must continue 

to build new connections, to and with young American and Irish leaders, entrepreneurs, and innovators. 

Today’s Ireland, after all, looks very different from the one President John F. Kennedy visited 50 years ago. Among the 28 countries of the European Union, Ireland 

has the fastest growing population due to both increased immigration and higher 

birthrates. Approximately 33 percent of the population of Ireland is under the age 

of 24. One in six people residing in Ireland today was born elsewhere. In just a few 

years, our fond memories and family ties, although a strong historic foundation for 

relations, will simply not be enough. The new generation of Irish seeks connections 

to the United States through business and technology collaboration, music, and the 

arts, too. As Ireland transforms into a more multicultural society, we must include 

Irish citizens with ancestry in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East in the special bonds 

shared between previous generations. We must, build new bridges to ensure this 

friendship remains timeless. 

I believe that the relationship between United States and Ireland is truly 

unique—molded in cultural and family ties, strengthened by trade and commercial 

successes, and celebrated through politics, music, literature, the arts, and shared 

concern for peoples beyond our own borders. It is my intention, if confirmed as the 

United States Ambassador to Ireland, to represent our great country to one of our 

greatest and closest friends, to broaden and strengthen our bonds, to work for a just 

and permanent peace, and to increase opportunities for better lives. No American, 

and particularly no Irish-American, could ask for a more meaningful undertaking. 

Thank you for considering this nomination. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you all three of our panelists. We will 

now engage in a round of 7-minute question periods. 

500 

First let me start with you, Ambassador Bass. There is a real 

story to be told about Turkish impressions and opinions of the 

United States before the war in Iraq and after the war in Iraq. We 

have almost come to accept that there is going to be a general negative feeling about the United States in the Middle East, but in a 

place like Turkey, under the Clinton administration the Pew polling work that is done on an intermittent basis in countries around 

the world showed a fairly robust reservoir of goodwill for the 

United States. Things are very different today, to the point that 

your predecessor, the Ambassador that you are going to be replacing, has been at times roughed up pretty badly by the Erdogan administration and the press, being accused of several outlandish 

conspiracy theories. 

Our ability to work with the Turks on, let us say, something as 

important as the new NATO missile shield is dependent in part 

about what the people of Turkey feel about the United States. It 

is a long time since we made the decision to invade Iraq and so 

what are the things that need to be done that you can help work 

on that will improve the opinion of Turks with respect to the 

United States? What is the underlying reasons for the level of distrust? How can we make it better so as to give Erdogan or whoever 

is going to be the follow-on leader of that country more political impetus to cooperate with us? 

Ambassador BASS. Senator, thank you for that question. I think 

we have to do several things simultaneously. I would characterize 

it as investing in the long aspects of this relationship, the important pieces of the relationship, and not simply the urgent pieces. 

We have to be able to do both and we have to expand, even as we 

address the urgent issues of the day, our work together on those 

other deep, important pieces. 

Historically, there has long been suspicion of United States or 

western motives in Turkey that come out of its creation as a modern state, as you know. It is clear that there on top of those potential cultural predispositions is a degree of either lack of information 

or misinformation about the United States and its policy. I think 

one of the things we need to be focused intently on is intensifying 

our efforts to tell our story and reach more populations in Turkey, 

and particularly the generation that is now coming of age that will 

inherit whatever relationship we have. 

Senator MURPHY. You spoke a little bit about the Kurdish population there. We tend to talk about the conflicts in Syria and Iraq 

as binary, Shia and Sunni, and yet in both there is a very complicated question about the future of the Kurdish populations in 

both of those places. What is the ability to work with the Turks as 

leaders to try to figure out the future of Kurdish Government, autonomy, other related issues, not just within Turkey itself, but 

within Iraq and Syria? 

Ambassador BASS. First off, let me say we are pleased by the degree to which the government in Ankara is working to continue 

and reinforce the ongoing peace talks with those of its Kurdish citizens who have been engaged in conflict over the past 30 years. To 

the extent that conflict can be brought to a final close, that is good 

for the region, it is good for Turkish stability. Only recently, we 

501 

have seen some good steps forward to legalize the ongoing peace 

talks so that folks can negotiate freely. 

With respect to the broader Kurdish populations in neighboring 

states, I think it is important that the Turks continue to have a 

strong, productive relationship, particularly with the Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq, but to do so in a way that reflects our overarching commitment to the unity and stability of 

Iraq. That is something we have been working quite closely with 

Ankara on as we have been trying to help the Iraqis develop and 

put in place a new government. 

Senator MURPHY. Ms. Hartley, let me turn to you. The name of 

the company today is the Observatory Group, but it was previously 

the G7 Group, which speaks to the focus of a lot of your work, primarily anchored in Europe and G7 nations. As you mentioned in 

your opening statement, you know a lot about some of the economic 

calculus made in France. There is a worry that as we move forward 

on the TTIP negotiations that France is going to have some special 

considerations that will make it difficult for them to sign on to a 

final agreement. At the outset, they were a little bit nervous about, 

for instance, the protections they traditionally enjoy when it comes 

to their audio-visual industry. 

So maybe you can give us a little bit of insight as to what the 

French disposition is as we head into the more serious rounds of 

negotiations on a free trade agreement with Europe and potentially 

whether there is reason to worry about their commitment to an ultimate deal. 

Ms. HARTLEY. Thank you, Senator, for the question. As we know, 

right now the French economy is fairly weak. President Hollande 

actually has said publicly that he is supportive of the trade deal. 

There are issues. You are right, there are specific areas where we 

still disagree, where we are still discussing, where we are still in 

discussions. 

I think in terms of the mission one of the things that would be 

very important in terms of public diplomacy would be to make sure 

the public knew what a trade deal would do for the economy of 

France, because even right now if you look at polling in France the 

public supports the trade deal. It is only when you get down to the 

specifics. 

So I look forward to working with you and I look forward very 

much to reinforcing the message that trade is actually good for jobs 

in both countries. 

Senator MURPHY. Mr. O’Malley, when we talked in my office last 

week we were looking forward to the July 12 marches to see if they 

came off in a peaceful manner. By and large, they did. What does 

that say about the prospects for continued discussions with respect 

to Northern Ireland, in particular the Haass proposals which have 

been sort of the standing foundation of the potential settlement 

moving forward? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. Thank you, Senator. I think everyone is relieved 

that so far the marching season has gone relatively well. There 

have been, as you know, far worse periods during these particular 

summer marching seasons. But we are not through with the 

marching season yet. 

502 

I think we should point out the good and try to protect against 

the bad. I think it is important to recognize the courage that people 

exercised in renouncing violence and stepping forward and attempting to make a new life for the people in Northern Ireland and 

the border counties. But there still remains work to be done. Dr. 

Haass and Dr. O’Sullivan when they were in Ireland just recently 

really laid out proposals which could make this whole marching 

season issue—could resolve it in a permanent way, so that every 

year everybody would not be on edge when the summer marching 

season came. 

So if confirmed, I would urge all parties to return to the table 

and to try to adopt an agreement along the lines that Dr. Haass 

recommended recently. 

Senator MURPHY. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me pick up on that point, because it is exactly where I was 

going to go to out of your testimony. You said: ‘‘More must be done 

to fully devolve government and achieve a vibrant economy and a 

pluralistic, shared society.’’ Can you get into the specifics of what 

that Haass agreement really is talking about? What is the ‘‘much 

more’’ that needs to be done? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. What needs to be done is to follow the Haass recommendations. Dr. Haass recommended several things. There were 

agreements that were reached about dealing with the past, but 

they were not fully resolved. There were issues regarding how to 

deal with flags and emblems, but they were not fully resolved. 

There were issues dealing with how the government was going to 

interact, but they were not fully resolved. 

I think that it is important to get to—if confirmed, to be able to 

meet with all of the parties involved in these talks and find out 

precisely where all the sticking points were, why this agreement, 

which was widely, widely praised, did not go through. 

Senator JOHNSON. You mentioned agreement on flags. It seems 

like there has got to be more significant issues than that. 

Mr. O’MALLEY. To the Northern Irish, those are significant 

issues. They have a resonance there that you or I may not fully, 

fully appreciate or fully feel. But that is very important to a segment of the population, and that has to be dealt with. 

Senator JOHNSON. I appreciate that. 

Northern Ireland has a 12.5 percent tax on business and as a result there have been a number of American companies that have 

started operations there, certainly part of the process of trade between the two countries. Certainly in the political realm here in 

this country it seems like there is a resentment about that fact in 

some cases. I just kind of want to get your views on, what do you 

think about that American investment in Ireland taking advantage 

of that 12.5 percent tax rate? I just want your views on that. 

Mr. O’MALLEY. Sure. I think you meant Ireland has a 12.5 rate. 

Senator JOHNSON. What did I say? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. Northern Ireland. 

Senator JOHNSON. Oh, I am sorry. Ireland. 

Mr. O’MALLEY. I think it is a little bit higher in Northern Ireland 

at the moment. 

503 

There are a number of reasons why American companies have 

found Ireland to be an attractive place to do business in Europe, 

and those are some of the compelling reasons. It is an Englishspeaking country. It is a country that has a well-educated and 

dedicated workforce. It is a country that appreciates America and 

American goods. Ireland is in the euro zone and is in the EU, and 

it is strategically located at the entrance to Europe. I think all of 

those considerations and probably many more have to do with Ireland’s success in attracting American business. 

Senator JOHNSON. I realize there are more factors to it. But 

again, addressing the 12.5 percent, there seems to be some resentment. Do you share that resentment? Do you think that is an appropriate thing, for governments to compete with tax structures 

and regulatory structures to attract investment? Is that a good 

thing or a bad thing? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. I know, Senator, that both the United States and 

the European Union are having discussions with Ireland about that 

tax rate. If confirmed, I would participate in those discussions with 

them. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is your knowledge that the administration is 

opposed to that 12.5 percent rate? Are they trying to entice or induce Ireland to increase that tax rate? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. I do not know, Senator, the precise answer to 

that question. I would be happy to get back with you on that. I do 

not know that the administration has taken a position one way or 

the other on another country’s tax rate. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. O’MALLEY. And I do not know that anyone else has taken a 

position on our tax rate. 

Senator JOHNSON. Fair enough. 

Mr. Bass, talking earlier about the issues between the Kurds and 

Turkey. Certainly I have been in contact with citizens of the Kurdish region, and they are certainly pressing for independence. Reading the press, it is sounding like Turkey may be more open to that 

prospect, even though they have been utterly opposed to it in the 

past. Am I reading that right? Is there a growing possible acceptance on the part of Turkey to have an independent state of 

Kurdistan? 

Ambassador BASS. Senator, in our conversations with the Turkish Government they have continued to advocate the importance to 

Turkey and its interests of a stable, unified, federal Iraq. We are 

continuing to work closely with them to try to bring that about. 

It has been very painful for those of us who invested parts of our 

professional lives in Iraq over the last 10, 11 years to see the recent turn of events. If I am confirmed, I will certainly continue to 

work to bring that result about in partnership with our Turkish 

friends and to stay in a close dialogue with them about their interaction and relationship with the officials and the citizens in the 

KRG. 

Senator JOHNSON. What are the current pressing issues between 

the Kurdistan region and the Turkish Government? 

Ambassador BASS. There is a variety of cross-border issues of interest. Obviously, the rebels in southeastern Turkey over the 30 

years of their insurgency have crossed back and forth from northVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00511 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
504 

ern Iraq, so the Government of Turkey worked very closely with 

the authorities in northern Iraq to enable them to address some of 

those flows in both directions. 

There is quite a strong trade and economic relationship as a result of the KRG’s increased self-reliance on its own resources and 

there is an energy relationship between them as well. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you speak to the transportation of oil 

from Kurdistan through Turkey and what our policy is toward 

that, and then really how Turkey is viewing that? 

Ambassador BASS. We do not take a position on the merits of the 

specific sales. We have expressed to both parties concerns that the 

disputes within Iraq about legal title to that commodity may wrap 

those cargoes up in ongoing litigation once they are out. 

I think the most important thing from our perspective is to help 

stabilize oil exports from Iraq, to make sure those revenues are 

available to all the citizens of Iraq and shared equitably within a 

Federal unified state. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all very much for being here this morning and for 

your willingness to serve this country. This is a particularly turbulent time in the world and I think it is a time where working with 

our allies is particularly important. So you will be in critical places 

at a time in our history which will really be important. 

I am also especially pleased to see my friend Jane Hartley here 

and share in your enthusiasm at being only the second woman 

nominated to be Ambassador to France and hopefully to serve in 

that position. So thank you. 

I am going to begin with you. It was very interesting to see the 

recent elections in the European Parliament and France’s anti-EU 

party, the National Front, won the most seats with 25 percent of 

the vote. I wonder if you could speak to what you think the implications of that election and the changes might be for French policy 

toward the European Union? 

Ms. HARTLEY. Well, as we spoke before, France is having a difficult time. The economy is quite tough over there right now. Unemployment is running at about 10 percent. That was an issue during the parliamentary elections. The one thing I would note on the 

parliamentary elections, there was low turnout, so it is unclear 

what that may mean for the general elections that are coming up 

in 2017. But the National Front is a force and they will continue 

to be a force in French politics. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bass, July 20 marks the 40th anniversary of Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus. I am sure we are always concerned when a country 

is invaded, and particularly here where Cyprus has been partitioned since that time, basically. I wonder if you see any indications that Turkey may be ready to try and play a constructive role 

in looking at reunifying Cyprus and if there is more that we can 

do to encourage that kind of a role. 

Ambassador BASS. Thank you, Senator. We continue to support 

very strongly the ongoing discussions between both communities on 

505 

the island under the auspices of the U.N., with the goal of a lasting 

settlement on the basis of a bizonal, bicommunal federation. In recent months, I think we have seen the government in Ankara, as 

well as the government in Athens, both contributing to that process 

of helping these two communities talk through the differences and 

try to identify the ways forward to a lasting settlement. 

It is something that has been quite a high priority. As you know, 

Vice President Biden was in Cyprus in May; Secretary Kerry very 

focused on this. I have been in a couple of conversations with him 

of late where he has wanted very much to turn to this in the coming months. If I am confirmed, I certainly will help to the greatest 

extent possible my colleagues working in Cyprus, in Greece, and 

here in Washington to continue to support the efforts under way 

to bring this to a lasting settlement. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Obviously, Turkey is in a critical place, not only in terms of their 

influence throughout the greater Middle East, but also in terms of 

their geography. As we look at conflicts in Syria, as we look at 

what is happening in northern Africa, can you talk about how we 

can—maybe what we are already doing to work with Turkey to address some of those conflict areas? 

Ambassador BASS. Thank you. We are already doing quite a bit 

of work. Turkey cochairs with us the Global Counter-Terrorism 

Forum, which is a group of about 30 like-minded countries who are 

working together to help other countries develop their own capacity 

to address some of these challenges at home before they become 

much bigger problems for a wider region. The Turks have taken a 

particular focus on the Horn of Africa and have been doing quite 

a bit of work with the Somali Government. 

Within their more immediate neighborhood, of course, we have 

had very good cooperation in recent months in addressing some of 

the consequences of the conflict in Syria and the increase in fighters, money, exploiting Turkey’s geography in and out of those conflict zones. Our belief is that the Turks understand this is an acute 

threat for all of us and we have seen some important steps from 

them to address some of the issues that were potentially making 

their geography more attractive. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Malley, Ireland was one of the countries hardest hit by the 

financial crisis in 2008. It is my understanding that the IMF and 

the EU is relatively pleased with the progress that Ireland has 

made with some of the austerity measures that have been put in 

place. I wonder if you can speak to whether they are in a position 

now to begin to do more investing and to roll back some of those 

austerity measures and what the future for the Irish economy is 

based on where they are now? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. Yes, Senator, thank you. The Irish were hit terribly, as you correctly point out. To their credit, they undertook 

very painful austerity measures in order to recover. All of the 

signs, as you pointed out, have indicated that Ireland is on its way 

back and has arrived at a place where they are, for example, now 

their long-term sovereign debt has been upgraded from BBB-plus 

to A-minus. Ireland is now—has returned back into the bond market, where it can sell bonds. 

506 

So I think all of the indicators are that the austerity measures 

have worked. What precisely the Irish are going to do from now on 

I think is really a matter of internal Irish politics. They had an 

election recently. They have had a cabinet reshuffle and my guess 

is that they are discussing those measures as we speak. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you and congratulations to all of the witnesses for your 

nominations. Mr. Bass, Ambassador Bass, let me begin with you. 

I had visited the refugee camps, Syrian refugee camps, in Adona. 

I have been very impressed, as you pointed out, with the degree to 

which Turkey is doing yeoman’s work to take care of nearly a million refugees from Syria. In a population of 75 million people, a 

million refugees is a big chunk of people. Similar generosity is 

being shown by Jordan and Lebanon in the region. 

I remember being there and wondering how the U.S. would respond to refugees fleeing violence coming to the United States and 

have not been particularly proud of recent response to refugees 

fleeing violence in Central America coming to the United States. So 

that should make us even appreciate what Turkey does even more. 

Yesterday the U.N. Security Council took a step that was a positive. This committee had passed a resolution that was passed out 

of the floor of the Senate in March calling for unfettered cross-border humanitarian aid deliveries even without the Syrian Government’s approval. That had been blocked in the U.N. Security Council by Russia and China, but yesterday they acceded to a resolution 

that was passed unanimously to basically allow cross-border aid 

under a U.N. sanction. 

Two of the border crossings identified for this aid to be delivered 

are in Turkey. I would like you, if you would, just to talk about 

what you might be able to do as an ambassador, representative of 

the United States, the Nation that is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees, what you can do together with 

the Turkish Government to facilitate greater humanitarian aid deliveries inside Syria? 

Ambassador BASS. Thanks very much for raising that. We have 

had a very good, close, collaborative relationship with the Government of Turkey, both to address those refugee outflows that you 

identified, but also to work to get more assistance into Syria to 

support the moderate opposition and to enable them to try to provide a degree of governance and services to the populations within 

those areas that are under their control. 

We have a pretty extensive group of experts in and around 

Adona who work directly with other relief-providing agencies and 

with the Government of Turkey on these issues, and we will certainly be looking for additional opportunities to expand and intensify that work. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador Bass. 

Ms. Hartley, in your opening testimony you talked about a concern that I just want to follow up on. The French Government has 

been a very strong partner with the U.S. in the P5+1 discussions 

to find an end to any nuclear weaponization program in Iran, 

507 

sometimes even really playing the bad cop in the negotiations, and 

we appreciate it. But at the same time, there seems to be a little 

bit of a double standard, whereas the French Government has been 

strong, but French businesses have been seen to really want to get 

back into the investment game with Iran. 

You commented upon that as something that you might be able 

to do as Ambassador, is to really point out that there should not 

be a back door to allow French corporations to evade sanctions. 

Talk a little bit about that challenge and how you would intend to 

address it in your capacity? 

Ms. HARTLEY. Thank you, Senator. I share your concern. As you 

know, recently a group of French businessmen did go to Iran. Secretary Kerry voiced his opposition, and I was pleased to see the 

French Government back us up, and no business deals were done. 

I will make that very clear, that—I will reinforce that statement 

and while I am Ambassador, until the situation with Iran is resolved, there will be no business as usual. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. I really encourage you in that. I 

think it is important to do this diplomacy, but I do worry about 

companies trying to race ahead of whether—we will know soon 

whether we are going to be able to find a meaningful path forward 

with Iran. So I would encourage you to make that a primary area 

of focus. 

Mr. O’Malley, I was in Ireland during the local and EU parliamentary elections that took place at the end of May and the general interpretation when I was there was that the elections sort of 

were antiausterity and a little bit anti-Europe. Those were the impressions at the immediate time those elections took place. Now 

that the dust has settled and I know there has been some Cabinet 

reshuffling because the Taoiseach’s party, Fine Gael, kind of took 

it on the chin in those elections, what is the current sort of internal 

politics in Ireland surrounding—you talked a little bit about the 

austerity, but even the relationships with the EU and Europe? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. I think, Senator, that the dust really has not 

quite settled yet from the elections. The Cabinet reshuffling just 

took place last week and I think everyone is still examining where 

it is. We know that Ireland is very committed to the EU, and we 

know that Ireland is very committed to the austerity proposals that 

made their assent from their financial crisis so successful. So I do 

not anticipate that there would be any dramatic change in the Irish 

policy toward the austerity program. 

I think there was a great deal of frustration expressed during the 

elections, but I think that the Irish have adopted a very firm 

course. That course has been proven to be successful, and I do not 

anticipate that there will be any dramatic changes. I look forward, 

if confirmed, to talking to the Taoiseach and to get a better internal view of exactly what the long-term plan is. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. O’Malley. 

One final question. Another area of concern when I was recently 

in Ireland was the announced reopening of a potential criminal 

case against Gerry Adams over a very gruesome murder that took 

place many, many years ago. Now, the precipitating factor was the 

opening of an archive at Boston College that was oral histories 

given by folks who were connected with the IRA that were thought 

508 

to be closed until everyone passed away. But someone did pass 

away, the archive became available, at least with respect to that 

history, and then this notion of a criminal investigation has been 

restarted. 

A lot of question about is that just an isolated incident or is there 

some desire to now spend more time looking in the rear view mirror than in the windshield and going back and relitigating all of 

these matters that were hopefully resolved to some significant degree in the Good Friday Accords. I know the younger generation in 

Ireland, the kids, they do not even remember anything about the 

Troubles. It is a pretty remarkable story and the U.S. has a lot at 

stake in trying to continue on the path forward. 

Do you have any sense about that particular criminal matter? 

While that is domestic politics, do you think it suggests a broader 

unraveling of the Good Friday Accords and kind of a decision by 

some to start looking more backward than forward? 

Mr. O’MALLEY. Senator, I have two thoughts on that. One, the 

first is that the Boston College study, which was a totally private 

academic interest here, the release of any more of the data in that 

I do not believe will affect the peace process. I think that the Accords are strong. I think there has been now 16 years of experience 

with them. So that the truth or whatever is found in the Boston 

College study will not cause anyone to repudiate the Accords or to 

go backward. 

But I do think, and I feel strongly, that that incident with the 

detention of Mr. Adams and the whole look backward compels, 

compels us to urge the five parties to get back to the table and to 

adopt the proposals that Dr. Haass recommended not very many 

months ago, because there needs to be a system in place to deal 

with these issues as they are going to continue to arise. So, if confirmed, I will do my best to convince the parties to go back, to have 

a comprehensive, a cohesive way to deal with these very troubling 

emotional issues. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. O’Malley. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bass, do you think the Turkish Government is in favor of the 

establishment of safe areas protected by a no-fly zone inside Syria? 

Ambassador BASS. I think the Turkish Government is looking for 

ways to push forward in promoting a solution to the conflict in 

Syria. 

Senator MCCAIN. I would like the answer to the question. 

Ambassador BASS. I would like to take that back, if I may. 

[The written reply submitted by Ambassador Bass to the requested information follows:] 

Turkish officials have expressed interest in the idea of a no-fly zone over the 

course of the conflict in Syria. For example, during his May 2013 visit to Washington, Prime Minister Erdogan stated publicly that the decision to establish such 

a zone would need to come through the U.N. Security Council, and if it did, Turkey 

would support the idea. Turkish officials also made clear their desire for close consultations with the United States and the international community to find the 

means for a negotiated, political transition in Syria. If confirmed, I will continue to 

work closely with Turkey to coordinate support for the moderate Syrian opposition, 

to provide humanitarian support for refugees in Turkey and cross-border assistance 

509 

to Syrians in need, and to bolster our already-strong bilateral military ties with 

Turkey. 

Senator MCCAIN. Turkey has been, I think you would agree, has 

been a principal channel for the flow of people, arms, and logistical 

assistance to the rebels. Has the Turkish Government changed its 

border policies in light of ISIS’ so far successful campaign in Iraq? 

Ambassador BASS. My understanding, Senator, is that the Turkish Government has been very careful about people flowing across 

those borders, and we have had good cooperation in recent months 

to address these challenges of additional fighters and potentially 

money flowing in and out of the conflict zones. 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you concerned about Prime Minister 

Erdogan’s desire to change the constitution and other actions that 

we have seen on the part of Erdogan as a drift toward 

authoritarianism? 

Ambassador BASS. Prime Minister Erdogan is the leader of a 

democratically elected parliamentary democracy. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am aware, I am aware of that. 

Ambassador BASS. We will obviously look closely at whatever 

steps he takes—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you believe that many of the things, actions 

that he has taken—suppressing the social media, YouTube and 

Twitter, restrictions on Internet freedom and independent media— 

is this a drift toward authoritarianism? 

Ambassador BASS. I would say they are inconsistent with our 

concept of a strong vibrant democracy. 

Senator MCCAIN. I would like a yes or no. I would like a yes or 

no answer. 

Ambassador BASS. I can tell you that we will continue to underscore our concerns—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I would like a yes or no answer, Mr. Bass. You 

are putting your nomination in jeopardy by not answering the 

question. Do you believe—it is a pretty simple, straightforward 

question—that, with his repression of social media, his desire to 

change the constitution to give more power to the Presidency, 

which he obviously will be, do you believe that that is a drift toward authoritarianism? 

Ambassador BASS. I think if those steps were taken without appropriate checks in place—— 

Senator MCCAIN. He is taking those steps, Mr. Bass. Again, this 

is really a little frustrating. I would like an honest answer. Do you 

believe that there is a drift toward authoritarianism? 

Ambassador BASS. Senator, I think if these possibilities become 

realities in law, then those would be—— 

Senator MCCAIN. You do not think they have become realities 

now? 

Ambassador BASS. Well—— 

Senator MCCAIN. The suppression of YouTube, the suppression of 

Twitter. 

Ambassador BASS. We have seen the constitutional court—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to support this 

nominee’s nomination and I will hold it until I get a straight answer. 

510 

I think it is a fairly straightforward, question, Mr. Bass. Is it a 

drift toward authoritarianism? 

Ambassador BASS. It is a drift in that direction, yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. It took 3 minutes and 25 seconds 

of my 5-minute time. 

Mr. O’Malley, there is a question of the Shannon Airport 

preclearance agreement. I do not know—for our men and women 

in uniform. I hope that you will have a look at that. We would like 

to facilitate that process as so many of our military personnel flow 

through the Shannon Airport, where they are, as you know, most 

hospitable and very nice people there, no matter what hour of the 

day or night we happen to arrive there on our CODELs. 

Ms. Hartley, as you know, President Hollande has indicated his 

government plans to honor its contract to sell two Mistral-class amphibious warships to Russia. The first ship will arrive in October. 

Do you think that that is a good idea? 

Ms. HARTLEY. No, I think it is a terrible idea. I share your concern. The President has communicated with President Hollande, 

has told him that we do not think this is the time to be doing defense deals with Russia. I completely agree with that and if I am 

confirmed I will reinforce that message when I arrive in France. 

Senator MCCAIN. As you know—thank you. As you know, they 

have had significant involvement in Mali. In fact, we visited there 

and have seen the significant French and excellent professional capabilities. Do you think we ought to be assisting them and cooperating more in this effort in Mali? 

Ms. HARTLEY. My impression is that we are working with them, 

providing technology and other things. They clearly are the boots 

on the ground. I think having France there, it is very sophisticated. 

It is a force multiplier for us. France has continued to spend I 

think 1.9 percent on its defense budget and that is a positive. So 

working with them helps both of us, and they help us a lot by being 

the boots on the ground in Africa. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

I just have one followup for you, Ambassador Bass. It is on this 

question that Senator McCain raised. Let me ask it in just a slightly different way. What are the U.S. levers to try to slow this march 

toward the suppression of speech. We have got a problem in that 

there is a pretty weak opposition in Turkey that should be doing 

a lot of that work by itself. Without it, it is left to the international 

community to put pressure on them. Senator Johnson and I have 

been very vocal, for instance, about the suppression of Twitter. 

You are going to have a lot of irons in the fire when you are sitting with Erdogan and his deputies. How do you continue to raise 

these issues amidst all sorts of other very important diplomatic and 

military cooperation that are happening? And will you commit to 

us as a committee to make sure that these issues related to the 

suppression of free speech and free assembly are still top of mind 

for our Embassy there? 

Ambassador BASS. Absolutely. It will be very important to continue to press the Turkish Government, to be clear about our beliefs, our values, our commitment to democratic values and human 

511 

rights, and to find ways to try to influence the discussion in Turkey 

in a way that shows the potential consequences for Turks if they 

continue down a path that would make Turkey less democratic. I 

do not think there is any question that that would be of enormous 

concern to us going forward. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Any further questions for this panel? [No response.] 

If not, thank you very much for joining us today. We look forward to moving your nominations as quickly as possible through 

the committee. You are excused and we will now seat our second 

panel. 

Ms. HARTLEY. Thank you. 

Senator MURPHY. We are now pleased to welcome our two panelists in the second round, considering the nomination of James 

Pettit to be Ambassador to Moldova and Brent Hartley, our second 

Hartley of the morning, to be Ambassador to Slovenia. 

Despite the recent ratification of an association agreement with 

the EU, Moldova finds itself in a tenuous position between the 

West and Russia. As the poorest country in Europe and a former 

Soviet state, Moldova’s economy at times seems inextricably linked 

to that of Russia as it continues to struggle with Russian export 

bans, instability in Transnistria, and a crushing debt to Gazprom. 

While Moldova celebrates its newly signed agreement and visa-free 

travel to Europe, it also desires to regain a positive relationship 

with Russia. The two should not be mutually exclusive. 

If confirmed, Mr. Pettit, you will need to navigate these geopolitical challenges in find new ways in which the United States 

can support Moldova’s important political and economic reform efforts. 

Senator Shaheen and I, along with other members of the committee, recently introduced a bipartisan resolution outlining the 

United States commitment to Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial 

integrity, and we look forward to engaging in an open dialogue 

about U.S. support for Moldova. 

Moving west geographically speaking, the United States has long 

considered Slovenia as important strategic NATO ally in the western Balkans. Like Moldova, Slovenia is also still grappling with its 

past as an ex-Communist state. While it is considered to be one of 

the most politically and economically stable countries in the EU, it 

is currently undergoing significant political upheaval as a result of 

alleged corruption and economic crises. 

If confirmed, Mr. Hartley, you are going to be facing the challenge of navigating these domestic difficulties as well as broader 

European security challenges. 

Let me quickly introduce our witnesses and then we will get 

right to your testimony. Mr. Pettit has been nominated to be Ambassador to Moldova. He is a career member of the Foreign Service, 

currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs 

at the Department of State. He has spent a third of his career living in the former Soviet Union, previously serving as deputy chief 

of mission in Kiev and as deputy general counsel and political officer in Moscow. He has served in Vienna, Taipei, Guadalajara, as 

well as back here in the State Department. 

512 

He speaks Russian, Spanish, German, Mandarin Chinese, received his B.A. from Iowa State University and a master’s degree 

from the National War College. 

Brent Hartley has been nominated to be Ambassador to Slovenia, 

as mentioned. He is a highly distinguished Foreign Service officer, 

currently serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and 

Eurasian Affairs at the Department of State. 

We welcome both of you to the panel today, and we will start, 

Mr. Hartley, with your testimony, and then move to Mr. Pettit. 

STATEMENT OF BRENT ROBERT HARTLEY, OF OREGON, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA 

Mr. HARTLEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson. I would like to submit my full statement for 

the record if I may. I am honored to be here before you today as 

President Obama’s nominee to be the eighth Ambassador of the 

United States to the Republic of Slovenia. I am deeply grateful for 

the confidence the President and Secretary Kerry have placed in 

me. If confirmed, I will do my utmost to justify their faith and 

yours in my ability to advance our strategic, economic, and political 

interests with Slovenia. 

I am also grateful for the love and flexibility of my wife, Elizabeth Dickinson, who is here today with us, my daughter, Eleanor, 

and my son, Charlie. My 33-year Foreign Service career has been 

largely dedicated to strengthening our relations with European allies and partners, and my wife has been with me every step of the 

way. 

If confirmed, I will seek to sustain and deepen our political and 

security cooperation with Slovenia. This year Slovenia is celebrating its 10-year anniversary of NATO and EU membership. Slovenian soldiers have served side by side with U.S. Forces in Afghanistan since 2003. Slovenians have served in international 

peacekeeping missions around the world, including Lebanon and 

Syria. It has also been a close U.S. partner in defending human 

rights, combating human trafficking, and safeguarding religious 

freedom around the globe. 

We share a particular priority on promoting stability in the Balkans, including by encouraging the integration of Balkan States 

into NATO and the EU. Slovenian soldiers deployed in NATO stabilization operations in Bosnia and Kosovo and they continue to 

contribute to the EU successor mission in Bosnia and maintain 

over 300 soldiers in Kosovo in the KFOR operation. As a result of 

its Balkan experiences, Slovenia also remains dedicated to addressing the safety of civilians during conflict, demining, and conventional weapons destruction. 

We welcome Slovenia’s continued strong support for Ukraine’s 

sovereignty and territorial integrity and its implementation of 

international sanctions in the face of Russia’s occupation of Crimea. 

We are also working together to address urgent humanitarian challenges in Syria, Iran’s nuclear proliferation, and Libya’s stability, 

and we are working with Slovenia, as we are doing throughout the 

EU, on energy security and diversification of energy resources. 

513 

Our military-to-military relations are excellent, characterized by 

hundreds of military exchanges, six codeployments with the Colorado National Guard in Afghanistan, and a rich foundation for future cooperation. Unfortunately, severe defense budget cuts resulting from recent economic difficulties have left Slovenia well below 

the NATO goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. If confirmed, I will work to encourage the Slovenian Government to reverse cuts in defense and to address the structural challenges exposed by the country’s economic downturn. 

Outgoing Prime Minister Bratusek’s government and the central 

bank took a positive step in 2013 to recapitalize Slovenia’s banking 

sector and restore market confidence, and the euro zone recovery 

has brought some economic relief as well. Yet many challenges remain. The United States and European Union agree that the country’s next leaders must stabilize the banking sector, rationalize 

public finances, and follow through on commitments to privatize 

state-owned enterprises. 

We are looking forward to working with the new government, 

once it is formed following the July 13 elections, on these challenges. These vital economic reforms will help ensure a level playing field for U.S. business. If confirmed, I will seize every opportunity to build Slovenian support for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and 

Investment Partnership and to open doors for U.S. trade and investment. 

Even as Slovenia works to recognize its economic potential, it has 

only recently begun to deal with a complex and painful historical 

legacy concerning different narratives of violence during and after 

World War II. This legacy profoundly affects contemporary political, social, and even economic life. Some Slovenian leaders, most 

notably President Pahor, have stepped forward to urge dialogue 

and reconciliation. We support this effort because it is in both our 

interests. Slovenia will be a stronger ally and trade partner as it 

finds a way to deal with its past. 

Finally, if confirmed, my Embassy team and I will continue to 

engage the Slovenian public on all levels. We will work to promote 

our top policy priorities through exchange and educational programs. We will advocate accurate reporting on the United States 

to a media often overly skeptical of U.S. policies. And we will go 

directly to the people to talk about U.S. policy and values through 

our ever-expanding social media toolkit. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENT ROBERT HARTLEY

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and distinguished members of the 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

I am honored to be here before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be 

the eighth Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Slovenia. 

I am deeply grateful for the confidence the President and Secretary Kerry have 

placed in me. If confirmed by the Senate, I will do my utmost to justify their faith 

in my ability to further enhance the strong U.S.-Slovenia relationship. 

My 33-year Foreign Service career has been largely dedicated to advancing our 

relations with European Allies and Partners. If confirmed, I will work with the 

excellent Country Team at Embassy Ljubljana to promote our strategic, economic 

and political interests with Slovenia. 

514 

In its 23 years of independence, Slovenia has built a laudable record of international engagement and commitment. This year, Slovenia is celebrating its 10-year 

anniversary of NATO and EU membership. Slovenian soldiers have served side by 

side with U.S. and NATO Forces in Afghanistan since 2003. Slovenians have served 

in international peacekeeping missions in hot spots around the world, from Lebanon 

to Kosovo, from Syria to Mali. Slovenia has also been a close U.S. partner in the 

United Nations and other international venues to defend human rights, combat 

human trafficking, and safeguard religious freedom around the globe. In particular, 

Slovenia has raised the profile of the critical challenge of protecting civilian populations during conflict. 

In this regard, Slovenia has placed a high priority on promoting stability and 

development in the Balkans by encouraging the integration of Balkan States in 

Euro-Atlantic structures such as NATO and the EU. From an operational standpoint, Slovenian soldiers deployed to Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of NATO’s 

Stabilization Force (SFOR) in 1997, and they continue to reinforce Bosnian stability 

by contributing to the EU’s successor mission, ALTHEA. Slovenia has been a major 

KFOR contributor in Kosovo from the very beginning and still maintains a strong 

presence of over 300 soldiers. Slovenia also remains dedicated to addressing the 

safety of civilians and twin challenge of demining and conventional weapon destruction through ITF Enhancing Human Security initiative. 

Our security relationship is only getting broader. We welcome Slovenia’s continued strong support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and its implementation of international sanctions in the face of Russia’s occupation of Crimea. 

We are working together to address the urgent humanitarian challenges in Syria, 

respond to Iran’s nuclear program, and to promote Libya’s stability and prosperity. 

And we are working with Slovenia and throughout the EU on energy security 

issues, including the need to diversify energy sources to mitigate dependence on 

Russian gas. 

Slovenia’s relationships with the U.S. European Command and the Colorado 

National Guard through the State Partnership Program are excellent. In the context 

of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and NATO, Slovenia hosts several toptier training exercises annually. The Slovenian Armed Forces’ 21-year relationship 

with the Guardsmen of Colorado has resulted in hundreds of military exchanges, 

six codeployments in support of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, and a rich foundation for future cooperation. 

Unfortunately, severe defense budget cuts resulting from the last several years of 

economic difficulties have left Slovenia well below the NATO goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. 

If confirmed, I will work with the Country Team to encourage the Slovenian Government to reverse this worrying trend in defense budget cuts and to address the 

structural economic challenges exposed by the country’s economic downturn since 

2009. 

Outgoing Prime Minister Bratusek’s government and the Slovenian Central Bank 

took a positive step in 2013 to recapitalize Slovenia’s banking sector and restore 

market confidence. Yet many challenges remain. The United States and the European Union agree that Slovenia needs to reduce the public sector’s role in the economy and repair significant fiscal imbalances. 

Although the Eurozone recovery has brought some economic relief, the country’s 

next leaders must take urgent action to stabilize the banking sector, rationalize 

public finances, and follow through on commitments to privatize state-owned enterprises. We are looking forward to working with the new government, once it is 

formed following the July 13 elections, on these challenges. 

These vital economic reforms will help ensure a level playing field for U.S. business, a high priority for any chief of mission. If confirmed, I will seize every opportunity to build Slovenian support for the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership and to open doors for U.S. trade and investment in an EU market with 

real untapped potential for U.S. companies. Approximately 60 U.S. companies 

already operate in Slovenia—including for example a significant Goodyear production facility. Through continued intensive commercial diplomacy, I am confident that 

Slovenia will become more open to American investments and a more attractive destination for American exports. 

Even as Slovenia works to recognize its economic potential, it has only recently 

begun to deal with a complex and painful historical legacy—concerning different 

narratives of violence during and after World War II—that profoundly affects contemporary political, social, and even economic life. Some Slovenian leaders, most 

notably President Pahor, have stepped forward to urge dialogue and reconciliation. 

Embassy Ljubljana supports this effort because it is in both U.S. and Slovenian 

interests: open dialogue regarding these events can help create a political environVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00522 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
515 

ment more conducive to addressing, for example, Slovenia’s difficult economic circumstances. Slovenia will be a stronger ally and trade partner as it finds a way to 

deal with its past. 

Finally, if confirmed, my Embassy team and I will continue to engage the Slovenian public on all levels to realize these goals. In addition to continuing joint cultural initiatives that have proven popular with Slovenians, we will work to promote 

our top policy priorities through exchange and educational programs that encourage 

entrepreneurship, innovation, and greater regional and international cooperation. 

We will advocate accurate reporting on the United States to media that are often 

overly skeptical of U.S. foreign policy. And we will go directly to the people to talk 

about U.S. policy and values through our ever-expanding toolkit of social media 

products. Ultimately, it’s the people-to-people outreach and diplomacy that can provide the foundation for us to achieve our policy objectives. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much. I shorted you on your 

bio, by the way. I just additionally add your service as Director for 

European Security and Political Affairs at the Department of State 

and Country Director for Pakistan, in addition to your receipt of 

two Senior Foreign Service Performance Awards, 11 Superior 

Honor Awards. The list goes on. We are very pleased that you are 

here before this committee. 

Mr. Pettit. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. PETTIT, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED 

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 

Mr. PETTIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to appear before you 

today as the President’s nominee to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Moldova. I deeply appreciate the confidence that President 

Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working closely with Congress to promote U.S. interests 

in Moldova. 

Today represents an important point in a journey over the last 

three decades that has taken me to numerous parts of the former 

Soviet Union at various critical junctures. If confirmed, I hope to 

continue that journey and play my own small role in seeking a 

happy and successful outcome for the people of the Republic of 

Moldova. 

I am accompanied today by my wife Nancy, who has witnessed 

the many changes in the region along with me and whose own insights and wisdom continue to help me on the way. Also here with 

me today are my brother, Gerry, my nephew, Brett, and his wife, 

Suzy. 

Secretary Kerry visited Moldova in December 2013 and Prime 

Minister Leanca visited the White House in March of this year, in 

part to launch our bilateral strategic dialogue and reaffirm U.S. engagement in and support for Moldova’s independence and European future. Our engagement is key to promoting security not just 

in Moldova, but in neighboring Ukraine and the region. 

If confirmed, I will build upon this progress while seeking to fulfill our chief strategic objective, for Moldova to become a fully 

democratic, economically prosperous state, firmly anchored to Europe, within its internationally recognized borders and with an effective and accountable government. We believe European integration is the best road for Moldova’s security and prosperity. 

516 

On June 27, the Moldovan Government signed an association 

agreement that includes provisions for establishing a deep and 

comprehensive free trade area, which will bring Moldova closer to 

the EU politically as well as benefit the country economically. This 

year the United States will provide over $31 million in assistance 

to Moldova to continue supporting these and other objectives. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with the Moldovan Government 

and in coordination with Moldova’s European partners to support 

Moldova’s efforts as it continues down its European path. 

2014 is an election year for Moldova, with parliamentary elections scheduled for late November. While the country has made 

great strides since independence, challenges remain to consolidate 

its democracy and recent EU-oriented gains. Corruption continues 

to be the primary vulnerability plaguing Moldova’s democracy, particularly its justice sector. To its credit Moldova’s ministry of justice initiated a justice sector reform strategy to modernize 

Moldova’s legal system and meet European standards. If confirmed, 

I will continue to press the Moldovan Government to implement 

these reforms. 

Moldova remains Europe’s poorest country. Around 22 percent of 

Moldova’s GDP comes from remittances sent from Moldovans working abroad, the bulk of whom work in Russia. The United States 

seeks to strengthen Moldova’s economy by promoting regulatory reform as well as increasing the competitiveness of core export industries. If confirmed, I will continue to advance these programs as 

well as work with the Moldovan Government to take further steps 

to buffer its economy against Russian pressure. 

Moldova’s primary security challenge is its unresolved conflict 

with the Transnistria region. The 5+2 negotiations on a political 

settlement involve not only the parties to the conflict, but also Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

Europe as mediators, and the United States and EU as observers. 

Although Russia continues to be an important partner in this 

process, Russia’s efforts to derail Moldova’s European integration 

aspirations and its refusal to withdraw its troops from Transnistria 

pose significant threats. Russia has used a number of political and 

economic levers against Moldova, banning the import of Moldovan 

wine, increasing scrutiny of Moldova’s agricultural exports, and 

threatening to cut off Moldova’s gas supply and deport Moldova’s 

migrant workers. 

If confirmed, I will continue my predecessor’s efforts to mitigate 

the negative effects of Russian pressure, help Moldova find new 

markets for its exports, and increase government-to-government coordination through the strategic dialogue. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to share my thoughts 

about the relationship with Moldova. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working closely with you and this committee. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you may have and will submit the remainder of my remarks to the record with your permission. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pettit follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. PETTIT

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson and members of the committee, it 

is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today as the President’s nominee 

to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova. I deeply appreciate the confidence and 

517 

trust that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working closely with Congress to promote U.S. interests in 

Moldova. Today represents an important point in a journey over the last three decades that has taken me to numerous parts of the former Soviet Union at various 

critical junctures. If confirmed, I hope to continue that journey and play my own 

small role in seeking a happy and successful outcome for the people of the Republic 

of Moldova. I am accompanied today by my wife, Nancy, who has witnessed the 

many changes in the region along with me and whose own insights and wisdom continue to help me on the way. 

Over the last year, relations with Moldova strengthened significantly, with Secretary Kerry visiting Moldova in December 2013 and Prime Minister Leanca visiting 

the White House in March this year in part to launch our bilateral Strategic Dialogue and to reaffirm U.S. engagement in, and support for, Moldova’s independence 

and European future. Continuing to strengthen our engagement is key to promoting 

security not just in Moldova but also in neighboring Ukraine and the region. If confirmed, I will build upon this progress while seeking to fulfill our chief strategic 

objective; for Moldova to become a fully democratic, economically prosperous state 

firmly anchored to Europe within its internationally recognized borders and with an 

effective and accountable government. With your permission, I would like to take 

a moment to touch upon core aspects of this objective—European integration, democratic development, market development, and security. 

FIRST: EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

We believe European integration is the best road for Moldova’s security and prosperity. Over the last year, Moldova has made significant strides toward this goal. 

On April 28, the EU lifted its visa regime for Moldova, allowing Moldovan citizens 

with biometric passports to visit the Schengen region for up to 90 days without a 

visa. Within the last 2 months alone, 78,000 Moldovans traveled to Europe visa free. 

On June 27, the Moldovan Government signed an Association Agreement that includes provisions for establishing a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, 

which will bring Moldova closer to the EU politically, as well as benefit the country 

economically by eliminating import duties on Moldovan products going to the EU— 

it is expected to boost Moldova’s GDP by 5.4 percent. U.S. assistance has helped 

Moldova progress toward its European integration goal through programs that enhance government transparency, accountability, and responsiveness to citizen interests, as well as improve the business climate. This year the United States will provide over $31 million in assistance to Moldova to continue supporting these and 

other objectives. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Moldovan Government 

and in coordination with Moldova’s European partners to support Moldova’s efforts 

as it continues down its European path. 

SECOND: DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT

2014 is an election year for Moldova with Parliamentary elections scheduled for 

late November. While the country has made great strides since independence, challenges remain to consolidate its democracy and recent EU-oriented gains. Corruption continues to be the primary vulnerability plaguing Moldova’s democracy, particularly its justice sector. Besides hampering government effectiveness and rule of 

law, corruption has led to high voter disillusionment with the current governing coalition and could harm Moldova’s continued European integration aspirations. To its 

credit, Moldova’s Ministry of Justice initiated a justice sector reform strategy to 

modernize Moldova’s legal system and meet European standards. The impact of this 

strategy can already be seen in the adoption of several pieces of new legislation, 

including anticorruption laws targeting judges and other public officials. U.S. efforts 

are focused on supporting this strategy by improving judicial administration, 

increasing the skills of judges and prosecutors, and supporting civil society advocacy. The other key component of our assistance program in this sector focuses on 

enabling local government to improve services for its citizens, as polling shows that 

locally elected officials are the most respected institutions in Moldova. Much work 

remains to be done. If confirmed, I will continue to press the Moldovan Government 

to implement these reforms and others necessary to fulfill the desires of Moldovan 

citizens for an accountable and corruption free government. 

THIRD: MARKET DEVELOPMENT

Moldova remains Europe’s poorest country with an approximate average salary of 

$290 a month. Around 22 percent of Moldova’s $7.2 billion GDP comes from remittances sent from approximately 700,000 Moldovans working abroad, equal to onefifth of the country’s population—the bulk of whom work in Russia. While Moldova 

518 

exceeded international expectations and saw its GDP grow by 8.9 percent in 2013, 

further growth is in question due to lack of transparent, substantial legal safeguards for business and pervasive corruption, which deters foreign investments. The 

United States seeks to strengthen Moldova’s economy by promoting regulatory reform, as well as increasing the competitiveness of core export industries, such as 

wine and fashion, enabling them to take advantage of the opportunities created 

through closer economic ties with Europe. In addition, through the 5-year $262 million Millennium Challenge Corporation compact that will close in September 2015, 

the United States is rebuilding a 93 kilometer road that will serve as a modern 

transportation corridor in Northern Moldova, and is rehabilitating irrigation systems, which will help strengthen the transition to higher value agricultural products. If confirmed, I will continue to advance these programs, as well as work with 

the Moldovan Government to take further steps to buffer its economy against Russian pressure. 

FOURTH: SECURITY

Moldova’s primary security challenge is its unresolved conflict with Russian-backed 

separatists in the Transnistria region. Closely related to this is the presence of Russian military forces in this same region, without Moldova’s consent. Although there 

has been no armed conflict between the Government of Moldova and its separatist 

region in two decades, Russia insists its peacekeeping presence must remain until 

there is a resolution to this ‘‘frozen conflict.’’ The 5+2 negotiations on a political settlement involve not only the parties to the conflict, but also Russia, Ukraine, and 

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as mediators, and 

the United States and EU as observers. The talks have stalled due in part to Russian and the separatists’ unwillingness to engage in a political dialogue on the 

region’s final status. Of continuing concern are media reports of increased Russian 

military activity in Transnistria, reports which remain unconfirmed in part due to 

the ongoing restrictions by Transnistrian authorities of access to the region by 

observers from the OSCE’s Mission to Moldova. If confirmed, I will support OSCE 

efforts to find a peaceful resolution to this frozen conflict that guarantees Moldova’s 

sovereignty and territorial integrity, while providing for a mutually acceptable special status for its Transnistria region. I will also work to ensure that the OSCE has 

unfettered access to all of Moldova, including its Transnistria region. 

Although Russia continues to be an important partner in the ongoing 5+2 process 

and plays a large role in Moldova’s economic and trade activity, Russia’s efforts to 

derail Moldova’s European integration aspirations and its refusal to withdraw its 

troops from Transnistria pose significant threats to the country’s sovereignty, security, stability, and prosperity. Since September 2013, Russia has used a number of 

political and economic levers against Moldova, including banning the import of 

Moldovan wine, increasing scrutiny of Moldova’s agricultural exports, and threatening to cut off Moldova’s gas supply as well as to deport up to 265,000 of Moldova’s 

migrant workers. In addition, Russian interests control much of Moldova’s financial 

sector and its assets. Combined with the constant stream of anti-EU rhetoric from 

Russian television, a major source of news for Moldovan citizens, Russia’s actions 

threaten Moldova’s sovereignty, economic well-being and its European path. If confirmed, I will continue my predecessor’s efforts to mitigate the negative effects of 

Russian pressure, help Moldova find new markets for its exports, increase government-to-government coordination through the Strategic Dialogue, help the Moldovan 

Government secure its borders by completing the $35 million Defense Threat Reduction Agency program that is building up the capacity of Moldova’s border guards, 

and assist the Moldovan Government’s efforts to counteract Russia’s negative propaganda campaign. 

While Moldova has come closer to its goal of European integration, its government 

still has much work to be done. If confirmed, I look forward to helping the Moldovan 

Government realize its citizens’ European aspirations. At the same time, I will support any reasonable effort Moldova wishes to make in order to maintain trade and 

other relations with neighbors outside the EU on the basis of mutual respect and 

common interests, not on the basis of threats or political and economic pressure. 

This will contribute immeasurably to our long-standing objective of a Europe whole, 

free, and at peace. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to share my thoughts about the relationship 

with Moldova. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and this committee. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much to both of our nominees. 

519 

Let me start with the same question to both of you. You both 

have experience in Europe, varying levels of experience dealing 

with Russia. You are going to be in countries that have long-standing relationships with Russia, while also looking toward the West 

as well. One of the things that a lot of us have been struck by— 

certainly Senator Johnson and I talk about this a lot—is the major 

difference in the ability of Europe and the United States to communicate information to the countries in which you are going, to 

Moldova in particular, versus the ability of Russia to do the same. 

Russia has dramatically modernized and ramped up its propaganda 

efforts. This is particularly relevant in Moldova, but I am sure it 

is an issue in Slovenia as well. 

With your broad experience in the region, what are your recommendations as to how the United States and Europe can try to 

compete in the information wars with Russia. Maybe I will put the 

question to you first, Mr. Pettit, in particular because you are going 

to have elections coming up in Moldova and an imbalance in information and its sourcing can have a pretty big impact on the outcome of those elections. 

So what are your recommendations? I am more asking for your 

recommendations to us as a committee as we debate this question 

of how we better resource our side of the messaging operation here, 

without of course getting into the same kind of, I would argue, 

over-the-top propaganda that the Russians engage in? 

Mr. PETTIT. Thank you, Senator, for that question, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed daunting, the competition with the Russian propaganda tools that they have, and it is hard to duplicate, and therefore needs to be countered in a different way. Eighty percent of 

Moldovans do get their news information from television. There are 

many, many Russian cable stations that are rebroadcast in 

Moldova and which reach an audience of almost the entire country. 

Most people in Moldova do speak and understand Russian very 

well. The programming is superior, it is very slick, it is well packaged. 

In terms of countering that influence, we have to use the tools 

at hand. The U.S. does have RFE–RL. We do have our radio broadcasting programs. We do not have the equivalent of Russian television and therefore we have to use other tools. We have to use exchanges, we have to make ourselves available. High-level visits are 

very helpful. Several members of this committee have visited 

Moldova in recent months. This gives us access to Moldovan media. 

It allows us to do outreach. 

If confirmed, one of my priorities will be to have mission members go out and do outreach throughout Moldova, including 

Transnistria, which we already do. These efforts are very, very important. We have 100 Peace Corps Volunteers in Moldova. All of 

these tools in their own way do help spread the message. 

But of course, what is critical is that our EU partners also assist 

us in this effort, particularly since the signing of the association 

agreement. 

Mr. HARTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would second what 

Jim indicated with regard for the priority that we need to put on 

this issue and for the engagement of the entire Embassy staff in 

these efforts. I think the challenge that we face in this regard in 

520 

Slovenia is far less than what Jim will face in Moldova and other 

states closer to Russia and in countries where they have a Russianspeaking minority. 

But nonetheless, it is critical that we get out and we are as active and creative as we can be. As I indicated in my statement, 

that is going to be a key priority for me if I am confirmed. The Embassy currently has a very active social media program, creative, 

educational, and other exchanges, including bringing interns in, 

partnering with the American Chamber of Commerce to bring interns in to work with American businesses during the summer 

months, in addition to some of the more classic exchanges that we 

have in the Fulbright scholarships, things like that. 

I certainly agree with Jim that high-level visits help. General 

Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander and Commander of 

U.S. Forces in Europe, was there recently and we would certainly 

welcome members of the committee visiting as well. 

Senator MURPHY. We will look forward to your thoughts on this 

subject. I think it is time that this committee has a more robust 

conversation about what new assets we can provide the information programs we already run. We made a commitment to Radio 

Free Europe when radio was the primary means by which people 

received information. That is not true today and it is a little hard 

to understand, if we still have a commitment to a concept like that, 

why we have not upgraded the technology to recognize how people 

get their information. 

Back to you, Mr. Pettit. Talk a little bit about the association 

agreement. A big step forward for the Moldovans, but the question 

is how does it operate? What needs to happen in order to make the 

potential benefits of that agreement real? What do we need to be 

saying to the Europeans in order for Moldova to take advantage of 

the newfound abilities they have under that trade pact? 

Mr. PETTIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, the economic 

benefits for Moldova are almost immediate. Some analysts estimate 

that GDP should rise approximately 5.4 percent just in the first 

year because of the favorable treatment of Moldovan products. 

However, there is a lot of hard work to comply with EU standards, 

and that is going to be the most difficult part for the Moldovan 

economy, the Moldovan Government. 

We have programs in place, as does the EU, to specifically assist 

Moldovan government, industry, with compliance. This is across 

the board. This is regulatory, this is meeting standards, this is 

rules applying to agriculture and tariffs and all sorts of things, including social components, such as human rights and governance. 

We have programs in all those areas. The EU has programs in all 

those areas. We see our role assisting Moldova in this aspect with 

attaining the necessary compliance with EU standards. It will be 

a definite benefit for the economy of Moldova, including 

Transnistria. 

Senator MURPHY. People have posited that the sort of next shoe 

to drop in terms of Russia’s ambitions to gain control over the near 

abroad is an increased level of Russian activity in Transnistria. 

They may not have to do that, given the fact that there are upcoming elections that are going to be hotly contested, and should the 

Communists win you could see a so-called democratic reorientation 

521 

of Moldova back to being within a closer sphere of influence with 

Russia. 

So my guess was always that Russia was going to put its efforts 

into winning these elections, which may get them most of what 

they want anyway. What do we know about level of Russian activity in the early stages of the November elections? What is going to 

be the U.S. disposition on those elections and making sure that 

they are, at the very least, conducted in a free and fair manner? 

Mr. PETTIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is definitely Russian activity behind the political scenes in influencing electorates, 

particularly the more disaffected groups. As you may know, there 

are some ethnic divisions within Moldova, such as specifically 

Gagauzia, also places in the north that are more—that have more 

of a tilt linguistically and historically toward Russia. 

The Russians definitely take advantage of that. As we had already discussed, the Russian propaganda machine is enormous. 

That said, the last parliamentary elections had many foreign observers and were deemed and fair and transparent. I am not as 

concerned about the process itself as what the results could be. We 

will work with whatever coalition emerges from the November elections. We have high hopes on the pro-European inclinations of the 

current coalition, but it bears noting that, even when the communists were in power, they were very amenable toward European 

integration and actually implemented some of the preliminary 

steps that led to the signing of the association agreement. 

So the election results are impossible to predict. The Communist 

Party remains the largest single party, but it is not a majority. 

They would have to enter into a coalition with others. We are hopeful that the current European path will not be disrupted regardless 

of what the results are of the election. 

Senator MURPHY. The Communist Party did oppose the association agreement, so it seems that for the time being they have cast 

their lot against European integration. We certainly know there is 

high levels of coordination between that party and the Russian 

Government. So I understand it is difficult for the United States 

to press political levers within a country when it comes to an election, but I hope we are not going into these elections with an optimism that a Communist majority is going to automatically continue a pathway toward European integration. I am not sure that 

that is a forgone conclusion. 

Mr. PETTIT. You are absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman, that the 

Communists are publicly stating that they do oppose the association agreement. We are really talking about hearts and minds. Unfortunately, the polls do indicate waning support for the association 

agreement. A lot of that is based on misperceptions of what the result will be. So I think it is really in the arena of public opinion 

and outreach is where we have our work cut out for us, we, the 

EU, and the Moldovan Government, which also has to take responsibility to explaining to the electorate just exactly what the benefits 

are, which to us seem very clear, but have not been made clear to 

the electorate. 

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Hartley, we had a hearing last week on 

European energy security. In my opening comments I told a story 

about a recent visit that Senator McCain and Senator Johnson and 

522 

I made to Bulgaria, in which during our time there an announcement was made that Bulgaria was going to for the time being suspend work on the South Stream pipeline, and thereafter we were 

criticized in some sectors of the country as being Americans coming 

into Bulgaria and telling them how to run their business. 

It struck me and still strikes me that the United States is in a 

no-win position. When we attempt to exert leadership to benefit 

our interests and European interests, we are criticized for being too 

heavily involved in other nations’ business, and then if we are not 

showing that level of leadership we are told that the United States 

is sitting back and failing to show the same kind of leadership that 

we have in the past. 

Slovenia is a member of the South Stream coalition. They have 

shown a willingness to move forward with the project, that is in 

contravention with the Third Energy Package from the EU. What 

is the current state of affairs with respect to South Stream in Slovenia? What are the things that you can do to try to convince them 

to stay on the same page as Europe when dealing with these complicated questions of energy transmission in and through the continent? 

Mr. HARTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a big question. 

The Slovenians seem very interested in their participation in the 

South Stream project, which is interesting in light of the fact that 

they only get about 10 percent of their energy from gas and they 

have access to hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and other alternatives. In some ways they are better set for pursuing a diverse energy base than many other countries in that area. 

But nonetheless, they remain interested. From what I understand from public statements by Slovenian officials, however, they 

are not prepared to take on the European Commission’s rulings 

with regard to how the South Stream project has been structured 

and the EU Commission’s, the European Commission’s opposition 

to it. 

If confirmed, energy security and energy diversification will be 

an important priority. It is a very big issue, especially in light of 

Russian behavior toward Ukraine and the ability and the willingness it has shown to use its energy resources as a political tool. I 

would want to promote greater interconnectedness between—within the European gas and electrical network and encourage Slovenian interest that is already evident in the possibility of building 

a second nuclear reactor, the first of which they share with Croatia. 

Senator MURPHY. All right. You guys got off the hook relatively 

easily today. Really important postings; looking forward to working 

with both of you; very excited to have such eminently qualified individuals going into very important posts for the United States. 

We are going to keep the record open for members to pose additional questions to you and our first panel, only until the close of 

business tomorrow, in an effort to try to move your nominations as 

quickly as possible. So if you do receive questions, we hope that you 

will turn around answers as quickly as possible so that we can 

move your nominations, as well as the first panel’s, through the 

committee in as expeditious a manner as possible. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

523 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR JOHN R. BASS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. In the past few years in Turkey, some Turkish citizens have been organizing and participating in events to commemorate the Armenian Genocide. The 

United States consulate has sent representatives to some of these commemorations 

in Istanbul. 

♦ Will you make participating in the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of 

the genocide a priority for you and your staff? How do you personally characterize the events that took place between 1915–23 that resulted in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians and the killing of as many as 1,500,000 

men, women, and children? 

Answer. The U.S. Government acknowledges as historical fact and mourns that 

1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death in the final days 

of the Ottoman Empire. In recent years, a senior representative from our consulate 

in Istanbul has attended the April 24 commemoration event in Istanbul. This is 

typically the largest and most public event held in Turkey on Remembrance Day 

itself, and Istanbul is where the vast majority of Armenian citizens in Turkey now 

live. If confirmed, I will continue to make attendance at such commemoration events 

a priority, particularly in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of one of the 

worst atrocities of the 20th century. 

The administration has commemorated the Meds Yaghem, and remains engaged 

in diplomatic efforts that support the President’s call for ‘‘a full, frank, and just 

acknowledgement of the facts.’’ If confirmed, my role would be to represent faithfully 

the President’s policies and priorities. I will continue to support the courageous 

steps taken by individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster a dialogue that acknowledges their shared history. 

Question. For over 20 years, Turkey has maintained an illegal blockade against 

landlocked Armenia, despite public calls from successive U.S. administrations for it 

to open Europe’s last closed border without any preconditions. 

♦ What steps will you take to move this issue forward and bring an end to the 

blockade? 

Answer. It has been and remains the administration’s policy to encourage Turkey 

and Armenia to reconcile their past and normalize relations as a means of creating 

the peaceful and prosperous bilateral relationship that the people of both countries 

deserve. The status quo is not beneficial for either side, and both countries would 

benefit greatly from increased direct trade and normal relations. Facilitating Armenia’s regional integration by opening its border with Turkey is a priority for the 

United States. 

If confirmed, this would be one of my key goals as Ambassador. I would work 

closely with colleagues in Washington and in our Embassy in Yerevan on this common objective, including taking every opportunity in meetings with government and 

civil society leaders to encourage greater dialogue. In addition, I would continue to 

support increased cross-border cooperation between the people of Armenia and Turkey through research initiatives, conferences, and exchange programs. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting periodically with the Greek and Armenian 

American communities on a regular basis when you are in the United States? 

Answer. If confirmed, it will be my honor and duty to serve as the representative 

of the U.S. Government and fellow American citizens to the Republic of Turkey. To 

that end, I look forward to engaging regularly with American citizen groups of all 

ethnic backgrounds who have an interest in our relations with Turkey, including 

and especially the Armenian American and Greek American communities. 

Question. The recent conversion of two historic churches in Turkey into mosques 

and the threat of legislation that would convert the historic Hagia Sophia is of grave 

concern. Will you raise these concerns with Turkish authorities when you arrive in 

Ankara? 

Answer. The State Department views the Hagia Sophia museum as a unique and 

historic symbol for Turkey and the surrounding region, and we strongly support 

maintaining the current status of this UNESCO World Heritage Site. We recognize 

and continue to emphasize U.S. concerns over the challenges religious minority 

524 

groups face in Turkey, including by highlighting instances of the conversion of other 

historic religious sites to mosques in our annual International Religious Freedom 

Report. The Government of Turkey has taken positive steps over the past year to 

return some properties to active religious communities, including the Mor Gabriel 

Monastery and 47 acres of property surrounding Halki Seminary, but more can be 

done. We currently have no confirmation of any serious effort to convert the Hagia 

Sophia to a mosque. 

If confirmed, I will continue to stress to Turkish officials the global sensitivity of 

any move to change the current character of the Hagia Sophia. I also pledge to continue our policy and practice of regularly raising these concerns with Turkish officials and encouraging additional measures to strengthen religious freedom in 

Turkey. 

Question. Less than 100 years ago, there was a vibrant and large Christian population in Turkey. Because of genocide and persecution, the population has been decimated and accounts for less than point 2 percent of the population today. In January 2011, President Obama noted the importance of ‘‘bear[ing] witness to those who 

are persecuted or attacked because of their faith.’’ 

♦ How will you address issues of religious persecution against Christians and 

other religious minorities with Turkish authorities? 

Answer. Religious minority groups face continuing challenges in Turkey, as noted 

in our annual ‘‘International Religious Freedom Report.’’ The State Department regularly engages at all levels with Turkish officials regarding the importance of religious freedom, including legal reforms aimed at lifting restrictions on religious 

groups, property restitution, and specific cases of religious discrimination. To this 

end, we strongly support efforts to reopen Halki Seminary on terms acceptable to 

the Ecumenical Patriarch. Furthermore, we condemn in the strongest terms violence 

toward all religious minorities, and we urge Turkish authorities to pursue investigations and bring perpetrators to justice. 

If confirmed, I will encourage the Turkish Government to follow through on the 

return of religious minority properties and to take additional steps to promote religious freedom, such as allowing more religious communities to own property, register their places of worship, and train clergy. 

Question. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion and occupation of Northern Cyprus. Peace talks restarted in February with the aim of creating a bizonal, bicommunal federation on the island. Thus far, confidence-building 

measures have been a sticking point, and other issues, such as property, are proving 

to be as difficult as they have been over the course of the last four decades. 

♦ What efforts will you exert to encourage Turkey to proactively and productively 

engage in these talks in order to reach a final resolution that will reunify the 

island? 

Answer. We welcome the constructive roles of both Turkey and Greece in support 

of the settlement process, including hosting historic visits by the Turkish-Cypriot 

negotiator to Athens and the Greek-Cypriot negotiator to Ankara. If confirmed as 

Ambassador, I will work closely with my colleagues in Greece and Cyprus and give 

my full support to the efforts under the auspices of the United Nations Good Offices 

Mission to reunify the island as a bizonal, bicommunal federation that would bring 

security and economic prosperity to all Cypriots. I will also engage senior Turkish 

officials to promote a just and lasting comprehensive settlement on Cyprus. 

Question. The Eastern Mediterranean could contribute to European energy security, but many analysts believe that the main impediment to greater oil and gas 

exploration is the lack of regional cooperation. Turkey’s provocations in Greek Cypriot waters, such as its insistence on deploying small research and exploration ships 

off the island’s southern coast, exemplify a barrier to greater regional cooperation. 

♦ What do you believe are the opportunities for greater regional cooperation in exploring these resources? What is your plan for bringing Turkey to the table to 

negotiate in good faith? Are there any positive signs? 

Answer. The discovery of offshore hydrocarbon resources in the Eastern Mediterranean has the potential to change the landscape for many countries in the 

region. If managed correctly, these resources could be a catalyst for increased cooperation and stability. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will continue ongoing U.S. 

efforts to ensure energy is used to promote cooperation and prosperity, rather than 

conflict. 

There have been some encouraging signs. For example, a recent conference held 

in the buffer zone brought together Turks, Greeks, Israelis, Lebanese, Turkish Cypriots, and Greek Cypriots to discuss the future of hydrocarbon developments in the 

525 

Eastern Mediterranean. The gathering sent an important message about the potential role that hydrocarbon development can play in promoting greater regional cooperation and, ultimately, increased economic prosperity and energy security for 

Cyprus and its neighbors in the region. 

The United States recognizes the Republic of Cyprus’ right to develop its 

resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone. We also believe the island’s resources 

should be equitably shared between both communities within the context of an overall settlement. Collaboration with regional partners such as Israel and Egypt could 

enable efficient development of these resources while also expanding potential for 

future cooperation on a wider range of issues. 

Question. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the spiritual head of 300 million 

Orthodox Christians who compose the world’s second-largest Christian Church. As 

U.S. Ambassador, what will you do to encourage the Turkish Government to allow 

the reopening of the Halki theological seminary, cease interference in the election 

of church leadership, and encourage the return of other religious properties belonging to the Patriachate? 

Answer. The United States strongly supports efforts to reopen Halki Seminary on 

terms acceptable to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Secretary Kerry and Vice President Biden have consistently called for the reopening of the seminary without preconditions, and the U.S. Embassy in Ankara and consulate general in Istanbul have 

engaged the Turkish Government on this issue regularly. If confirmed, I will continue to urge Turkish officials at the highest levels to reopen the seminary as a 

symbol of Turkey’s commitment to religious freedom. 

In addition, we support the Church’s right to choose its own Patriarch, obtain citizenship for Church Metropolitans, and gain recognition of the Patriarch’s ecumenical status from the Turkish Government. If confirmed, I will urge the Turkish Government to work cooperatively with the Patriarchate to resolve these and other 

matters of importance to Orthodox Christians and other religious minorities in Turkey. I will also continue to encourage Turkey to take additional steps to strengthen 

religious freedom, including allowing more religious communities to own property, 

register their places of worship, and train their clergy. 

Question. In 2013 Turkey announced that it would procure the Chinese FD–2000 

(HQ–9) air defense system. This system is not compatible with the evolving ballisticmissile shield being built in Europe. 

♦ What is the administration doing, and what will you do, if confirmed, to ensure 

that Turkey does not coproduce an air and missile defense system with a Chinese Government-owned company which has repeatedly been sanctioned by the 

United States? 

♦ If Turkey does pursue such cooperation with the Chinese, how would this affect 

other elements of U.S. and NATO defense cooperation with Turkey, including 

on missile defense and coproduction of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter? 

Answer. We have serious concerns about Turkey’s decision to negotiate with a 

sanctioned Chinese company for an air and missile defense system that will not be 

interoperable with NATO. We remain actively engaged—at the highest levels—in 

urging Turkey to end negotiations with the Chinese and turn to a NATO interoperable tender. We have enlisted NATO and our allies in this effort; they share our 

concerns. Turkish officials have reaffirmed that negotiations with the Chinese have 

not concluded and have extended the tender period through August 28. They have 

indicated the door remains open for a revised U.S. proposal. We have made clear 

that if Turkey does choose a Chinese system, it cannot and will not be connected 

to NATO systems and may have other consequences for our defense relationship. 

Other aspects of our defense cooperation with Turkey remain strong, including the 

strategically important access that Turkey continues to provide us to key bases and 

its hosting of the AN/TPY–2 missile defense radar. The Raytheon-Lockheed Martin 

bid would be NATO-interoperable and contribute to a stronger U.S.-Turkey defense 

relationship. Turkey remains a key partner in the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and announced on May 6 its plans to order two F–35 aircraft. We have told— 

and will continue to reinforce to—Turkish officials that if they procure an air 

defense system from a sanctioned Chinese firm, it could inhibit our shared goal of 

expanding our economic and defense relationship. 

If confirmed, one of my highest priorities will be to support and advocate on behalf of U.S. companies and investors, including those competing for business and 

contracts in the defense and security sectors, consistent with applicable U.S. law 

and regulations. That includes advocacy to promote the American consortium’s bid 

for this air defense tender. 

526 

Question. Turkey ranks 154th among 180 countries on the World Press Freedom 

Index. What concerns do you have about freedom of expression in Turkey in the 

aftermath of efforts by the government to ban Twitter and YouTube and enforce 

regressive new Internet laws? What can the United States do to raise these concerns, including in international fora, and to provide a forum for public opinion and 

the press in Turkey? 

Answer. I share your concern regarding government actions that have weakened 

freedom of expression in Turkey, which the administration has conveyed both publicly and privately to the Government of Turkey. We believe that democracies are 

strengthened by the diversity of public voices, while an independent media operating without fear of retribution is crucial to ensuring transparency and accountability. The State Department has urged the Turkish Government to unblock its 

citizens’ access to social media and ensure free access to all such platforms; we welcomed the Turkish constitutional court rulings in favor of restoring Twitter and 

YouTube. If confirmed, I will continue to call on the Turkish Government to ensure 

open access to information from many sources—including social media. 

Question. The U.S. innovative pharmaceutical industry faces severe challenges in 

Turkey, including an arbitrary fixed exchange rate system that saddles the industry 

with an extra 50 percent erosion of their prices. This is on top of a pricing regime 

that already forces the industry to accept some of the lowest prices in the world, 

in a market that hopes to be a top 10 global economy by 2023. 

♦ What will you to do to help resolve this long-standing, market-distorting, unfair 

trade practice? 

Answer. I agree the fixed exchange rate currently utilized by the Turkish Government in connection with reimbursements for imported pharmaceutical products impedes access to the Turkish market by U.S. pharmaceutical companies. It also acts 

as a barrier to Turkey’s access to the latest innovative medicines. The U.S. Government takes this issue very seriously and continues to urge changes in the pricing 

regime with senior Turkish officials. Most recently, Commerce Secretary Pritzker 

and Ambassador Froman raised pharmaceutical reforms with Deputy Prime Minister Babacan and Minister of Economy Zeybekci during the 2014 U.S.-Turkey 

Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial Cooperation (FSECC) meeting 

in May. 

If confirmed, I will encourage Turkey to work with the U.S. pharmaceutical sector 

to better understand their market needs. I will also work with our Foreign Commercial Service and U.S. companies to urge Turkey to implement key pharmaceutical 

sector reforms—and in doing so, to build momentum for a broader U.S.-Turkey 

trade relationship. 

Question. Turkey has identified the pharmaceutical sector as a top priority for its 

government. However, U.S. innovative pharmaceutical companies continue to face a 

rash of highly punitive market access barriers that impede Turkish patients’ access 

to medicines that are available to patients around the world, including in Europe 

and the United States. These barriers include marketing authorization and good 

manufacturing practices delays, uncertainty surrounding intellectual property protection, growing protectionist policies, a government-pricing regime that distorts the 

market through mandatory price discounts, and a draconian exchange rate system 

for pharmaceuticals. This exchange system is especially burdensome, as the industry must accept a forced devaluation that is currently 50 percent below market levels, despite a law and court rulings requiring the government to adjust the rate 

upward. This has been a top commercial priority for the Embassy and the former 

Ambassador. 

♦ How will you work to improve the market conditions for the U.S. research-based 

pharmaceutical industry in Turkey? 

Answer. I agree that the fixed exchange rate currently utilized by the Turkish 

Government in connection with reimbursements for imported pharmaceutical products acts as a barrier to Turkey’s access to the latest innovative medicines. The 

issue of delayed marketing approvals as a barrier to access is also an area of concern for the United States. 

During this year’s Framework for Strategic and Economic Commercial Cooperation (FSECC), the Ministry of Health suggested Turkey would begin implementing 

a ‘‘parallel processing’’ approach to pharmaceutical product applications for good 

manufacturing practices inspections and marketing authorizations, which should 

accelerate the entry of innovative drugs into the market. 

If confirmed, I will monitor these and other developments and encourage prompt 

implementation of such provisions. I will also press the Turkish Government to 

improve market conditions for the U.S. pharmaceutical industry in Turkey. 

527 

Question. Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, foreign fighters and funding 

have flowed through Turkey and into Syria in ever-increasing numbers to extremist 

groups, giving them a major advantage over moderate, local, Syrian opposition 

forces. Many foreign fighters moving through Turkey come from North Africa, Western Europe, and even North America. Now there is a threat that these battle-seasoned fighters could return from Syria, via Turkey, intent on attacking their home 

countries. Furthermore, representatives of Syrian extremist groups are operating 

from eastern Turkey, where they meet with wealthy benefactors to raise funds. 

♦ What should the Turkish Government be doing to stem the flow of fighters and 

funding through Turkey into Syria? How will you engage with the Turkish Government on this critical set of issues that pose security threats to the United 

States, regional partners, and NATO allies? 

Answer. This is a critical issue for the United States and Turkey, as well as for 

the ‘‘source’’ countries from which foreign fighters are departing and then returning. 

Turkey faces particular challenges as violent extremists take advantage of its 

geographical location and high volume of legitimate travelers. As the conflict in 

Syria has continued, the increasing threat from violent extremists has prompted 

stronger action by the Turkish Government to counter foreign fighters traveling or 

moving money across its borders. For example, the Turkish Government is working 

to tighten entry and exit controls. The Turkish Government has also made significant progress in implementing terrorist designations. 

If confirmed, I will continue our ongoing dialogue with Turkey to strengthen and 

intensify collective action to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters. I will also 

urge more focused, intense efforts to cut off financial flows to terrorist organizations 

through continued work with the multilateral Financial Action Task Force (FATF). 

Finally, I will work to ensure that U.S Government agencies present in Turkey— 

including the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense—are continuing to provide advice and technical expertise to help the Turkish Government 

share information about suspected or designated extremists and further strengthen 

border security. 

Question. In March 2009, Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon, in response 

to a question I asked at his confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee, expressed his hope that the Turkey-Armenia border would be opened by 

October 2009. Today, nearly 5 years later, Turkey has refused to end its blockade 

of landlocked Armenia. 

♦ In the past year, what adjustments has the executive branch made to its 

approach and policies to accomplish our repeatedly stated interest in seeing 

Turkey open this border? What progress can you report on this issue? Do you 

believe that Turkey’s nearly 20 year strategy of blockading Armenia has been 

effective? 

Answer. Both Turkey and Armenia are important friends and partners of the 

United States, and improving bilateral relations between them is an important priority for the administration. The status quo is unsustainable and detrimental to 

Turks and Armenians. It does not serve the interests of either society or contribute 

to stability across the region. Both countries would benefit from reopening the 

border. Increasing direct trade and contact between the two peoples would foster 

greater trust and understanding, and would help facilitate the necessary reconciliation between these two nations. 

The administration has been focused on this goal for many years. Despite our best 

efforts, progress has unfortunately been limited, with fewer advances than we would 

have liked to achieve. In the last year, the administration has stepped up support 

and encouragement of government-to-government discussions. We have also sought 

new ways to actively promote greater people-to-people contacts and partnerships as 

well as other cross-border and regional initiatives. We will continue our efforts to 

build and expand commercial, social, and cultural ties between Turks and Armenians in order to foster good will and understanding, and to encourage their governments to reconcile their past and normalize relations. 

The countries of the South Caucasus region are increasingly important strategic 

security and commercial partners for the United States and Europe. Armenia’s full 

integration into the region remains a focus of U.S. foreign policy. If confirmed, I will 

work closely with colleagues in Yerevan and in Washington to promote normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations, including by reopening their shared border, 

which remains key to providing people in both countries with the stability and prosperity they deserve. 

Question. What specific actions will you take, if confirmed, to mark the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide? 

528 

Answer. As the 100th anniversary of one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century approaches, Turkey must be proactive in seeking to come to terms with its 

past. If confirmed, I will personally encourage Turkish leaders to take meaningful 

steps toward reconciliation. The administration acknowledges the Meds Yeghern 

and mourns for the 1.5 million Armenians who were massacred or marched to their 

death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. U.S. Government officials have commemorated this tragedy at Remembrance Day events in Washington and Yerevan, 

as well as in Istanbul, where the largest and most public event in Turkey takes 

place. 

If confirmed, I would ensure senior-level representation by our mission to Turkey 

at such commemoration events. I would also do everything I could to advance concretely President Obama’s call for ‘‘a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the 

facts.’’ In advance of this important anniversary year, I would seek opportunities to 

support publicly the courageous steps taken by Armenian and Turkish individuals 

to engage in honest dialogue about their shared history. Finally, I would be happy 

to provide briefings to Congress on the status of these efforts and discuss additional 

steps that might also stimulate further progress. 

Question. What assistance can you provide to American citizens who are the heirs 

of victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide with respect to their legal claims 

to property? 

Answer. Though the U.S. Government is not a party to these cases, we continue 

to follow closely developments in the litigation. California’s courts have dismissed 

several cases filed by Armenian descendants on procedural grounds, but some litigation remains pending. 

We recognize these cases are more than just legal claims for the heirs of victims 

and survivors of the tragic events of 1915; they represent a deep and passionate 

search for resolution of one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. These cases 

are also a stark reminder of the importance of ongoing U.S. Government efforts to 

encourage the Turkish and Armenian people and governments to heal the wounds 

of the past. If confirmed, I would seek to intensify support for the ongoing reconciliation efforts between these two nations, to allow them to move forward together 

toward a future relationship grounded in security and prosperity. 

Question. What will you do to promote free speech about the Armenian Genocide 

within Turkey and end the gag-rule to allow their own history to be discussed 

freely? 

Answer. I share your commitment to supporting freedom of expression, as democracies are strengthened by diverse voices in the public sphere. If confirmed, I will 

be a champion for this and other universal values, as I was during my tenure as 

U.S. Ambassador to Georgia, and urge the Turkish Government to demonstrate full 

respect for its citizens’ right to engage in open debate and free discussion without 

fear of retribution. 

The Department of State has supported civil society and people-to-people initiatives to encourage reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, including programs 

that further the President’s call for ‘‘a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the 

facts’’ regarding the tragic events in 1915. The upcoming 2015 anniversary of the 

Meds Yeghern presents an opportunity for Turkey to expand the political space for 

dialogue on this issue and chart a new course for the future. Both Turkish Prime 

Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu have taken helpful steps in this 

direction in the last year, acknowledging the events of 1915 were ‘‘wrong’’ and 

‘‘inhumane,’’ and offering condolences for the lives that were lost. This was the first 

time in history that Turkish leaders have publicly made such statements. 

If confirmed, I would encourage Turkish leaders to build off these statements and 

engage further in honest and open dialogue. I would also pursue opportunities to 

highlight the human dimension of this tragedy, including by continuing our current 

practice of meeting with courageous individuals in Turkey who are working to move 

forward the conversation about these countries’ shared history. 

RESPONSE OF KEVIN F. O’MALLEY TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. The International Fund for Ireland (IFI) promotes economic development and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border areas of the Republic 

most affected by the conflict. Appropriations for the IFI averaged $23 million annually during the 1990s, and $18 million annually from 2000–10. Since FY 2011, funding has fallen to just $2.5 million, with the administration asking for no funding 

in its budget request. 

529 

♦ How has this significant decrease in funding affected our ability to promote 

development and reconciliation? 

Answer. The United States continues to support Northern Ireland as it works to 

build a strong society, vibrant economy, and enduring peace. Since 1986, the United 

States has supported Northern Ireland’s movement toward a shared future of peace 

and prosperity with over $530 million in U.S. foreign assistance to the International 

Fund for Ireland (IFI) programs. Through the years, the fund has contributed to establishing stability and promoting peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and 

the border counties. 

Given significant budget constraints and the need to focus scarce resources on the 

highest priorities globally, the administration did not request funding for IFI in FY 

2015. However, with the funding provided from FY 2011 to FY 2013, and funding 

the administration expects to allocate for FY 2014, the United States will meet an 

existing $7.5 million commitment to the IFI’s Peace Impact Program. The Peace 

Impact Program is part of a commitment to a lasting and sustained peace, targeting 

those communities in Ireland and Northern Ireland most prone to dissident recruitment and activity. 

If confirmed, I will make it my priority to continue the United States support for 

the Northern Ireland peace process through diplomatic engagement and cultural 

and educational exchanges. 

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR JOHN R. BASS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. If confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, you will be Ambassador 

during the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. 

♦ If confirmed, will you make participating in observances within Turkey that 

commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide a priority for 

you and your staff? 

Answer. The U.S. Government acknowledges as historical fact and mourns that 

1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death in the final days 

of the Ottoman Empire. In recent years, a senior representative from our consulate 

in Istanbul has attended the April 24 commemoration event in Istanbul. This is 

typically the largest and most public event held in Turkey on Remembrance Day 

itself, and Istanbul is where the vast majority of Armenian citizens live in Turkey. 

If confirmed, I will continue to make attendance at such commemoration events a 

priority, particularly in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of one of the worst 

atrocities of the 20th century. 

Question. Despite death threats and intimidation, Turkish scholars and writers 

have affirmed the Armenian Genocide. 

♦ If confirmed, will you commit to meeting with these Turkish citizens who are 

risking their lives to urge their government to openly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. Over the last several years, the Department of State has supported civil 

society and people-to-people initiatives to encourage Turkey-Armenia reconciliation, 

including programs that would support the President’s call for a full, frank, and just 

acknowledgement of the facts regarding the tragic events in 1915. If confirmed, I 

will continue our current practice and meet with individuals in Turkey involved in 

these and similar efforts and support their courageous steps to foster a dialogue 

that acknowledges Turkey’s shared history with Armenia. 

Question. In your testimony, you mention the importance of normalizing relations 

between Turkey and Armenia as a means to creating a peaceful, prosperous relationship that will benefit people of both countries. 

♦ How does the failure of the Turkish Government to openly acknowledge the 

Armenian Genocide impede efforts to normalize relations between Turkey and 

Armenia? 

Answer. To achieve full reconciliation, Turkey must come to terms with its past. 

While progress has been slow, there have been some recent signs of change, such 

as remarks by Prime Minister Erdogan this past April expressing condolences to the 

grandchildren of Armenians who suffered the tragic events of 1915. The administration will continue to encourage a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts 

in order to promote understanding between Turkey and Armenia. In addition, we 

will continue our efforts in support of the normalization of diplomatic relations 

between the two countries and the opening of their land border. If I am confirmed, 

530 

I will also promote government-to-government discussions, as well as people-topeople, cultural and economic contacts and partnerships. Such interaction begins to 

build trust, which is an important step toward reconciliation. I stand ready to support all such efforts in service of reconciliation. 

Question. For two decades, Turkey has maintained its illegal blockade of landlocked Armenia despite public calls by successive U.S. administrations for an end 

to Europe’s last closed border. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you work to end this illegal blockade? 

Answer. It has been and remains the administration’s policy to encourage Turkey 

and Armenia to reconcile their past and normalize relations as a means of creating 

the peaceful and prosperous bilateral relationship that the people of both countries 

deserve. The status quo is not beneficial for either side, and both countries would 

benefit greatly from increased direct trade and normal relations. Facilitating Armenia’s regional integration by opening its border with Turkey is a priority for the 

United States. If confirmed, this would be one of my key goals as Ambassador. I 

would work closely with colleagues in Washington and our Embassy in Yerevan on 

this common objective, including taking every opportunity in meetings with government and civil society leaders to encourage greater dialogue. In addition, I would 

continue to support increased cross-border cooperation between the people of Armenia and Turkey through research initiatives, conferences, and exchange programs. 

Question. Will you commit to meeting with the Armenian American, Greek American, Assyrian American and Kurdish American communities on a regular basis? 

Answer. If confirmed, it will be my honor and duty to serve as the representative 

of the U.S. Government and fellow American citizens to the Republic of Turkey. To 

that end, I look forward to regularly working with American citizen groups of all 

ethnic backgrounds who have an interest in our relations with Turkey, including 

and especially Armenian American, Greek American, Assyrian American, and Kurdish American communities. 

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR JOHN R. BASS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Ambassador Bass, if confirmed as the United States Ambassador to Turkey, your 

tenure will coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Commemorating this anniversary will be greatly important to Armenian communities 

around the world, including in Turkey and the United States. 

Question. How do you believe the United States can help advance broader recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey? 

Answer. Over the last several years, the Department of State has supported a 

number of civil society and people-to-people initiatives to encourage Turkey-Armenia 

reconciliation. This includes programs that support the President’s call for a full, 

frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts regarding the tragic events in 1915 

which resulted in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. If confirmed, I will 

continue to promote these initiatives and explore whether there are other avenues 

that could further reinforce U.S. efforts to promote a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts and reconciliation between the two countries. I also look forward to meeting with the courageous individuals in Turkey who are taking steps 

to foster a dialogue that acknowledges Turkey’s shared history with Armenia. Turkey must come to terms with its past, and I stand ready to support all such efforts. 

Question. What role do you believe the U.S. Embassy and consulates should play 

in marking this important occasion? 

Answer. The U.S. Government acknowledges as historical fact and mourns that 

1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death in the final days 

of the Ottoman Empire. In recent years, a senior representative from our consulate 

in Istanbul has attended the April 24 commemoration event in Istanbul. This is 

typically the largest and most public event held in Turkey on Remembrance Day 

itself, and Istanbul is where the vast majority of Armenian citizens in Turkey now 

live. If confirmed, I will continue to make attendance at such commemoration events 

a priority, particularly in light of the upcoming 100th anniversary of one of the 

worst atrocities of the 20th century. 

Question. How do you believe the failure to properly recognize the Armenian 

Genocide hinders the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey? 

531 

Answer. To achieve full reconciliation, Turkey must come to terms with its past. 

While progress has been slow, there have been some recent signs of change, such 

as remarks by Prime Minister Erdogan this past April expressing condolences to the 

grandchildren of Armenians who suffered the tragic events of 1915. The administration will continue to encourage a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts 

in order to promote understanding between Turkey and Armenia. In addition, we 

will continue our efforts in support of the normalization of diplomatic relations 

between the two countries and the opening of their land border. If I am confirmed, 

I will also promote government-to-government discussions, as well as people-topeople cultural and economic contacts and partnerships. Such interactions begin to 

build trust, which is an important step toward reconciliation. I stand ready to support all such efforts in service of reconciliation. 

Question. Do you agree with the accounts of U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire 

from 1913 to 1916, regarding the attempted annihilation of the Armenian people? 

Answer. I am aware of the history of the tragic massacres and forced exile that 

occurred at the end of the Ottoman Empire, and with U.S. policy during that period. 

Ambassador Morgenthau’s accounts, and the reporting of other U.S. diplomats, 

serve as important historical records of these tragic events from various perspectives. The individual stories of the tragedy are horrifying. 

The U.S. Government acknowledges as historical fact and mourns that 1.5 million 

Armenians were massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. If confirmed as Ambassador, my role would be to represent faithfully 

the President’s policies, as it has been in all of my previous assignments. 

(533) 

NOMINATIONS OF ERICA RUGGLES, GEORGE 

KROL, ALLAN MUSTARD, DAVID PRESSMAN, 

AND MARCIA BERNICAT 

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Erica J. Barks Ruggles, of Minnesota, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Rwanda 

Hon. George Albert Krol, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the 

Republic of Kazakhstan 

Allan P. Mustard, of Washington, to be Ambassador of the United 

States of America to Turkmenistan 

David Pressman, of New York, to be Alternate Representative for 

Special Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank 

of Ambassador; Alternate Representative to the Sessions of the 

General Assembly of the United Nations, during his tenure of 

service as Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs 

in the United Nations 

Hon. Marcia Stephens Bloom Bernicat, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room SD– 

419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine, presiding. 

Present: Senators Kaine and Risch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE, 

U.S. SENATOR FOR VIRGINIA 

Senator KAINE. This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee will come to order. 

We have five nominees to consider today and forward to the full 

committee for their consideration. I appreciate that we have a little 

bit of a—some kind of a demonstration is blocking a couple of the 

nominees from being here right at the minute, but we will get 

started, nevertheless. I will do some opening statements. 

And I think I will just go ahead and tell you about all five of the 

nominees in my opening statements, and then we will begin with 

testimony from Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Pressman, and we will allow 

the other three nominees to do their testimony when they arrive. 

First, congratulations to you, and to all five of the nominees. It 

is an honor to be nominated to represent the United States in the 

534 

capacities for which you are nominated. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, it has been a privilege to work on the 

committee, and one of the things that is so exciting is the opportunity to meet Foreign Service officers of every grade and every capacity, both in Washington and around the world. We are served 

very, very well by some dedicated public servants, and many of 

them live in Virginia. So, I want to make sure I say that right up 

front. 

The five nominees that we have today for a variety of positions 

are as follows: Marcia Bernicat to be Ambassador to the People’s 

Republic of Bangladesh; George Krol to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan; Allan Mustard to be Ambassador to 

Turkmenistan; and then two witnesses who are here, David Pressman, who is the Alternative Representative for Special Political Affairs to the U.N., with the rank of Ambassador, and an Alternate 

Representative to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the 

U.N.; and Erica Barks-Ruggles to be Ambassador to Rwanda. 

I am chairing this hearing, as the Chair of the Subcommittee on 

Near East, South, and Central Asia, where a number of these positions are in that real estate. 

A few words about each of our five nominees: Ambassador 

George Krol is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class 

of Minister Counselor, currently serving as the U.S. Ambassador 

for the Republic of Uzbekistan, previously the Ambassador in 

Belarus, with many other assignments in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 

Welcome, to all of you. You came in quicker than I thought you 

were going to come in. I am very glad to have you here. Just starting the introductions. 

Ambassador Krol has served much of his career in the former Soviet Union, developing deep knowledge of the region, and we are 

very, very pleased to welcome him here. 

Ambassador Krol, welcome. 

Ambassador Marcia Bernicat, who served previously as the Ambassador to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, and she was confirmed by 

the Senate for those positions in 2008. Ambassador Bernicat is a 

Senior Foreign Service officer who has 33 years of experience. She 

is currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the 

Bureau of Human Resources, and previously she has served in 

many capacities, including overseas postings in Barbados, Malawi, 

India, Mali, France, and other positions. 

Welcome. We are very, very glad to welcome you here. 

Allan Philip Mustard is the most Senior Foreign Service officer 

in the Foreign Agricultural Service at U.S. Department of Agriculture, currently serves as Agricultural Minister Counselor at the 

U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India. He has broad experience in 

guiding economic reform assistance throughout Eastern Europe 

and the former Soviet Union. An expert leader and manager, he 

served twice in Russia and speaks excellent Russian. He will be 

bringing essential skills to the task of furthering bilateral relations 

with the Government of Turkmenistan as it transitions to a market 

economy. 

David Pressman is an American human rights attorney and 

former aid to U.N. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. He curVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00542 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
535 

rently serves as Samantha Powers’ counsel at the United Nation. 

David served as an advisor to Secretary Janet Napolitano and chief 

of staff to the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, also served 

as Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security responsible for policy 

development on global criminal justice issues. He was appointed by 

President Obama to serve as the director for the War Crimes and 

Atrocities on the National Security Council. 

And finally, Erica Jean Ruggles is a career member of the Senior 

Foreign Service, currently serves as consul general at the U.S. consulate in Capetown, South Africa, a position she has held since 

2011. During her career, she has served as Deputy to the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., on detail as Director of the National Security 

Council, and Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. She has also had postings abroad 

in Norway, India, and elsewhere. 

These five public servants have already demonstrated their mettle in difficult positions and are well qualified for the positions for 

which they have been nominated. 

We are pleased to welcome you today. And what I would like to 

do is just begin with opening statements from each of the witnesses. I know you have submitted testimony for the record. It will 

be accepted in the record, but please take the time that you need. 

We will begin with Ms. Ruggles, and we will work our way across 

the dais, and we will then prepare for my withering cross-examination. [Laughter.] 

Ms. Ruggles. 

STATEMENT OF ERICA J. BARKS RUGGLES, OF MINNESOTA, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA 

Ms. BARKS-RUGGLES. Thank you, Chairman Kaine. And thank 

you, to the members and staff who are here today. 

It is, as you said, an honor and a privilege to appear before you 

today and to have been nominated as the next U.S. Ambassador to 

the Republic of Rwanda. I am humbled by the trust that has been 

placed in me by the President and the Secretary of State, and I 

hope that you will also find me worthy of your trust. If confirmed, 

I will work closely with this committee and other interested Members of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Rwanda. 

I would like to start, if you would not mind, by acknowledging 

the presence of—behind me, of my husband and fellow Foreign 

Service officer, Taylor Ruggles. Without him and without our family’s love and support, I would not be here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I sit before your committee today an embodiment 

of what so many people in so many countries admire about the 

United States, the fact that, through hard work and a good education, anyone in America can become anything they want to be. 

In my 22-year career, I have seen people just like me, from modest 

backgrounds, with hardworking families, who have not had the opportunities I did simply because they were of a different race, tribe, 

ethnic group, religion, or gender. And, because of that, I have become a committed advocate for ensuring that every individual 

has—the opportunities they need to succeed. 

Rwanda is a country that has been deeply riven by cycles of conflict, tragedy, and survival. Although Rwanda is still recovering 

536 

from the 1994 genocide that killed more than 800,000 innocent people, Rwandans have shown that recovery, reconciliation, and healing are possible, even in the aftermath of a genocide that no one 

believed possible in our time. 

More, however, needs to be done to secure peace and democracy 

and further expand prosperity in Rwanda for the next generation 

of its citizens. Since 1994, Rwanda has made enormous progress in 

rebuilding itself by investing in the health and education of its people, laying the needed foundation for economic prosperity and sustainable growth. In the past 10 years alone, it has pulled over 1 

million of its 11 million citizens out of poverty, doubled GDP, and 

had economic growth that has averaged over 6 percent. 

Rwanda is working not only to create immediate short-term jobs 

and employment, but to develop a vibrant economy by meeting the 

basic needs of its population through building roads, providing safe 

water, transportation, and health care. Rwandan children have the 

highest primary enrollment rates in all of Africa. For both boys and 

girls, Rwanda is on track to achieve universal access to primary 

education by 2015, with a primary net enrollment rate of over 95 

percent since 2012. And, unlike many countries in the developing 

world in which girls have limited access to education, Rwanda’s 

young girls are enrolling in primary rates at above 98 percent. 

To strengthen its economy, Rwanda has aggressively pursued a 

privatization policy that encourages foreign and local investment. 

It has diversified trade outflows and has worked strategically to 

achieve its goal of developing into a middle-income country by 2020 

and becoming an important hub within the East African community for regional financial services, aviation, information technology, and tourism. 

In addition to its economic progress, Rwanda has drawn on its 

own tragic history to try to alleviate conflicts elsewhere in the region. Rwandan police and troops are serving with distinction in 

U.N. and regional peacekeeping forces in Darfur, South Sudan, 

Mali, and Central African Republic. The United States has worked 

closely with Rwanda since 2006 in this regard, providing over $60 

million in training, nonlethal equipment, and logistics support to 

enable Rwandan deployments in these missions. 

The United States, in partnership with the international community, has also supported real developmental change in Rwanda. We 

remain Rwanda’s largest bilateral donor, providing more than $200 

million in foreign assistance in fiscal year 2013, including $90 million through the PEPFAR program. 

Although Rwanda has made much progress over the last 20 

years, there is still much we can do to encourage and support its 

development, particularly in the area of respect for human rights 

and the rule of law, ensuring freedom of expression for political activities and the media, and deepening Rwanda’s democracy. 

If confirmed as Ambassador to Rwanda, I will continue to urge 

the Rwandan Government to abide by its international human 

rights commitments, including respect for the freedoms of assembly 

and expression, which are crucial to the success of any democratic 

system of governance. 

If confirmed, I will also continue to encourage Rwanda to play a 

constructive role in restoring peace and stability in eastern Congo, 

537 

including the full implementation of its commitments to the Peace, 

Security, and Cooperation Framework, the regional peace process, 

signed in February 2013. One of the core objectives of that framework is the eradication of all armed groups, including increased 

international regional efforts to neutralize the Democratic Forces 

for the Liberation of Rwanda, or the FDLR, as they are commonly 

known, a group whose members include individuals responsible for 

the genocide in Rwanda. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will commit all of my energy and 

experience toward strengthening the relationship between our two 

countries and advancing, to the best of my abilities, the U.S. goals 

of a democratic, prosperous Rwanda that is at peace with its neighbors. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear 

before you today, and I will welcome your questions at the end. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barks-Ruggles follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERICA BARKS RUGGLES

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, 

it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today and to have been nominated by President Obama to be the next United States Ambassador to the Republic 

of Rwanda. I am humbled by the trust placed in me by President Obama and Secretary Kerry in nominating me for this position. I hope that you will also find me 

worthy of that trust. If confirmed, I will work closely with this committee and other 

interested Members of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Rwanda. 

I would like to acknowledge my husband and fellow Foreign Service officer, Taylor 

Ruggles. Without him, and our strong families’ love and support, I would not be 

here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I sit before your committee today an embodiment of what so many 

people in so many countries admire about the United States—the fact that through 

hard work, effort, and good education, anyone in America can become anything they 

want to be. I was born in the Midwest and had never even been on an airplane until 

I was 18, heading to university. As I did so, I felt the weight of ensuring I made 

the most of every minute of my education to further myself as I knew how much 

my family was sacrificing financially for me to go to college. That education opened 

up the world for me. 

In my career, I have seen people just like me—from modest backgrounds with 

hard working families—who have not had the opportunities I did sometimes simply 

because they were of ‘‘another’’ race, tribe, religion, or gender. And because of that 

I have become a committed advocate for the need to give every child, every individual, the respect and opportunities they need to succeed. 

Rwanda is a country that has been deeply riven by cycles of conflict, tragedy, and 

survival. Although Rwanda is still recovering from the 1994 genocide that killed 

more than 800,000 innocent people, Rwandans have shown that recovery, reconciliation, and healing are possible, even in the aftermath of a genocide that no one 

believed possible in our times. More, however, needs to be done to secure peace and 

democracy, and further expand prosperity in Rwanda for the next generation of 

Rwandan citizens. 

Since 1994, Rwanda has made enormous progress in rebuilding itself by investing 

in the health and education of all of its people, laying the needed foundation for economic prosperity and sustainable growth. It has pulled over one million of its 11 

million citizens out of poverty in the past 10 years, and doubled per capita GDP 

in that same period. Economic growth has averaged over 6 percent for the past 3 

years. 

Rwanda is working not only to create immediate short-term jobs, but to develop 

a vibrant economy by meeting the basic needs of its population for potable water, 

roads, transportation, and health care. Rwandan children have the highest primary 

school enrollment rates in Africa. For both boys and girls, Rwanda is on track to 

achieve universal access to primary education by 2015, with a primary net enrollment at over 95 percent since 2012. And, unlike many countries in the developing 

world in which girls have limited access to education, Rwanda’s young girls are 

enrolling in primary school at a rate of about 98 percent. Rwanda has also increased 

538 

to well over 70 percent the number of children staying in school to complete their 

education. 

To strengthen its economy, Rwanda has aggressively pursued a privatization policy that encourages foreign and local investment. It has diversified its trade outflows beyond traditional exports of tea and coffee to products such as pyrethrum 

(a natural insecticide), hides and skins, textiles, minerals, and specialty coffee. 

Rwanda is also partnering with foreign investors to increase its capacity in the 

areas of technology, telecommunications, and alternative forms of energy such as 

solar and hydropower. Rwanda has worked strategically to achieve its goal of developing into a middle-income country by 2020 and becoming an important regional 

hub within the East African Community for regional financial services, aviation, information technology, and tourism. 

In addition to its economic progress, Rwanda has drawn on its own tragic history 

to try to alleviate conflicts elsewhere in the world. Rwandan police and troops have 

distinguished themselves as among the most capable and professional contingents 

to support United Nations peacekeeping missions in Haiti, as well as in regional 

and U.N. missions in Sudan, South Sudan, Mali, and most recently, Central African 

Republic. The United States has worked closely with Rwanda since 2006 in this 

regard, providing over $60 million in training, equipment, and, in some cases, 

logistical support to enable Rwandan deployments for these missions. 

The United States, in partnership with the international community, has supported real, positive change in Rwanda. We remain Rwanda’s largest bilateral 

donor, having provided more than $200 million in foreign assistance in fiscal year 

2013, of which more than $90 million is used to support the President’s Emergency 

Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). 

Though Rwanda has made much progress over the last 20 years, there is still 

much we can do to encourage and support its development, particularly in the areas 

of respect for human rights and the rule of law, ensuring freedom of expression for 

political activities and the media, and deepening Rwanda’s democracy to permit 

peaceful political discourse and competition. If confirmed as Ambassador to Rwanda, 

I will continue to urge the Rwandan Government to abide by its international 

human rights commitments, including respect for the freedoms of assembly and 

expression, which are crucial to the success of any democratic system of governance. 

As Nelson Mandela, that great icon and statesman of South Africa said, ‘‘To deny 

people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.’’ 

If confirmed, I will also continue to encourage Rwanda to play a constructive role 

in restoring peace and stability in eastern Congo, including through full implementation of its commitments to the Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework, the 

regional peace process signed in February 2013 that is intended to end the recurrent, devastating cycle of conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and 

its negative impacts on the surrounding Great Lakes region. One of the core objectives of the Framework is the eradication of all armed groups, and this must include 

increased international and regional efforts to neutralize the Democratic Forces for 

the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a group whose members include individuals 

responsible for the Rwandan genocide. 

I believe the broad range of experience I have gained in my 22-year career as a 

Foreign Service officer will assist me in further advancing our goals with the Republic of Rwanda. As the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, and as the Deputy to the U.S. Permanent Representative 

to the United Nations, I dealt with many of the kinds of issues that I would face, 

if confirmed, as the U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda. Having worked on Africa issues 

on and off since 1994, I have followed Rwanda’s progress—and its ongoing challenges—with interest. My most recent posting in South Africa has only confirmed 

for me the important role that strong, independent democratic institutions—including independent courts, a free press and a vibrant civil society—play in safeguarding democracies and building more inclusive, more tolerant, and more stable 

societies. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I will commit all of 

my energy and experience toward strengthening the relationship between our two 

countries and to advancing to the best of my ability the U.S. goal of a democratic, 

prosperous Rwanda that is at peace with its neighbors. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. 

Ambassador Krol. 

539 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALBERT KROL, OF NEW JERSEY, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF 

KAZAKHSTAN 

Ambassador KROL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

this opportunity to appear before you today in connection with my 

nomination to be the next United States Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan. And I am honored by the trust and confidence 

the President and Secretary Kerry have demonstrated in me with 

this nomination. And, if confirmed, I will endeavor to fulfill their, 

and your, high expectations of me to advance our country’s interests in Kazakhstan. 

And I am also honored to be sitting here before you today with 

my colleagues, with whom I have served and whom I greatly admire for their professionalism and their dedication to our country. 

As a 32-year career officer of the United States Foreign Service, 

I can think of no greater honor and privilege to serve our country 

and represent the American people as Ambassador of the United 

States. And I am grateful for the support and inspiration my family members and friends have provided me through the years. And 

I count on their love and support in the future. 

Encompassing the size—or, the territory the size of Europe, 

Kazakhstan possesses immense natural resources and is located at 

the crossroads of east and west and north and south, and its population is young and increasingly connected with the world around 

them. And, for the United States, our strategic goals in 

Kazakhstan are to facilitate and strengthen Kazakhstan’s sovereignty and independence, its stability, its prosperity, and its democracy. 

Our strategic partnership with Kazakhstan has become increasingly important as Kazakhstan assumes its rightful place on the 

world stage as a country of consequence. From the earliest days of 

its independence 22 years ago, Kazakhstan has made numerous 

wise decisions. It gave up its Soviet-legacy nuclear arsenal, which, 

at the time, was the fourth-largest in the world, and has become 

a leader in nonproliferation efforts around the world. And, from the 

beginning, Kazakhstan has pursued economic reform, and, as a result, is now a middle-income nation with the most advanced economy in the region. Kazakhstan has also actively promoted trade 

links east and west and north and south, and shares our vision of 

developing a New Silk Road to connect Central and South Asia. 

Another wise early decision was to send many of its young citizens abroad for education, which is an investment that should pay 

off handsomely in both the public and private sectors of 

Kazakhstan. 

Long a provider of humanitarian and development assistance in 

Afghanistan, as well as being an integral part of the northern distribution network into Afghanistan, Kazakhstan is now standing 

up, in collaboration with our own USAID, its own international development body, called KazAID. 

And, in short, Mr. Chairman, Kazakhstan is a country with 

which the United States can work. United States investment in 

Kazakhstan has grown to roughly $31 billion, making Kazakhstan 

our most important economic partner in the region. We have expanded our ties in the security sphere and in the areas of economic 

540 

reform, education, and growth of Kazakhstan’s civil society. And, if 

confirmed, I would use my diplomatic experience in the Central 

Asian region, where I now serve as Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and 

previously as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, to lead our mission in advancing our growing engagement with Kazakhstan in 

pursuit of our broad national interests, which are: strengthening 

long-term stability in Central Asia and the world, promoting American business, encouraging respect for universal human rights, and 

preventing any threats to our national security from emerging in 

this region. 

Mr. Chairman, mutual interests and mutual respect underlie our 

relations with Kazakhstan, and only the people of Kazakhstan can, 

and should, freely determine their future development without outside interference or pressure. Respecting Kazakhstan’s traditions 

and transition from its Soviet past, our approach is not to dictate 

to Kazakhstan its path of development, but to provide the people 

of Kazakhstan a strong example of a prosperous, rule-based democracy on which to build durable economic, social, and political stability. The choice will be Kazakhstan’s to make, but the United 

States will always be a reliable, principled influence and partner 

for Kazakhstan’s efforts to advance market reform and to develop 

into a free democratic society respectful of the rights and choices 

of its citizens. 

As a current Ambassador and a U.S. taxpayer, I also understand 

the importance of being a responsible steward of the public trust, 

of public funds, property, programs, and personnel. And I recognize 

that security of the mission and its personnel is one of the highest 

priorities of any Ambassador, as is ensuring that the mission is a 

place where no one should ever suffer from discrimination, harassment, or exploitation of any sort. If confirmed, I would maintain 

these high standards of ethical conduct, fiscal responsibility, and 

security for our mission in Kazakhstan. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent most of my adult life in the diplomatic profession, and I have learned that the key to successful diplomacy is establishing and maintaining effective relationships. 

Clear communication is essential. At the end of the day, it is all 

about trust. This applies not only to engagement with foreign governments and societies, but also to engagement with Congress. 

And, if confirmed, I will always be available to this committee, its 

members and its staff, to discuss and work with you in pursuit of 

our national interests in Kazakhstan. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Krol follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. KRO

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and other members of the committee. Thank for 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today in connection with my nomination to be the next United States Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan. 

I am honored by the trust and confidence the President and Secretary Kerry have 

demonstrated in me with this nomination. If confirmed, I will endeavor to fulfill 

their and your high expectations of me to advance our country’s interests in 

Kazakhstan. 

As a 32-year career officer of the U.S. Foreign Service and as an American citizen, 

I can think of no greater honor and privilege than to serve our country and represent the American people as Ambassador of the United States. I am grateful also 

541 

for the support and inspiration my family members and friends have provided me 

through my years of service to our Nation and I count on their love and support 

in the future. 

Encompassing a territory the size of Europe, Kazakhstan possesses immense natural resources and is located at the crossroads of east and west, north and south. 

Its population is young and increasingly connected with the world around them. For 

the United States, our strategic goals are to facilitate and strengthen Kazakhstan’s 

sovereignty and independence, its stability, its prosperity and its democracy. 

Our Strategic Partnership with Kazakhstan has become increasingly important as 

Kazakhstan takes its rightful place on the world stage as a country of consequence. 

From the earliest days of its independence 22 years ago, Kazakhstan has made wise 

decisions. It gave up its Soviet-legacy nuclear arsenal, which at the time was the 

fourth-largest in the world, and has become a world leader in nonproliferation. From 

the beginning, Kazakhstan has emphasized economic reform and, as a result, is now 

a middle-level-income nation with a financial system that largely meets international standards. Another wise, early decision was to provide international education for many of its young citizens, an investment that has paid off handsomely 

in both the public and private sectors of Kazakhstan. Long a provider of humanitarian and development assistance for Afghanistan, Kazakhstan is now standing up, 

in collaboration with our own USAID, its own international development body, 

KAZAid. This is a country the United States can work with. 

United States investment in Kazakhstan has grown to roughly $31 billion, making Kazakhstan our most important economic partner in the region. We have also 

expanded our ties in the security sphere and in the areas of education and growth 

of Kazakhstan’s civil society. 

Kazakhstan has been a generous partner in Afghanistan and a vital link in the 

Northern Distribution Network, and is a strong supporter of building greater transport and commercial links across the region and beyond. Kazakhstan has also 

directly supported international efforts regarding Iran’s nuclear program and has 

been not only a responsible partner but also a world leader in global nonproliferation efforts, having given up at its independence what was, at the time, the fourthlargest nuclear arsenal in the world. As Kazakhstan increases its role and voice in 

regional and international affairs, the United States wishes to be Kazakhstan’s 

trusted strategic partner. 

If confirmed, I would intend to use diplomatic experience in the Central Asia 

region where I now serve as Ambassador to Uzbekistan and previously as Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of State, as well as my interagency contacts, to lead our mission 

team in advancing our growing engagement with Kazakhstan in pursuit of our 

broader national interests of strengthening long-term stability in the Central Asia 

region and the world, promoting American economic and business interests, encouraging respect for universal human rights and preventing any threats to our national 

security emerging from this region. 

Mutual interest and mutual respect underlie our relations with Kazakhstan. Only 

the people of Kazakhstan can and should freely determine their future development 

without outside interference or pressure. 

Respecting Kazakhstan’s traditions and transition from its Soviet past, our 

approach is not to dictate to Kazakhstan its path of development but to provide the 

people of Kazakhstan a strong example of a prosperous, rule-based democracy on 

which to build durable economic, social and political stability. 

The choice will be Kazakhstan’s to make, but the United States will always be 

a reliable principled influence and partner for Kazakhstan’s efforts to advance market reform and to develop into a free, democratic society respectful of the rights and 

choices of its citizens. 

Having served as an ambassador twice before, and as a U.S. taxpayer, I understand the importance of being a responsible steward of the public trust, of public 

funds, property, programs, and personnel. 

Security of the mission and all its personnel is one of the highest priorities for 

any ambassador as is ensuring that the mission is a place where no one should ever 

suffer from discrimination, harassment or exploitation of any sort. If confirmed, I 

would maintain these high standards of ethical conduct and security for our missions in Kazakhstan. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent most of my adult life in the diplomatic profession. 

I have learned that the key to successful diplomacy is establishing and maintaining 

effective relationships. Clear communication is essential. 

At the end of the day, it’s all about building trust. This applies not only to engagement with foreign governments and societies but also to engagement with Congress. 

542 

If confirmed, I will always be available to this committee, its members and staff 

to discuss and work with the committee in pursuit of our national interests in 

Kazakhstan. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador Krol. 

Mr. Mustard. 

STATEMENT OF ALLAN P. MUSTARD, OF WASHINGTON, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO TURKMENISTAN 

Mr. MUSTARD. Chairman Kaine, it is a great honor to appear before you today, sir, as the nominee to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to Turkmenistan. I am humbled by the confidence and the 

solemn trust bestowed upon me by President Obama and Secretary 

Kerry by this nomination. And, if confirmed, I look forward to 

working closely with you and your committee to advance America’s 

interests in Turkmenistan. 

The United States and Turkmenistan have a growing relationship that spans a broad range of issues, from regional security to 

energy cooperation to expanding economic engagement. Our nations share an abiding interest in Afghanistan’s future, and 

Turkmenistan has been a strong partner in contributing to Afghanistan’s stabilization and economic development, including by 

permitting humanitarian overflights for our military. 

Boeing and GE are just two examples of American companies 

that have experienced great success in the Turkmen market, and 

I believe there are many more opportunities to expand our commercial relations. 

However, our bilateral relationship is constrained by significant 

human rights concerns, because the government seeks to exert control over the lives of its citizens. If confirmed, I will work actively 

with the government to address the full range of human rights 

issues, including limitations on freedom of movement, freedom of 

expression, undue restrictions on religious practice, reports of arbitrary arrests and detention, and torture of prisoners. I believe that 

the sign of a mature bilateral relationship is one where we can 

have frank, open discussion with our counterparts on issues where 

we disagree. And, if confirmed, I will ensure that we maintain a 

constructive dialogue with the Government of Turkmenistan across 

the full spectrum of issues, even these tough ones. 

The United States has made clear to Turkmenistan our enduring 

support for its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the administration has also emphasized that U.S. interest in the region is 

long-term. Turkmenistan has been an important contributor to Afghanistan’s rebirth, providing discounted electricity, housing, hospitals, and other forms of humanitarian aid to its neighbor. 

Turkmenistan is also making major investments in infrastructure 

that will connect Afghanistan to the region and open its economy 

to Western markets. If confirmed, I will encourage Turkmenistan 

to continue to provide all possible support to Afghanistan. 

As Turkmenistan seeks to diversify distribution of its significant 

natural gas reserves, the administration continues to encourage 

Turkmenistan to move forward with the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, or TAPI, Pipeline, which could strengthen economic ties between Central and South Asia. U.S. firms have the experience needed to put the Galkynysh gas field, which would supVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00550 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
543 

ply the TAPI Pipeline, into production. If confirmed, I would use 

my decades of experience in overseas commercial advocacy to support American companies in their efforts to invest in energy 

projects in Turkmenistan and, likewise, work with the top levels of 

government in Ashgabat to ensure their clear understanding of 

international energy projects and markets. 

As noted earlier, the United States has a growing commercial relationship with Turkmenistan, and American companies are active 

across a growing range of sectors of the Turkmen economy, including energy, agriculture, and civil aviation. If confirmed, I will apply 

my more than 30 years of analytical, marketing, and trade policy 

expertise to advancing the interests of U.S. firms. I will also use 

my experience with Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization to encourage Turkmenistan also to join the WTO. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent 20 of my 29 years in the Foreign 

Service at U.S. missions overseas. Through my experiences abroad, 

I have come to believe that we make our greatest impact on a country through direct engagement with its people. My first job for the 

U.S. Government was as a Russian-speaking exhibition guide in 

the U.S.S.R., explaining American culture and our way of life to 

citizens of a one-party state with state-controlled media and a command economy. Later, as an agricultural officer, I was privileged 

to have opportunities to drive deep into the hinterlands of Russia, 

Mexico, Syria, and other countries, both to observe local crop conditions and to talk to local residents about America and our democratic form of government. These experiences proved to me the 

value of outreach at the grassroots level. Public diplomacy programs, educational exchanges, cultural programming, and engagement through American Corner libraries embody and convey our 

most cherished values and build enduring people-to-people ties that 

are the foundation for so much of what we do. In a country like 

Turkmenistan, which remains one of the most closed societies in 

the world, public diplomacy efforts can have an outsized impact. I 

will make these programs a priority, if confirmed as Ambassador. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know that, if confirmed as Ambassador, 

I will ultimately be responsible for the safety and welfare of my 

Embassy colleagues and their families in a remote part of the 

world. Their safety and the safety of all Americans in 

Turkmenistan will be my top priority. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mustard follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLAN P. MUSTARD

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today as the nominee to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to Turkmenistan. 

I am humbled by the confidence and solemn trust bestowed upon me by President 

Obama and Secretary Kerry by this nomination, and, if confirmed, I look forward 

to working closely with you to advance America’s interests in Turkmenistan. 

The United States and Turkmenistan have a growing relationship that spans a 

broad range of issues, from regional security to energy cooperation, to expanding 

economic engagement. Our nations share an abiding interest in Afghanistan’s 

future, and Turkmenistan has been a strong partner in contributing to Afghanistan’s stabilization and economic development, including by permitting humanitarian overflights for our military. Boeing and GE are just two examples of American companies that have experienced great success in the Turkmen market, and 

I believe there are many more opportunities to expand our commercial relations. 

544 

However, our bilateral relationship is constrained by significant human-rights 

concerns because the government seeks to exert control over the lives of its citizens. 

If confirmed, I will work actively with the government to address the full range of 

human-rights issues, including limitations on freedom of movement, freedom of 

expression, undue restrictions on religious practice, reports of arbitrary arrests and 

detention, and torture of prisoners. I believe that the sign of a mature bilateral relationship is one where we can have frank, open discussion with our counterparts on 

issues where we disagree and, if confirmed, I will ensure that we maintain a constructive dialog with the Government of Turkmenistan across the full spectrum of 

issues, even these tough ones. 

The United States has made clear to Turkmenistan our enduring support for its 

sovereignty and territorial integrity and the administration has also emphasized 

that U.S. interest in the region is long term. Central Asia stands at the crossroads 

of the New Silk Road, connecting Asian and European markets, and Afghanistan 

is integral to the effort to strengthen the region through economic cooperation. 

Turkmenistan has been an important contributor to Afghanistan’s rebirth, providing 

discounted electricity, housing, hospitals, and other forms of humanitarian aid to its 

neighbor. Turkmenistan is also making major investments in infrastructure that 

will connect Afghanistan to the region and open its economy to Western markets. 

If confirmed, I will encourage Turkmenistan to continue to provide all possible support to Afghanistan. 

As Turkmenistan seeks to diversify distribution of its significant natural gas 

reserves, the administration continues to encourage Turkmenistan to move forward 

with the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, or ‘‘TAPI,’’ pipeline which could 

strengthen economic ties between Central and South Asia. U.S. firms have the experience and expertise needed to put the Galkynysh gas field, which would supply the 

TAPI pipeline, into production. If confirmed, I would use my decades of experience 

in overseas commercial advocacy to support American companies in their efforts to 

invest in energy projects in Turkmenistan and, likewise, work with the top levels 

of the government in Ashgabat to ensure their clear understanding of international 

energy projects and markets. 

As noted earlier, the United States has a growing commercial relationship with 

Turkmenistan and American companies are active across a growing range of sectors 

of the Turkmen economy, including energy, agriculture and civil aviation. If confirmed, I will apply my more than 30 years of analytical, marketing and trade policy 

expertise to advancing the interests of U.S. firms. I will also use my experience with 

Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization to encourage Turkmenistan also 

to join the WTO. 

I have spent 20 of my 29 years in the Foreign Service at U.S. missions overseas. 

Through my experiences abroad, I have come to believe that we make our greatest 

impact on a country through direct engagement with its people. My first job for the 

U.S. Government was as a Russian-speaking exhibition guide in the U.S.S.R., explaining American culture and our way of life to citizens of a one-party state with 

state-controlled media and a command economy. Later, as an agricultural officer, I 

was privileged to have opportunities to drive deep into the hinterlands of Russia, 

Mexico, Turkey, Syria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other countries, both to observe 

local crop conditions and to talk to local residents about America and our democratic 

form of government. These experiences showed me the value of outreach at the 

grassroots level. Public diplomacy programs—educational exchanges, cultural programming, and engagement through American Corner libraries—embody and convey our most cherished values, and build enduring people-to-people ties that are the 

foundation for so much of what we do. In a country like Turkmenistan, which 

remains one of the most closed societies in the world, public diplomacy efforts can 

have an outsized impact. I will make these programs a priority if confirmed as 

Ambassador. 

Finally, I know that, if confirmed as Ambassador, I will ultimately be responsible 

for the safety and welfare of my Embassy colleagues and their families in a remote 

part of the world. Their safety, and the safety of all Americans in Turkmenistan, 

will be my top priority. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Pressman. 

545 

STATEMENT OF DAVID PRESSMAN, OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE 

TO BE ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR SPECIAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN THE UNITED NATIONS, WITH THE RANK OF 

AMBASSADOR; ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS ALTERNATE 

REPRESENTATIVE FOR SPECIAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN THE 

UNITED NATIONS 

Mr. PRESSMAN. Chairman Kaine, distinguished members of the 

committee, I am honored to appear before you as the President’s 

nominee to serve as the Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs at the United Nations. I am grateful to President 

Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Ambassador Power for this opportunity and for their confidence in me. 

I would like, if I could, to briefly acknowledge the members of my 

family, who are spread out across the country from San Diego to 

New York watching this hearing. In particular, my twin boys, 

Conrad and Ezra, who are 18 months old, who are at home in New 

York with my partner, Daniel. They are the lights of my lives. And 

when you have twins, you are constantly exercising your multilateral diplomacy muscles at all times. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Chairman, I have dedicated my professional life to public 

service at the State Department under two Presidents, as a human 

rights advocate and attorney, and as an Assistant Secretary at the 

Department of Homeland Security. I served in the Multilateral Affairs Directorate of the National Security Council, and, since last 

fall, have served as the counselor to Ambassador Power at the U.S. 

Mission to the United Nations. I have had the chance to work with, 

around, and for the U.N. I have seen both its promise and its success, as well as its failures and its shortcomings. I have looked into 

the eyes of displaced and desperate people who counted on protection from nearby U.N. peacekeepers, but who were instead left to 

fend for themselves. I have also seen, however, the U.N. accomplish 

the seemingly impossible; deliver vaccines, despite government obstruction, to those who would otherwise perish; families evacuated 

from aerial bombardments that would otherwise have killed them. 

From its founding almost 70 years ago, the U.N.’s record has 

been a mixed one. The organization is far from the panacea that 

some of its most fervent backers hoped it would become, nor is it 

the failure its most ardent opponents feared. Its record is truly 

mixed. It is both indispensable and it is flawed. But, it can advance 

our interests; and, as such, we must lead it, and we must reform 

it. 

As our lives and our world become increasingly interconnected, 

so, too, do the threats to our security and liberty. Terrorists, 

proliferators, aggressors, cyber warriors, criminals, traffickers, and 

peddlers of repression do not respect borders. In responding to 

them, our efforts must transcend borders, as well. And, while no 

country can lead as effectively as ours can, it is not America’s job 

to police every problem, to solve every crisis. That burden must be 

shared. And the United Nations, with strong and assertive American leadership, can help us protect our interests and promote 

international peace and security while more equitably distributing 

the burden for doing so. 

546 

If confirmed, I would be honored to join Ambassador Power in 

her determined work to make the U.N. more responsible, effective, 

and efficient. That means ensuring U.N. peacekeeping missions are 

well designed, properly resourced, and responsibly led. It means 

ensuring that peacekeepers who are supposed to be out patrolling 

and protecting civilians are not instead hunkering down on their 

bases. It means ensuring budget discipline, increasing transparency, and making sure that those who seek to report abuse in 

the U.N. system can do so without fear of retribution. It means ensuring that we live up to the spirit of the U.N.’s own charter by 

putting an end to the campaign of bigotry and discrimination directed against the state of Israel at the U.N. It means ensuring 

that voices of liberty and freedom are not muffled by noises of repression and extremism at the U.N. We can, and we should, make 

the U.N. work to advance our interests and security. 

Because of U.S. leadership today, U.N.-backed and African 

Union-led peacekeepers are playing important roles in repelling 

terrorist organizations operating in Somalia while U.N. peacekeepers are helping stabilize northern Mali against the threat 

posed by al-Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist groups. Because of 

U.S. leadership, the U.N. is on the front lines of preventing regional instability by trying to end conflict and curb suffering in 

Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Because of U.S. leadership, the United 

Nations helped lift Cote d’Ivoire out of the arms of a strongman intent on defying the democratic will of Ivoirians. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that I believe we can, 

and we should, use the United Nations to advance our security, 

protect our interests, and promote our values, and that, by so 

doing, we can make the world a safer, more just, and more humane 

place. 

It is to those ends that I pledge my best efforts, if confirmed. And 

it is with gratitude that I thank you and the members of this committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. And, of 

course, I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pressman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID PRESSMAN

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you as the President’s nominee to serve as 

the Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs at the United Nations. I 

am grateful to President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Ambassador Power for this 

opportunity and for their confidence in me. 

I would like briefly to acknowledge members of my family who are spread out 

across our country from San Diego to New York watching this hearing. 

I have dedicated my professional life to public service—at the State Department 

under two Presidents, as a human rights advocate and attorney, and as an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I served in the Multilateral 

Affairs Directorate of the National Security Council and, since last fall, have been 

Counselor to Ambassador Power at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. 

I have had a chance to work with, around, and for the U.N. I have seen both its 

promise and its success; as well as its failures and its shortcomings. I have looked 

into the eyes of displaced and desperate people who counted on protection from 

nearby U.N. peacekeepers, but who were instead left to fend for themselves. I have 

also seen, however, the U.N. accomplish the seemingly impossible: deliver vaccines 

despite government obstruction to those who would otherwise perish; families evacuated from aerial bombardments that would otherwise have killed them. 

547 

From its founding almost 70 years ago, the U.N.’s record has been a mixed one; 

the organization is far from the panacea that some of its most fervent backers hoped 

it would become, nor is it the failure its most ardent opponents feared. Its record 

is truly mixed. It is both indispensable and it is deeply flawed. But it can advance 

our interests, and as such we must lead it and we must reform it. 

As our lives and our world become increasingly interconnected, so too do the 

threats to our security and liberty. Terrorists, proliferators, aggressors, cyber warriors, criminals, traffickers, and peddlers of repression do not respect borders. In 

responding to them, our efforts must transcend borders as well. While no country 

can lead as effectively as we can, it is not America’s job to police every problem, 

to solve every crisis. That burden must be shared; and the United Nations, with 

strong and assertive American leadership, can help us to protect our interests and 

promote international peace and security, while more equitably distributing the burden for doing so. 

If confirmed, I would be honored to join Ambassador Power in her determined 

work to make the U.N. more responsible, effective, and efficient. That means ensuring U.N. peacekeeping missions are well-designed, properly resourced, and responsibly led. It means ensuring that peacekeepers who are supposed to be out patrolling and protecting civilians are not instead hunkering down on their bases. It 

means ensuring budget discipline, increasing transparency, and making sure that 

those who seek to report abuse in the U.N. system can do so without fear of retribution. It means ensuring that we live up to the spirit of the U.N.’s own Charter by 

putting an end to the campaign of bigotry and discrimination directed against the 

State of Israel at the U.N. It means ensuring that voices of liberty and freedom are 

not muffled by the noises of repression and extremism at the U.N. 

We can and we should make the U.N. work to advance our interests and our security. Because of U.S. leadership, today, U.N.-backed and African Union-led peacekeepers are playing important roles in repelling terrorist organizations operating in 

Somalia, while U.N. peacekeepers are helping stabilize northern Mali against the 

threat posed by al-Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist groups. Because of U.S. 

leadership, the U.N. is on the front lines of preventing regional instability by trying 

to end conflict and curb suffering in Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African 

Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Because of U.S. leadership, the 

United Nations helped lift Cote d’Ivoire out of the arms of a strongman intent on 

defying the democratic will of Ivoirians. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that I believe we can and should use 

the United Nations to advance our security, protect our interests, and promote our 

values; and that by so doing, we can make the world a safer, more just, and more 

humane place. 

It is to those ends that I pledge my best efforts, if confirmed, and it is with gratitude that I thank you and the members of this committee for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Pressman. 

Ambassador Bernicat. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA STEPHENS BLOOM BERNICAT, 

OF NEW JERSEY, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE 

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Mr. Chairman and members of the staff, 

I am honored to appear before you today. I would like to sincerely 

thank the President and the Secretary of State for the trust and 

the confidence they have placed in me as their nominee for Ambassador to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Kathryn Bloom White 

and Luther White, my sister and brother-in-law, and Thomas 

Darby, a dear friend with whom my sister and I share a proud Jersey Shore upbringing. Not here today, my sons, Sumit Nicolaus and 

Sunil Christopher, hail from the subcontinent, and, like their father, Olivier, and me, have enthusiastically called the world our 

classroom. 

It is an honor to be nominated to serve the United States in such 

a strategically important country at such a critical time for our biVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00555 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
548 

lateral relationship. As the world’s eighth-largest country by population and third-largest Muslim majority nation, Bangladesh is 

known for its moderate, secular, pluralistic traditions. 

With a consistent annual economic growth rate of roughly 6 percent, Bangladesh aspires to become a middle-income country and is 

an increasingly important trading partner and destination for U.S. 

investment. Strategically situated between a growing India and a 

newly opening Burma, it is well positioned to play a key role in 

linking South and Southeast Asia. 

Labor rights and workplace safety remain a top U.S. priority. We 

need Bangladeshis to ensure there will be no more heartrending 

tragedies like the Rana Plaza building collapse or the Tazreen 

Fashions factory fire. With support from the United States and 

other international partners, Bangladesh has begun to make 

progress in transforming its garment sector. If confirmed, I pledge 

to you that I will actively further our efforts to strengthen respect 

for labor rights and to improve workplace safety. 

Bangladesh is on pace to meet many key U.N. Millennium Development goals. Its development success story spans the past two 

and a half decades, and the United States has been proud to assist 

in achieving those successes. Bangladesh is the largest recipient of 

U.S. assistance in Asia, outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is 

a focus country for three of the President’s key development efforts: 

global health, global climate change, and Feed the Future. The 

United States also works closely with Bangladesh to combat trafficking in persons, mitigate the threat of natural disasters, 

strengthen counterterrorism, maritime security, and peacekeeping 

efforts, and combat trafficking in drugs and arms. I look forward, 

if confirmed, to continuing robust support for these important partnership efforts. 

The strong U.S.-Bangladesh relationship allows us to discuss our 

differences in a spirit of candor and openness. The United States 

remains concerned about recent trends in democracy and human 

rights in Bangladesh. The parliamentary elections of January 5 

were undeniably flawed, and Bangladesh’s main political parties 

urgently need to engage in constructive dialogue that leads to a 

more representative government. We remain gravely concerned, as 

well, about a tax on religious and ethnic minorities, political violence, and extrajudicial killings. If confirmed, I will work hard to 

support efforts to promote accountability and strengthen human 

rights and democracy in Bangladesh. We will work with the government, civil society, and Bangladeshis of all walks of life to ensure an environment that encourages the broadest and fairest participation. I will, if confirmed, passionately advocate policies that 

enshrine respect for human rights and diversity, room for civil society to flourish, space for the free and peaceful discussion of political 

differences, and adherence to the rule of law by an independent judiciary. 

The United States supports bringing justice to those who committed atrocities in the 1971 war with fair and transparent trials 

held in accordance with international standards. I will, if confirmed, continue to support the right of civil society organizations 

to operate independently and to express their views openly. We 

549 

also encourage the government to ensure the continued effectiveness of Grameen Bank and protect its unique governance structure. 

The most serious responsibility of any chief of mission is to ensure the safety and security of our staff abroad. Our Embassy in 

Dhaka works closely with Bangladeshi counterparts to ensure protection of personnel and facilities, which will remain a top priority 

of mine, if confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your strong interest in South Asia 

and the positive role that the United States can play. If confirmed, 

I welcome the opportunity to work with you, your committee, and 

other Members of Congress to advance America’s interests in Bangladesh and throughout the region. It would be a great privilege to 

serve the American people. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Bernicat follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA STEPHENS BLOOM BERNICAT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you 

today. I would like to sincerely thank the President and the Secretary of State for 

the trust and confidence that they have placed in me as their nominee for Ambassador to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Kathryn Bloom White and Luther White, 

my sister and brother-in-law; and Thomas Darby, one of my dearest friends since 

third grade with whom my sister and I share a proud Jersey Shore upbringing. My 

sons, Sumit Nicolaus and Sunil Christopher, hail from the subcontinent and have 

enthusiastically called the world their classroom, as has their father, Olivier 

Bernicat. It has been my privilege to serve the American people in eight countries 

across five geographic regions over the past three decades. 

It is an honor to be nominated to serve the United States in such a strategically 

important country, at such a critical time for our bilateral relationship. As the 

world’s eighth-largest country by population and third-largest Muslim-majority 

nation, Bangladesh is known for its moderate, secular, pluralistic traditions. With 

an annual economic growth rate of roughly 6 percent each year, Bangladesh aspires 

to become a middle-income country and is an increasingly important trading partner 

and destination for U.S. investment. It is strategically situated between a growing 

India and a newly opening Burma, and therefore is well-positioned to play a key 

role in linking South and Southeast Asia. 

Labor rights and workplace safety in Bangladesh remain a top U.S. priority. We 

need Bangladeshis to ensure there will be no more heart-rending tragedies like the 

Rana Plaza building collapse or the Tazreen Fashions factory fire. With support 

from the United States and other international partners, Bangladesh has begun to 

make progress in transforming its garment sector. If confirmed, I pledge to you that 

I will actively further our efforts to strengthen respect for labor rights and to improve workplace safety in Bangladesh. 

Bangladesh’s growth extends beyond its economy, as the country is on pace to 

meet many key U.N. Millennium Development Goals. It has been a development 

success story over the past two and half decades and the United States has been 

proud to assist Bangladesh in achieving these successes. Bangladesh is the largest 

recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in Asia outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It 

is a focus country for three of the President’s key development efforts: Global 

Health, Global Climate Change, and Feed the Future. The United States has also 

worked closely with Bangladesh to combat trafficking in persons and mitigate the 

threat of natural disasters, to which Bangladesh, due to its geography, is particularly prone. I look forward to the opportunity, if confirmed, to continue to support 

these important partnership efforts. In addition, if confirmed I look forward to continuing to advance our cooperation on strengthening security, including on issues 

of counterterrorism, maritime security, peacekeeping and combating trafficking of 

drugs and arms. 

The strong U.S.-Bangladesh relationship allows us to discuss our differences, 

when they occur, in a spirit of candor and openness. In this context, we have noted 

the United States remains concerned about recent trends in democracy and human 

rights in Bangladesh. The Parliamentary elections of January 5 were undeniably 

flawed, and Bangladesh’s main political parties urgently need to engage in construcVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00557 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
550 

tive dialogue that leads to a more representative government. We remain gravely 

concerned about attacks on religious and ethnic minorities, political violence, and 

extrajudicial killings allegedly committed by security forces. If confirmed, I will 

work hard to support efforts to promote accountability and strengthen human rights 

and democracy in Bangladesh. 

If confirmed, I will work with the government, civil society and Bangladeshis of 

all walks of life to ensure an environment that encourages the broadest and fairest 

participation. I will, if confirmed, passionately advocate policies that enshrine peaceful democratic values, including respect for human rights and diversity, room for 

civil society to flourish, space for the free and peaceful discussion of political differences unmarred by violence, and adherence to the rule of law by an independent 

judiciary. The United States supports bringing to justice those who committed atrocities in the 1971 war, but those trials should be fair and transparent, and in accordance with international standards. We will also continue to support the right of 

impressive Bangladeshi civil society organizations to operate independently and to 

express their views openly, recognizing that such institutions play an important role 

in any flourishing democracy. We also encourage the government to ensure the continued effectiveness of Grameen Bank and protect its unique governance structure. 

The most serious responsibility of any chief of mission is to ensure the safety and 

security of our staff abroad. Throughout the tense lead-up to and aftermath of the 

elections this past January, our Embassy in Dhaka worked closely with law enforcement and security counterparts to ensure protection of personnel and facilities, 

which will remain a top priority if confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your strong interest in South Asia and the positive 

role the United States can play as our government rebalances to that continent. If 

confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to work with you, your committee and other 

Members of Congress to advance America’s interests in Bangladesh and throughout 

the region. It would be a great privilege to represent the people of the United States 

of America. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. 

And two prefatory comments and then I will ask questions. And 

I am actually going to move in a different order than the opening 

statements. But, I know, first, that all of us probably have half of 

our mind on this Malaysian Air downing in the Ukraine, and it is 

just—there is unreported—there is unconfirmed reports that there 

may have been Americans onboard. Under any circumstance, 

whether or not, this is a very, very dangerous event, and our prayers are with the victims. But, also, it points out the high stakes of 

the work that you all are doing. The world is a very, very challenging place right now. 

And, second, on a happier note, I want you to each know I was 

your agent this morning. I was at a nomination hearing for General Dunford to be the next Commandant of the Marine Corps, and 

I stressed upon the General the importance of the Marine Security 

Guard Program. The Marine Security Guards who police our embassies are trained at Quantico, in Virginia, and that program is 

a very important one. It is been growing, in the aftermath of the 

Accountability Review Board report that came out following the 

Benghazi tragedy. You each mentioned the security of your people 

and the safety of your people in your statements, those of you who 

are assuming mission command, and I know that that Marine Security Guard component is going to be a critical ally as you go forward. And so, I wanted to make sure that General Dunford knew 

that, of the many issues that we care about with respect to the 

Corps, the Security Guard Program is an important one. And I 

think he certainly, himself, understands that importance. 

Ambassador Bernicat, if I could begin with you. You mentioned 

the flaws in the January 2014 election. And there was a boycott of 

the election by the BNP, and other flaws. How have these flaws, 

551 

including that boycott, affected the, sort of, legitimacy of the elections as it is perceived by the Bangladeshi population? And, you 

know, what can or is being done to try to resolve concerns and, 

hopefully, plan for better elections in the future? 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Thank you, Mr. Senator. 

We are very concerned that the current legislature contains the 

majority of members who ran unopposed because of that boycott. 

That cannot be a representative body of governance. And so, we 

have pressed, we continue to press, from the day after the election, 

for the establishment of an all-inclusive political process that is 

free and fair, and free especially of violence, because that has been, 

unfortunately, a hallmark of the last year and a half, as well, in 

Bangladeshi politics, to have Bangladeshis come to resolution and 

develop a government that is more representative. 

That said, at the same time, we have been able to work effectively—and continue to work effectively with Bangladesh on a 

whole host of bilateral issues of concern to both our governments 

and the broader region. 

Senator KAINE. Madam Ambassador, how concerned are you 

about Islamist militancy in Bangladesh today? Is it a major concern or is it an issue that is not too, sort of, imminent and urgent? 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Sir, I have spent the majority of my career serving in countries with either Muslim majority populations 

or significant Muslim populations, and I would simply say, Muslim 

population or not, absent a free and representative government and 

economic system that allows for broad participation, the risk for 

terrorism and the growth of extremism remains high. And so, we 

can do no more good, I think, in Bangladesh, than to continue the 

programs we have to counter those trends. Bangladesh is on a very 

impressive trajectory. Our job should be to ensure that that trajectory continues, in terms of economic growth and reinforcing what 

is a deep pluralistic tradition within the Bangladeshi people to 

make sure that extremism does not grow. 

Senator KAINE. Let me ask you about a couple of issues of this 

kind of inclusion. There is a history of inclusion. We want to make 

sure it continues. You mentioned the Grameen Bank in your testimony—is Dr. Yunus still the subject of government harassment, or 

not? 

Ambassador BERNICAT. He is no longer associated with—— 

Senator KAINE. Right. 

Ambassador BERNICAT [continuing]. Grameen Bank. 

Senator KAINE. Right. 

Ambassador BERNICAT. And we have made strong representations, and will continue to do so, that a proposed law and any other 

actions do not undermine a governance board that is run by the 

members, specifically women. We want to make sure that the legacy that Dr. Yunus has given the world is not undermined, because, of course, we have all benefited from the microfinance model 

he began there. 

Senator KAINE. The Senate has acted recently to pass legislation—we passed a resolution last week, we have passed another 

resolution this week—dealing with increasing complaints about oppression of religious minorities in different regions of the world. 

What are we currently doing to protect religious minorities in BanVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00559 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
552 

gladesh? And are recent incidents of violence against Hindus part 

of a larger trend or seen as sort of, you know, unfortunate, but not 

necessarily a trend? 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Well, there has been a general trend of 

increasing violence—political violence, extrajudicial killings—over 

the last year and a half. And religious minorities have been among 

those targeted, but certainly not exclusively targeted. 

First and foremost, we have shown a light on this behavior. We 

bring to the government’s attention reports of these acts. We publish them in our reports on human rights and on religious freedom. 

And we are working with the government, as well as asking the 

government, to be accountable for these actions, to investigate 

them and then to bring the perpetrators to justice; again, within 

the full framework of international standards of justice. 

Senator KAINE. I would encourage you, and all of you, in this 

way. You know, there are—people ask about the influence that 

America has in the world. And one of the ways we best influence 

is by being exemplary. And there are a number of areas where we 

are exemplary. And the religious pluralism of American society, the 

fact that people can live next door to each other, work together, you 

know, go to school together—that if they had been in, maybe, original countries of origin, they would be at odds. Instead, in the 

United States, it works so well. Not that we are without flaws. We 

have flaws in every area. But, this is really a great example. Journalistic freedom is another example. We often think of these as sort 

of, you know, kind of soft skills. But, they really need to be held 

up as beacons in the world, because they are things we should be 

proud of. And I think we can help other nations embrace religious 

pluralism, as well. And I would encourage all of you in that. 

In the past, the military has played an active role in Bangladeshi 

politics, kind of depending upon perceived threats either to them 

or the threats they perceive in the country. What are the prospects 

that the military will sort of be intervening in to the political process in the future, as you see it today? 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Right. Of course, the Bangladeshi military has a long and proud tradition. We have a very active security 

assistance program. Bangladeshis have—in fact, 88 Bangladeshis 

have lost their lives around the world in peacekeeping operations 

in 25 different countries. We continue to work and train with the 

Bangladeshis to reinforce human rights, to impress upon the government that the government intervening—excuse me—the military intervening undermines the democratic process, that a true 

and republican military is the best defense, if you will, for a democracy. And we will continue to do that. There have been some troubling trends, as you are aware, of military involvement in efforts 

to address counterterrorism and other violence, domestically. 

Senator KAINE. Madam Ambassador, we had a hearing yesterday 

in the committee about the United States-India relationship, and 

the timing was really to coincide with the beginning of Prime Minister Modi’s tenure. There was a lot of discussion in the hearing 

about the India-Pakistan relationship, but not questions, really, 

about the India-Bangladesh relationship. Could you talk a little bit 

about that relationship, especially in light of the new government 

in India? 

553 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Yes, thank you for that question. I have 

worked in or on India, dating back to 1988, actually. And it is refreshing to see that Prime Minister Modi has reached out to all of 

India’s neighbors as his first acts. And I think that those are very 

positive signs. 

We share with India a desire for a region that is better and more 

interconnected, because it is the least interconnected region, particularly from an economic standpoint. And we share, also, with 

India a desire to see Bangladesh be a strong pluralistic democracy 

that is free of political violence and that, of course, is stable. And 

so, we work constantly with India, as well as our other diplomatic 

partners to that end. And I think Prime Minister Modi’s early actions are very encouraging in that regard. 

Senator KAINE. They certainly are encouraging, in terms of his 

own actions; and they were received that way in Bangladesh, as 

well. 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Yes. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator KAINE. The last question I would like to ask you is—you 

mention in your testimony the really significant and—tragedy in 

Rana Plaza last year, and the other factory, as well. What has 

the—and we had a hearing on this topic, probably about a year ago 

on this committee, at Senator Menendez’s instance. What progress 

has been made in the last year toward addressing some of these 

workplace safety, building standard, and labor rights issues? 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Out of the most horrific garment-industry tragedy ever in history has arisen an extraordinary interagency 

and international program, or set of programs, to address both 

worker safety and worker rights, in terms of the ability to form 

unions and to have their grievances heard. In the last year, we 

have come together as an interagency to support these efforts within Bangladesh, and especially—I think we have to give a nod to the 

private sector—there are over 150 unions that have been registered 

with the government, and there have been over 20 factories that 

have been closed due to imminent danger of physical safety. The 

government has opened a public Web site, although it has not yet 

uploaded the data, regarding the inspection of factories, which is 

ongoing. We are supporting efforts, as is the private sector, to hire 

and train more inspectors. And we will continue to press in all of 

these areas. 

Senator KAINE. And, Ambassador Bernicat, when you mention 

the private sector, that includes U.S. companies have been actively 

engaged in this effort? 

Ambassador BERNICAT. Yes, absolutely, and we have worked together with the International Labor Organization, as well. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you very much. 

I will now move to Ambassador Krol. 

I have had a number of meetings, both in the Foreign Relations 

context—I recently met with the Kazak Ambassador to the United 

States, Ambassador Umarov, and I have also met with Kazakhstan 

military officials as they have visited us in our Armed Services 

portfolio. If you would—your background and work in this region 

is pretty important—talk about, to the extent that you have—you 

know, you are sort of aware of this—how have Russian-Kazak relaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00561 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
554 

tionships been affected by all the controversy recently in the 

Ukraine? 

Ambassador KROL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that, like all countries that had been all part of the one 

country, the Soviet Union, they are all looking and watching as— 

what is going on with Russia and Ukraine very intently. And 

Kazakhstan is one of them. Kazakhstan has a particular relationship with Russia, a long border, about 20 percent of its population 

are Russian-speaking up in the north. They are members of a Eurasian Economic Union, Customs Union, as well as the Collective 

Security Treaty Organization that they have. And so, they are very 

intimately concerned about developments in that region. And I believe they do believe that there should be a peaceful resolution with 

full respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, 

and independence. And that is something that, I think, throughout 

its own independent existence, Kazakhstan has been particularly 

concerned about maintaining for itself. It exists in a very important 

geostrategic place, between Russia, China, and then, to the south, 

the rest of Central Asia, as well, and it wants to maintain very constructive economic and political security relationships with its 

neighbors, but based on the principle of respect for its territorial 

integrity and its independence. And that is something that, as an 

American policy, that we have been supporting ever since we recognized the independence of these former republics of the Soviet 

Union. And we were the first to recognize Kazakhstan’s independence. 

So, yes, they are very concerned, and hope that this will resolve 

itself in a peaceful way before their own reasons of their own population, but for the entire region. 

Senator KAINE. What is the current state of the Kazakh-Russian 

relationship? 

Ambassador KROL. Well, as I said, that they have a strategic 

partnership, and they—— 

Senator KAINE. In these organizations that you mentioned. 

Ambassador KROL. That is right, that most recently they joined 

a—created a Customs Union with Russia, Kazakhstan, and 

Belarus, and which has been turned into a—an Economic Union 

that will—basically, it creates a—one customs space and—with tariffs, and allowing, basically, a one market of the three countries 

that are members of this union. So, they are very much entwined 

with that. And, as I said, they are also members of the Collective 

Security Treaty Organization that—of the former states of the Soviet Union, and Kazakhstan is a member of that, and they are engaged in maneuvers and have a close security relationship, as well 

as in the air defense of the—this space is also included in the Russia-Kazakhstan airspace area, as well. So, it is a very close relationship and one, however, that is—they feel has to be based upon 

respect for their independence—political independence and territorial integrity. 

Senator KAINE. Kazakhstan has been a very strong partner of 

the United States in all the work that we have done in Afghanistan—military partner; it is been of significant assistance in a 

northern route to retrograde personnel and material. Kazakhstan 

555 

has done a significant job in the education of Afghani students, college students, and has done that pretty significantly. 

What—do the Kazakh Government have concerns about the post2014 transition of the U.S. role in Afghanistan? And how could we 

work to allay concerns, if they have them? 

Ambassador KROL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that—even though 

Kazakhstan does not have a border with Afghanistan, nevertheless, 

they and other countries in the Central Asian region are quite concerned about developments in Afghanistan, because it can affect 

their security. They would not like to see Afghanistan fail, and 

they would not like to see it to become a platform for extremism 

or terrorism that can affect their populations and their security. 

And that is why Kazakhstan and other countries in the region have 

been particularly supportive of efforts to stabilize Afghanistan politically as well as economically, and that will continue. 

We keep a very close consultative relationship with Kazakhstan 

and other countries in the region to keep them abreast of our policies and what we are doing in Afghanistan, and in emphasizing the 

point that we are not abandoning Afghanistan, that we are 

transitioning to another relationship with Afghanistan that is 

equally important and that will be even more engaged with Afghanistan in order to see it succeed and stabilize as a unitary 

state. And that is what countries like Kazakhstan are interested in 

hearing from us, and not just hearing from us, but seeing that that 

is the case, but also partnering with the United States and other 

countries to ensure that Afghanistan will become and remain a stable state that can be integrated into the larger economy. 

Senator KAINE. What role is the United States playing in any 

current efforts to try to encourage Kazakhstan to supply energy to 

Europe via the Caspian pipeline system? 

Ambassador KROL. Well, the—most of Kazakhstan’s energy resources go out through a pipeline that goes mostly through Russia, 

and then there is another line that goes through China, but they 

have also established a line that does go through to Turkmenistan 

and also to build up the port of Aktau on the Caspian Sea, which 

could be used for sending liquified natural gas across the Caspian 

in order to reach into the pipeline that goes through the Caucasus. 

There are—they can also do tankers and things of that nature, as 

well, as they are developing the fields that are in the northern Caspian region. So, that is another part of their own desire to diversify 

their—as it were, their exports of their energy resources to— 

through the Caucasus, across the Caspian, as well as in the more 

traditional directions that they have had. 

Senator KAINE. I think you mentioned in your testimony the bid 

of Kazakhstan for membership in the WTO. Could you talk a little 

bit about the current status of that bid? 

Ambassador KROL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Kazakhstan does wish to become a member of the WTO. The 

United States wishes to assist it to become a member of the WTO. 

And there have been very intensive technical discussions between 

the United States and Kazakhstan on their WTO accession. The 

fact that Kazakhstan is a member of the Customs Union and the 

Eurasian Economic Union has added some technical issues that 

have to be resolved, particularly on tariffs and on sanitary— 

556 

phytosanitary, that is—international standards that we are working on with Kazakhstan. And so, it is a very active issue that we 

are working on with the Kazakhstani authorities. And we hope 

that this can be concluded relatively soon. 

Senator KAINE. Could you offer kind of a current status of 

human rights or democratization issues in Kazakhstan? Particularly, I asked Ambassador Bernicat about religious freedom. I 

would like your thoughts on that, as well. 

Ambassador KROL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

That the issues of human rights and religious freedom and the 

like are issues that have been of concern of the United States in 

Kazakhstan, not that this is an area that is an area of religious violence and the like; it is just the matter of encouraging greater 

openness in—and space in their society and in their laws in order 

to recognize that people could have choices in their religious beliefs 

and not to be so repressed in being able to express their religious 

beliefs, as well as their political beliefs, as well as their—as well 

as any of the beliefs and choices that people would have in a free 

and democratic society. 

I mean, coming out of this 70-some years of being part of the Soviet system, it is a very difficult transition of the mindset that the 

people can be trusted to exercise responsibility along with the freedoms that they would have. And this is an area that we, the 

United States Government and our agencies, as well as American 

civil society, wish to work very constructively with Kazakhstan in 

developing this atmosphere of greater space for civil society and respect for religious diversity, as well as diversity across the board. 

And, you know, if I am confirmed, this would be certainly a very 

important element of my work in Kazakhstan, and it is, again, a 

matter of trying to develop a constructive relationship on these 

issues, and to move from concern—expressing of concern to really 

seeing developments that are effective, you know, on the ground 

and affecting people’s lives and opening up this space for civil society, for political pluralism and religious pluralism. 

Senator KAINE. I know, in 2011, Kazakhstan passed a religious 

registration law requiring the registration of religious organizations if they have certain membership at a local level or at a national level. And the justification asserted was a concern about religious extremism. Is there a significant challenge of religious extremism as destabilizing to the Kazakh Government, in your view? 

Ambassador KROL. Well, right now I would say no, because it is 

not an area that there has been a great deal of religiously based 

violence. I think they are looking at a preventative strategy of trying to prevent influences that could lead to religious extremism. 

There have been some unfortunate examples of suicide bombings 

and related events in Kazakhstan in the recent past, and I think 

that has caused them to look at ways how they can deal with this 

issue so it does not become a greater issue in their society. And our 

encouragement is not to repress, but it is basically how to deal with 

the issue of preventing violent extremism by basically allowing 

greater openness for people to express themselves peacefully in 

their religious beliefs, as well as in their secular beliefs. And so, 

that is an ongoing dialogue and activity that we have with 

Uzbekistan—with Kazakhstan because of the importance of this for 

557 

the future to prevent this situation of developing, where there 

would be more homegrown religious extremism and violence in 

their own society. 

Senator KAINE. We see this same, you know, delicate balancing 

everywhere in the world. The concerns about terrorism and extremism, you know, often—and often in a legitimate way—create a 

need to try to control, a bit. But, if you do that too much, then you 

may actually create the self-fulfilling prophecy that a feeling of repression by the government can actually make these problems 

worse. And, you know, trying to assist in challenging circumstances 

in this is not an easy balance to strike. 

But, thank you for your testimony. 

Ambassador KROL. Absolutely. 

Senator KAINE. I will now move to Mr. Mustard, with respect to 

Turkmenistan. 

The administration has been pretty positive in its description of 

Turkmenistan as I—the quote that I saw was ‘‘an enabler for regional stability,’’ acknowledging the importance of economic and 

humanitarian support, and also support, as you testified, of the 

overflights to Afghanistan. How do you see Turkmenistan’s role 

changing in the region as we enter into a new phase of our involvement in Afghanistan? 

Mr. MUSTARD. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. 

I see Turkmenistan becoming somewhat more important than it 

already has been because of the role that it has in linking Afghanistan to Europe and to other parts of Asia, looking at what 

Turkmenistan is doing, in terms of developing a railroad that will 

establish links between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, Afghanistan 

connecting to the main line going up into Kazakhstan, also the gas 

pipelines that will allow Central Asia to link to Europe as well as 

to other parts of Asia, particularly South Asia. And then the New 

Silk Road Initiative that would—really the biggest manifestation of 

that, Mr. Chairman, is the TAPI Pipeline that would have with it 

not only a gas pipeline, but potentially also a road network—railroad network that would really open up Central Asia, including Afghanistan, to new markets in South Asia. 

So, I think Turkmenistan will become more important, not less 

important. 

Senator KAINE. Can you talk a little bit about the progress either—on both the TAPI Pipeline, but also on any efforts to look at 

more delivery of energy to Europe? 

Mr. MUSTARD. On TAPI, the good news is that we do have the 

intergovernmental agreement in place. The bad news is that it 

seems to have stalled, at this point. So, one of my priorities, if I 

am confirmed as Ambassador, will be to sit down with the 

Turkmenistan Government and get TAPI moving again. 

On the Trans-Caspian Pipeline, that is also a priority to try to 

get the connection between Turkmenbashi Port and Baku Port so 

that we can start delivering gas through that pipeline, as well. 

These will all be priorities. 

Senator KAINE. I will ask you the same question I asked Ambassador Krol, which is, the events in Ukraine, for a country that has 

been part of the Soviet Union in the past—I know that they— 

that—you know, that that has to be a huge factor right now in 

558 

Turkmen politics—what is the current status of the relationship 

between Turkmenistan and Russia? And how is the Government of 

Turkmenistan looking at these unfortunate events? 

Mr. MUSTARD. The Turkmen Ambassador to Moscow made a 

statement, 2 days ago, to the effect that Turkmenistan considers 

Russia to be a strategic partner, but does not intend to join the 

Eurasian Union. So, it will maintain its policy of positive neutrality 

and will not join into security agreements or multilateral economic 

agreements. 

In terms of the events in Ukraine, the United States Government 

has made it clear to Turkmenistan that we support Turkmenistan’s 

sovereignty and territorial integrity, as a matter of policy, and that 

will not change. 

Senator KAINE. And talk a little bit about the current relationship between Turkmenistan and China, if you would. 

Mr. MUSTARD. China is now Turkmenistan’s largest trading partner and is the largest consumer of Turkmenistan’s natural gas. 

And, conversely, China is a very large investor in infrastructure in 

Turkmenistan, not only in natural gas and in other fossil energy, 

but in other infrastructure, as well. So, it is a very large and growing relationship. 

Senator KAINE. And, finally, the relationship with Iran. That is 

also one of the largest markets for Turkmenistan. Has 

Turkmenistan generally abided by the Iran sanctions regime that 

we have put in place? 

Mr. MUSTARD. Yes, sir. 

Senator KAINE. That is—thank you for that. 

Talk about current human rights, kind of, status issues in 

Turkmenistan, any that you—will cause you concern or would be 

areas of priority as you begin this position. 

Mr. MUSTARD. The United States Government is very deeply concerned about the status of human rights in Turkmenistan. And, as 

I said in my opening statement, we believe that a mature relationship allows for a dialogue about these human rights issues. 

Turkmenistan is a party to international conventions, including 

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 

Convention Against Torture. And we will continue to call upon 

Turkmenistan to observe the conditions of these agreements and to 

ensure that all persons on its territory enjoy the civil rights that 

are under these conventions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mustard, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Pressman, your testimony about the U.N. being both necessary and always vexing was very true. It is an organization that 

would not exist, had the United States not shown leadership in creating it, even in the mid-1930s, as the League of Nations was collapsing. President Roosevelt realized there would need to be a successor and started to lay the plans for it before World War II delayed the plans. But, I still consider it a real mark of pride that 

it was America that recognized that we really needed to create 

such an institution. 

That said, for reasons that you have described, and others, we 

often scratch our head about things that the U.N. does. And so, I 

appreciate your willingness to serve in this capacity. 

559 

Maybe just a couple of questions about it. One of the things that 

is been the most discouraging, in this committee, has been the repeated votes by China and Russia in the Security Council to block 

what we consider as necessary action in Syria. Last week was a 

good week. After a resolution promoting cross-border humanitarian 

aid that was passed in February generally had not produced significant result, because the aid was only to be allowed at the approval of the Syrian Government, the Security Council, last week, 

did a resolution that called for the cross-border delivery of aid 

whether or not the Syrian Government allowed it. That was a positive step. And the fact that Russia and China voted for that after 

blocking similar resolutions in the past was important. 

But, it does raise the question about Security Council reform. 

And I know there have been a number of, you know, thoughts and 

ideas thrown around about reforming the Security Council. What 

is the current status of reform efforts? And what are your thoughts 

about what our policy should be with respect to reform? 

Mr. PRESSMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 

The United States believes that the Security Council and the 

United Nations as a whole needs to—as one of the central pillars 

of the international security architecture, needs to reflect the 

changing world that we live in. As such, with respect to the Security Council, the administration has articulated the view that we 

are open, in principle, to a modest expansion of the permanent and 

nonpermanent membership of the Council. That said, with respect 

to the permanent members of the Council, it is critical that we consider their capacity to meaningfully contribute to maintenance of 

international peace and security. We do not think it would be a 

productive exercise to open up the veto arrangement. And these 

conversations are sensitive, and they continue in New York, but 

they are important to have. 

Senator KAINE. Let me ask you about one area. I mean, the 

United States has been a huge financial supporter of the U.N., but 

one area where we have been falling behind is in some of our 

peacekeeping dues payments. Is that affecting our ability to pursue, or effectively pursue, our interests at the U.N., or is that issue 

of the dues for peacekeeping activities not really a factor in the influence that we have? 

Mr. PRESSMAN. Mr. Chairman, the ability of the United States to 

lead at the U.N. is directly tethered to our meeting our bills and 

our responsibilities. We—by virtue of meeting our—of not going 

into arrears in areas like peacekeeping, we have managed to sustain and maintain greater leverage over troop contributors, over 

the way peacekeeping missions are shaped, ensuring that they are 

responsible and that they are effective. So, it is critical. 

Now, underlying the question, I recognize, is a concern that 

many members of the Senate have with respect to how peacekeeping budgets are going up and up and up. And, if I could, Mr. 

Chairman, is—just reflect for a moment that we were making increasing demands on the U.N. peacekeeping system, just in the last 

several years, with several new missions that we, the United 

States, has turned to the United Nations, because we see peacekeeping as an effective and cost-effective way to advance our own 

national security interests around the world. That said, we also beVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00567 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
560 

lieve that the assessment scales under which these things are calculated—and it is complicated with respect to the regular budget 

and its relationship to the peacekeeping budget—needs to reflect 

the changing world in which we live in, as well. And these are negotiated at every—3-year intervals. And, as we approach the next 

round of negotiations in 2015, one of the things that Ambassador 

Power seeks to do—and, if confirmed, I would certainly support 

her—is try to ensure that the way that we are assessed reflects the 

realities of a changing economy. 

Senator KAINE. How confident are you that the peacekeeping 

mission to the Central African Republic, which I guess will deploy 

in September, will have the resources that it needs to carry out the 

stabilization and civilian protection missions of that peacekeeping 

effort? 

Mr. PRESSMAN. Chairman, the situation in the Central African 

Republic is grave. It is extremely serious. Ambassador Power has 

now visited the Central African Republic twice. I was honored to 

travel with her on one occasion there. It is in—because of U.S. 

leadership, we—and because of a multiplicity of commands that 

were on the ground—you had a African Union contingent, you had 

an EU contingent, you had a French contingent—and because of 

the gravity of the situation and U.S. leadership, we decided to go 

ahead and authorize a U.N. peacekeeping operation, as your question reflects. 

Your question also reflects an awareness that it is hard, given 

the increasing demands on peacekeeping, to find the right enablers 

and the right troops, particularly in a situation like CAR, where 

there really is very little infrastructure that preexists to support 

the deployment of troops. So, everything is having to be built. We 

are—as recently as this week, the Security Council was briefed on 

this. This is something we are tracking daily. Ambassador Power 

has committed that, on September 15, when MISCA, as it is 

known, the African Union troop, transitions to MINUSCA, the U.N. 

peacekeeping operation, that we are in as good a position as possible. I would—it would not be fair to say I have great confidence 

that we are going to be where we need to be on September 15, but 

we are trending in the right direction. 

Senator KAINE. And let me ask about another one, in Africa, the 

importance of U.N. efforts to assist displaced civilians who are 

seeking refuge in U.N. compounds in South Sudan. Talk a little bit 

about the current status there. 

Mr. PRESSMAN. It is—Senator, thank you—the situation in South 

Sudan is similarly horrendous and deeply concerning. I mean, at 

present, we have approximately 100,000 internally displaced persons who are hunkered down on UNMIS, the U.N. peacekeeping 

operation there, compounds, because they fear for their lives if they 

leave. In addition to that 100,000, we have approximately a million 

other IDPs floating about South Sudan, we have a famine warning 

that was—just went into place, which means that those million 

IDPs are about to become a million hungry IDPs. 

So, the—what the U.S. has done with respect to the South—the 

mission in South Sudan is really important, which is, as the crisis 

emerged—the most recent crisis emerged, at the end—December of 

last year—we essentially reformed, almost entirely, giving it—alVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00568 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
561 

most doubling its authorized troop ceiling and trimming back its 

pretty expansive mandate to focus almost exclusively on protection 

of civilians and monitoring human rights abuses. 

That said, Senator, I think it is clear, to you and to anyone who 

looks at the situation, that fundamentally the parties—President 

Kiir and Riek Machar—need to actually live up to their Cessation 

of Hostilities Agreement and perform the responsibilities that they 

have said that they would. And until that happens, we are going 

to be living in a very dire situation, and the lives of civilians in 

South Sudan will continue to hang in jeopardy. 

Senator KAINE. How important is it, in your view, that the U.S. 

continue its support for the U.N. mission and also the French 

forces in northern Mali? 

Mr. PRESSMAN. Senator, it is critical. What—the Mali 

MINUSMA, the U.N. mission in Mali, is an excellent example of 

the United States using U.N. peacekeeping to help protect our direct national security interests. We have AQIM elements floating 

around in northern Mali. We have a situation where the Government of Mali needs the international community’s help. There is, 

similarly—somewhat related to CAR, there is a division of labor, so 

to speak, within Mali, in which you have Operation French—the 

French Operation Serval, which is taking a more offensive counterterrorism approach; MINUSMA, which is trying to hold the large 

population centers to ensure that they are—they do not become victims to the prey of al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists. And, similarly, 

you have an EU contingent on the ground that is working to build 

up the capacity of the Malian Government to deal with this crisis. 

This is important work, it is hard work, it is dangerous work. We 

have lost U.N. peacekeepers, including recently, in this effort, but 

it is one that the United States should—and, if confirmed, I would 

look forward to the opportunity to continue to—support. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Pressman, for your answers. 

And now, Ms. Ruggles, I will say that Senator Coons really wanted to be here, for you and, to some degree, to pose those last questions to Mr. Pressman, as well. He could not be here today, but, 

as he waited, he thought, giving you a quicker hearing might be 

more important to you than waiting until he could come. [Laughter.] 

So, I just will say that I am speaking with some passion from 

Senator Coons, obviously, as well. 

Your post is a very important one. You know, one of the—you 

know, Rwanda has an iconic place in, sort of, our collective memory 

and thinking about human rights issues in the world, because of 

the tragedies that occurred there. Now, that creates pressure to do 

very well, but it also creates a wonderful opportunity. When there 

have been tragedies such as Rwandans have been impacted by, 

then positives can also generate, not only attention, but a sense of 

hopefulness. Well, there may be other tragic or hard situations, but 

look what is happening. And I like the fact that, in your testimony, 

you focused on a number of instances—school attendance and 

things like that—in Rwanda that are real positive news stories. I 

think it is important that we point those out, because there are 

other desperate situations in the world, where people would want 

562 

to see that situations that were desperate, or more so a number of 

years ago, are now pointing in the right direction. So, I think part 

of your task—not that I would advise you how to do your job, but 

I think part of your task is to shine the spotlight on positives in 

Rwanda, because I think that has a benefit to the U.S. relationship 

with Rwanda, but I think it has a broader benefit, as well. 

Let me begin with political scenarios in Rwanda. President 

Kagame’s term expires in 2017. What are, sort of, likely political 

scenarios, post the end of his term? 

Ms. BARKS-RUGGLES. Well, the—as you point out, Mr. Chairman—and I thank you for adding me to this hearing, and please 

thank Senator Coons on my behalf, as well—the second term for 

President Kagame expires in 2017; two 2-year terms is the term 

limit in the constitution. And, at this point, it is unclear how that 

is going to play out. This is the first time that—under this constitution, that they will have had that scenario. And so, one of the 

things that I will focus on, if confirmed, when I go out there is 

making sure I am engaging in a broad political dialogue with all 

the actors, civil society as well as the government, to hear how they 

are planning for those elections, how they are planning to handle 

the inevitable contest that happens when you have the—have term 

limits. And I look forward to having that dialogue, because I think 

it is an important signal, both for the people of Rwanda, but also 

for the region. 

Senator KAINE. Talk a little bit about how you envision your— 

division of responsibilities of your working relationship with the 

U.S. Special Envoy, Russ Feingold, to the DRC in the Great Lakes 

Region. Have you talked about this challenge? It is not a challenge; 

it is a great opportunity—— 

Ms. BARKS-RUGGLES. Absolutely. 

Senator KAINE [continuing]. To have you both working on this 

mission. 

Ms. BARKS-RUGGLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to say, I have the greatest admiration for former Senator 

Feingold in his new role as special envoy. I think he has taken a 

very difficult situation, 18 months ago, when he first came onboard, 

and really dug in and worked with all of the Ambassadors in the 

region, as well as all the regional actors, to try and tackle some of 

the very, very tough issues that are really the underpinning for the 

continued instability in eastern Congo and throughout the region— 

the refugee flows, the armed groups. And the inability to build 

those trust bonds has been a real issue since 1994, since the genocide. And he has taken that head-on. And the fact that he is now 

working with all the governments on implementing—truly implementing the Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework Agreement that was signed in February last year, dealing with the 

FDLR. They have now agreed to a 6-month timeframe, with a 3- 

month checkpoint half way through that timeframe, to begin the 

process of disarmament of the FDLR. Now, that has to be taken 

seriously by all governments, but, if they are—if we are able, all 

of us collectively, to implement that, that will go a long way towards getting rid of the instability, the continued distrust between 

the governments in the region, of each other, and tackling some of 

those underlying instability issues, much as the defeat of the M– 

563 

23 last year after the U.N. Intervention Brigade was signed off by 

the U.N. Security Council, has led to a lessening of the violence 

and an increase in the trust between the various parties. It is far 

from a perfect world, but he has been doing a terrific job. 

I would view my role, if confirmed, out there as being one of supporting his role and working as part of a team, because we are 

going to need a team approach between myself and all of the colleagues in the region, working with Senator Feingold, if we are 

going to help the governments of the region build that trust that 

we need for them to have to then build the economic prosperity 

that they should be building across those borders, and to be building the cross-border roads and transportation networks that are 

badly needed to make sure that economic growth actually comes to 

those regions. 

Senator KAINE. One of the themes in all of your testimony, and 

some of the questions with the four mission chiefs here, proposed 

mission chiefs, is sort of the space for civil society in the companies—in the countries that you will—where you will serve. There 

have been some reports that that space has been kind of narrowing 

in Rwanda. Talk about, kind of, your perspective on that now, and 

what you believe you can do, as Ambassador, to, you know, in the 

right pace, a right pace for Rwanda, see that the space opens for 

civil society participation. 

Ms. BARKS-RUGGLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The existence of a strong, vibrant civil society, including free 

media, NGOs, watchdog groups, is important and absolutely critical for any democratic society. It is something that we hold dear 

here, and it is something I have seen in my most recent posting 

in South Africa, the huge institutional importance of those groups, 

as well as strong, vibrant political opposition parties to make sure 

that there is that political dialogue. 

And, if I am confirmed, one of the things that I will commit to 

is working with all the various actors across Rwanda to help encourage that kind of dialogue, because they do have a lot to deal 

with from their past. A huge amount of distrust from—arising from 

the genocide, which is still fairly recent, only 20 years—and recognizing that, and helping them think about, ‘‘How do you work 

through that dialogue?’’—I would view this as part of my role, but 

also hearing from everybody their concerns and how they can move 

forward as they are now turning to the next generation. Their 

youngest—their younger generation was born after the genocide, 

and they do not come carrying all of that baggage. Maybe some of 

it, but not all of it. And helping them figure out how to work 

through that, I view very much as part of our role, as you said, as 

an exemplar, the United States being the exemplar to others. 

Senator KAINE. One of the things that interests me as I travel 

for Foreign Relations is the degree to which, in countries where 

there has been significant sectarian schisms—and the genocide in 

Rwanda would be the most extreme, certainly more extreme than 

countries I have visited—but, to what degree in a nation’s military 

are they able to integrate throughout the military, at every level, 

leadership to, you know, the first day enlisted, a real pluralistic 

and inclusive sense? How cohesive—are you aware of, sort of, this 

issue within the military in Rwanda, and their capabilities? But, 

564 

in a way, more—I am just kind of more interested in how cohesive 

the military is across these schisms that still are fresh with many 

people. 

Ms. BARKS-RUGGLES. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an ethnic 

breakdown of the military, but what I will tell you is that the 

Rwandan military and police force have both been very professional, extraordinarily good partners for us. In peacekeeping missions, they have stepped up to the plate in tough places, like CAR, 

where we were having problems, and come in with the Africa 

Union mission to stabilize—help stabilize the situation there; similarly in AMISOM in Somalia. And they have been one of the 

groups that has been the most flexible in saying, ‘‘We will join a 

regional force and then go over to a Blue Hat.’’ And the level of professionalism they have exhibited, and cohesiveness that they have 

exhibited, has—is really extraordinary. 

So, as a cohesive military unit, they work very well together. I 

would have to get back to you on the ethnic breakdown. 

Senator KAINE. No, that is good evidence, though, I mean, if they 

are able to work together in tough circumstances. If there was a 

lot of internal morale challenges, that would demonstrate itself in 

performance. And so, I am happy to hear your perception of their 

effectiveness in these operations. 

Just one last thing, just kind of educate myself. Main strengths 

and weaknesses to the current Rwandan economy. 

Ms. BARKS-RUGGLES. The main strengths and weaknesses. They 

have a great record of economic growth, but from a very low base. 

So, keeping that going, and making sure that they are actually taking what has been extraordinary reforms to make themselves open 

for business, if you will—they are considered number one by the 

World Bank now in the sub-Saharan Africa, for the ease of doing 

business—and building upon that and taking that to the next level. 

So, from a high level of growth from a low base, and turning that 

into, now, the middle-income country they aspire to be. 

One of the areas where they have been really focusing on is 

Internet technology and renewable energy. We have a $325 million 

methane gas investment from a U.S. corporation there, and another large renewable energy investment that is going in there. 

And I think all those are signs that they are taking seriously how 

to move their economy into the 21st century. 

However, 70 percent of their population still depends, at least in 

large part, on subsistence agriculture for their income. And so, 

learning how to take that and turn that into a much more marketoriented agricultural economy and pushing entrepreneurship so 

that people can come off the subsistence farming and start growing 

those small businesses that grow jobs, is going to be their challenge 

for the coming two decades. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you for that testimony. 

All you have all demonstrated great competence and professionalism in your answers, very thoughtful answers. And we would 

be lucky to have all of you, with your expertise, serving in the capacities for which you have been nominated. 

Again, I say what I said at the start of the hearing, the opportunity, as a member of the committee, to visit our personnel—Foreign Service personnel abroad, whether it is people on their first 

565 

tour or whether it is seasoned professionals like you all are, is always—I always walk away from those, very impressed with the 

work that is done. And I know a lot of Americans probably think 

of Foreign Service as just—what a super-glamorous profession. And 

it has its glamour, and it has its unique opportunities to consider 

the world your classroom. But, there is also a great degree of sacrifice—moving repeatedly, changing jobs—that is not easy for 

spouses and kids and other family members and friends. But, the 

more you know about what our Foreign Service professionals do, 

the more one comes to admire the quality of the work under the 

circumstances in which it is performed. So, I want to thank you all 

for your service. 

If members of the committee choose to file additional questions 

in writing, I will ask them to do that by noon tomorrow; and I will 

appreciate your responding promptly, should those be filed. We will 

try to act promptly in the full committee on these nominations. 

And again, I thank you. 

And, with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND LETTERS

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF MARCIA STEPHENS BLOOM BERNICAT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. The 2013 State Department Human Rights Reports on Bangladesh 

notes that disappearances and extrajudicial killings continue to be committed by 

security forces such as the paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and that 

human rights violators operate in an atmosphere of impunity. Would you support 

the establishment of an independent commission: 

♦ To assess the Rapid Action Battalion’s performance; 

♦ To identify all those plausibly deemed to be involved in serious violations such 

as extrajudicial killings who should be excluded from a reformed RAB and prosecuted; and, 

♦ To develop an action plan to transform RAB into an agency that operates within 

the law and with full respect for international human rights norms? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will maintain the U.S. Government’s insistence that the 

Government of Bangladesh hold its security forces accountable for any violations of 

internationally recognized human rights. I will push the Government of Bangladesh 

to transform the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) into an agency that operates within 

the law and with full respect for international human rights. The establishment of 

an independent commission is one such way to conduct thorough, timely, and credible investigations of all alleged human rights violations and abuses in a manner 

that is fair and transparent to both the victims and the accused. If Bangladesh 

moves to create an independent commission, we will support that effort. Meanwhile, 

I am encouraged by the commitment of the Government of Bangladesh to establish 

the RAB Internal Enquiries Cell, to train requisite staff as part of a campaign to 

investigate misconduct and abuses, and to hold members of the RAB accountable 

for their actions. 

Question. Will you commit to consulting regularly with the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee on your efforts to support labor rights and factory safety in 

Bangladesh? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue our active engagement with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the important issue of labor reform in Bangladesh. I 

very much appreciate the role this committee plays in joining our efforts to promote 

U.S. interests and support the people of Bangladesh, particularly in defense of labor 

rights and worker safety. I value the consultation and cooperation offered by the 

committee because it strengthens our hand in promoting real and enduring change 

for workers in Bangladesh. If confirmed, I will invite committee members and staff 

to visit Bangladesh so we can further collaborate to advance labor rights and safety. 

566 

Question. I am concerned about progress on expanding U.S. efforts to assist independent workers’ organizations in Bangladesh. 

The FY 2014 Appropriations bill states ‘‘Bangladesh.—Of the funds appropriated 

by this act under the heading ‘Development Assistance’ that are available for assistance for Bangladesh shall be made available for programs to improve labor conditions by strengthening the capacity of independent workers’ organizations in Bangladesh’s readymade garment, shrimp, and fish export sectors.’’ The conference 

report language states: ‘‘The agreement provides $5,000,000 to improve labor conditions in Bangladesh as described in the Senate report, to be provided through an 

open and competitive process, and not less than the budget request for democracy 

and governance programs.’’ 

The Senate report states ‘‘Bangladesh.—The Committee directs the Secretary of 

State to prioritize assistance to labor programs in Bangladesh and recommends 

$5,000,000 to improve labor conditions in Bangladesh’s readymade garment, shrimp 

and fish export sectors. The Committee expects the Department of State and USAID 

to provide training for workers on understanding and asserting their rights, including by improving the capacity of independent worker organizations. The Department 

of State, USAID, and the Department of Labor should coordinate efforts to avoid 

unnecessary overlap and work in consultation with the Government of Bangladesh 

and the International Labor Organization on an integrated approach.’’ Last month, USAID told SFRC staff that ‘‘USAID’s new $5 million labor activity 

will focus on ready-made garment and shrimp/fish sectors to increase the capacity 

of workers and improve conditions both in their workplaces and communities by 

addressing a range of issues, including women workers’ safety, union representation, gender-based violence, health care, education, child protection, sanitation, and 

living conditions.’’ 

While ‘‘health care, education, child protection, sanitation, and living conditions’’ 

are causes worthy of U.S. support, they are outside the scope of legislation that 

focuses on strengthening the capacity of independent workers’ organizations in Bangladesh’s ready-made garment, shrimp, and fish export sectors. Why are these areas 

included within the scope of the $5 million procurement for labor rights? 

Also, I am concerned that if a procurement vehicle is not issued by February 1, 

2015, or current programming is not extended, there will be a lapse in programming 

on strengthening the capacity of independent workers’ organizations in Bangladesh. 

USAID told SFRC staff that it will release the Request for Applications by the end 

of FY 2014. Given that timeline, can a contract competition and final award be completed before February 1, 2015, so that there is no lapse in programming? 

Answer. I welcome this committee’s continued attention to labor rights in Bangladesh and know that congressionally funded programs to promote freedom of association in the garment and shrimp sectors are making a real difference on the 

ground to improve labor rights and ensure workers have a voice. 

Following the announcement of the Senate’s FY 2014 Appropriations bill, an 

interagency team from the Department of State, USAID, and the Department of 

Labor visited Bangladesh to identify areas of need for the new program and ensure 

there was no unnecessary overlap with programs already in place. Based on their 

recommendations, I assure you that the focus of the new program will be to directly 

improve labor conditions by strengthening the capacity of independent workers’ 

organizations. Specifically, USAID assistance will support the ability of workers to 

organize independently and strengthen the capacity of these worker organizations 

to address the issues they identify as most pressing, such as protection of labor 

organizers, improvement of workplace safety, mitigation of environmental hazards, 

and ensuring timely payment of wages. While workers have identified improving 

health care, education, child protection, sanitation, and living conditions as needs, 

this program would not directly address those issues. Rather, it would seek to support the capacity of workers to organize independently and address such conditions 

as they themselves prioritize them. 

Given the timeline to implement the program, we do not foresee any gap in funding. The existing Global Labor Program will run through January 2016, and the 

new labor program will be awarded in early FY 2015. For roughly 1 year, the two 

programs will run concurrently and will be closely coordinated. 

RESPONSES OF GEORGE ALBERT KROL TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. I appreciate Kazakhstan’s aspiration to become one of the top economies 

in the world and support U.S. efforts to that end, including for Kazakhstan’s bid 

to join the WTO. I also believe that if Kazakhstan seeks to be held to a higher 

567 

standard in the economic realm, it should also be held to a higher standard on 

democracy and human rights and not simply compared to its neighbors. I remain 

concerned about the imprisonment of Mr Kozlov and urge you to continue to raise 

his imprisonment with Kazakh officials. The space for civil society appears to be 

closing in Kazakhstan. 

♦ With that in mind, what do you expect the U.S. efforts to support civil society 

can achieve in the coming year? 

Answer. What our efforts can achieve over the next year will ultimately depend 

on the choices that the Government of Kazakhstan itself will make. The United 

States, however, seeks to be a partner to the Government of Kazakhstan and Kazakhstani civil society in our advocacy for stalled legislation designed to strengthen 

state support for nongovernmental organizations by introducing an independent 

grantmaking system. The U.S. mission in Kazakhstan will also work with the government and civil society to encourage the development of implementing regulations 

that ensure that the new criminal and other related codes passed earlier this year 

will be implemented in ways that do not constrain the space for civil society. 

The United States strongly supports the development of a sovereign and independent democratic Kazakhstan that seeks to protect the universal human rights 

of all its people, and we strongly welcome the government’s repeated statements of 

commitment to meet this goal. We also value that our strategic partnership with 

Kazakhstan that is the basis for an open and frank dialogue on human rights and 

religious freedoms as well as on our continuing concern about the judicial process 

that resulted in the imprisonment of Mr. Kozlov. 

Question. I am concerned about the ubiquitous nature of media from Russia in 

Kazakhstan. What specific efforts is the U.S. taking to support the development of 

the professionalism of the media sector in Kazakhstan? If an increasingly professionalized media can be developed, will the Kazakh Government provide space within which they can operate and conduct genuine and credible reporting? 

Answer. The United States strongly supports the development in Kazakhstan of 

a professional, free, and independent media. In support of this goal, we have provided Economic Support Funds to nongovernmental organizations that support the 

Kazakhstani media’s ability to provide accurate, unbiased, and objective information 

to the citizens of Kazakhstan. 

Current USAID programming to strengthen the development of a professional, 

independent, and commercially competitive media sector in Kazakhstan includes a 

regional network that broadcasts social, economic, political, and children’s programming every day in four languages to over 20 local partner television stations. In 

addition, we are supporting the production and distribution of quality television content to a regionwide network of 43 independent local stations. 

Our mission is also increasing its outreach to Kazakhstani media via various 

social platforms in both the Kazakh and Russian languages and as a result is receiving significantly more requests for interviews with U.S. officials. More can be 

done to expose the Kazakhstani public to a broader range of information and opinions. To this end, we are exploring the expansion of the media-hub program to create a platform for U.S. voices, including U.S. policy experts and scholars, to engage 

more broadly with media throughout the region. 

RESPONSES OF ALLEN P. MUSTARD TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question #1. Human rights and democratic development remain substantial hurdles to deepening our relationship with Turkmenistan. Last May, I sent a letter to 

President Berdimukamedov calling for the release of several prisoners of conscience 

(see attached). Will you commit to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you 

will advocate on behalf of these and other prisoners of conscience and that you will 

work with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to ensure a coordinated State Department approach to addressing these issues? Will you also commit 

to consulting with SFRC on human rights issues? 

Answer. The State Department has been steadfast in raising human rights concerns with Government of Turkmenistan interlocutors. Our bilateral relations with 

other nations should be broad-based and true to our fundamental values, not limited 

solely to those areas where we find easy agreement. The State Department, including our Embassy in Ashgabat, regularly engages with Turkmenistan across the 

spectrum of human rights issues, and has been a strong advocate for prisoners of 

conscience. We also seek to advance these issues through multilateral venues, including funding International Organization for Migration (IOM) and U.N. DevelopVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00575 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
568 

ment Program (UNDP) programs that promote antitrafficking in persons and other 

human rights initiatives. If confirmed, I am committed to continuing these practices. 

The Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor provides valuable expertise 

on the many difficult human dimension issues that constrain our bilateral relationship with Turkmenistan and I look forward to working closely with them if I am 

confirmed. I also commit to being at the committee’s disposal to discuss human 

rights or any other issues that may be of interest to you and I look forward to our 

continued collaboration to advance America’s interests in Turkmenistan. 

Question #2. With the intergovernmental agreement in place, and in light of the 

lack of progress on the pipeline, what are the next concrete steps that the U.S. can 

take to encourage the development of Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India 

pipeline? 

Answer. The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) is a longterm project with enormous potential long-term benefits, but it can only succeed if 

it is done on a commercial, economically sustainable basis. TAPI appears to have 

nearly all of the essential elements to succeed, including strong political support. 

What is missing, however, is a commercial champion. Without the involvement of 

an international oil company (IOC) to work in cooperation with Turkmengaz in the 

development of gas production and serve as commercial champion for the project, 

it is doubtful that the project will be financeable. 

The State Department is encouraging the Government of Turkmenistan to sign 

confidentiality agreements with U.S. IOCs in order to allow those companies to 

evaluate the commercial viability of the project and participate in a consortium that 

will both develop the gas field that will supply TAPI and also build the pipeline. 

We are also working with the downstream countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 

India) to encourage them to work with Turkmenistan to develop a TAPI project 

based on economically and commercially sound principles. Further, the administration consults regularly with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which is also providing technical assistance to the TAPI partner countries. 

While the U.S. Government negotiated the terms of a nonbinding intergovernmental framework arrangement with Turkmenistan on energy cooperation, the 

framework has not yet been signed. 

Continued political investment and technical assistance by the U.S. government 

will be needed to advance TAPI, particularly efforts to convince Turkmenistan to 

press forward on TAPI with IOC upstream involvement. If confirmed, I will continue 

to urge the Turkmen to take the necessary steps to make TAPI a viable project. 

Question #3. What are the main impediments to progress in the Trans-Caspian 

pipeline? What steps will you take to address these issues? 

Answer. There are both political and commercial impediments to progress on the 

Trans-Caspian pipeline. Russia and Iran have stated that a Trans-Caspian Pipeline 

cannot be built unless all five littoral states agree, and both have raised strong objections to the project. Their opposition is based largely on ostensible environmental 

grounds, despite the fact that there are hundreds of miles of pipelines already operating in the Caspian. In fact, gas from Turkmenistan flowing to European markets 

could threaten Russia’s strong position in those same markets. Long-standing disagreement between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan over the disputed Serdar/Kapaz 

field in the Caspian Sea would also need to be resolved, although relations appear 

to be improving with several high-level bilateral meetings between the two countries 

this year. 

In addition to these political impediments, Turkmenistan will also have to attract 

commercial partners, including an international oil company (IOC), to help build, 

finance, and operate the pipeline. To date, the Turkmen Government has not been 

willing to provide acceptable terms for an IOC’s access to its onshore gas fields 

(which would feed the pipeline), and without such terms, an IOC is not likely to 

be interested in the project. 

If confirmed, I would encourage Turkmenistan to finalize the trilateral agreement 

currently under negotiation with the European Union and Azerbaijan that would 

form the legal basis for a Trans-Caspian pipeline. I would also draw on my decades 

of commercial-advocacy experience to help open opportunities for U.S. energy 

companies to bring their expertise and participate in the Trans-Caspian Pipeline 

consortium. 

569 

LETTER ATTACHED TO QUESTION NO. 1 SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

RESPONSES OF ALLAN P. MUSTARD TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Question. For years I have been urging the Government of Turkmenistan to release a number of political prisoners languishing in its jails, including Annakurban 

Amanklychev, Sapardurdy Khadzhiev, and Gulgeldy Annaniyazov (see attached letters). Last year my staff and that of Senator Boxer traveled to Turkmenistan to further press for their release. Amanklychev and Khadzhiev were released early from 

570 

their sentence in 2013, but Annaniyazov remains in jail. These cases are unfortunately only examples of a larger lack of political freedom in Turkmenistan. Can you 

comment on your commitment to pursuing political freedom and human rights 

should you be confirmed as Ambassador to Turkmenistan? 

Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador, one of my very top priorities will be to urge 

Turkmenistan to strengthen respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, 

ensure accountability for torture and other human-rights violations, allow civilsociety groups to function freely, and build fully democratic institutions. As party 

to a number of international human-rights conventions, including the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and 

other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, I will remind 

government officials of Turkmenistan’s obligations to respect and ensure to all persons on its territory the rights that it has recognized and guaranteed under those 

conventions. 

The Department of State has regularly raised Gulgeldy Annaniyazov’s case 

directly with Government of Turkmenistan interlocutors since 2008. The case was 

recently raised by the U.S. delegation at our Annual Bilateral Consultations on January 14, 2014, in Ashgabat, and Ambassador Robert Patterson discussed the case 

with Deputy Foreign Minister Vepa Hajiev again on February 12. The Embassy followed up with diplomatic notes requesting amnesty for Annaniyazov on the occasion 

of Turkmenistan’s February 19 Flag Day holiday, Constitution Day on April 22, and 

Night of Omnipotence at the end of July (Turkmenistan customarily amnesties prisoners on the occasion of national holidays). Annaniyazov’s case and our related dueprocess concerns have also been referenced in numerous public statements by the 

United States at the annual OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meetings 

(HDIM) in Warsaw. If confirmed, I am committed to continuing the United States 

advocacy for Annaniyazov’s release. 

571 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

572 

573 

574 

575 

576 

(577) 

NOMINATIONS OF JOHN TEFFT, DONALD 

HEFLIN, CRAIG ALLEN, EARL MILLER, 

MICHELE SISON, STAFFORD HANEY, AND 

CHARLES ADAMS 

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. John Francis Tefft, of Virginia, to be Ambassador of the 

United States to the Russian Federation 

Donald L. Heflin, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 

Cabo Verde 

Craig B. Allen, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Brunei 

Darussalam 

Earl Robert Miller, of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Botswana 

Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, to be the Deputy Representative to the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador, and 

Deputy Representative in the Security Council of the United 

Nations; and to be Representative to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during her tenure of service as Deputy Representative to the United Nations 

Stafford Fitzgerald Haney, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the 

Republic of Costa Rica 

Charles C. Adams, Jr., of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Finland 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, 

Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Corker, Flake, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. We have three panels today. I will chair the first 

panel, which will be the nomination of John Francis Tefft to be 

Ambassador to Russia. We will then pass the gavel to Senator 

Coons, who will chair our second panel of nominees: Donald Heflin, 

to be Ambassador to Cabo Verde; Craig Allen, to be Ambassador 

578 

to Brunei Darussalam; and Earl Robert Miller, to be Ambassador 

to the Republic of Botswana. 

Then Senator Coons will pass the gavel to Senator Kaine, who 

will chair our third panel of nominees: Michele Sisan, to be Deputy 

Representative to the U.N. with the rank of Ambassador, along 

with two associated positions; Stafford Fitzgerald Haney, to be Ambassador to Costa Rica; and Charles Adams, to be our Ambassador 

to Finland. 

Let me welcome our first nominee, John Tefft. Ambassador Tefft 

has been a Career Foreign Service officer since 1972, and deserves 

at this critical time to be given every consideration by the committee. Let me say that the geopolitics is vastly different from what 

we confronted during the last hearing for a U.S. Ambassador to 

Russia in 2011. In my view, we cannot afford to wait to send an 

Ambassador to Moscow, as Senator McCain just urged us to do. 

Before we begin, I just want to express my concern about Russia’s violation of its obligations under the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Russia’s violation is a very serious matter, and 

it is vital that it comply with its obligations under the treaty and 

eliminate any prohibited items in a verifiable manner. 

The INF Treaty is a cornerstone of European security and was 

one of the first steps the United States and the then-Soviet Union 

took to end their cold war confrontation. The treaty sought to eliminate the nuclear threat to Western Europe and the European parts 

of the Soviet Union. The fact that Russia is now violating its obligations is another sign that under President Putin Russia is operating in a manner that threatens the security of all European 

states. 

In view of that reality, we cannot delay in sending someone, not 

when President Putin enjoys soaring domestic approval ratings, 

but continues to double down on his reckless course in Ukraine 

that has resulted in terrible tragedy and loss of innocent life with 

the downing of the Malaysian Flight 17 by pro-Russian rebels supported and supplied by Putin, not when the Ukrainian Army is 

making advances in the east and Moscow is answering by putting 

more heavy weaponry into the irresponsible hands of rebel militias. 

In fact, last week, along with the Chairs of other Senate committees responsible for national security, I signed a letter to President 

Obama asking for immediate sanctions against Russia’s defense 

sector, including state-owned Rosoboronexport, to prevent Russia 

from providing weaponry, equipment, or assistance and training to 

separatists in Ukraine. 

It is my view that we must also consider broader sanctions on 

Russia’s energy and financial industries and other sectors of the 

Russian economy, as appropriate. We also need an ambassador in 

Moscow as events continue to unfold. I hope that both sides of the 

aisle will agree to expedite Ambassador Tefft’s nomination at this 

critical time. He has served as U.S. Ambassador a total of three 

times, and each time to a country of the former Soviet Union— 

Ukraine, the Republic of Georgia, and Lithuania. He is also a lifelong student of Russia and the former Soviet republics. We need 

Ambassador Tefft’s knowledge and experience in Moscow to address not only the crisis in Ukraine, but also President Putin’s blatant disrespect for human rights, complete control of media, sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00586 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
579 

tematic erosion of the rule of law, and flouting of international law 

and norms, all which affect our bilateral relationship. 

So we welcome you, Ambassador, to the committee. I am going 

to call upon Senator Corker for his remarks. When Senator Corker 

is finished, please invite or recognize any of the members of your 

family who are here. I understand you have had a multidecade 

partner in your efforts, and we appreciate her willingness to once 

again allow you to serve your Nation, and we understand the sacrifices that she and other members of families, both in your case 

as well as the other nominees, face when they are willing to serve 

their country abroad. 

Senator Corker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

I want to second the comments, the laudable comments that have 

been made about your previous service, and also thank your spouse 

for her willingness to come out of retirement. I know you were living here. I know there are grandbabies in the region, and yet you 

are heading back to Russia to serve our country. 

I think everybody on this committee just about has expressed 

strongly their concern about Russia’s actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. I think there has been a lot of frustration, I know 

there has been by most, relative to the sanctions that have been 

put in place. I do want to say I applaud the sanctions that were 

put in place the day before the Malaysia flight was shot down. I 

think there may be something much—we have not seen the details 

yet, but it looks like that us and Europe have come more closely 

together, and hopefully we will know the details of that soon. 

But you go to Russia at a time that, as was mentioned, it is very 

important. I think your service in the other countries nearby are 

very helpful, not only to all of us, but to those countries and to 

Russia. I might add, everyone here knows that Russia had to 

agree, in spite of his service in these other countries which obviously geopolitically they believe pose some threat to them, they 

have to agree to the fact that he is our nominee. So you are going 

there under challenging circumstances, as has been mentioned, as 

the chairman mentioned this morning, the news that all of us have 

known previously, that it was announced that we are actually 

going to bring forth these charges relative to the INF Treaty; it 

really makes it an additionally challenging time. 

The type of issues that we are seeing in eastern Ukraine and in 

Crimea are the kind of, that should they get out of hand, could lead 

to some really terrible global issues. I think all of us have been 

concerned again, many of us, that the tepid response we have had 

may lead an emboldened Putin to continue on. 

It now appears that possibly he is beginning to get some degree 

of pushback within the country. Hopefully that is the case. I know 

he has been riding a strong nationalistic popularity because of 

what he has been doing, but I do hope our Nation and Europe will 

continue to work together to put pressure on him to get him to 

move away from the types of actions that he has taken. 

580 

Importantly, I hope you as Ambassador will do everything you 

can as one Ambassador to make that happen. I know your access 

to Putin will be a little different than the access you had in the 

other countries that you served, but I am very glad you are willing 

to do this and look forward to your testimony. 

I will say, on the confirmation, this committee has actually been 

really incredible as far as getting nominees out on a bipartisan 

basis very quickly to the floor. I do hope in this case—many of 

them have been held up, as we know. But I do hope in this case 

we will figure out a way to get you out very, very quickly and get 

you on your way to Russia. So thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ambassador Tefft, your full statement will be included in the record, without objection. I may have to interrupt you 

if we get—we have a 10th member who is on his way here. I believe Senator Durbin is on his way. So I may have to interrupt you, 

though I hope we will get through your testimony before that moment comes. But I just want to excuse myself up front. 

With that, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FRANCIS TEFFT, OF VIRGINIA, 

NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Ambassador TEFFT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today as 

President Obama’s nominee to be the next Ambassador of the 

United States to the Russian Federation. I am grateful to you and 

to Senator Corker and Senator McCain for the kind remarks you 

have made about me and my wife. I have to say to you as someone 

who has been a private citizen working in the private sector for the 

better part of the last year, I have appreciated and admired the 

work of this committee and the leadership you have provided on 

not only the situation in Russia and Ukraine, but also more broadly on foreign affairs. So I thank you for that. 

If I am confirmed, I will continue to work closely with the members of this committee and your staff, as I have done before in my 

various assignments. Clearly we face, as you have said, some of the 

most challenging times in the relations between the United States 

and Russia since the end of the cold war. 

I would just like to say a couple of words from my prepared remarks that we have submitted to the record. I would like to say 

that our relations with Russia today are obviously, as you said, in 

serious trouble. The future is uncertain. The United States cannot 

ignore the fundamental challenge to the international order posed 

by Russia’s actions in the Ukraine crisis. Russia’s efforts to annex 

Crimea, which we will never accept, have violated the core precepts 

of intelligence law and have shredded the very fabric of freely 

adopted obligations among Europe’s nations that have kept the 

peace for nearly 70 years. 

Russia’s policy of destabilizing parts of eastern Ukraine violates 

the sovereignty of its neighbor. They also undercut the solemn obligations Russia itself undertook to observe the independence and 

territorial integrity of Ukraine. 

As you said, Mr. Chairman, and as President Obama and many 

European leaders have emphasized, adherence to the structure of 

581 

European security is vital. The horrendous shootdown of the Malaysian airliner and the loss of almost 300 innocent lives has truly 

shocked the world and underlined the importance of resolving this 

crisis quickly and peacefully. 

In this environment, I believe we must continue to talk clearly 

to our Russian interlocutors and to make sure Russian officials and 

citizens understand American policy, our interests, and our values. 

At the same time, managing this crisis effectively and wisely will 

require that our own government continues to know as precisely as 

we can what the Russian side is thinking, what their objectives 

are, and why they are taking the approaches they do even when 

we find them unacceptable. 

If given the opportunity to serve, I will try to do just that, to engage in frank and difficult diplomacy. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the great privileges of my career has been 

to lead the teams of committed Americans serving our country at 

embassies overseas. If confirmed, I will do my best to lead the 

highly professional and motivated team that we have at our Embassy in Moscow and at our three consulates across Russia. 

Finally, I appreciate very much what you said about my wife. I 

would like to recognize her in front of all of you. She has been my 

indispensable partner in this career from the very beginning. In addition to her own professional accomplishments as a biostatistician 

and a nurse, she has made her own unique contributions to representing our country in every post in which we have served. I 

know she will do that again and bring her invaluable experience 

to bear in Moscow. 

I would also like to thank my wonderful daughters, Christine 

and Kathleen. They make me proud every day. They have been 

supportive of my work throughout my career. Kathleen is here 

today along with her husband, Andy Horowitz. My daughter, Christine, is unfortunately at home, or fortunately at home, taking care 

of our 10-day-old second granddaughter. Her husband, Paul 

Stronsky, is here with us today, as is my wife’s cousin, Margie 

Klick, and her husband, Randy, and Jose Yacub, who is my administrative assistant at the RAND Corporation. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me make those remarks. I 

am prepared now to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Tefft follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOHN F. TEFFT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you 

today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next Ambassador of the United 

States to the Russian Federation. I am grateful to the President and Secretary 

Kerry for their support and for their confidence in recalling me to government service. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely once again with the members of 

this committee and its staff, as we face some of the most challenging times in the 

relations between the United States and Russia since the end of the cold war. 

I have had the privilege of serving my country for nearly 41 years as a Foreign 

Service officer, much of that time in Eastern and Central Europe. Three times I 

served as a U.S. Ambassador—most recently in Ukraine, and previously in Georgia, 

and Lithuania. I also served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Moscow—and for 10 

months of my assignment I was Charge ́ d’affaires at the Embassy. 

As an Ambassador my most important responsibility and highest duty has been 

to promote and defend the interests of the United States. Over the course of my 

career, I have tried to do that as best I can, to advance the objectives of our country 

and to represent the values and ideas for which the United States stands. 

582 

Mr. Chairman, our relations with Russia today are in serious trouble and their 

future is uncertain. The United States cannot ignore the fundamental challenge to 

the international order posed by Russia’s actions in the Ukraine crisis. Russia’s 

efforts to annex Crimea—which we will never accept—have violated core precepts 

of international law, and have shredded the very fabric of freely adopted obligations 

among Europe’s nations that have kept the peace for nearly 70 years. Russia’s policy 

of destabilizing parts of eastern Ukraine violates the sovereignty of its neighbor. It 

also undercuts the solemn obligations Russia itself undertook freely to observe the 

independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. As President Obama and many 

European leaders have emphasized, adherence to the structure of European security 

is vital. The horrendous shootdown of the Malaysian airliner and loss of almost 300 

innocent lives has shocked the world and underlined once again the importance of 

resolving this crisis quickly and peacefully. 

In this environment, we must continue to talk clearly to our Russian interlocutors 

and make sure Russian officials and citizens understand American policy, interests, 

and values. At the same time, managing this crisis effectively and wisely will 

require that our own government continues to know as precisely as we can what 

the Russian side is thinking, what their objectives are, and why they are taking the 

approaches that they do even when we find them unacceptable. 

If given the opportunity to serve, I will try to do just that—to engage in frank 

and difficult diplomacy. 

Historically, we have had many dimensions to our relationship with Russia, chief 

among them human rights and democracy, security and arms control, and economic 

and business affairs. We must continue to press all of these in concert. We also need 

to be ready to engage in cooperation on the international stage when it is clearly 

in our interest—for example, to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons. And we must 

work to preserve people-to-people ties, even during times of severe tensions. 

If confirmed, I will also do my best to engage Russians from all parts of that society. I will try to explain what we stand for, and to promote respect for the dignity 

of every citizen, democratic values, good governance, and rule of law. I say this in 

the conviction that the most effective antidote to Russian propaganda mounted 

against the United States is simply stating the plain truth about our country and 

our values. 

If given the opportunity to serve again, I will also use the resources at my disposal to promote and protect U.S. economic interests in the Russian market. My 

record on supporting American business over the course of my career is clear. I will 

vigorously oppose corruption, and I will do my utmost to ensure America’s firms 

receive equal and fair treatment in trade and investment transactions in accordance 

with U.S. law and WTO rules. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, America’s relations with Russia 

have a long and complex history. 

We have been allies and we have been adversaries. 

We have cooperated and we have clashed. 

But, one constant has been our country’s enduring engagement with Russia, its 

people, and its government. That engagement reflects geographic, economic, and 

geopolitical realities. We have no alternative to managing and conducting our relations in a way that most effectively advances and protects American interests and 

global peace. 

Just as our interests and values now require intensive diplomacy accompanied by 

firm sanctions to counter Russia’s recent threats to European stability, it is inescapable that pursuing America’s most important interests around the world will sometimes also mean working with Russia. We need to identify and counter terrorist 

threats, stem narcotics flows, ensure aviation and maritime safety, counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, verifiably reduce nuclear arsenals and 

eliminate nuclear fissile material wherever it is in the world. America cannot 

address these tasks alone. But Russia remains a critical international player in 

many of these matters, and America’s hand can become stronger when our interests 

and Russia’s align. 

If confirmed, I will use all the resources at my disposal to pursue American goals 

through diplomatic engagement with the Russian Government, and I will promote 

expanded ties between the American and Russian people. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the great privileges of my career has been to lead the teams 

of committed Americans serving our country at embassies overseas. If confirmed, I 

will do my best to lead our highly professional and motivated team at the Embassy 

in Moscow and in our three consulates across Russia. This is a team of skilled officers and staff. I know that the Americans who serve our country in Russia understand the importance of their work. It will be an honor to lead them. And, Mr. 

Chairman, if the Senate chooses to place its confidence in me as U.S. Ambassador 

583 

to Russia, I will ensure that we conduct our business in a manner that is fully consistent with the highest standards of ethical and moral values. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize my wife, Mariella, who has been 

my indispensable partner in this career from the very beginning. In addition to her 

own professional accomplishments as a biostatistician and a nurse, she has made 

her own unique contributions to representing our country in every post in which we 

have served. I know she will once again bring her invaluable experience to bear in 

Moscow. I would also like to thank my wonderful daughters, Christine and Cathleen. They make me proud every day, and have been supportive of my work 

throughout my career. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege of appearing before the committee. I 

am prepared to answer any questions you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, most nominees take a full 5 minutes, so I 

want to congratulate you on your brevity. 

Ambassador TEFFT. This is the experience after you do this four 

times, sir. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me first welcome all of your family, and we 

appreciate again their willingness to share you with the Nation. 

Since I am sanctioned and cannot go to Russia to visit you if you 

get confirmed, I hope to be able to have an open line of communication with you so that we can talk about issues as we move forward. 

Ambassador TEFFT. Absolutely, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thought that after the tragedy of the Malaysian 

Airline flight that President Putin would have a different vision of 

where he was at, that he would change course, that it would be an 

off-ramp. But he seems to have doubled down. His invasion of Crimea, what is going on there, upends the international order. I 

know that when I was in Europe the Europeans are shocked because they never thought that that was going to be one of their 

challenges. They thought security challenges were more in the context of modern day terrorism, not the actions of a state actor. 

So how do you look at that reality, knowing that you are going 

into a set of circumstances under which, instead of what we would 

think would be the normal course of events, such as deescalating, 

moving in a different direction, what would be the response when 

we see Putin doubling down? How do you view that? How do you 

engage in that as you go to Russia? 

Ambassador TEFFT. I think, as you say, the $64,000 question is 

what is exactly President Putin’s approach at this point. You were 

not the only one, Senator, who thought that this horrible tragedy 

provided an opportunity to disengage, to find a way to resolve this 

horrible conflict that is killing people every day in eastern Ukraine. 

I do not know specifically what President Putin’s plans are. I 

note, like you, that the sanctions—that Europe has increased substantially its sanctions today, going into sectoral areas, according 

to what I have read in the press. My understanding is that we are 

now going to add some additional sanctions ourselves. 

I would also note, as you mentioned, that we saw this week criticism of President Putin, specifically the press interview that was 

given by his very old friend and adviser, former Deputy Prime Minister Kudryn, who was quite clear about his concern, not just with 

the Ukraine crisis and the impact this was going to have on the 

economy, but also the individuals in the society, the 

ultranationalists, who he was quite critical of. 

We know from different press articles and other things that 

many in the business community are very concerned at the way 

584 

things are going. This is not just sanctions. I know from my work 

at RAND that there are businessmen who are not sanctioned or not 

party to this, but they have lost deals because they have lost foreign capital that they had counted on to either expand or to even 

continue operating. 

So the pressure is clearly there. I cannot tell you—I wish I could 

tell you how I could see the denouement of this. But I think we 

need to, as I said, keep the pressure on and to continue to give 

President Putin an opportunity to find a way to deescalate this crisis and to bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine along the lines 

that President Poroshenko has outlined. 

The CHAIRMAN. What do you think should be our response to the 

administration’s statement that Russia has violated their treaty obligations? 

Ambassador TEFFT. I think this is a very serious matter, Senator. It obviously goes to the core of trust. I understand that in 

international relations trust is one component, but I hope that the 

Russians will seize the opportunity that we have offered to come 

to the table, to meet with our experts, to try to resolve this, to 

shelve this particular weapons system and to bring themselves 

back in compliance with the INF Treaty. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would assume that if you are confirmed this is 

an issue that you will drive significantly on behalf of the administration, because there are those of us in the Congress who knew 

about this, based upon what was then classified information, and 

now that it has become public have been very concerned about 

where this is leading and where it is heading. 

If you look at the multiplicity of actions that Russia has taken 

and now you add this dimension to it, you begin to wonder how 

much the international order has been upended by President Putin. 

Ambassador TEFFT. I agree with you, sir. I would say that back 

during the Soviet days, I was on the Soviet desk twice, two 3-year 

tours, and one of the things I spent a lot of time on was arms control. So I have got to dust off some of my knowledge and bring it 

to bear. But I will do my best to press this issue when I am in Moscow if confirmed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Finally, if we cannot go ahead and deter or get 

Russia to change course, one of my hopes is that we will look at 

in the sectoral sanctions that we are looking at energy. I am really 

concerned that we, who lead the world in a shale revolution, are 

going to help the Russians create a Russian shale revolution that 

will give them more gas and greater ability to leverage it, as they 

have leveraged it in Ukraine, as they are leveraging it against Europe. 

The last thing that is in the national intelligence and security of 

the United States is to have our technology sold to the Russians 

so that they can have a shale revolution, so they can have more 

energy, so they can have more resources and more leverage against 

Europe and other countries. So I hope you are going to look at that 

closely with the State Department and members of the U.S. Department of Energy, because I think that is a sanction that has 

long-term consequences for the Russians in terms of both what 

they can do moving forward and what the consequences are economically. 

585 

Ambassador TEFFT. I will, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you 

for your opening comments. 

The INF Treaty obviously was relative to proximate locations to 

Russia. Therefore the violations were violations that, if they continued, were violations that would have had an impact on Europe in 

general. My guess is some of them already were aware of these violations due to their intelligence. But do you see this having any impact relative to the other issues we are dealing with Russia on 

right now? 

Ambassador TEFFT. Well, I think it goes to the—— 

Senator CORKER. I am talking about with the European community that we are working with. 

Ambassador TEFFT. Right, I understand. My understanding, Senator, is that the allies are being briefed at NATO today or tomorrow—I am not sure exactly when—to go over this. They, like the 

committee, have been apprised of the problem before; they have 

known of it. I think our European allies should be very concerned 

because, as we all know, the INF missiles are the ones that most 

apply to the European Continent. We worked very hard back in the 

eighties to get that INF Treaty to preserve the security and to 

make the security of Europe indivisible from our own. 

Senator CORKER. When you talked about off-ramps, hopefully we 

will continue to look at possible off-ramps for Putin. As the chairman mentioned, you would have thought the downing of the passenger aircraft would have been the perfect off-ramp. Instead, he 

turned into the wind and doubled down. 

What types of off-ramps do you see as being possible in the future with actions being as they have been from him? 

Ambassador TEFFT. Well, I watched Secretary Kerry this morning on television when he appeared with the Foreign Minister of 

Ukraine, my friend Pavlo Klimkin. And the Secretary was again 

emphasizing, sir, that he had talked apparently to Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning, reiterated the readiness of the United 

States and Ukraine to engage in negotiations at any stage, to meet 

at any time to try to do this, based on the peace plan that President Poroshenko has outlined. 

I am not aware of any particular meeting coming up that would 

provide an opportunity like that, but the Secretary seemed to indicate that he was ready at any stage to engage in something like 

that. I think a lot depends on what the policies of President Putin 

are. 

Senator CORKER. The Hague recently ruled that Russia had basically stolen $50 billion from shareholders of Yukos. It seems like 

there are numbers of issues that are occurring right now. Hopefully, that will affect some of the elite. But I know we talked some 

about that yesterday. I assume that you will be forceful in pursuing 

that to its end, and that we have U.S. shareholders who also were 

damaged in that process. 

Ambassador TEFFT. Yes, sir. In all my career in my other assignments, I have made promoting the fair treatment of American businesses and investors one of my top priorities, and I will certainly 

do that. I am also cognizant that there is a provision in the RusVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00593 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
586 

sian-Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and the Sergei Magnitsky Rule 

of Law Accountability Act which obliges the administration to help 

American investors who were victims of this, and I will certainly 

do that. My Embassy and I—I think the Embassy has already been 

engaged on this and I will certainly continue to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Corker, if you would yield for just a moment. 

Just for members of the committee, what I intend to do is when 

Senator Corker finishes his line of questioning, recess the nomination hearing, meet off the floor quickly, reconvene the business 

meeting, have hopefully a successful vote, come back and continue 

the nomination hearing. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. I have had ample time to spend with our nominee. I am thankful that he is willing to do this. We had a long, long 

conversation yesterday. So in order to expedite our business meeting, I will stop and thank him again for his willingness to serve 

our country in this way. 

Ambassador TEFFT. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Corker. 

Ambassador, we have a vote for the head of the Veterans Administration, so we are going to go do that. I urge members who want 

to come back for this hearing to come back immediately thereafter. 

So, we will briefly recess, subject to the call of the chair. 

[Recess from 2:55 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.] 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing will come back to order. Ambassador, thank you for your forbearance. 

I believe that Senator Corker was the last member, so Senator 

Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for sticking with us 

today. This is important, so we want to be able to get the nominees 

that were underlying in the business meeting through, but also 

make sure that we get a chance, as Senator McCain and Senator 

Menendez have stated, to get you through this process and through 

the Senate by the end of the week. 

Thank you for spending a little bit of time with me earlier this 

week. I maybe want to allow you to elaborate on a conversation 

that we were having about how you interpret the events of the last 

6 months with respect to whether or not it is a display of Russian 

strength or Russian weakness. Nothing is that simple, but there 

have been a lot of pundits who have suggested that this is Putin 

pushing around the rest of the world, getting his way in essentially 

resetting international norms through aggressive behavior. Then 

there is a whole other school of thought which suggests that this 

was a panicked reaction by a leader of a nation who is in retreat 

in a lot of ways, unable to control the allegiances of former republics, an economy which has failed to diversify in any meaningful 

way. 

I know it is not simple to just sort of suggest which direction 

Russia is heading in, but tell me sort of how you interpret the motivations for these exceptional actions in Ukraine? 

587 

Ambassador TEFFT. Thank you very much, Senator. When I have 

been in Moscow recently in May and in April working, doing my 

job for the RAND Corporation, I have met with many Russians. 

Certainly the predominant view there was that the decision to go 

into Crimea was something of an impulsive decision following the 

breakdown of the agreement that had been brokered by the three 

European Union Foreign Ministers back in late March. 

I know that that agreement—that while there are many in Russia who think that it was something that was broken down by 

some kind of plot or some kind of plan, was in fact something spontaneous. Nobody knew that President Yanukovych was leaving, 

was leaving. 

But I think the other thing as I look back on the Ukraine crisis, 

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of 

many in the Russian leadership. I have had this conversation, private conversations as well. They did not understand what was really at stake on the Maidan. When I left Ukraine it was very clear 

if you looked at the polling that President Yanukovych was not 

only very unpopular, but something on the order of 74 percent of 

the people said they thought the country was going in the wrong 

direction. 

When I left it was still—the plans were still on the books to 

move ahead with becoming a member of the European—an associate member, an association agreement with the EU. When that 

fell apart and the demonstrations developed, it was not hard to understand why that was happening. 

I think that for me personally one of the things that is so frustrating here is that this did not need to happen. A lot of the things 

that have occurred in Ukraine and the Russian response did not 

have to happen. They could have had a better relationship with 

Ukraine if they had tried. 

But there is this strong view that President Putin has enunciated many times of a Eurasian union. It is pretty clear that not 

just the people of Ukraine do not want to be part of a Eurasian 

union. They wanted to have a good relationship with Russia. I will 

be honest. When I was in Moscow—or I was in Ukraine, I, speaking on behalf of the administration and the United States, said we 

supported the EU association agreement, but we also believe 

strongly that there should be a good relationship between Ukraine 

and Russia. And most Ukrainians I knew understood that very, 

very clearly. 

Unfortunately, choices were made the other way. I hope that this 

is an aberration. I think the strong international response to this 

has sent a pretty clear message. I think you can read some of the 

commentaries in Russia and see that there are a lot of people raising the larger question of is this the right policy approach, is this 

the best way to build relationships with our neighbors, is this the 

best way, in the words of some Ukrainians—of some Russians, is 

this the way we should treat our cousins across the border in 

Ukraine? 

Senator MURPHY. I want to ask one more question. You had this 

challenge in Ukraine. You will have it again in Russia. How do you 

continue to advance a dialogue that is happening with the Russians on a number of fronts, whether it be Iran or Afghanistan, 

588 

while pressing the case for more political discourse and the greater 

ability for dissidents to express themselves? 

What has been remarkable during this period of time over the 

last 6 months is very quietly Putin has also been increasing a 

crackdown on political discourse, most recently essentially eliminating the ability of small television channels in that country to 

advertise, to receive revenues necessary for their existence, essentially shutting the doors on a number of different independent outlets throughout the country. 

So you have gotten real good at this over the years. What do you 

see in Moscow as the ability of our Embassy to continue to promote 

freedom of expression, to continue to promote those who would try 

to protest this government with an increasing foot on their neck as 

they try to do it? 

Ambassador TEFFT. Well, I will very much try to, as I said, have 

very candid and serious talks with the Russian leaders. The Embassy, the U.S. Government as a whole, has developed ways to get 

our message out and our support for those themes. 

The other thing that I have done in my previous assignment and 

I would expect to do in Moscow is work very closely with our European allies, with the EU Ambassador, who is a very distinguished 

diplomat, the former Foreign Minister of Lithuania, who I know 

well, along with other ambassadors, to try to bring to bear, if you 

will, the predominance of persuasiveness, I would hope. 

I have no illusions in saying this. In one of my conversations yesterday with one of the other Senators I made the point that, looking at how we actually conduct our public diplomacy, looking at not 

just how we are doing, but how effective we are being with social 

media and other things, in a society that, as you say, is very increasingly restricted in terms of the ability of embassies and other 

governments to get their message out, it is going to be something 

I will spend a lot of time on. One of the things as I prepare to go 

out in consultations here is to be hard-minded about the effectiveness of that and to try to come up with the best ways we can move 

forward. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. No, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ambassador, let me ask you some final questions, unless a member returns. You were our Ambassador in Georgia in 2008. 

Ambassador TEFFT. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you experienced Russia’s provocative behavior in that post. How do you compare what Russia did in Georgia 

in 2008 with what you see in Ukraine in 2014? 

Ambassador TEFFT. I think what we have seen in Ukraine is actually a much more organized, at least as I understand it, operation. Certainly the Russians prepared their forces before the war 

actually broke out. They were massed north of the border. But the 

operation as it came into Georgia was not militarily as well organized, I think, as certainly what we have seen in Ukraine, not just 

in Crimea, but I also have the sense that in Ukraine there was 

much more direct coordination between Moscow and these fellows 

589 

that they have on the ground out there. At least that is the impression I have in reading about it. 

Then there are lots of articles in the newspaper about the various people of the Russian Special Services, as well as the GRU, 

the intelligence side of the military, and their direct involvement, 

people who were involved not just in Georgia, but in Chechnya and 

Crimea. I saw the other night a CBS correspondent who said: This 

is the same fellow I saw in Crimea back last fall and I have seen 

him once before in another place. 

Clearly there is a coterie of people who have been designated, 

who are the ones who do these things. 

The CHAIRMAN. Some of us look at what happened in the 

Ukraine and in Moldova and say to ourselves, well, this is a repeat 

of a game plan, maybe a little different in terms of the specificity 

or exactness of Russian troops versus those who are not insigniaed being sent in, but in essence creating frozen conflicts, which perhaps serves his purposes just as well as an actual outright invasion. 

What do you think about that? 

Ambassador TEFFT. I always have the impression in Georgia that 

there was a fundamental miscalculation. You remember early on in 

the conflict they bombed some of these apartment buildings in 

Gori, the city right in the center of Georgia. I think the calculus 

was somehow we are going to get these people angry and they are 

going to turn against President Shakashvili, turn against their government. Actually, what happened was the exact opposite. Even 

people who were bitter political enemies of President Shakashvili’s 

came out and said: He is our President, he is the President of independent Georgia, and we support him for that, even as we criticize 

him. 

I think there was a miscalculation, and I do not know in the Russian system who was responsible for that, but I think that is there. 

I think you could also—I think historians will know better when 

we have more information, but I think some of the things that have 

been done in eastern Ukraine have been done—have been a miscalculation. The impression I always had when I left a year ago 

was that there was a very big generational difference in east 

Ukraine. I found many of the students and younger generation people there very much—they are critical of their own government in 

Kiev, but not wanting to be a part of Russia. They wanted to be 

a part of an independent Ukraine. They wanted to see that 

Ukraine changed. 

So I think there was a miscalculation on the part of Russia that 

somehow saw all these huge numbers of people, the Novi Rossiya, 

as President Putin called it, as being ready just to kind of embrace 

Russia and become a part of Russia. And I do not think that was 

ever in the cards. 

The CHAIRMAN. One final question. Some of us read the responses about Russia becoming self-dependent, insular in terms of 

global economic issues, which I find incredibly hard to believe. I believe that what Putin has done here has actual, maybe not in the 

short term, but in the mid to longer term, real consequences for 

Russia economically. 

Ambassador TEFFT. Absolutely. 

590 

Senator MURPHY. And woke up the Europeans to think about 

how they diversify and become more energy independent, as well 

as others. What do you think is some of the inherent problems Russia would face if it tried to become autodependent? 

Ambassador TEFFT. I just do not see in this global market, in 

this globalized world that we live in, how withdrawing into yourself, into an insular kind of nation, is going to help you. Number 

one, economically you are not going to succeed. We all know that 

you need capital, you need foreign customers. Russia needs to develop manufactures and things that it can sell in the world, not 

just extractive minerals that are the fundamentals of their national 

economy today. 

I just think that it is really a big danger. I was very intrigued, 

as I mentioned to you yesterday, the comments that were made by 

former deputy prime minister Kudryn, who was very clear in a 

Tass interview, not just that the Ukraine policy was wrong, but 

that those—he spoke out very strongly against the 

ultranationalists and saw them taking Russia in the wrong direction. 

Clearly, this is going to be one of the key things that I and my 

staff are going to have to watch in Russia as the battle between 

the ultranationalists, if you will, and the modernizers or those who 

want to have Russia as part of the global economy and the global 

political system push ahead. It is going to be a key, I think, a key 

part of any analysis of Russia. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you for your insights. Clearly, having a Russia that is part of the international order, both in terms 

of security, as well as economic issues, is the preferable course of 

events. But how we get there is still a road map to be determined. 

Senator Corker, are there any other questions? 

Senator CORKER. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. There are no other questions for you, 

Ambassador. We are in the midst of discussions as to how we 

might accelerate your nomination to be considered by the full Senate. 

Excuse me a moment. [Pause.] 

So, with the thanks of the committee for your testimony, you are 

excused. 

Ambassador TEFFT. Thank you very much, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know if there will be any questions for 

the record. If there are, I would urge you to answer them expeditiously so that we can move your nomination. 

Ambassador TEFFT. We are poised and ready. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we want to hear. 

At this point Senator Coons is going to preside over our next 

panel of nominees, and I thank Senator Coons for his willingness 

to do so. 

[Pause.] 

Senator COONS [presiding]. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like 

to call to order the second panel of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, considering three ambassadorial nominees. I am pleased to chair this hearing to consider the nominees 

for Botswana, Cabo Verde, and Brunei. All three of our nominees 

591 

have impressive records of accomplishment and I look forward to 

hearing their priorities for advancing U.S. interests. 

Our first nominee is for Botswana, long known as one of the 

most stable and democratic countries on the continent, a close ally 

of the United States. It has made smart investments in education 

and health care, dedicated a large portion of its capable military 

to addressing wildlife trafficking. But despite these positive trends, 

there are challenges in terms of having the second highest HIV– 

AIDS rate in the world, rising wildlife trafficking challenges, and 

reports of marginalization of the San people. 

Earl Miller, the nominee for Botswana, is a career Foreign Service officer currently serving as consul general in Johannesburg, and 

is deeply familiar with regional issues as a result of his posting in 

southern Africa. His knowledge of the region, his previous service 

in Botswana, and his leadership skills will allow him to bring 

strong contributions to this mission. 

Next we consider Cabo Verde, an island nation off the northwest 

coast of Africa, known for having grown to become a stable, democratic, lower middle-income country, a strong ally and partner of 

the United States, in part due to our strong investment ties and 

shared regional concerns, such as countering narcotrafficking off 

the coast. In addition, there is a sizable Cabo Verdean diaspora 

community in the northeastern United States, with which I have 

long been familiar. 

Mr. Donald Heflin brings extensive regional leadership experience. A career Foreign Service officer, he currently serves as the 

director for consular affairs visa office and previously served as 

principal officer in Nuevo Laredo in Mexico, and gained regional 

expertise as the deputy and later Acting Director of the State Department’s Office of West African Affairs. 

Last but certainly not least, we consider Brunei, a small country 

in Southeast Asia. Brunei recently implemented a new penal code 

rooted in a strict interpretation of sharia law, which includes measures such as the death penalty for adultery, homosexual acts, and 

insulting the Koran, prison sentences for pregnancy out of wedlock 

or failing to pray on Friday. These new restrictions will, moreover, 

apply to all Bruneians, including the 22 percent who are not Moslem. These regulations are troubling and I am hopeful our next 

U.S. Ambassador will encourage the government to protect human 

rights, dignity, and freedom of belief for its people. 

Brunei is also an increasingly important partner for achieving 

U.S. objectives, one of four states that launched the TPP, a cornerstone of the administration’s economic engagement strategy in 

Asia. It also opposes territorial aggression by China in the South 

China Sea and therefore it is imperative our Ambassador skillfully 

manage bilateral relations in order to achieve regional goals. 

For this post, the President has nominated Mr. Craig Allen, who 

has spent three decades living and working in Asia. A career member of the Foreign Commercial Service, class of minister counselor, 

Mr. Allen most recently served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

China at the Department of Commerce. He also served as senior 

commercial officer at the U.S. consulate in Johannesburg, senior 

commercial officer in Beijing, and deputy senior commercial officer 

in Tokyo. 

592 

I would now like to invite my colleague Senator Flake to make 

any opening statement he would like before I invite our nominees 

to make their opening statements. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks for being here. I have met with two of you in the last 

little bit in my office. I look forward to your testimony and thank 

you for your service. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

I would like to welcome our nominees and encourage you to take 

the time to introduce your families and friends, who we all know 

are an essential part of your service in government. We are grateful for their sacrifices as well as yours and for their ongoing support. 

Mr. Heflin. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. HEFLIN, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CABO 

VERDE 

Mr. HEFLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Coons, members of the committee, it is my honor to appear here today as the 

President’s nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Cabo Verde. I am grateful to President Obama and Secretary 

Kerry for this tremendous vote of confidence and for this opportunity to come before you. 

I wish to acknowledge my daughter, Sara, who is here with us 

today. Sara is currently a junior at Austin Peay State University 

in Tennessee and lived in six countries growing up. Her first posting as a Foreign Service kid started when she was 8 weeks old. 

I regret my parents did not live long enough to be here today. 

They both devoted their entire adult lifetimes to public service, 

highlighted by my father’s 4 years as a pilot during World War II. 

The 10 islands that make up the Republic of Cabo Verde are just 

off the West Coast of Africa. Cabo Verde enjoys a vibrant, 

multiparty political system and an unbroken history of civilian rule 

since its independence in 1975. It is a success story of progress, 

prosperity, political stability, and democracy. Cabo Verde and the 

United States have enjoyed warm relations since we first opened 

our consulate there nearly 200 years ago. 

There are more than 450,000 Americans of Cabo Verdean origin. 

Many of these families immigrated to New England during the 

days of the great 19th century whaling fleets, which they worked 

on. They participate fully in the life of our great country and many 

of them wish to invest in the prosperous future of Cabo Verde. 

The United States and Cabo Verde are partners on a number of 

important matters. Among them maritime security and 

transnational crime are key. The government of Cabo Verde strongly supports counternarcotics maneuvers and is a gracious host to 

U.S. ship visits. Cabo Verde is a model in the region for strategic 

partnership. If confirmed, it is my goal to maintain and enhance 

this multilateral and interagency cooperation. 

U.S. engagement and support of Cabo Verde’s economic and commercial development is bearing fruit. Cabo Verde’s first Millennium 

Challenge Account compact was successfully completed in 2010, 

producing significant gains in all three of its projects: first, imVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00600 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
593 

provements in transportation networks, facilitating integration of 

internal markets; second, improvements in water management and 

soil conservation, which promoted increases in farm profits and incomes; and third, support to Cabo Verdean microfinance institutions. It is my hope if confirmed to engage Cabo Verde in consolidating these gains. 

Cabo Verde’s continued strong government performance resulted 

in its selection as the first country in the world to qualify for a second Millennium Challenge Corporation compact, which began in 

2012 and is focused on carrying out wide-reaching reforms in the 

water and sanitation and land management sectors. These two 

compacts support Cabo Verde’s overall national development goal 

of transforming its economy from aid dependency to sustainable 

private sector-led growth. 

Mr. Chairman, prior assignments in Africa and in African affairs 

have equipped me with the cultural and regional knowledge and 

language skills to relate to the Cabo Verdean Government and people. Similarly, if confirmed I will draw upon my 27-year career in 

the Foreign Service, including my experience as principal officer in 

Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, to effectively lead the U.S. mission in Praia, 

Cabo Verde. I look forward to entering entry-level officers who staff 

many of the Embassy’s positions. 

If confirmed, my number one priority will be to promote the safety and welfare of American citizens in Cabo Verde. 

I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heflin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD L. HEFLIN

Chairman Coons and members of the committee, it’s my honor to appear here 

today as the President’s nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the Republic 

of Cabo Verde. I am grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for this tremendous vote of confidence and for this opportunity to come before you. 

I wish to acknowledge my daughter, Sara, who is here with us today. Sara is currently a Junior at Austin Peay State University, and lived in six countries growing 

up. Her first posting as a Foreign Service kid started when she was 8 weeks old. 

I regret that my parents did not live long enough to be here today. They both 

devoted their entire working lives to public service, highlighted by my father’s four 

years as a pilot in World War II. 

The 10 islands that make up the Republic of Cabo Verde are just off the west 

coast of Africa. Cabo Verde enjoys a vibrant, multiparty political system and an 

unbroken history of civilian rule since independence in 1975. It is a success story 

of progress, prosperity, political stability, and democracy. 

Cabo Verde and the United States have enjoyed warm relations since we opened 

our first consulate there nearly 200 years ago. There are more than 450,000 Americans of Cabo Verdean origin. Many of these families have lived in New England 

since originally immigrating to work on the 19th century whaling ships. They participate fully in the life of our great country, and many of them wish to invest in 

the prosperous future of Cabo Verde. 

The United States and Cabo Verde are partners on a number of important matters. Among them, maritime security and transnational crime are key. The Government of Cabo Verde strongly supports counternarcotics maneuvers and is a gracious 

host to U.S. ship visits. Cabo Verde is a model in the region for strategic partnership. If confirmed, it is my goal to maintain and enhance this multilateral and interagency collaboration. 

U.S engagement in support of Cabo Verde’s economic and commercial development is bearing fruit. Cabo Verde’s first Millennium Challenge Account Compact 

was successfully completed in 2010, producing significant gains in all three of its 

projects, namely: (1) improvements in transportation networks facilitating integration of internal markets; (2) improvements in water management and soil conservation, which promoted increases in farms profits and incomes; and, (3) support to 

594 

Cabo Verdean microfinance institutions. It is my hope, if confirmed, to engage Cabo 

Verde in consolidating these gains. 

Cabo Verde’s continued strong governance performance resulted in its selection as 

the first country to qualify for a second Millennium Challenge Account Compact, 

which began in 2012 and is focused on carrying out wide-reaching reforms in the 

water and sanitation and land management sectors. These two compacts support 

Cabo Verde’s overall national development goal of transforming its economy from 

aid-dependency to sustainable, private-sector led growth. 

Mr. Chairman, prior assignments in Africa and in African Affairs have equipped 

me with the cultural and regional knowledge and language skills to relate to the 

Cabo Verdean Government and people. Similarly, if confirmed, I will draw upon my 

27-year career in the Foreign Service, including my experience as Principal Officer 

in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, to effectively lead the U.S. Mission in Praia, Cabo Verde. 

I look forward to mentoring entry-level officers who staff many of the Embassy’s 

positions. If confirmed, my number one priority will be to promote the safety and 

welfare of American citizens in Cabo Verde. 

I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Heflin. 

Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF EARL ROBERT MILLER, OF MICHIGAN, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before you 

today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next Ambassador to the Republic of Botswana. I appreciate the confidence the 

President and Secretary Kerry have placed in me by putting my 

name forward for your consideration. 

I am also deeply grateful for the support of my wife, Ana, and 

sons, Andrew and Alexander. They are back in Johannesburg, sir. 

Our first overseas assignment in the Foreign Service was in Botswana, a country we love dearly. 

During my 27 years in the Foreign Service, I have had the privilege of serving in senior leadership positions at a variety of challenging posts. Over the past 3 years, as the U.S. consul general in 

Johannesburg, South Africa, I managed the rapid growth of one of 

our busiest regional support and training centers. Our multiagency 

consulate general in Johannesburg is now larger than many U.S. 

embassies in Africa, an expansion reflecting in particular our growing economic partnership with southern Africa. 

Mr. Chairman, Botswana is one of Africa’s great success stories. 

It is one of the continent’s longest standing multiparty democracies 

and one of the United States’ most reliable partners in Africa. 

Our current engagement in Botswana across a range of issues 

underscores the country’s potential as a regional and in some instances global partner for the United States. Our joint efforts to 

combat HIV–AIDS has made a worldwide contribution to the global 

evidence base on HIV treatment and prevention. If confirmed, I 

would draw on my law enforcement experience to be a strong advocate for the International Law Enforcement Academy in Botswana, 

a partnership between our two nations that trains police officials 

from 34 African countries. Botswana also hosts the International 

Broadcasting Bureau’s Voice of America relay station, serving most 

of the African Continent. 

Botswana has worked with us to promote democracy, good governance, and human rights. It has taken principled stands on these 

595 

issues at the United Nations, the African Union, and the Southern 

African Development Community. Botswana has a strong militaryto-military relationship with the United States. The Botswana Defense Forces’ current leadership is U.S. trained and is one of the 

continent’s strongest supporters of AFRICOM. 

Botswana has many key assets U.S. investors look for: stability, 

a reputation for transparency, respect for rule of law, and generally 

favorable investment conditions. 

The Southern African Development Community is headquartered 

in Gaborone. If confirmed, I will serve as the United States representative to SADC, recognizing regional integration is essential 

to the long-term stability and prosperity of southern Africa. 

Botswana is a regional leader and strong partner on conservation 

and environmental issues, such as managing regional water supplies and combating wildlife trafficking, a serious and growing 

problem across the continent. 

Botswana does confront serious challenges. Botswana’s HIV prevalence of 25 percent among young adults is the second-highest in 

the world. The decline in diamond reserves constitutes Botswana’s 

greatest strategic challenge since its independence. As diamond resources dwindle, the country must find an alternate source of revenue or it could upend the country’s development trajectory. 

Botswana suffers from income inequality, poverty, high unemployment, aging infrastructure, and a need for a more skilled labor 

market. Women are disproportionately affected by HIV and genderbased violence is a serious problem. 

The United States is keenly interested in Botswana maintaining 

a strong, stable, and reliable partner. Botswana is an example of 

what is possible in Africa and why it matters. If confirmed, I would 

work to enhance Botswana’s potential and support the country as 

it addresses its economic, environmental, and health challenges to 

the benefits of both our nations. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

TESTIMONY OF EARL ROBERT MILLER

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next Ambassador to the 

Republic of Botswana. I appreciate the confidence the President and Secretary 

Kerry have placed in me by putting my name forward for your consideration. I am 

also deeply grateful for the support of my wife, Ana, and sons, Andrew and Alexander. Our first overseas assignment in the Foreign Service was in Botswana, a 

country we loved dearly. 

During my 27 years in the Foreign Service, as both a diplomat and federal law 

enforcement officer, I have had the privilege of serving in senior leadership positions 

at a variety of challenging posts. The success of our diplomacy depends on our people. If confirmed, I will make it my highest priority to ensure the safety, security, 

and well-being of our mission employees and all Americans in Botswana. Over the 

past 3 years, as the U.S. consul general in Johannesburg, South Africa, I managed 

the rapid growth of one of our busiest regional support and training centers. Our 

multiagency consulate general in Johannesburg is now larger than many U.S. 

Embassies in Africa, an expansion reflecting, in particular, our growing economic 

partnership with Southern Africa. 

Mr. Chairman, there is nowhere I would rather serve than Botswana. It is one 

of Africa’s great success stories. It is one of the continent’s longest-standing 

596 

multiparty democracies. Botswana has also been one of the United States most reliable partners in Africa. 

Our current engagement with Botswana, across a range of issues, underscores the 

country’s potential as a regional, and in some instances, global, partner for the 

United States. Our health partnership, particularly our joint efforts to combat HIV/ 

AIDS, has made a worldwide contribution to the global evidence base on HIV treatment and prevention. The Botswana Combination Prevention Project that our two 

countries launched in late 2013 is an important component of the President’s commitment through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to 

achieve an AIDS-free generation. If confirmed, I would draw on my significant law 

enforcement experience to be a strong advocate for the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Botswana, a partnership between our two nations that 

trains police officials from 34 African countries, and has made a significant contribution to our continentwide efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, improve governance, protect human rights, combat wildlife trafficking, and advance peace and 

security. Botswana also hosts the International Broadcasting Bureau’s Voice of 

America relay station, serving most of the African Continent. 

Botswana has worked with us to promote democracy, good governance, and 

human rights throughout the continent. It has regularly taken principled stands on 

these issues at the United Nations, the African Union, and the Southern African 

Development Community. Botswana also has a strong military-to-military relationship with the United States. If confirmed, as both a former Marine Corps officer and 

senior diplomat who has worked closely with U.S. and host government armed 

forces around the world, I would prioritize further strengthening these ties. The 

Botswana Defense Force’s (BDF’s) current leadership is U.S.-trained and does not 

shy away from partnering with the United States. The BDF is one of the continent’s 

strongest supporters of AFRICOM. Last year, Botswana approved the basing of an 

Air Force C–12 in Gaborone, and in the first 9 months, the C–12 team supported 

missions within the region. 

There are significant economic ties between the United States and Botswana. The 

United States imports between 200 and 300 million dollars of goods and services 

from Botswana every year and is the top purchaser of polished diamonds, which 

form over 70 percent of Botswana’s exports. Botswana has many key assets that 

U.S. investors look for: stability, a reputation for transparency, respect for rule of 

law, and generally favorable investment conditions. 

The Southern African Development Community, or SADC, is headquartered in 

Gaborone, Botswana. Botswana is influential in this group of 15 southern African 

nations. If confirmed, I will serve as the United States representative to SADC. 

Regional integration and cooperation are essential to the long-term stability and 

prosperity of all of Southern African nations. I would look forward to exploring 

appropriate opportunities to work with SADC to promote these objectives. 

Finally, Botswana is a regional leader and strong partner on conservation and 

environmental issues. On challenges such as managing regional water supplies, sustainable growth and combating wildlife trafficking—a serious and growing problem 

across the continent—Botswana is in many respects an impressive model. The Government of Botswana has taken on a leadership role within southern Africa on wildlife trafficking. In late 2013, we partnered with the Botswana Government in organizing the Gaborone Wildlife Enforcement Network conference, which resulted in 10 

southern African nations recommending formation of the Wildlife Enforcement Network of Southern Africa (WENSA), a regional antiwildlife trafficking entity. We are 

working with Botswana’s Ministry of Environment, Wildlife, and Tourism on a followup conference, which we hope will take place later this year, aimed at drafting 

and finalizing the WENSA’s foundational documents. 

Despite Botswana’s impressive development history, the country confronts serious 

challenges. Botswana’s HIV prevalence rate of 25.4 percent among 15–49 year olds 

is the second-highest in the world. Our investment of more than $700 million 

through PEPFAR over the past 10 years has aided the Government of Botswana in 

its response to HIV/AIDs. Botswana’s epidemic has reached a tipping point—for 

every one new person on treatment, there is less than one person newly infected. 

But many challenges remain. 

The decline in diamond reserves constitutes Botswana’s greatest strategic challenge since independence. Diamond revenues, though well-managed in Botswana, 

constitute the largest source of government revenue and are used to improve the 

lives of its people. As diamond resources dwindle, the country must find an alternate source of revenue or face a severe economic downturn. If Botswana fails to 

meet this challenge, it could upend the country’s development trajectory and severely constrain Botswana’s capacity to cope with health challenges associated with 

one of the world’s highest HIV prevalence rates. This could put the sustainability 

597 

of our $700 million PEPFAR investment at risk, make it difficult for Botswana to 

sustainably manage its globally significant natural resources, particularly the 

Okavango Delta and its wildlife, and undercut Botswana’s influence in the region. 

Botswana’s current diamond-wealth translates into a $6,200 GDP per capita, relatively high for a developing country. Despite this high GDP rate, Botswana suffers 

from income inequality, poverty, high unemployment, aging infrastructure, and a 

need for a more skilled labor market. The top 20 percent of income earners in Botswana account for 70 percent of the country’s household consumption, while over 

one-fifth of Botswana’s population lives on less than $1.25 per day. In Botswana’s 

remote rural communities, poverty is particularly acute; in the least populated district, nearly one in two people are impoverished with no realistic prospects for living 

standard improvement on the horizon. Women are disproportionately affected by 

HIV, and gender-based violence is a serious problem. 

Botswana is a strong and vocal partner of the United States today because of 

strong relationships forged 20 years ago in universities, military academies, and 

through programs such as the Peace Corps. If I am confirmed, I will build on these 

types of relationships with the rising generation of Botswana. Youth make up the 

largest segment of Botswana’s population: over half of the population is under age 

25. The United States is viewed positively by Botswana’s youth, which opens important opportunities for us to influence the next generation of Botswana’s leaders. 

The United States is keenly interested in Botswana remaining a strong, stable, 

and reliable American partner. Botswana has consistently been successful, a source 

of hope for others, and an example of what is possible in Africa, and why it matters. 

If confirmed, my goal would be to work to enhance Botswana’s potential and support 

the country as it seeks to address its economic, environmental, and health challenges. These goals require robust diplomatic, development, and defense engagement on our part. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Allen. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG B. ALLEN, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED 

TO BE AMBASSADOR TO BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, members of 

the committee, thank you very much. It is a great honor to appear 

before you today. 

Before beginning my testimony, it is my privilege to introduce to 

you my family: my wife, Micheline Tusenius, our two children, 

Christopher and Caroline. It also gives me great pleasure to introduce my very proud 90-year-old mom, Betty Allen, my brother, 

Scott Allen, and my three nieces, Lisa, Jessica, and Sarah. 

As a veteran Foreign Service officer with six previous assignments, I want to thank my family for their extraordinary flexibility, patience, and many sacrifices. In particular, I would like to 

thank my wife ,Micheline, who has forsaken her own career for our 

family, giving me the opportunity to serve the American people 

overseas. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed it would be an honor to serve my 

country as the United States Ambassador to Brunei. The United 

States and Brunei have enjoyed strong and prosperous relations 

since 1850, when our two countries signed a treaty of peace, friendship, commerce, and navigation. Still in effect today, this treaty 

has underpinned our close cooperation for 160 years. 

The United States and Brunei have a long history of working together to promote peace, stability, and development. If confirmed, 

I hope to continue that tradition and strengthen our relationship 

for the 21st century. 

598 

Today the United States relationship the Brunei rests on two 

central pillars. The first is growing economic partnership and the 

second is expanding regional cooperation. Our economic partnership is manifest through rapidly expanding trade. In 2013 American companies exported $559 million worth of goods and services 

to Brunei and we regularly enjoy large bilateral trade surpluses. 

Recently Brunei purchased $600 million worth of U.S. military and 

civilian aircraft. 

Our bilateral economic cooperation is further demonstrated by 

rapidly increasing investment flows, including $116 million worth 

of American investment in Brunei in 2012. 

Finally, as you noted, Mr. Chair, Brunei was a founding member 

in the launch of TPP negotiations, and indeed they are a key part 

of our effort to finalize a high standard agreement for the 21st century. 

The second pillar of our relationship with Brunei concerns regional issues. Brunei successfully chaired ASEAN last year. They 

have long been an important member of the region, and recently 

the United States and Brunei have cooperated on a number of matters of great importance to Southeast Asia. For example, we have 

launched the joint English language enrichment program for 

ASEAN, a $25 million, 5-year initiative funded by the Bruneian 

Government. Also, Brunei and Indonesia joined us in founding the 

U.S.-Asia Comprehensive Energy Partnership, and to support this 

goal the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the energy 

department of Brunei’s Prime Minister’s office are collaborating on 

a $1 billion Ex-Im program to further finance U.S. exports to the 

region. 

In addition, we have an active and growing defense cooperation 

relationship, highlighted by Brunei’s active participation in annual 

exercises with the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Brunei has hosted a large humanitarian assistance exercise which brought together 

servicemembers from the United States and the region. 

Certainly there are challenges, Mr. Chairman. As you noted, 

Brunei’s sharia law has caused serious concerns. The first phase of 

this law went into effect on May 1. We are concerned that the code 

criminalizes several aspects of freedom of religion, including apostasy, and we are concerned over some of the punishments that 

have been announced for future implementation. We are also concerned, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, that it criminalizes consensual same-sex conduct between adults. 

Freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which includes 

the right to change one’s religion, are fundamental human rights 

enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While we 

understand that no physical punishments have been implemented 

under the current phase of the law, Brunei should ensure that its 

law prohibits torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. 

While Bruneian officials have offered assurances that the standards that will be applied under the sharia system will be so exacting that it will be almost impossible for there to be a conviction 

that would result in sentences such as stoning or amputation, the 

threat of such extreme punishment still raises concern. 

599 

To these ends, we regularly communicate with Brunei regarding 

fundamental human rights and encourage the Government of 

Brunei to uphold its international commitments. We are watching 

closely to see how the law is being implemented. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today and 

giving my nomination your kind consideration. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG B. ALLEN

Chairman Coons and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear 

before you today. 

Before beginning my testimony, it is my privilege to introduce you to my family: 

my wife, Micheline Tusenius, and our two children, Christopher and Caroline. 

Please also allow me to introduce you to my very proud 90-year-old mother, Betty 

Allen; my brother, Scott Allen; and, my sister, Sara Bowden. 

As a veteran Foreign Service officer with six previous overseas assignments, I 

want to thank my family for their extraordinary flexibility, patience, and many 

sacrifices. 

I am especially grateful to my wife, Micheline, who has forsaken her own career 

for our family—giving me the opportunity to serve the American people overseas. 

This month marks my 29th year in government. During this period, I have 

worked at the Department of Commerce on issues associated with Asia for 25 years. 

In the course of my work, I have visited Brunei twice and been intimately involved 

in our trade relationship with Brunei, ASEAN, APEC, and the region. 

Indeed, it is fair to say that I have been preparing for this moment for 29 years, 

and thus I am grateful to you for considering this nomination. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, it would be an honor to serve my country as the 

United States Ambassador to Brunei. 

The United States and Brunei have enjoyed strong and prosperous relations since 

1850, when our two countries signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce, 

and Navigation. Still in effect today, the treaty has underpinned our close cooperation for the last 164 years. More recently, the United States was one of the first 

countries to recognize Brunei’s independence from the United Kingdom in 1984. In 

the 30 years since then, the United States and Brunei have worked together to promote and foster peace, stability, and development, and if confirmed, I hope to continue that tradition and strengthen our relationship for the 21st century. 

Today, the United States relationship with Brunei rests on two central pillars. 

The first is our long-standing, robust, and growing economic partnership. This economic cooperation is manifest through the continuously expanding trade between 

our two countries, to the great benefit of both. In 2013, United States companies 

exported $559 million of goods and services to Brunei, and we regularly enjoy 

annual trade surpluses. Our positive cooperation is further demonstrated by the 

continuous and increasing investments U.S. companies are making in Brunei, including $116 million worth in 2012. Recent Bruneian purchases of U.S. military and 

civilian aircraft totaling $600 million further attests to the strength of the economic 

relationship. Finally, Brunei was a founding party in the launch of the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership negotiations and is a key part of current efforts to finalize a high-standard TPP agreement that will promote jobs and growth in the United States, Brunei, 

and across the Asia-Pacific region. 

The second pillar of the relationship is our engagement with Brunei on regional 

issues. Brunei was the chair of ASEAN last year and has long been an active and 

positively engaged member of the region. Recently, the United States and Brunei 

have cooperated to address a host of matters important to Southeast Asia. Together 

we launched the English Language Enrichment Project for ASEAN, a $25 million, 

5-year initiative—funded by the Bruneian Government—that seeks to strengthen 

ASEAN’s global engagement through improved English language capacity and 

advanced educational and teaching opportunities in the region. In 2012, Brunei and 

Indonesia joined us in founding the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership, which supports efforts to bring cleaner, more reliable sources of energy to 

the Asia-Pacific region by focusing on four priorities: renewables and cleaner energy; 

power markets and interconnectivity; the emerging role of natural gas; and sustainable development including rural electrification and energy efficiency. In support of 

those goals, a recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between the ExportVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00607 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
600 

Import Bank of the United States and the Energy Department of Brunei’s Prime 

Minister’s Office calls for information sharing and up to US$1 billion in Ex-Im Bank 

loans to finance U.S. exports in support of selected projects in the region. In these 

ways we are moving forward with Brunei to address regional issues vital to the 

maintenance of stability and growth. 

In addition to these programs, the United States and Brunei cooperate on a host 

of other issues. We have an active and growing defense cooperation relationship, 

highlighted by Bruneian participation in annual exercises with U.S. Pacific Fleet, 

including the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training exercise and, in 2014, for 

the first time, RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific Exercise). In addition, in 2013 Brunei 

hosted a large Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief exercise which brought 

together servicemembers from the United States and the region. The importance of 

this kind of training was clearly demonstrated just a few months later by the tragedy of Typhoon Haiyan, for which both the United States and Brunei offered assistance. Strides have also been made elsewhere: in 2013 Brunei was removed from the 

Special 301 Watch List in recognition of its efforts to protect intellectual property. 

Lastly, cultural, educational, and people-to-people ties continue to grow and define 

our bilateral relations in new and positive ways. Of particular note, the U.S.-Brunei 

English Language Enrichment Program for ASEAN is a novel way to improve 

English language skills throughout the region. Together, these programs highlight 

a multifaceted relationship that is both deep and broad, and one that is central to 

both promoting U.S. interests and the region and fostering the peace and stability 

that continue to bring economic growth. 

Certainly, there are challenges in the relationship. The United States has serious 

concerns regarding certain provisions of Brunei’s Sharia penal code, the first phase 

of which went into effect on May 1. We are concerned that the code criminalizes 

several aspects of freedom of religion, including apostasy, and we are concerned over 

some of the punishments that have been announced for future implementation. We 

are also concerned that it criminalizes same-sex conduct between adults. Freedom 

of expression and freedom of religion, which includes the right to change one’s religious beliefs, are human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights. While we understand that no physical punishments have been implemented 

under the current phase of the law, Brunei should ensure that its law prohibits 

torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. While 

Bruneian officials have offered assurances that the standards that will be applied 

under the Sharia system will be so exacting that it will be almost impossible for 

there to be a conviction that would result in sentences such as stoning or amputation, the threat of such punishment still raises concerns. To these ends, we regularly 

communicate with Brunei regarding fundamental human rights and encourage the 

Government of Brunei to uphold its international commitments. We are watching 

closely to see how the law is being implemented. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will 

focus on working with Brunei authorities on these important issues, using every tool 

available to me to encourage Brunei to move expeditiously toward full compliance 

with international human rights standards. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

before you today and for giving my nomination your serious consideration. I am 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Allen. 

Then we will start 5-minute rounds. If I could first, Mr. Heflin, 

just two questions on maritime security and the diaspora. I am 

particularly interested in how we engage the diaspora in the 

United States in economic investment, in deployment and in political relations back to their country of origin. As you referenced 

there is a sizable Cabo Verdean community in New England. What 

could we do to more successfully engage the African diaspora in the 

United States, which is a critical competitive advantage lacked by 

China, Brazil, Russia, India, others? What more could we do? 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the diaspora from Africa and other countries often leads the way in our relationships, including our economic relationships, with African countries. The 

Cabo Verdean community in New England has already shown interest in investing in the open economy of Cabo Verde. 

601 

Right now the sky is the limit. For instance, looking at trade figures recently between the United States and Cabo Verde, they are 

fairly low. Typical exports from Cabo Verde to the United States 

in a given year are about a million, two million dollars, and from 

the United States back to Cabo Verde $8, $9, $10 million. Those 

could go up dramatically. If confirmed, I intend to work on fostering trade ties. 

There is also a very interesting proposal on the table from one 

of the New England colleges to open a campus in Praia to begin 

to prepare Cabo Verdean students to come up and study at the university level in the United States That is something my successor 

may well push over the top—my predecessor may well push over 

the top during our time there, and if not if confirmed I intend to. 

Senator COONS. I would be interested in followup from you once 

confirmed, presuming confirmation, about exactly how we can do a 

better job at engaging diaspora communities. 

Second, on maritime security. You referenced narcotrafficking as 

a major concern for me and for many off the Coast of West Africa, 

in addition to illegal fishing. Could you just explain the extent of 

the cooperation between the United States and Cabo Verde in combating both narcotrafficking and illegal fishing in the Western 

Coast of Africa? 

Mr. HEFLIN. Happy to, Mr. Chairman. We have had engagement 

on a lot of different levels with a lot of different agencies between 

the United States and Cabo Verde. 

AFRICOM’s naval assets regularly conduct exercises and ship 

visits down there and over the years we have given the Cabo 

Verdeans three ships, including a 51-footer, that they put to good 

use. Their problem obviously is in the sea lanes between them and 

West Africa and traffic coming over from South America and heading up toward Europe. 

We also helped them start a command center, called COSMAR, 

in which they have formed an interagency group to start to get control of their own water, which, as you know, in African countries 

the problem sometimes is narcotraffickers, but sometimes overfishing or other economic losses from their waters. So with a small 

and very able coast guard-type navy, this command center that we 

have worked with them on, our Coast Guard works with them 

closely, and the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement also has programs with the Cabo 

Verdeans. They have been a very good partner. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, you referenced Botswana has one of the most stable, 

capable militaries. We have a close police training relationship in 

Botswana. They are also a strong supporter of AFRICOM. What 

else do you think Botswana could do to play more of a role in supporting regional security efforts and what more could we be doing 

to combat wildlife trafficking? Botswana has historically done very 

well, but issues with some of its neighbors are preventing predictable long-term success and we have, I think, a real challenge, not 

just in Botswana, but in the entire region in wildlife trafficking. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have seen 

firsthand in South Africa over the last 3 years the devastation 

caused by the increasingly sophisticated and lethal wildlife trafVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00609 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
602 

ficking syndicates. The Botswana Defense Force is the first line of 

defense in Botswana to combat wildlife trafficking. It is a highly regarded, well respected defense force. 

We have a number of programs in place to assist the BDF and 

the Government of Botswana with antipoaching operations, including classes on antitrafficking investigations, money-laundering investigative courses to strike at the roots of the syndicates that are 

behind many of the trafficking outfits in the region. 

We are strong supporters of Botswana’s establishing a wildlife 

enforcement network for southern Africa in Botswana. The only 

way we will solve this problem is through a regional and ultimately 

a global approach. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, and thank you to your families as 

well for the sacrifices that they have made and continue to make. 

I know it is quite a commitment. I spent 1 year overseas—we had 

a child just a year and a half old—in Namibia, and I look at that 

and think of the difficulty that is, to have one child away from 

cousins and parents, grandparents and everything else, and you 

have done it many, many times. Your service is appreciated, all the 

families in particular. 

Mr. Heflin, with regard to Cabo Verde, the Millennium Challenge, again we are in the second iteration. What did we learn in 

the first? What lessons are we taking forward and how can we 

make sure that we expand on the benefits? 

Mr. HEFLIN. Millennium Challenge Corporation has not quite finished its after-action report on the first compact. The second compact, it was decided to spend the first 2 years getting the legal and 

regulatory framework in place, and it is coming along nicely. Once 

that is done and only once that is done will we move on to construction and other spending. 

Senator FLAKE. Mr. Allen, the trade surplus, that is a pretty 

good surplus we have got. How much of it traditionally is military 

equipment or planes? Is that typical year to year or is that just a 

bump lately? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Ranking Member Flake. The trade surplus and the trade numbers are quite volatile. Last year we delivered several aircraft and that skewed the numbers. We have a 

number of other aircraft, large aircraft deals in the pipeline, and 

thus I would consider it a rising trend in U.S. exports to Brunei 

in the foreseeable future—aircraft, oil equipment, consumer goods, 

food, and a good number of other commodities as well. 

Senator FLAKE. The only economy is certainly shrinking from 

where it was. How much longer? They are looking to revive it for 

as long as they can. They are certainly looking to diversify and that 

will be a lot of your role, and certainly I think why they have so 

much interest in the TPP. We appreciate their leadership and help 

there. I hope it is something that the Congress can give the President the tools to actually give effect to. 

But in the area of diversification, what are they doing? 

Mr. ALLEN. Sir, I share your sentiments entirely with regard to 

TPP. The IMF just this week or last week released a report sugVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00610 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
603 

gesting that Brunei’s GDP would be trending upward toward 6 percent this year and next. So their economy is doing quite well. 

In terms of diversification, they are trying to move downstream 

in the petroleum business, develop tourism and other service exports, and develop other segments of their economy that employ 

more Bruneian citizens, and integrate themselves better in ASEAN 

and in the region. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, I have not spent much time in Botswana. I spent a 

year in South Africa, a year in Namibia, and 6 months in 

Zimbabwe, so I have kind of surrounded it. But actually when I got 

back to college I wrote my master’s thesis trying to explain 

Mugabe’s hold on the electorate in Zimbabwe during the eighties. 

Now I think we have determined what that hold is. It is brute force 

and chicanery lately. 

But now I think all of us are trying to explain the hold he has 

on the rest of Africa. It has been very disappointing to see particularly the other SADC countries countenance what has gone on in 

Zimbabwe. Botswana I will note was the one country to be somewhat critical initially, but then kind of fell in line with the other 

southern African countries. 

What can you do in your role to make sure that there is the appropriate pressure and the appropriate stand taken by SADC countries at least standing up to what should not be countenanced in 

Zimbabwe? Long question, sorry. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for that question, Senator. President 

Khama has taken some lonely and courageous and principled 

stands within SADC as a proponent of human rights and democracy across Africa, including Zimbabwe. He supported the global 

political agreement and sent a robust election observer delegation 

to Zimbabwe for the recent elections and was critical within SADC 

for the elections failing to abide by SADC’s own standards. 

Botswana and Zimbabwe enjoy full diplomatic relations, but Botswana is not shy about criticizing what it sees as violations of 

human rights in Zimbabwe. 

I will take every opportunity to engage at the highest levels with 

the Government of Botswana and within SADC on issues of human 

rights. I would look forward to working with Ambassador Bruce 

Wharton and his fine team in Harare on regional human rights 

and good governance issues. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. In most cases here—I mean, 

SADC has some great governing principles, as does the AU, and I 

think all we need to do is make sure these countries stand up for 

their own standards. Certainly Botswana has been more willing to 

do so than other countries in the region. Please pass on our thanks 

for that, and hopefully we can foster that kind of attitude to stand 

up for not Western standards or U.S. standards, but the standards, 

the election standards and otherwise, human rights standards, that 

SADC has itself propounded and other countries in the region. 

But again, thank you all for your service. I have no doubt that 

you will serve the country well in this capacity. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

604 

I have just a few more questions, if I might, for Mr. Allen, who 

I did not get to in my first round. If you would, just speak further 

about how you are going to address the issue of sharia law and 

some challenges that may create for us in terms of further progress 

on TPP or our relationship with Brunei? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Chairman. Firstly, I share your sentiments exactly on sharia, Brunei’s sharia penal code. I think that 

the first thing that we need to do is monitor implementation, watch 

very closely. Thus far they are in the very early stages of this and 

we therefore need to monitor closely. We need to increase our dialogue on the importance of human rights and our expectations of 

human rights in Brunei. 

We need to remind the Government of Brunei when and if it becomes necessary, when it becomes necessary, of their international 

human rights obligations. We need to speak out in favor of our 

principles, and I will not be shy in upholding our principles with 

the government and the people of Brunei. 

With regard to TPP, it is useful to note that Brunei was a founding member, part of the P4. It is also important to note that trade 

is an important—trade and investment, economic exchange, is an 

important way to broaden support for the universal values that we 

hold dear. We have not used trade agreements in the past to address religious concerns. 

Vis a vis the specific strategy for TPP, I would have to refer you 

to USTR, which is of course leading those important negotiations. 

But I look forward to being a partner with them to ensure the passage of TPP and also ensuring that our views on human rights are 

known and hopefully respected in Brunei. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Well, given your long career service in Commerce, I would also be interested in how you view intellectual property rights, whether you view them as central to our making 

progress on TPP with Brunei and how essential you think advocating for a regime in trade that respects and protects American 

intellectual property rights, how central you think that is. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator. I believe it is absolutely essential. Intellectual property rights are core to our economy and, more 

particularly, to our future economic growth. 

With regard to Brunei, there still are some intellectual property 

right problems, but they were lifted off of USTR’s special watch list 

recently, thus indicating some progress made. That said, I understand that there still are problems and I look forward to working 

with the government of Brunei to further clean up and improve the 

protection for intellectual property rights. 

Within the context of TPP, those negotiations are ongoing and 

clearly very important to our future economic prosperity and 

growth. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Allen. 

Senator Flake, any further questions? 

Senator FLAKE. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS. Well, with that I would like to thank all three 

of our nominees today. I would like to also thank, if I might, Mr. 

Heflin’s daughter, Sara, Mr. Miller’s wife, Ana, and sons, Andrew 

605 

and Alexander, and of course Micheline Tusenius and Christopher 

and Caroline. Thank you all for your support. I know there are 

many others here as well. We are grateful that you stuck with us 

and we are grateful for your willingness to serve. 

Then we will keep the record of this panel open until noon tomorrow, Wednesday July 30, and I will recess for a third panel. 

[Recess from 4:08 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.] 

Senator KAINE [presiding]. This third panel of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is now called to order. When I asked 

folks to assemble, I betrayed my trial lawyer roots by indicating 

that the ‘‘witnesses’’ should take their places. These are not witnesses; they are nominees, and we are very, very glad to have all 

three of them here. 

What we will do is, I will do a brief introduction of each of the 

three. Then I will ask them to make opening statements in the 

order that I introduced you, and following that I will have questions for each of you. Normally we would have other committee 

members here, but normally we do not do three panels. So you may 

only have to face my withering cross-examination this afternoon. 

But again, welcome to all. These are all quite important positions. 

So, to begin with introductions: Michele Sison has served as U.S. 

Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives since 2012. She previously served as assistant chief of mission in Baghdad, Iraq, U.S. 

Ambassador to Lebanon, and U.S. Ambassador to the UAE. She 

holds the rank of Career Minister in the U.S. Foreign Service. Her 

early assignments include: service as Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of State for south Asian affairs and positions in Pakistan, 

India, Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Benin, Togo, and Haiti, in the 32 

years since 1982 when she joined the Foreign Service. 

Sison also served as the State Department’s director of career development in assignments in 2010 and 2011. She received her 

bachelor degree in political science from Wellesley and also studied 

at the London School of Economics. She is the mother of two grown 

daughters. 

Ambassador Sison, welcome. 

Our next two nominees are ambassadors in different ways. While 

they have not served in the Foreign Service, they have both served 

a huge percentage of their professional career as Americans 

abroad. The millions of Americans we have who live abroad, who 

proudly represent the United States as they do their business and 

raise their families abroad are ambassadors in a different way. 

S. Fitzgerald Haney is a Principal and Head of Business Development in Client Service for Pzena Investment Management. He 

also has served as a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council since 2013. Quickly, his business background: from 

2006 to 2007 he served with International Discount Telecommunication; 2002 to 2006 he was director of strategic planning at Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation; from 1999 to 2001 he was a 

senior associate at Israel Seed Partners in Jerusalem, Israel; previously vice president of marketing and strategic planning at 

Citicorp-Citibank in Mexico City and Monterrey. Prior to that, he 

had various positions with Pepsico, including significant stints in 

606 

Sao Paolo, Brazil, and also in Mexico City and San Juan, Puerto 

Rico. 

He began his career after his bachelor’s and master’s degree from 

Georgetown, serving as a Procter and Gamble assistant brand 

manager in San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Welcome, Mr. Haney. It is good to have you here. 

Finally, Charles Adams is the Managing Partner of the Geneva 

office of the international law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and 

Feld. He has worked in Geneva for over 20 years, serving as managing partner for two law firms, and his practice focuses heavily 

on international arbitrations in Europe and around the world. 

He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the University of Virginia School of Law, was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Kenya from 

1968–70, and grew up living the patriotic and peripatetic life of a 

child of a long-time member of the American Foreign Service. 

So, Mr. Adams, welcome to you as well. 

I would like to ask you each now to make opening statements. 

Your written statements will be submitted for the record, but if you 

could speak for about 5 minutes that would be great, and then I 

will ask each of you questions. I will begin with Ambassador Sison. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE JEANNE SISON, OF MARYLAND, NOMINATED TO BE THE DEPUTY REPRESENTATIVE 

TO THE UNITED NATIONS, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, AND DEPUTY REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SECURITY 

COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS; AND TO BE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 

THE UNITED STATES DURING HER TENURE OF SERVICE AS 

DEPUTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS 

Ambassador SISON. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations. 

I am grateful to the President, Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Power 

for their faith and confidence in my ability to represent the American people at the United Nations. 

I know my daughters, Allie and Jessica, are watching this hearing out in Arizona on their laptops and I would like to give them 

a heartfelt shout-out in recognition of the many years they spent 

accompanying me around the globe as Foreign Service kids. My two 

girls truly are my pride and joy. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I look forward to advancing America’s interests at the United Nations at a time of unprecedented 

challenges. President Obama has stressed that the global nature of 

the threats facing the world today cannot be adequately addressed 

by one nation alone. For that reason, America depends upon and 

must continue to demonstrate leadership within an effective, responsive, and responsible international system. 

I have been privileged to serve our country three times as U.S. 

Ambassador, as you mentioned, in the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka, and Maldives. Throughout my career I have 

worked with our international partners on issues as varied as nonproliferation, counterterrorism, climate change, and post-conflict 

transition. Representing our Nation in challenging posts around 

the world from Haiti to Cote d’Ivoire and Pakistan to Iraq, I have 

607 

seen the United Nations—I have seen that the United Nations, for 

all its shortcomings, has the ability to complement and amplify 

U.S. efforts to achieve a number of our foreign policy goals, including to prevent and end armed conflicts, ensure accountability, and 

build the conditions for a lasting peace. 

On the ground, I have worked alongside U.N. colleagues to deliver life-saving humanitarian assistance to communities racked by 

conflict and natural disaster. And I have coordinated closely with 

U.N. personnel on efforts to aid refugees and internally displaced 

persons. 

As U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, I witnessed how U.N. peacekeepers contribute to allaying tensions along the blue line between 

Israel and Lebanon. I have vigorously promoted U.S. interests by 

urging our partners overseas to adhere to U.N. Security Council 

resolutions designed to deter the proliferation efforts of Iran and 

North Korea, al-Qaeda-linked terrorism, and other grave threats to 

peace. 

Of course, there can be no sustainable peace without justice and 

the rule of law. I have worked closely with the U.N. throughout my 

career to promote accountability and respect for human rights, as 

well as to address the issue of sexual or gender-based violence in 

conflict. While I believe no country can lead as effectively as the 

United States, it is not our Nation’s job to solve every crisis around 

the world. The U.N. is an important forum for sharing that burden 

internationally. 

If confirmed, I will seek to expand the number of capable and 

willing partners working with us at the U.N. on each of the issues 

I have mentioned and will seek to unite them in a common cause 

in tackling our many common challenges. 

Finally, although I recognize the U.N.’s potential to advance critical U.S. priorities, I am also well aware of the U.N. system’s limitations and the challenges it faces to ensure that its important 

work is performed efficiently and effectively. Some of these challenges are internal to the U.N. system and some reflect the competing priorities of its member states. 

If confirmed, I will actively pursue our shared priority of ensuring that American taxpayer resources are used effectively to advance U.S. goals and objectives. I pledge to work to ensure U.N. fiscal discipline, transparency, ethics, oversight, and reform. I will 

also continue this administration’s firm commitment to fight any 

unfair bias against Israel at the U.N. 

Mr. Chairman, I have worked closely with this committee 

throughout my career and I greatly respect the active role of the 

committee in shaping American foreign policy. If confirmed, I look 

forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you to advance 

U.S. national interests at the United Nations. I am honored to appear before you today and I appreciate your consideration of my 

nomination. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Sison follows:] 

608 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MICHELE JEANNE SISON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as President Obama’s nominee to be the Deputy Permanent Representative 

of the United States to the United Nations. I am grateful to the President, Secretary 

Kerry, and Ambassador Power for their faith and confidence in my ability to represent the American people at the United Nations. 

I know my daughters, Allie and Jessica, are watching this hearing out in Arizona 

on their laptops, and I’d like to give them a heartfelt shout-out in recognition of the 

many years they spent accompanying me around the globe as Foreign Service kids. 

My two girls truly are my pride and joy. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to advancing America’s interests at 

the United Nations at a time of unprecedented challenges. President Obama has 

stressed that the global nature of the threats facing the world today cannot be adequately addressed by one nation alone. For that reason, America depends upon— 

and must continue to demonstrate leadership within—an effective, responsive, and 

responsible international system. 

I have been privileged to serve our country three times as U.S. Ambassador: in 

the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka and Maldives. Throughout my 

career, I’ve worked with our international partners on issues as varied as nonproliferation, counterterrorism, climate change, and post-conflict transition. Representing our Nation in challenging posts around the world—from Haiti to Cote 

d’Ivoire, and Pakistan to Iraq—I have seen that the United Nations, for all its shortcomings, has the ability to complement and amplify U.S. efforts to achieve a number 

of our foreign policy goals, including to prevent and end armed conflicts, ensure 

accountability, and build the conditions for a lasting peace. 

On the ground, I’ve worked alongside U.N. colleagues to deliver life-saving 

humanitarian assistance to communities wracked by conflict and natural disaster, 

and I’ve coordinated closely with U.N. personnel on efforts to aid refugees and internally displaced persons. As U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, I witnessed how U.N. 

peacekeepers contribute to allaying tensions along the ‘‘Blue Line’’ between Israel 

and Lebanon. 

I have vigorously promoted U.S. interests by urging our partners overseas to adhere to U.N. Security Council Resolutions designed to deter the proliferation efforts 

of Iran and North Korea, Al-Qaeda-linked terrorism, and other grave threats to 

peace. Of course, there can be no sustainable peace without justice and the rule of 

law. I’ve worked closely with the U.N. throughout my career to promote accountability and respect for human rights, as well as to address the issue of sexual or 

gender-based violence in conflict. And, while I believe no country can lead as effectively as the United States, it is not our Nation’s job to solve every crisis around 

the world; the U.N. is an important forum for sharing that burden internationally. 

If confirmed, I will seek to expand the number of capable and willing partners working with us at the U.N. on each of the issues I’ve mentioned, and will seek to unite 

them in common cause in tackling our many common challenges. 

Finally, although I recognize the U.N.’s potential to advance critical U.S. priorities, I am also well aware of the U.N. system’s limitations and the challenges it 

faces to ensure that its important work is performed efficiently and effectively. Some 

of these challenges are internal to the U.N. system, and some reflect the competing 

priorities of its member states. If confirmed, I will actively pursue our shared priority of ensuring that American taxpayer resources are used effectively to advance 

U.S. goals and objectives. I pledge to work to ensure U.N. fiscal discipline, transparency, ethics, oversight, and reform. I will also continue this administration’s firm 

commitment to fight any unfair bias against Israel at the U.N. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve worked closely with this committee throughout my career, and 

I greatly respect the active role of the committee in shaping American foreign policy. 

If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you to 

advance U.S. national interests at the United Nations. 

I am honored to appear before you today and I appreciate your consideration of 

my nomination. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. 

Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador Sison. 

Mr. Haney. 

609 

STATEMENT OF STAFFORD FITZGERALD HANEY, OF NEW JERSEY, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF 

COSTA RICA 

Mr. HANEY. Chairman Kaine, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next United 

States Ambassador to Costa Rica. I am profoundly humbled by this 

opportunity to serve and thank the President and the Secretary of 

State for the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working with you and your colleagues to protect U.S. 

citizens in Costa Rica, deepen the bonds that unite our countries, 

and advance U.S. interests in Central America. 

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to acknowledge my 

family who are here with me today, starting with my wife, Rabbi 

Andrea Haney, and my children Asher, Nava, Eden, and Shaia. If 

I am confirmed, my wife and our four children will be joining me 

in San Jose, and it is only through their love and support that I 

am here today. 

I would also like to acknowledge my brother-in-law, Adam 

Dobrick, and my sister-in-law, Alison Dobrick, and various friends 

supporting us today. 

Finally, I would also like to mention my mother, father, and 

brother, who are here with us in our hearts. My mother, Sandra 

Haney, was and still is my hero. Working days and studying at 

night, she showed us by her example that the United States is 

truly a land of opportunity. She was also a link in a long line of 

family that has in various ways served our Nation proudly. From 

a fifth great-granduncle who fought in the Revolutionary War, to 

my brother who served both overseas and at home, to my greatuncle who recently received an honorary doctorate in public service, 

we have a long and proud tradition of serving our Nation. It is in 

my mother’s honor and in her memory that I hope if I am confirmed to dedicate my service. 

Costa Rica is an important ally in a region of critical strategic 

importance to the United States. It is the most stable democracy 

in Central America. Its strong commitment to investing in education and health has helped it achieve literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, and income levels that are considered among the 

best in the region. 

It is no surprise that these positive attributes have attracted significant numbers of U.S. citizens and today approximately 100,000 

call Costa Rica home and more than 1 million visit annually. If 

confirmed, their safety and well-being will be my top priority. 

Despite its successes, Costa Rica, like its neighbors, confronts 

many challenges, including security challenges, as international 

drug trafficking organizations and organized crime increasingly 

penetrate Central America. The United States and Costa Rica 

enjoy an excellent partnership in security cooperation. If confirmed, 

I will continue to work with the Government of Costa Rica to ensure that organized crime does not undermine the country’s economy and democratic institutions. 

Another of my highest priorities if confirmed will be promoting 

greater Central American integration. The region will not prosper 

without better regional cooperation on trade, infrastructure development, energy integration, and investment. 

610 

Given its stability and relative prosperity, Costa Rica is not a 

source of the unaccompanied young people who have been streaming north to escape poverty, violence, and hopelessness, and in fact 

is itself a destination. Costa Rica can play a constructive role in 

working to create conditions in Central America that are conducive 

to reducing poverty and violence. President Solis has emphasized 

he is committed to working to promote regional integration and 

prosperity, and if I am confirmed I will support him in those efforts. 

I have many years experience living and working in the international businesses in Latin America and understand the region 

and its challenges. As was made clear during the recent investment 

promotion visit to the United States, Costa Rica is serious about 

improving its business climate and attracting foreign investment. 

If confirmed, my private sector experience would be an asset in 

helping Costa Rica advance in those areas. It would also serve me 

in working to advocate for stronger intellectual property protection, 

promote entrepreneurship and private-public partnerships, and ensure that U.S. companies and investors encounter a fair and level 

playing field for doing business in Costa Rica. 

If confirmed, I will also work closely with Costa Rica to advance 

the many other policy objectives and priorities the United States 

and Costa Rica share. Costa Rica shares our commitment to protecting democratic freedoms and human rights and has made it 

clear it will resist any attempts to weaken the inter-American 

human rights system. Costa Rica will also continue to be a strong 

partner with the United States on initiatives to mitigate and adapt 

to climate change and promote renewable energy use and sustainable development. 

I believe Costa Rica has the opportunity to become a regional 

hub of innovation, good governance, and increased competitiveness. 

As our dedicated team at Embassy San Jose states, a safe, prosperous, and green Costa Rica benefits the citizens of both our nations. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for your consideration of my 

nomination and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY STAFFORD FITZGERALD HANEY

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you 

today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next United States Ambassador 

to Costa Rica. 

I am profoundly humbled by this opportunity to serve and thank the President 

and the Secretary of State for the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, 

I look forward to working with you and your colleagues in Congress to advance U.S. 

interests in Costa Rica and deepen the bonds that unite our countries. 

With the Chairman’s permission, I would like to acknowledge friends and family 

who are with me today; starting with my wife, Rabbi Andrea Haney, and my children, Asher, Nava, Eden, and Shaia. If I am confirmed, my wife and our four children will be joining me in San Jose, and it is only through their love and support 

that I am here today. I would also like to acknowledge my mother-in-law, Betsy 

Dobrick, my brother and sister-in-law, Adam and Allison Dobrick, and various close 

friends who are here today and whose support means so much to me and my family. 

Finally, I would also like to mention my mother, father, and brother, may they 

rest in peace, who are here with us in our hearts. My mother, Sandra Haney, was, 

and still is, my hero. As a young widow with two young children, she left home and 

family to provide my brother and me with the best education and opportunities she 

could. Working during the day and going to school at night, she showed us, by her 

611 

example, that the United States is truly the land of opportunity for those who work 

hard on a level playing field. She did not have it easy as a single African-American 

woman raising two children alone in the 1970s, but she never gave up and she knew 

her sacrifices would allow her children to have a better life. It was her firmly held 

belief, one that she passed on, that America’s core values should serve as an example throughout the world. She also was a link in a long line of family that has, in 

various ways, served our Nation proudly. From a 5th great-granduncle who fought 

in the Revolutionary War, to my brother who served both overseas and at home, 

to my great-uncle who recently received an honorary doctorate in public service and 

was recognized by the Tennessee state legislature, to my mother’s marches and sitins to protest what she saw as injustices not compatible with the America we aspire 

to be—we have a long and proud tradition of serving our Nation. It is in my mother’s honor and in her memory that I hope, if I am confirmed, to dedicate my service. 

Costa Rica is an important ally in a region of critical strategic importance to the 

United States. It is the most stable democracy in Central America, and its long-held 

traditions of protecting human rights and freedom of expression are a model for the 

region. Its strong commitment to investing in education and health has helped 

Costa Rica achieve literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, and income levels that 

are significantly better than and serve as a good example for the rest of Central 

America. It is no surprise that these positive attributes have attracted significant 

numbers of U.S. citizens to the country. Today, approximately 100,000 U.S. citizens 

call Costa Rica home, and more than 1 million visit annually. If confirmed, their 

safety and well-being will be my top priority. 

Despite its successes, Costa Rica, like its neighbors, confronts many challenges, 

including security challenges, as international drug trafficking organizations and 

organized crime increasingly penetrate Central America. The United States and 

Costa Rica enjoy an excellent partnership in security cooperation. If confirmed, I 

will continue to work with the Government of Costa Rica to ensure that organized 

crime does not undermine the country’s economy and democratic institutions. 

If confirmed, another of my highest priorities will be promoting greater Central 

American integration. The region will not prosper without better regional cooperation on trade, infrastructure development, energy integration, and investment. 

Greater integration has long been an aspiration in Central America, but effective 

mechanisms for achieving that goal have remained elusive. The United States 

can play a constructive role in helping Central America create jobs and economic 

opportunities for its 43 million people by helping the region improve infrastructure, 

integrate markets, reduce nontariff barriers, and benefit more from its free trade 

agreement. 

Given its stability and relative prosperity, Costa Rica is not a source of the unaccompanied young people who have been streaming north to escape poverty, violence, 

and hopelessness, and, in fact, may be a destination itself. Costa Rica can play a 

constructive regional leadership role in working to create conditions in Central 

America that are conducive to reducing poverty and violence and creating jobs and 

opportunity. President Solis has emphasized he is committed to working to promote 

regional integration and prosperity, and, if confirmed, I will support him in those 

efforts. I will also work to create strong linkages between the American Chambers 

of Commerce in Central America, so that the private sector is fully incorporated into 

the process of seeking solutions to the region’s development challenges. 

I have many years’ experience living and working in international business in 

Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and Brazil. I understand the region and 

the challenges it faces. As President Solis made clear during his recent investmentpromotion visit to the United States, Costa Rica is serious about improving its business climate, and attracting foreign investment. If confirmed, my private sector 

experience would be an asset in working with Costa Rica to advance in those areas. 

It would also serve me to advocate for stronger intellectual property protection, promote entrepreneurship and private-public partnerships, and ensure that U.S. companies and investors encounter a fair and level playing field for doing business in 

Costa Rica. 

If confirmed, I will also work closely with Costa Rica to advance the many other 

policy objectives and priorities the United States and Costa Rica share. Costa Rica 

shares our commitment to protecting democratic freedoms and human rights, and 

has made clear it will vigilantly resist any attempts to weaken the Inter-American 

Human Rights System. Costa Rica will also continue to be a strong partner with 

the United States on initiatives to mitigate and adapt to climate change and promote renewable energy use and sustainable development. I believe Costa Rica has 

the opportunity to become a regional hub of innovation and the potential to assume 

a leadership role in advancing good governance and prosperity throughout Central 

America. 

612 

As our dedicated team at Embassy San Jose states: A safe, prosperous, and green 

Costa Rica benefits the citizens of both our nations. 

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I thank you again for your consideration 

of my nomination to serve as Ambassador to Costa Rica, and I welcome your 

questions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Haney. 

Mr. Adams. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. ADAMS, JR., OF MARYLAND, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND 

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to appear 

before you today as the President’s nominee to be Ambassador to 

the Republic of Finland, and it is a tremendous honor to have been 

asked to serve in this post. Like my colleagues, I thank President 

Obama and Senator Kerry for the confidence that they have shown 

in me and if confirmed very much look forward to working with you 

and your colleagues in Congress to further U.S. interests in Finland. 

I regret only that my wife, Vera, and my 12-year-old daughter, 

Maya, who if I am confirmed will accompany me to Helsinki, could 

not be here with me today. I hope that they are watching on the 

Internet back at home in Geneva, although it is way past Maya’s 

bedtime by now. 

I hope also watching is my son, Matthew, who is 31, who lives 

and works in Los Angeles, of whom I am very proud and who has 

been a great support to me throughout the process leading up to 

my appearance here before you today. 

I do have here a group of dear friends and law partners whose 

support I very much appreciate also. 

If I may, I would like to say just a few words about why my appearance here today before you is of such personal significance to 

me. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, my late father Charles C. 

Adams dedicated the entirety of his professional career to representing the United States as a Foreign Service officer, devotedly 

supported throughout by my late mother, Florence Schneider 

Adams. 

They and what came over time to be a family of six kids spent 

many years in posts all over the world, principally in Europe and 

Africa, between assignments back home here in the United States. 

I thus had the opportunity to witness at firsthand, through the 

eyes of the Foreign Service brat that I was, the tremendous skill 

and savvy and dedication and courage that my parents and all 

other professionals of the Foreign Service brought to their service 

to their country and the burdens and the sacrifices that they were 

prepared to endure. 

After service in the Peace Corps in Kenya in 1968 to 1970 and 

after law school at Mr. Jefferson’s university in Charlottesville, I 

chose to enter the private sector, and I have practiced international 

law and international arbitration at high levels for now over 40 

years. But I always have had very close to my heart the idea that 

as a salute to the memory of my mom and dad and to the magnificent men and women of the Foreign Service with whom they 

served, that I might some day be afforded the opportunity and the 

613 

extraordinary privilege to serve my country as an ambassador of 

the United States. 

And should I be honored by the confirmation of this nomination, 

that long-held aspiration will have been fulfilled. 

I am very excited that the President has asked me to represent 

the United States in Finland. Finland is a very close U.S. partner. 

During the cold war Finland served as a key interlocutor between 

East and West, hosting numerous international summits, including 

those leading to the Helsinki Final Act, the founding document of 

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which 

will celebrate its 40th anniversary next year. 

Finland has been a member of the European Union since 1995, 

has developed an innovation-led economy, engages closely with the 

United States and the NATO Partnership for Peace program, including in Afghanistan, and leads in promoting human rights 

around the globe. Finland’s participation in multilateral fora is a 

core component of its foreign policy. Finland is an important partner of the United States in international organizations like the 

United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation 

in Europe. And if confirmed, I will work to sustain and advance the 

strong U.S.-Finland bilateral relationship. 

I will work to do so by championing U.S. national interests 

across three areas: our shared security, shared prosperity, and 

shared values. First, on our shared security, ever since 1950 Finland has been a dedicated participant in U.S. peacekeeping missions around the world and, although not a member of NATO, Finland is a participant, as I said, in the Partnership for Peace and 

maintains very high levels of cooperation with us. 

Finland has also played a critical role in addressing the crisis in 

Syria through its participation in the mission to transport and destroy Syrian chemical weapons and has provided $21.9 million in 

humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. 

Second, the United States and Finland share the vision of a 

strong, robust, trans-Atlantic economy that delivers for all of our 

citizens, and if confirmed one of my top priorities will be to increase economic cooperation between Finland and the United 

States through expedited, expanded bilateral trade through the 

TTIP, Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 

Finland has played a very active role in advancing our shared security, economic and social values, and if confirmed I look forward 

to representing my country and advancing a still deeper connection 

between the United States and Finland. I am very grateful for the 

opportunity to address you and am at your disposal to answer any 

questions you may have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. ADAMS, JR

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee, it is a privilege to 

appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be Ambassador to the Republic of Finland. It is a tremendous honor to be asked to serve in this post, and I 

would like to thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their confidence in 

me. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues in Congress to further U.S. interests in Finland. 

With your kind permission, I would like to say a few words about my personal 

background and why this makes the privilege to serve as an Ambassador so meaningful, if confirmed by the Senate. 

614 

My late father, Charles C. Adams, dedicated the entirety of his professional career 

to representing the United States as a Foreign Service officer, supported throughout 

by my late mother, Florence Schneider Adams. They, and what came over time to 

be a family of six children, spent many years in posts all over the world, principally 

in Europe and Africa, between assignments back home here in the United States. 

I had the opportunity to witness at first hand, through the eyes of the ‘‘foreign service brat’’ that I was, the enormous skill, savvy, dedication, and courage that my parents, and all other professionals of the Foreign Service, brought to their service to 

their country, and the burdens and sacrifices they were prepared to endure. 

After service in the Peace Corps in East Africa in 1968–70, I chose to enter the 

private sector, and have practiced international law and policy at high levels for 

now over 40 years. But I have always had close to my heart the idea that, as a 

salute to the memory of my mom and dad, and to the magnificent men and women 

of the Foreign Service with whom they served, I might someday be afforded the 

extraordinary privilege of serving my country as a United States Ambassador. 

I am very excited that the President asked me to represent the United States in 

Finland. Finland is a close U.S. partner. During the cold war, Finland served as a 

key interlocutor between East and West, hosting numerous international summits, 

including those leading to the Helsinki Final Act, which will celebrate its 40th anniversary next year. Finland has been a member of the European Union since 1995, 

has developed an innovation-led economy, engages closely with us as a NATO partner, including in Afghanistan, and leads in promoting human rights around the 

globe. 

Finland’s participation in multilateral fora is a core component of its foreign policy. Finland is an important partner of the United States in international organizations like the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

Europe. 

If confirmed, I will work to sustain and advance the strong U.S.-Finland bilateral 

relationship. I will work to do so by championing U.S. national interests across 

three areas: our shared security, shared prosperity, and shared values. 

First, on our shared security: ever since the 1950s, Finland has been a dedicated 

participant in U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world. Although not a member of NATO, Finland is a participant in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program 

and maintains a high level of cooperation and interoperability with the Alliance. 

Finland has contributed troops to the ISAF mission in Afghanistan and has 

pledged $8 million per year from 2015 to 2017 in support for the Afghan National 

Security Forces. Finland has taken the lead on implementation of UNSCR 1325, the 

Resolution for Women, Peace and Security, which seeks to protect women’s rights 

and participation in Afghan society. 

Finland also played a critical role in addressing the crisis in Syria through its 

participation in the mission to transport and destroy Syrian chemical weapons and 

has provided $21.9 million in humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. 

Second, the United States and Finland share the vision of a strong, robust transatlantic economy that delivers for all our citizens. That is why, if confirmed, one of 

my top priorities will be increasing economic cooperation between Finland and the 

United States, through expanded bilateral trade and investment. Finland strongly 

supports a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which, if successfully negotiated, could further increase bilateral economic ties and strengthen 

the overall U.S.-EU economic relationship. I will also work closely with the Finns 

on the increasingly important Arctic region. Finland is eager to work with us on our 

upcoming chairmanship of the Arctic Council, and will take over the chairmanship 

after us in 2017. 

Finally, on our shared values, the U.S.-Finnish relationship continues to thrive 

because of the strong people-to-people ties between our two nations. These relationships are the lifeblood of the U.S.-Finnish partnership. If confirmed, I will travel 

throughout the country meeting with students, media, local officials and civil society 

listening to their priorities and concerns and speaking to the enduring value of our 

cooperation. 

Finland has played an active role in advancing our shared security, economic, and 

social values. If confirmed, I look forward to representing my country in advancing 

a still deeper connection between the United States and Finland. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to have addressed you today, and am at your 

disposal to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. Wonderful 

testimony, both written and oral presentations from each of you. 

615 

I will start, Ambassador Sison, with you. I share your opening 

comments about the U.N., were my views exactly. The U.N. is frequently vexing and frustrating and yet it is a proud U.S. accomplishment. Even as the League of Nations was unwinding in the 

1930s, long before the Second World War started, President Roosevelt in his first term knew there would need to be a successor 

and began to plan for the creation of the U.N. as early as 1933 or 

1934. The war delayed it, but obviously it was—the U.S.’s participation, leadership, financial support, has been critical to the organization, and I think we can be proud of many of the accomplishments of the U.N. over the course of its history. 

Still, there are challenges at the U.N. One of the ones that has 

sort of been most vexing to me has been the relative impotence of 

the Security Council in dealing with the civil war in Syria. The 

United States is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Syrian 

refugees in the world, but much of that aid has been to Syrian refugees outside of Syria. The Bashar al-Assad government has not 

been cooperating significantly with humanitarian aid delivery, except in various fits and starts when the PR would suggest that he 

should. But often in the U.N. Security Council, except for one or 

two occasions, Russia, usually with the agreement of China, has 

blocked resolutions to take a more vigorous posture. 

If you would, offer your thoughts on the Syrian refugee crisis, 

which I think is one of the greatest humanitarian crises of the last 

50 years, and what the U.N. can do more, especially in light of the 

recent resolution that Russia signed onto, even to allow cross-border humanitarian aid without the agreement of the Bashar alAssad government? 

Ambassador SISON. Thank you, Senator. Indeed, after 3 years of 

fighting there are more than 10.8 million people in need of assistance and 6.4 million internally displaced, due of course to the actions of the Assad regime and its actions against the Syrian people. 

U.S. leadership has been critical at the United Nations in addressing these pressing humanitarian assistance needs. As you 

noted, the second humanitarian assistance U.N. Security Council 

resolution was just passed this month, July 14. UNSCR 2165, as 

you noted, authorized the U.N.’s use of four border crossings from 

Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq to deliver the humanitarian assistance. 

And just last Thursday we saw the first convoy of nine trucks cross 

into Syria with nine truck loads of badly needed foodstuffs and 

medicines. 

Of course, there is also pressure on the countries outside of 

Syria, Syria’s neighbors: Lebanon, I understand you recently traveled out there; Jordan, Turkey, of course. That has impacted those 

neighboring countries as well, and I will get back to that in a moment. 

U.S. leadership at the U.N. has been critical in focusing an overall strategy to continue to push as much humanitarian assistance 

into Syria through, as possible, through all available channels. 

There is a dual strategy that we are promoting with the U.N., 

funding organizations with a presence in Damascus, yes, including 

the U.N., but also funding organizations, NGOs and U.N. agencies, 

to conduct this cross-border humanitarian assistance deliveries into 

the areas where the most vulnerable populations are located. 

616 

Of course, this is very challenging for the U.N. agencies on the 

ground. Severe security challenges. The Assad regime’s minimal 

steps to facilitate cross-line and cross-border access. Those aid 

agencies out there are having a challenging time to get this assistance to the millions of people in need. 

Now, I mentioned the focus also on the neighboring countries, because of course there have been outflows of Syrian refugees into 

Lebanon, into Turkey, into Jordan. So U.S. leadership is also working to keep those borders open to those seeking to flee; advocacy 

for increased donor support to assist these vulnerable populations, 

and to provide not just humanitarian assistance, but development 

aid, in those neighboring countries. 

The U.N. is now integrating what they call the resilience pillar, 

having a regional response plan that addresses the economic and 

development needs of these receiving countries. So again, U.S. 

leadership has been critical in addressing the needs on the ground, 

and of course in getting those two humanitarian assistance resolutions through the Security Council, as well as the chemical weapons U.N. Security Council resolution. 

Senator KAINE. I am so glad that you mentioned your service in 

Lebanon and connected it to it. When I was in Lebanon in February, talking to a nation with a population of about 4 million that 

is dealing with a million refugees that have arrived in the space 

of 3 years made me wonder, how would the United States deal with 

people fleeing violence from other countries in those numbers. We 

have seen a little bit of how we would respond recently as people 

fleeing violence in Central America have come to our southern border. 

But the challenges that—I believe the challenges that this humanitarian crisis will continue to present will be a major part of 

your daily headache and responsibility there. 

It has to my way of thinking disclosed some continuing challenges with the Security Council and they may not be easy to fix. 

But what are your thoughts about proposals that are on the table 

to potentially consider either enlarging the membership of the Security Council or changing the way that the membership is chosen? 

Ambassador SISON. Thank you, Senator. In terms of U.N. Security Council reform, of course the United States believes that the 

Security Council and the U.N. in general need to reflect the world 

that we live in, 21st century. The administration is open in principle to a modest expansion of the permanent and nonpermanent 

memberships, although I would underscore that any consideration 

of expansion of the permanent membership would of course need 

to take into consideration the ability to contribute commensurately 

to the U.N. Charter’s requirements of maintaining peace and security around the world. We would remain opposed, however, to any 

alteration or expansion of the veto. 

Senator KAINE. What is the current status of the U.S. contributions to the U.N. peacekeeping operations, since you mentioned 

that very important mission? There has been some controversy 

about the status of U.S. contributions to that particular mission in 

general. We have been such a sizable funder of U.N. operations. 

Talk a little about that and whether you see the need for any addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00624 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
617 

tional U.S. peacekeeping operations in response to security challenges that are out there now? 

Ambassador SISON. The United States, indeed, is the major contributor to peacekeeping operations with our assessment at 28.4 

percent now, Senator. Of course, U.N. peacekeeping operations in 

many of the hot spots around the world promote U.S. national security interests by helping preserve or stabilize, restore international peace and security, including in places of direct U.S. national interest. Here I am thinking of Mali, for example, where we 

saw al-Qaeda-linked terrorists threaten not only Mali, but the region. 

Moreover, U.N. peacekeeping operations help us maintain global 

stability, avoid the need for more costly intervention. Yes, we do 

contribute over a quarter of U.N. peacekeeping operations’ costs. 

Other member states, however, share that burden with the remaining 70-plus percent, as well as contributing their troops and police. 

So we can think of this as a global bargain, if you will, with over 

100,000 peacekeepers deployed, coming from 122 countries around 

the world into these hot spots around the world, over 16 multidimensional U.N. peacekeeping operations. 

Senator KAINE. How about financial reform? I spent a day at the 

U.N. when Ambassador Rice was the U.N. Ambassador. I would 

recommend it to all my colleagues on Foreign Relations to go spend 

a day at the U.N., visiting various missions, visiting the Secretary 

General. I went to a Security Council meeting. 

I asked Ambassador Rice when I walked into my meeting with 

the Secretary General: Is there something that you want me to say 

that will be helpful to you? Very high on her very short list was 

to continue to press the case for management and budgetary reforms at the U.N. You alluded to that in your testimony as a priority. Would you talk a little bit more about that? 

Ambassador SISON. Thank you, Senator. If confirmed, one of my 

top priorities of course would be to be very focused on making sure 

that U.S. taxpayer dollars going into the regular budget assessment or peacekeeping budget assessment, that those U.S. taxpayer 

dollars are being used wisely and well, and that our U.S. leadership at the U.N. is focused on making it more transparent, more 

effective, more efficient. 

I can see as I prepared for this hearing, sir, that this has been 

a very successful focus for our U.S.–U.N. team up there in New 

York. U.S. leadership at the U.N., for example, in the 68th session 

achieved a 1-year freeze in professional staff salaries and a 2-year 

freeze in benefits. This is pathbreaking, groundbreaking, up at the 

U.N. 

U.S. leadership continues with a focus on curbing growth in the 

compensation costs up there at the U.N. In April of this year the 

United States cochaired the Geneva Group, which is a group that 

looks at these management and budgetary issues, and we advocated additional measures to reduce staff compensation growth 

across the U.N. common system. We have also focused on the ballooning U.N. air travel expenditures. We have focused on our U.S. 

Government U.N. transparency and accountability initiative, which 

is a comprehensive review of each U.N. entity’s audit and whistleblower protections. We are working closely with the U.N.’s Office 

618 

of Internal Oversight Services, which is the entity that focuses on 

waste, fraud, and abuse. Of course, the United States has been 

right up there in front, strongly supporting efforts to further 

strengthen OIOS’s audit and investigation functions. 

Senator KAINE. Could you talk a little bit—I am very happy you 

mentioned one of the areas that we often find vexing, which is 

some reflexive anti-Israel policies in the U.N. I remember when I 

was in Israel in April 2009 as Governor of Virginia. There was a 

U.N.—I believe it was UNESCO—meeting in Geneva that one of 

the invited keynote speakers was Ahmedinejad, Mahmoud 

Ahmedinejad of Iran, and to have a Holocaust denier speaking to 

an international organization of that kind—and the sad coincidence 

of timing, it was during Yom Hashoah in Israel, and it just seemed 

so odd. 

There are many instances like that, where in the U.N., as an 

American audience looking on, we see that reflexive anti-Israel attitude. What can you do to deal with that? Let us bring it to a 

point that we are all very concerned about now. Talk a little bit 

about the role that the U.N. can play in trying to find a path to 

a cease-fire in Gaza, where in the calm of a cease-fire the issues 

and grievances can be put on the table so that we can continue the 

quest to find that path to what the U.N. called for in 1947, which 

is a peaceful Israel and Palestine living side by side? 

Ambassador SISON. Yes, thank you, Senator. Indeed there is all 

too often an unfair, biased targeting of Israel in many U.N. fora, 

and if confirmed I would certainly work and do my utmost to fight 

against this type of unfair and biased targeting of our friend and 

ally, Israel. 

There have been a number of positive agenda actions, if you will, 

including Israel in a number of key consultative groups recently. 

For example, the Western European and Others grouping out in 

Geneva, the so-called JUSCANZ human rights consultative group 

up in New York. These consultative groupings are really where a 

lot of the work behind the scenes at the U.N. is accomplished, and 

by bringing Israel into these consultative groupings I believe we 

can definitely move forward in addressing some of our mutual concerns. 

On the second aspect of your question, Senator, of course we saw 

yesterday, just after midnight Monday, the U.N. Security Council 

calling for immediate and unconditional humanitarian cease-fire. 

Of course, we have seen Secretary Kerry and Secretary General 

Ban Ki-moon out in the region over the last several days, last 

week. Of course, the immediate goal for all of us is stopping the 

violence, to look for a cessation of hostilities, to look for a ceasefire along the contours of the November 2012 Israel-Hamas ceasefire. 

So the U.N. of course is out there with U.S. support, providing 

assistance to the civilian population through the U.N. Relief Works 

Agency. But the bottom line—and this is the political good offices, 

of course, of the U.N., the United States, and many others—is to 

work for a cease-fire, an end to the violence. Of course we condemn 

Hamas’s attacks against Israel, support Israel’s right to defend 

itself, but at the same time—at the same time, are very concerned 

619 

about the civilian deaths, Palestinian civilians, Israeli civilians, 

Israeli IDF soldiers. 

So the bottom line is all of us working together to stop the violence, to promote a ceaselfire agreement. 

Senator KAINE. Well, you are coming to the position at a challenging time. There are so many other issues I could ask you about, 

but in September we have both the visits of the heads of state to 

the United Nations as well as the U.S. turn to be in the lead position in the Security Council, and much work to do. But I appreciate 

your service and congratulate you on your nomination. 

Let me move to questions for Mr. Haney. We have really been 

grappling with this issue of the unaccompanied minors coming to 

the border. We are trying to learn a little bit from Costa Rica because, while the countries in the northern triangle are the three 

countries, are the primary countries where these youngsters are 

coming from, including seeking asylum in Costa Rica and other nations, they are generally, the countries where these countries are 

coming from struggle with high levels of corruption in law enforcement and the judiciary. 

But Costa Rica is known for a largely uncorrupt police force. 

Along with effective law enforcement, Costa Rica enjoys low levels 

of impunity compared to northern triangle neighbors, where roughly 9 of 10 cases are never even prosecuted. 

You alluded to this a bit in your testimony, but what are some 

of the factors that explain this difference and how can Costa Rica 

potentially serve as a model for the other nations in the region? 

Mr. HANEY. Senator, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

your question. As you said, I think Costa Rica has the opportunity 

to serve as a model for the rest of the region as a home-grown success story, if you may, of what the emphasis on human rights and 

democratic institutions that have been long established within the 

Costa Rica history. 

Costa Rica has, because of its investment it has made in education and in health, it has achieved a level of prosperity, and 

without violence, that its neighbors lack, unfortunately, today. I 

think with the help of President Solis, who is very focused on regional integration and very focused on how Costa Rica is not an island, it is part of the isthmus, and will face the same challenges 

sooner or later as its neighbors do if it does not help come to some 

kind of agreement on how we can best face these challenges. 

So I think Costa Rica just by its following the current path that 

it is on can set a good example. I think you mentioned the judiciary 

and the police. We have done a lot of work with both in Costa Rica. 

We have a very strong partnership as far as security cooperation, 

as far as capacity-building and training. I think that with our ongoing support Costa Rica will maintain that and can actually serve 

as a center for training for the rest of the region as well. 

I think it is very important that we always do remember that 

you cannot be more willing than your partner and you cannot get 

your partner to be more able than they are. I think in Costa Rica 

we have a very unique opportunity for a very willing and capable 

partner at the same time. 

Senator KAINE. I share your assessment. One danger that I 

would see that we might have in Costa Rica is—I lived in HonVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00627 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
620 

duras 30 years or so ago and I kind of pay attention, special attention to Honduras, which is now, sadly, the murder capital of the 

world. It was not that way when I lived there. It was not that way 

15 years ago. But it seemed to be that there was some significant 

success in U.S. efforts to fight drug trade in Mexico and Colombia, 

but drug trade is mobile, almost like capital is, and as there were 

more effective law enforcement efforts in the countries where there 

were serious problems some of the traffickers and transit routes rerouted. And to the extent that we take some significant steps with 

respect to the northern triangle countries, there could be pressure 

for them to reroute to Costa Rica as well. 

So that is something that will require ongoing significant security work between the nations. It is good to know that the partnership is strong and that the civil institutions begin with a strength. 

Let me switch to a strength of yours, which is on the international economic side, given your background. Costa Rica has 

been the most stable, not just from a security standpoint, but economically, of the countries in Central America. But recently there 

have been some concerns. American firms have done some 

downsizing and at least cited as a reason for the downsizing—there 

may be other reasons—that they were concerned about some of the 

potential fiscal policies of the incoming President Solis. So we saw 

some American firms, like Intel and Citibank, reduce some of their 

presence—I am sorry, Bank of America, not Citibank—reduce some 

of their presence, citing that. 

What do you think of the current sort of economic climate, fiscal 

climate, in Costa Rica, and what can you do with the experience 

you bring to the table to promote U.S. foreign direct investment 

there and find opportunities for American businesses as well? 

Mr. HANEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the best example—the best indication we have had of the current administration, 

President Solis’s, commitment to making Costa Rica as attractive 

as possible for U.S. and other foreign investment is the fact that 

his first trip outside of the region as President was an investment 

promotion trip here to the United States, where he went to Silicon 

Valley, to New York, and then eventually D.C. 

I think that he very well made the case that Costa Rica realizes 

that it has some challenges around some bureaucracy, around infrastructure, that it needs to work on, both physical as well as investment, but overall that the country was very willing and looking 

for that FDI, that foreign direct investment, and to work with U.S. 

corporations in country. 

So while Intel did, for example, shut one of its fab plants down 

in Costa Rica or is in the process of doing so, at the same time it 

announced that it is opening up a mega-lab, an R and D center, 

within the country. So I think that also points to one of my key 

priorities, which is Costa Rica can serve as a hub of innovation. It 

has the human capital because it has invested in education over 

the last few generations. 

So I think my private sector background of working both with entrepreneurs as well as with the broad overall international business, I would hope to help Costa Rica address some of the issues 

that might be limiting additional investment from U.S. firms within the country. 

621 

Senator KAINE. What is your sense of how Costa Rica has taken 

advantage of CAFTA? Have they tried to leverage the free trade 

agreement in Central America and the Dominican Republic effectively or do you think there is still some significantly greater up 

side that could be realized in looking at trade? 

Mr. HANEY. Thank you, Senator. I think as far as Costa Rica 

goes, by almost any measure of success it has been the most successful country within CAFTA. It was the last one, as you know, 

to actually implement after a national referendum. But it today accounts for about 40 percent of all CAFTA trade, just Costa Rica 

alone. 

So I think—but I still think there are opportunities within Costa 

Rica’s ability to leverage CAFTA to its benefit, both within country—I think it can go deeper into the Costa Rica economy. So we 

are looking at additional inclusion around development. So not just 

the first tier, not just the export sector, but we are really thinking 

of how do you drive the benefits of CAFTA into the small and medium enterprises, which will be really the engine for ongoing continued economic development within Costa Rica. 

I think on the second point, that Costa Rica, and I think all the 

CAFTA countries themselves, have not taken as much advantage 

of the intraregional trade as they can. So while they have been 

very focused on exporting to the United States and taking advantage of the CAFTA–DR that way, the trade within the seven countries themselves has not blossomed as one would hope. I think that 

is one of the tools we have to help address some of these core issues 

that are driving some of what we have seen of late within Central 

America. 

Senator KAINE. And President Solis’s regional integration goal 

would suggest that would be something that he would also share, 

a priority he would share. 

Mr. HANEY. Correct. He has stated many times that he believes 

that only with regional integration will Costa Rica and the region 

itself be able to be competitive in the 21st century. When you think 

about Costa Rica, which has done fairly well for itself—it is an 

upper-middle-income country—but it is under 5 million people. 

President Solis recognizes that a market of 5 million versus a market of 43 million, which is all the Central American countries together, is a vast difference on investment and scalability. 

Senator KAINE. Mr. Haney, thank you very much for your answers. 

Let me move to Mr. Adams now. Talk about the very delicate 

issue of the Russia-Finland relationship? Even to today, as the EU 

in the last couple days have been grappling with sanctions of Russia following activities in the Ukraine and the downing of the Air 

Malaysia flight, Finland’s economy is very connected to the Russian 

economy, tourism, and other ways. They have been a little bit reluctant, but seem to be a solid partner in the announcements we 

are seeing come out of the EU today. 

But talk a little bit about that relationship and the current status of it especially in light of the activities involving Russia and its 

neighbor in Ukraine? 

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recent events in the Crimea and in the Ukraine have put something of a spotlight on preVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00629 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
622 

cisely the subject that you have mentioned, the long historical relationship of Finland and Russia. As you know, Finland at one time, 

from 1809 to 1917, was part of Russia as an autonomous grand 

duchy of the tsar. And from December 6, 1917, forward, the date 

of Finland’s independence, its relationship with Russia has been a 

complex and delicate one. 

Naturally, with 1,300 kilometers of border, this is the secondlongest border of Russia with its neighbors to the west after the 

Ukraine. The economic ties have been very strong. Russia is Finland’s single largest export market. It is its second-largest supplier 

after Sweden in the most recent statistics, for fiscal 2013. 

It is true that Finland’s economy to a substantial degree is interlinked with that of Russia. On the other hand, Finland has been 

a staunch supporter of the EU and has stated its intention of implementing and enforcing to the fullest degree the EU sanctions recently announced against Russia, this notwithstanding the fact 

that of all the members of the EU it is Finland which in proportional terms could be said to have the most to lose. But notwithstanding, Finland is very much behind the full set of sanctions recently announced. 

What also I think is important to take note of is the fact that 

Finland is in a unique position, because of its proximity and historical connection to Russia, to state the position of the EU and to 

state the position of the United States as Finland’s partner within 

the Partnership for Peace in NATO on the issues which have 

brought this crisis to a head. 

Just last week, President Niinisto in a telephone conversation 

with President Putin emphasized the necessity of Russia’s doing 

that which would be required to resolve the crisis and to get past 

the matter of sanctions in the interest of Russia and in the interests of Finland as well, in order that the matter of the sanctions 

could be addressed in the context of a resolution of the crisis which 

is at hand. 

Finland has played a constructive role, will continue to play a 

constructive role, and if confirmed I will continue to encourage Finland in taking a strong stand in alliance with its partners within 

the EU and in also implementation of the policy which has been 

that of the United States. 

Senator KAINE. You indicated in your opening testimony that 

Finland had often played a role of an interlocutor between the 

United States and the old Soviet Union. That role of interlocutor 

could be as important in the 21st century as it was in the 20th. 

As you point out, for cultural reasons they have a unique ability 

to do that. I would encourage you in that regard. 

Are there any issues with respect to the negotiation of the TTIP 

that either will cause controversy in Finland or where Finland and 

the United States are currently likely to not see eye to eye? 

Mr. ADAMS. Actually, Mr. Chairman, Finland is a particularly 

strong proponent of TTIP and has taken positions within the councils of the EU which are much more aligned with those of the 

United States with respect to the issues currently under discussion 

than some of the countries of the EU to the south, particularly 

when it comes to issues pertaining to agriculture and to geographic 

indicators. 

623 

Finland has been looking forward to a successful conclusion of 

the round of negotiations on TTIP because Finland, as does the 

United States, views this accord or the potentiality of this accord 

as a strong impetus to increase trade, to increase shared prosperity, to increase job creation, both within the EU and in the 

United States. 

Senator KAINE. One of the areas where the United States and 

Finland would seem to have a lot in common and the ability to 

learn from one another is the great innovation culture that Finland 

has been known for. I doubt it is—I suspect it is a causal relationship, not even—more than even a correlation, that they are also 

known for educational success. My wife is Secretary of Education 

in Virginia and recently met with the Minister of Education from 

Finland on a trip to the United States. 

Talk a little about that sort of innovation and education success 

culture in Finland and how you might as Ambassador share best 

practices back and forth between the United States and Finland? 

Mr. ADAMS. I would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. You correctly say that innovation has been a hallmark of modern day Finland and the source of its quite remarkable success. For a country 

of 5.3 million people, Finland punches far above its weight in matters of innovation, in matters of technological development. 

The United States has recognized this. The United States has 

looked for ways to enhance its cooperation with Finland in areas 

of innovation. In point of fact, the United States Embassy in Helsinki in February of last year inaugurated its own innovation center as a part of the Embassy complex in the presence of President 

Niinisto and Members of his Cabinet, the purpose of the innovation 

center being to function as a focal point and as a forum for interchange between the United States and Finland in precisely this 

area. 

Another way in which I think these shared exchanges can be enhanced is through the International Visitor Leadership Program, of 

which Finland has been a very active participant. In fact, President 

Niinisto himself is an alumnus of an International Visitor Leadership Program visit to the United States, as are several of the Members of his Cabinet. And many of these exchanges have focused on 

the area of education, where, as you say, Finland and the United 

States each will greatly benefit from a continuation of these exchanges in looking to further the excellence of the respective systems of education. 

Senator KAINE. One last question for you, Mr. Adams, and you 

alluded a little bit to this in your testimony. But just talk about 

the current status of U.S.-Finish defense cooperation, which I know 

would have a sensitivity because of Finland’s geography and proximity to Russia. But it seems like the partnership has been a good 

one and I would like you to elaborate a little bit on that. 

Mr. ADAMS. It has been an excellent one, Mr. Chairman. As I 

mentioned, Finland is not a member of NATO. It is a member and 

full participant in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program. Currently Finland has 95 troops in Afghanistan. There are 21 in 

Kosovo in the context of the NATO peacekeeping program in that 

country. Finland has also been a participant over the years in various U.N. peacekeeping missions. 

624 

The United States and Finland have emphasized the point of the 

interoperability of Finland’s military and of its equipment with 

that of NATO, and Finland has proven to be a very strong customer of the United States in military procurements. So that, notwithstanding the sensitive aspects of the issue of the defense relationship and the military relationship and security relationship between Finland and the United States, given the geographical proximity of Finland’s neighbor to the east, this is an area which, if 

confirmed as Ambassador, I would look forward to continuing to 

consolidate and enhance. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Adams. 

Well, a few concluding remarks that I have. The testimony and 

questions have been thorough and impressive. One of the wonderful things about being on the Foreign Relations Committee is the 

opportunity to travel, especially to the Near East, South, and Central Asia, where my subcommittee chairmanship is, but also to 

Latin America because of personal interest. When I do travel, I 

have an opportunity to interact with a lot of wonderful Foreign 

Service professionals. 

This post will be a great honor to you because it is an honor to 

represent the country, it is an honor to be nominated by the President. But it is also an honor to lead wonderful people, and you will 

each have the opportunity to do that in your capacities. 

I try to make it a habit when I travel to have a roundtable meeting with young Foreign Service officers who are in their first or second tour, often working in the consular desk, and talk to them 

about what they are doing. I am just so impressed. 

Sometimes the experiences are a little grave. I was with a number of young Foreign Service officers who showed me around the 

memorial in the Embassy compound in Beirut. I think Americans 

in our collective memory, we remember well the bombing of the 

Marine barracks, but the U.S. Embassy was bombed and many 

were killed. And the U.S. Embassy annex was bombed and many 

were killed. And others who served in ambassadorial posts lost 

their lives as well. The commitment that people have who serve in 

very dangerous parts of the world is something that is really notable. 

Sometimes it is more lighthearted. I was in Egypt and met with 

young Foreign Service officers, and a woman on her first tour, who 

was I think a Virginia resident, was talking about needing to leave 

our meeting for her Friday Skype date. When I asked what that 

was, her husband is in the Foreign Service too and he is serving 

thousands of miles away and they dress up and get a glass of wine 

in front of each other and they talk by Skype across the miles. 

The service provided by our men and women who serve in the 

State Department is superb. I think the American public now, 

thank God, we reflexively and sincerely offer thanks to men and 

women in the military who serve all over the country. But we have 

an awful lot of public servants who might be in the Foreign Service 

or the DEA or the Department of Commerce or billets of the Peace 

Corps all over the world, and that service is impressive, too. I have 

a feeling that one of the honors that will be the most powerful in 

your experience, should you be confirmed—and I am confident you 

will be—will be the opportunity to lead some many wonderful pubVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00632 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
625 

lic servants. That is something that would be a very exciting aspect 

of the job, I am sure. 

So thank you for the testimony today and your willingness to 

serve. Congratulations on your nomination. I will announce that we 

will keep the record of this hearing open until noon tomorrow in 

case there are any members of the committee who have questions 

who were not able to attend today that they would like to submit 

for the record. I would urge all of you to respond promptly to written questions should they be submitted. 

But with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR JOHN FRANCIS TEFFT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. Given the current state of relations between Russia and the West, 

under what circumstances and caveats should the U.S. consider reengaging with 

Russia in security cooperation activities? 

Answer. In response to attempted annexation of Crimea and ongoing efforts to 

destabilize eastern Ukraine, the U.S. Government has taken a number of actions, 

including suspending bilateral discussions with Russia on trade and investment; 

suspending other bilateral meetings on a case-by-case basis; and putting on hold 

U.S.-Russia military-to-military engagement, including exercises, bilateral meetings, 

port visits, and planning conferences. 

However, where it is in the U.S. national interest to engage, for example, on the 

New START Treaty or on Iran’s nuclear proliferation, we will continue to engage. 

Although the current situation has significantly undermined mutual trust, no one 

should forget that even in the darkest days of the cold war, the United States and 

Russia found it in our mutual interest to work together on reducing the nuclear 

threat. But we have and will continue to limit cooperation in other areas as long 

as Russia is unwilling to be a good neighbor and reliable partner in the region. 

The administration believes that we can make progress in areas where there is 

a shared understanding between Moscow and Washington on what might threaten 

us all. In a globalized world we must never cease to address such security challenges, even in the context of profound disagreements with the Kremlin over other 

matters, such as Ukraine. 

Question. Now that the administration is discussing the INF Treaty violation at 

the highest levels with the Russian Government, what is the U.S. strategy to 

achieve compliance from Russia with the INF Treaty? What actions are the Obama 

administration prepared to take beyond simply asking the Russians to halt development and testing of systems that violate the central tenets of the treaty? 

Answer. The administration will work to resolve the compliance issues outlined 

in the report through bilateral and multilateral means. 

Our next steps will be to intensify our diplomatic efforts with Russia to seek its 

return to compliance and we will also be consulting with allies. 

We have notified Russia of our determination and are prepared to discuss this in 

a senior-level bilateral dialogue immediately, with the aim of assuring the United 

States that Russia will come back into compliance with its treaty obligations. 

The United States will, of course, consult with allies on this matter to take into 

account the impact of this Russian violation on our collective security if Russia does 

not return to compliance. 

Question. What assurances do we have, given the identified violation of the INF 

Treaty, that Russia intends to continue compliance with other current obligations 

under treaties related to arms control? Should we trust those assurances? 

Answer. Current tensions with Russia highlight the importance of predictability 

and confidence-building provided by arms control treaties. This is especially the case 

with the continued successful implementation of the New START Treaty and the 

security and predictability provided by verifiable mutual limits on strategic weapons. The New START Treaty enhances our national security and strategic stability 

with Russia and both the United States and Russia are implementing the treaty’s 

626 

inspection regime. We assess that Russia is implementing and complying with the 

New START Treaty, and that the treaty remains in our national security interest. 

We take questions about compliance with arms control treaties very seriously and 

are continuing to monitor Russian compliance with all arms control treaties. 

Question. Under the current circumstances, is the administration still pursuing 

negotiations on further nuclear reductions? 

Answer. As President Obama said in Prague in 2009 and reiterated last year in 

Berlin, the United States and Russia possess 85 percent of the world’s nuclear forces 

and both countries should continue the process of reducing their nuclear arsenals. 

The United States and Russia are continuing to implement the New START Treaty. 

Although the United States remains open to further nuclear reductions with Russia, 

Russia has made clear it is not prepared to pursue nuclear reductions beyond New 

START, and this is not a current focus of discussion between our countries. 

Question. What are the tripwires that would cause the United States to determine 

that New START and the INF Treaty are no longer in the national interest? 

Answer. The United States believes that the INF Treaty serves the mutual security interests of the parties—not only the United States and Russia, but also the 

11 other successor states of the former Soviet Union, which are also States Parties 

to the treaty and bound by its obligations. Moreover, this treaty contributes to the 

security of our allies and to regional security in Europe and in the Far East. We 

will continue to monitor Russian activities, to keep Congress informed of our diplomatic efforts, and to consult with Congress on our next steps. 

The New START Treaty enhances our national security and strategic stability 

with Russia and both the United States and Russia are implementing the treaty’s 

inspection regime. We assess that Russia is implementing and complying with the 

New START Treaty, and that the treaty remains in our national security interest. 

It is the policy of the administration to take compliance issues very seriously and 

to seek to resolve them. Consequences of noncompliance with treaty obligations 

should be appropriate to the specific circumstances and considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Question. Will you commit to maintaining the position that U.S. missile defenses 

and use doctrine are not open for negotiation with the Russian Government under 

any circumstances? 

Answer. As the President has stated on numerous occasions, the United States 

will not agree to any commitments on missile defense that would limit our ability 

to defend the United States, our troops, and our allies and partners. 

Question. What engagement is still under way with Russia, and what future plans 

does the administration have, to establish a follow-on agreement akin to the treaty 

of Conventional Forces in Europe? 

Answer. No engagement with Russia is underway regarding a follow-on agreement to the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE). Over the last year the 

U.S. Government has been consulting with NATO allies regarding ideas to update 

the conventional arms control regime in Europe. Any future decision to engage on 

these issues with Russia would be an alliance decision and would depend on the circumstances at the time. The United States, along with 28 other States Parties, continues to implement the CFE Treaty and to call on Russia to fulfill its obligations 

under the treaty. 

Question. What efforts will you pursue, in tandem with other officials within the 

U.S. Government, to gain full compliance by the Russians with the Open Skies 

Treaty? 

Answer. The Department of State, together with other U.S. Government agencies, 

will continue to raise Russian compliance and implementation issues regarding the 

Open Skies Treaty bilaterally via diplomatic channels, as well as in the Open Skies 

Consultative Commission in Vienna. 

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR JOHN FRANCIS TEFFT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. On June 26, Secretary of State Kerry said that Russia should disarm 

separatists in eastern Ukraine in ‘‘the next hours’’ or face sectoral sanctions. Since 

then, Russia has actually increased its support to pro-Russian separatists. 

♦ What is your assessment regarding the ongoing impact of American actions 

taken thus far on President Putin’s calculus? 

627 

Answer. We have been very clear with the Russians that a failure to change their 

behavior would come with costs. The United States, together with our EU and G7 

partners, has imposed real costs that are already having strong negative impact on 

the Russian economy, and will continue to do so if Russia does not follow through 

on its commitments. We have sought to have the greatest impact on those whose 

actions have threatened the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, as well 

as key companies in the strategic sectors of banking, energy, and defense technology. In addition to the sectoral sanctions announced by the President on July 16 

and July 29, the United States remains prepared to take further measures if Russia 

does not take steps toward de-escalation. 

President Putin himself has said that Western sanctions imposed on Russia have 

had real impact on domestic businesses, including limiting access to funding for 

many Russian companies. Russian economic officials have also conceded that Western sanctions are having a significant impact on the Russian economy. Aside from 

the uncertainty that sanctions have introduced to the Russian market, these impacts include economic growth projections revised downward to near-zero percent, 

currency intervention by the Russian Central Bank, capital flight, ruble depreciation, declines in the Russian stock market, increasing inflation, and downgrades to 

Russian debt. 

Question. Under President Putin’s leadership, the Russian opposition has come 

under increasing pressure. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression continue 

to be severely limited. If confirmed, do you pledge to be vocal in your support for 

Russian civil society and an independent press and to meet frequently with members of the Russian opposition? 

Answer. The administration’s commitment to democracy, human rights and civil 

society in Russia will remain firm. If confirmed, I will ensure the human rights 

work that has defined America to generations of Russians continues, confident that 

this is not just the right thing to do, but is also the best investment in future good 

relations between our two countries. 

Question. Given the administration’s decision to finally state publicly that Russia 

is not in compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, does 

the administration support the United States unilaterally continuing to abide by a 

treaty that the other party is not complying with? 

♦ Will a copy of President Obama’s letter to President Putin on this issue be 

shared with Congress? 

♦ How many times and at what level have U.S. concerns about Russian noncompliance with the INF Treaty been raised with the Russians since May 2013? 

Answer. The United States believes that the INF Treaty serves the mutual security interests of the parties—not only the United States and Russia, but also the 

11 other successor states of the former Soviet Union, which are also States Parties 

to the treaty and bound by its obligations. Moreover, this treaty contributes to the 

security of our allies and to regional security in Europe and in the Far East. For 

that reason, we will make every effort to get Russia to return to compliance with 

its obligations and to ensure the continued viability of the treaty. 

The President sent a letter to President Putin on this matter and this issue has 

been raised with Russia by senior administration officials numerous times over the 

course of the past year. It is a long-standing practice across administrations not to 

share diplomatic exchanges. We will continue to keep Congress informed on these 

issues and will work to address Members’ concerns through appropriate channels. 

Question. You have served in several U.S. embassies in eastern Europe. How do 

you assess Vladimir Putin’s regional ambitions? Based on your time in Georgia and 

Ukraine, how do you think he will continue to respond to the westward-oriented 

path of those countries and Moldova? 

Answer. President Putin presides over a Russia with serious systemic problems, 

and has been quite consistent about his worldview, as laid out in his 2007 address 

at the Munich Security Conference. Nonetheless, the United States does not see this 

as a zero-sum game. For example, while the United States strongly supports 

Ukraine and other Eastern Partnership countries’ bids for greater economic and 

commercial ties with their European partners, we do not believe this must be at 

Russia’s expense. Expanded trade ties will help increase prosperity for all parties, 

including Russia. Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine showed great determination in 

finalizing their association deals with the EU in June and the United States will 

not accept any attempt to limit the sovereign choices of these countries, but they 

have great potential to increase trade with Russia and Central Asia as well. 

628 

Question. For the 2nd straight year, Russia was listed as a Tier 3 trafficking country in the Trafficking In Persons Report. Last year when they were originally downgraded to Tier 3, Russia accused the United States of using ‘‘unacceptable’’ methodology and did not make an effort to improve their efforts. 

♦ How do you plan to constructively engage on the issue of human trafficking? 

♦ What benchmarks must Russia meet to be removed from Tier 3? 

Answer. Russia was downgraded to Tier 3 in 2013 in accordance with requirements of a 2008 amendment to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 

which added a provision that limited the number of years a country can remain on 

the Tier 2 Watch List. Russia remained on Tier 3 in the 2014 Trafficking in Persons 

Report. In 2013 and 2014, Russia lacked a national action plan to combat trafficking, a single coordinating authority for antitrafficking efforts, and funding in the 

federal and local budgets for trafficking prevention and victim protection. These deficiencies illustrated Russia’s low political will to address human trafficking and led 

to Russia’s Tier 3 ranking. The United States and Russia have had regular dialogue 

over the years on the issue of human trafficking. If confirmed, I will continue to 

engage with our Russian counterparts to encourage them to move forward with 

their draft national action plan. For specific benchmarks, I would point you to the 

Trafficking in Persons Report 2014. 

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR MICHELE JEANNE SISON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. In March, the United Nations Security Council’s North Korea Sanctions 

Committee sanctioned the operator/manager of the Cong Chon Gang, a North 

Korean vessel interdicted by Panama smuggling 240 tons of weapons from Cuba to 

North Korea. According to the committee’s report, the Chong Chon Gang interdiction constituted the largest amount of arms and related materiel interdicted to, or 

from, North Korea since the adoption of the Security Council Resolution 1718 in 

2006. The report also notes the collusion of North Korean and Cuban officials and 

expresses concern over North Korea-Cuba military cooperation. 

♦ (a) What specific actions does the administration plan to take to ensure Cuba 

is sanctioned for this egregious violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions? 

Answer. Willful violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions are very serious 

matters. Since Panama’s interdiction of the Chong Chon Gang in July 2013, the 

United States has been working to ensure that all those responsible for the violation 

are accountable for their wrongdoing. 

We have worked to maximize the diplomatic cost Cuba has suffered for its role 

in the Chong Chon Gang incident. Cuba’s diplomatic efforts have failed to convince 

most countries that Cuba did not break any rules. 

To underscore Cuba’s role in this violation, the United States has repeatedly condemned Cuba’s role in this violation in meetings of the U.N. Security Council and 

the Security Council’s DPRK Sanctions Committee. 

To emphasize further this point, we pushed for the committee to adopt an Implementation Assistance Notice on this incident to make clear to the world the facts 

of the case and to convey the clear and unanimous conclusion of the U.N. Sanctions 

Committee, which we share, that this transaction violated sanctions. 

Through this Notice, the international community has also refuted Cuba’s erroneous and misleading claim that this arms shipment was allowed under U.N. Security Council resolutions. 

In more concrete terms, Cuba has suffered a disrupted commercial transaction, 

with various costs due to the seizure of approximately 240 tons of arms and related 

materiel (these items were not returned). 

Going forward, we intend to ensure that the Security Council, the DPRK Sanctions Committee and the U.N.’s Panel of Experts (POE) continue to subject Cuba 

to extra scrutiny in light of this incident. We will continue to advocate for sharp 

committee responses and clear rebukes to Cuba for its role in this violation. 

♦ (b) If confirmed, would you support publicly revealing the names of North 

Korean and Cuban officials, as well as entities, involved in these violations and 

included in the report’s confidential annex? Please explain. 

Answer. The United States generally supports the public release of U.N. sanctions 

Panel of Expert reports to their respective committees, but such reports are confidential. The committee can agree, by consensus, to publish these reports or otherwise release certain information included in them. 

629 

Last winter, the United States proposed that the committee release information 

contained in the POE’s confidential incident report. Certain members of the committee, however, objected to our proposal. 

While we are bound by confidentiality rules, we continue to pursue ways to secure 

the release of more information that could help member states implement the U.N. 

sanctions, as well as to examine additional steps under domestic authorities or bilaterally with other member states to achieve that same objective. 

♦ (c) If confirmed, would you recommend designating under U.S. law all officials 

and entities involved in these violations? 

Answer. Imposing sanctions on sanctions violators can be an important tool to 

improve enforcement of these measures. 

On July 28, 2014, the U.N. Security Council DPRK Sanctions Committee designated Ocean Maritime Management Company, Limited (OMM), the operator/manager of the vessel Chong Chon Gang, for a targeted asset freeze. On July 30, 2014, 

the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Chongchongang Shipping Company 

and Ocean Maritime Management Company, the two North Korean companies that 

attempted to import a concealed shipment of arms and related materiel from Cuba 

to the DPRK aboard the DPRK-flagged cargo vessel Chong Chon Gang in July 2013. 

The Treasury Department also identified as blocked property 18 vessels in which 

these companies have an interest, including the Chong Chon Gang. These designations and identifications were made pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13551, 

which blocks the property of persons who, among other things, have attempted to 

import arms or related materiel into the DPRK. 

Although the Treasury Department cannot comment on other pending or possible 

investigations, it has maintained a comprehensive sanctions program against Cuba 

since 1963, under which all Cuban entities and individuals are blocked, pursuant 

to 31 C.F.R. part 515. 

Should we uncover information sufficient to pursue sanctions against any additional individuals or entities involved in the Chong Chon Gang incident, I would 

certainly support and encourage such action wherever appropriate. 

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR JOHN FRANCIS TEFFT TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES E. RISCH

Question. We have known for months about Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty, 

but it took almost a [year to] officially acknowledge the violation and brief NATO. 

Why did it take so long to inform our friends of this violation? Now that the administration has acknowledged the violation, what do you believe is your role in improving Russia’s compliance with INF and other international arms treaties? Will you 

provide a copy of the letter President Obama sent to President Putin? 

Answer. When specific questions arise about a country’s treaty implementation, 

decisions can only be made about whether those issues constitute noncompliance 

after a careful, fact-based process, which includes diplomatic work and thorough 

interagency consideration. 

We believe that the treaty benefits the security of the United States, our allies, 

Russia, and the other 11 States Parties to the treaty. For that reason, we will make 

every effort to get Russia to return to compliance with its obligations and to ensure 

the continued viability of the treaty. 

We can confirm that the President did send Putin a letter on this issue; however, 

it is a long-standing practice across administrations not to share diplomatic exchanges. We will continue to keep Congress informed on these issues and will work 

to address Members’ concerns through appropriate channels. 

Question. Yesterday an international tribunal determined that Russia expropriated Yukos Oil Company and owes over $50 billion to the majority shareholders in 

Yukos. I understand this is the third international tribunal to determine that Russia expropriated Yukos and must pay compensation. Yet American investors lost 

over $12 billion and have received no compensation. Americans do not benefit from 

today’s decision, unless the State Department informs Russia that it expects compensation for its citizens as well. 

Answer. The decision announced this week in an arbitration brought against Russia by the majority Yukos shareholders does not directly impact U.S. investors, who 

do not benefit from an applicable treaty through which to bring their claims directly 

against Russia. The United States is not a party to the Energy Charter Treaty, 

under which this arbitral award was rendered. 

630 

However, the Department will study the decision carefully and determine how it, 

and the underlying evidence presented in that case, might be helpful in the Department’s consideration of the complex legal and factual issues presented by the U.S. 

investor claims. If confirmed I will continue to follow up on this case. 

Question. Congress has directed the State Department and USTR to report on 

their advocacy for U.S. investors in Yukos Oil Company, but little has been done. 

As Ambassador, what steps would you take to press Russia to fulfill its obligation 

to compensate these American investors? 

Answer. Promoting the fair treatment of U.S. investors in Russia is a top priority, 

which was also the intent of Congress in including a Yukos provision in the Russia 

and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. 

The Department of State has been closely following the Yukos matter, and has 

raised it with the Russian Government on numerous occasions, including demarches 

to the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the 

Russian Ambassador in Washington. The Department will look for opportunities to 

continue to advocate for U.S. investors in Yukos, as appropriate, under the current 

political circumstances. 

Question. Do you believe harassment of U.S. Embassy personnel is a serious issue 

at U.S. diplomatic facilities in Russia? What steps will you take to reduce the level 

of harassment? Will you commit to reviewing the role of Foreign Service nationals 

at U.S. diplomatic facilities in Russia, especially among the security personnel? 

Answer. The protection and security of the personnel working at our diplomatic 

facilities is of the highest priority. 

Where harassment may exist, I will do everything in my power to advocate on 

behalf of all of our personnel stationed in Russia, and to raise the issue with the 

Russian Government wherever prudent. We will pursue cooperation with local and 

national law enforcement bodies when possible, and I will work closely with the mission’s security experts on our security and safety practices. 

The Department also takes the question of Foreign Service nationals seriously 

and would be available to discuss in a classified setting. 

Question. Do you believe it is vital that U.S. diplomatic facilities in Russia contain 

spaces to conduct classified discussions and briefings? Will you to push upgrade and 

improve these capabilities at U.S. consulates in Russia? 

Answer. We are committed to ensuring that the U.S. mission to Russia is able 

to fully carry out its duties, including classified meetings and discussions. 

The Department will continue to review the status of our diplomatic facilities in 

Russia to determine if any upgrades are necessary. 

(631) 

NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM V. ROEBUCK; 

JUDITH BETH CEFKIN; BARBARA A. LEAF; 

AND PAMELA LEORA SPRATLEN 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

William V. Roebuck, of North Carolina, to be Ambassador to the 

Kingdom of Bahrain 

Judith Beth Cefkin, of Colorado, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Fiji, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of Kiribati, the republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu 

Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be Ambassador the United States 

of America to the United Arab Emirates 

Pamela Leora Spratlen, of California, to be Ambassador to the republic of Uzbekistan 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine, presiding. 

Present: Senators Kaine, Murphy, Risch, Rubio, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE, 

U.S. SENATOR FOR VIRGINIA 

Senator KAINE. This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee is called to order. 

We have the fortune today to be conducting this hearing concerning the nominations of four long-time public servants to important ambassadorial posts. 

Senator Risch, the ranking member on the Committee on Near 

East, South, and Central Asia, is en route and has indicated he 

does not want to delay the beginning of this hearing, so we will 

begin. 

I will do introductions of the four nominees before us. 

Following, each will give opening statements. Try to keep those 

to 5 minutes or less. And we will then get into questions. I have 

a number of questions for each of you, and I am sure other Senators who attend will, as well. 

The nominees today are William ‘‘Bill’’ Roebuck, who is a career 

member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of counselor, and curVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00639 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
632 

rently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Egypt and 

Maghreb Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State. Mr. Roebuck has served in a variety of positions 

during his career as a Foreign Service officer, at State Department 

HQ, but also in Libya, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Jamaica. Prior to serving 

in the Foreign Service, he was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Cote 

d’Ivoire. 

Barbara Leaf is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, 

class of minister counselor, and currently serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Arabian Peninsula overseeing relations with 

the Gulf in Yemen and 10 other diplomatic posts. Ms. Leaf has 

served in a number of positions within State Department HQ, but 

also at Iraq, Italy, Bosnia, Herzegovina, France, Egypt, Israel, and 

Haiti. 

Thank you, Ms. Leaf. 

Judith Cefkin is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, 

class of minister counselor, and currently a senior advisor for 

Burma in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the Department of State, a position she has held since 2013. She has 

served previously in positions in main State, but also Bangkok, 

Bosnia, Herzegovina, the Philippines, and France. 

And finally, Pamela Spratlen is a career member of the Senior 

Foreign Service, class of minister counselor, and currently is U.S. 

Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. She has served previously in positions 

in Russia and Kazakhstan. 

And, Ambassador Spratlen, welcome. 

The nominees are all people with tremendous public-service 

background. And I will just say to each of you, I just returned with 

five other Members of Congress from a 9-day CODEL in Tunisia, 

Morocco, and Spain, where we interacted, not only with the Ambassadors in each of the countries, but one of the things I do when I 

travel is, I always try to have a roundtable discussion with firstor second-term FSOs to talk about their lives and hear about their 

excitement in representing the United States, but also the challenges, and especially challenges that can exist in serving in some 

of the more difficult bits of real estate where we have embassies 

and consulates around the world. Anytime I do that, I always walk 

away with a real sense of pride in the kinds of people that we send. 

You are all nominated for capital-A Ambassador, but you will be 

working with a whole lot of small-a ambassadors. Everybody who 

represents the United States in any of these positions, whether it 

is a consular officer or anybody in the Department of State, or 

whether it is somebody who is working for an agency like the DEA 

or the Department of Commerce or, you know, any other agency— 

Ex-Im Bank, where we have people abroad—they are small-a ambassadors for the United States, and we have a superb team of people who sacrifice and serve. And I am always struck by that when 

I travel. 

So, thank you for your commitment to service. Congratulations 

on being nominated for the positions—Mr. Roebuck for Ambassador 

to Bahrain; Ms. Leaf to Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates; 

Ms. Cefkin, Ambassador to Fiji; and Ambassador Spratlen to be 

Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Congratulations on those nominations. 

We will do all we can to move them promptly. 

633 

And what I would like to do is now start with opening statements. And why do I not just start with Mr. Roebuck, and then we 

will move across the table. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM V. ROEBUCK, OF NORTH CAROLINA, 

NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Chairman Kaine. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Bahrain. It is a 

great honor as well as a dream of every Foreign Service officer to 

be in this position. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to include my 

full statement for the record. I will just make a brief oral statement—— 

Senator KAINE. All of your statements will be included for the 

record. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you. 

I would like to start by acknowledging my wife, Ann, without 

whom I am quite confident I would not be sitting in this chair 

today. She and my son, William, who could not be here because he 

just began his freshman year at the College of Charleston last 

week, they both accompanied me on many challenging assignments 

overseas and provided invaluable support. 

Those challenging assignments have included, as you mentioned, 

Senator Kaine, Jerusalem, Gaza, Damascus, Baghdad, and Tripoli, 

where I fostered political dialogue, helped governments address 

threats posed by violent extremism, promoted and protected human 

rights, supported elections, and encouraged regional security efforts 

between neighbors. I believe those experiences have seasoned me 

as a diplomat and positioned me well to take on this challenging 

assignment, if confirmed. I have also had great mentors in the Foreign Service who have ensured that I drew the right lessons from 

those challenging experiences. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States and Bahrain have long shared 

important mutual interests demonstrated through our history of 

close bilateral cooperation, which we deeply value. Bahrain and the 

United States share key strategic goals reflected by the fact that 

our security relationship has grown over the years. Today, more 

than 8,000 Americans who are attached to the Fifth Fleet and to 

U.S. Naval Forces Central Command live and work there. Although 

we took the decision to limit certain aspects of our security cooperation following the unrest in Bahrain in 2011, our military relationship with Bahrain remains fundamentally strong and mutually beneficial. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the 

Government of Bahrain and with my colleagues at the Department 

of Defense to ensure that our security partnership remains strong. 

While mutual concerns about regional stability motivate our 

close cooperation on security matters, we also have a strong foundation to build on in the areas of trade and finance. Bahrain has 

one of the most open economies in the region, and our bilateral 

trade has doubled to nearly $2 billion a year since our Free Trade 

Agreement entered into force in 2006. 

With respect to the political situation in Bahrain, we encourage 

all of Bahrain’s constituencies to work in good faith to develop a 

634 

broad consensus on addressing the underlying social and economic 

grievances that drove the protest of 2011. We think that a successful political compromise that allows these political societies to participate in upcoming elections would be the surest signal of Bahrain’s progress toward reform and reconciliation. I believe strongly 

that a country that protects and promotes human rights will ultimately be a more stable country and a more effective security partner. If confirmed, I will make a strong case, both publicly and privately, to explain why political dialogue, reform, and promoting 

human rights are in Bahrain’s long-term interest. The recent expulsion by Bahrain of a senior American diplomat was a significant 

setback in this regard. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we 

continue to have an open and honest dialogue with Bahrain on the 

full range of issues affecting our bilateral relationship, including 

human rights. 

Finally, should I be confirmed as Ambassador, protecting U.S. 

citizens in Bahrain will be one of my highest priorities. I have 

served at a number of high-threat posts, where security for Americans was a critical priority, most recently as Charge ́ d-Affaires at 

our Embassy in Libya, and I know the type of team effort that is 

required with the Embassy Country Team, with local security officials, and with the broader American community. 

The United States/Bahrain relationship has translated into economic, social, political, and cultural benefits for the people of both 

countries. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that Bahrain can continue to rely on the United States and that we can continue to rely 

on Bahrain as an effective partner. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you. I am 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roebuck follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM V. ROEBUCK

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you as the President’s nominee to be the 

U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Bahrain. It is a great honor, as well as the 

dream of every Foreign Service officer, to appear before you today. I am extremely 

grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the confidence they have 

shown in me. If confirmed, I look forward to representing the American people, and 

to working with this committee and other interested Members of Congress to 

advance U.S. interests with Bahrain. 

I have spent most of my career posted in the Middle East, including assignments 

in Jerusalem, Gaza, Damascus, Baghdad, and Tripoli, fostering political dialogue, 

providing support for elections, helping governments address the threats posed by 

terrorism and violent extremism, promoting and protecting human rights, and 

encouraging regional security efforts between neighbors, I believe those experiences 

have seasoned me as a diplomat and positioned me well to take on this challenging 

assignment. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States and Bahrain have long shared mutual interests 

in regional security, demonstrated through our history of close bilateral cooperation 

and partnership. We deeply value this friendship, rooted in the history of our two 

peoples dating back to the early years of the 20th century. If confirmed, I will work 

to maintain, expand, and deepen this partnership, while also continuing our support 

for King Hamad’s efforts to bring reform, political dialogue, and reconciliation to 

Bahrain. My experience teaches me that these priorities are not mutually exclusive—in fact, I think they are inextricably linked. This approach will strengthen 

Bahrain’s long-term security, stability, and prosperity. 

Bahrain and the United States share key strategic goals, reflected by the fact that 

our security relationship has grown over the years. Our Navy arrived in Bahrain 

during the 1940s, and today more than 8,000 Americans who are attached to the 

Fifth Fleet or U.S. Naval Forces Central Command live there. We work closely with 

635 

the Bahraini Defense Forces, in particular their Navy and Air Force, on a range of 

fronts, including counterterrorism and antipiracy operations. Bahrain has pledged 

to help fight terrorists in Iraq and Syria; welcomed the appointment of Iraqi Prime 

Minister designate Al-Abadi; deployed its navy and ground forces in support of 

Operation Enduring Freedom; commanded the coalition task force responsible for 

maritime security in the gulf; and sent air, ground, and naval assets to Kuwait in 

support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Although we took the decision to limit certain aspects of our security cooperation 

following the unrest in Bahrain in 2011, our military relationship with Bahrain 

remains fundamentally strong and mutually beneficial. If confirmed, I will look forward to collaborating with the Government of Bahrain and my colleagues at the 

Department of Defense to help Bahrain develop its defense capabilities to provide 

for its own defense, and to improve interoperability with our forces. Going forward, 

the U.S.–GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum, launched jointly in 2012 by Secretary 

Clinton and the GCC Secretary General, will be an important mechanism by which 

I hope to make progress on our partnership with Bahrain, addressing air defense, 

maritime security, cyber attacks, and other threats. 

The State Department provides counterterrorism and critical incident response 

training for the Bahraini law enforcement units that provide security for U.S. naval 

facilities and the U.S. Embassy, and that act as Bahrain’s primary internal security 

force. Bahrain is also a valuable partner in disrupting illicit finance flows to terrorist organizations. Bahrain hosts the Secretariat for the Middle East and North 

Africa Financial Action Task Force, a regional body that coordinates efforts against 

terrorist finance. In addition, Bahrain is a member of the Egmont group, the international coordinating body for Financial Intelligence Units, which facilitates global 

cooperation in the fight against terrorist financing. If confirmed, I will continue to 

prioritize our close counterterrorism partnership with Bahrain. 

While mutual concerns about regional stability motivate our close cooperation in 

security matters, we also have a strong foundation to build upon in the area of 

trade, and financial cooperation. 

Bahrain is one of the most open economies in the Middle East/North Africa region 

and shows a continued commitment to economic diversification and reform. Bilateral 

trade last year reached $1.7 billion—more than double the levels since before the 

free trade agreement entered into force in 2006. More American companies are setting up shop in Bahrain every year. Consistent with the President’s National Export 

Initiative and Secretary Kerry’s directive that we improve our effectiveness at economic and commercial diplomacy, if confirmed, I will ensure that all our Embassy’s 

agencies and sections understand the priority we place on commercial diplomacy 

and that they are working closely with stateside offices to vigorously promote the 

export of U.S. manufactured goods, services, and farm products to this important 

market. If confirmed as Ambassador, I would also seek to encourage more Bahraini 

students to study at U.S. colleges and universities. 

Let me say a few words about the political situation in Bahrain: We encourage 

all of Bahrain’s constituencies to work in good faith to develop a broad consensus 

on how to address underlying social and economic grievances that drove the protests 

of 2011. We think that a successful political compromise that allows these political 

societies to participate in the upcoming elections would be the surest signal of Bahrain’s progress toward reform and reconciliation. 

The Government of Bahrain has made some important strides in implementing 

the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry recommendations to advance a reform and reconciliation agenda. For instance, the government has created a victims 

compensation fund that has distributed about $6 million to the families of 39 victims of the 2011 violence and appointed an ombudsman to the Ministry of Interior. 

It is important to acknowledge King Hamad’s leadership in initiating the Bahrain 

Independent Commission of Inquiry, for accepting the recommendations put forward 

in the report, and for committing to implement reforms. The government has more 

to do on a range of BICI recommendations. 

I believe that a country that protects and promotes human rights will ultimately 

be a more stable country and a more effective security partner. If confirmed, I will 

make a strong case both publicly and privately for why political dialogue, reform, 

and promoting and protecting human rights are in Bahrain’s long-term interest. The 

recent expulsion by Bahrain of a senior American diplomat was a significant setback 

in this regard. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we continue to have an open 

and honest dialogue with Bahrain on the full range of issues affecting our bilateral 

relationship, including human rights. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, should I be confirmed as Ambassador, protecting U.S. citizens in Bahrain will be one of my highest priorities. In the course of my career, I 

have served at a number of high-threat posts, where security for Americans was a 

636 

critical priority. I served recently for 6 months as Charge ́ d’Affaires at our Embassy 

in Libya, where I worked closely with my regional security officer and his team, and 

ensured close coordination with local law enforcement and with the American business community outside the Embassy. I understand that the safety and security of 

American citizens is a critical priority and I believe my experiences as a diplomat 

in the region have equipped me well to address this issue effectively. 

The U.S.-Bahrain relationship has translated into economic, social, political, and 

cultural benefits for the people of both countries. I am committed to further building 

up these vital partnerships in the Kingdom and further solidifying our unique relationship that is based on mutual respect and a long history of consultation between 

friends. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that Bahrain can continue to rely on the 

United States and that we can continue to rely on Bahrain as an effective partner. 

Thank you again for this opportunity and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Roebuck. 

Ms. Cefkin. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH BETH CEFKIN, OF COLORADO, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI, AND 

TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL 

COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF 

KIRIBATI, THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU, THE KINGDOM OF 

TONGA, AND TUVALU 

Ms. CEFKIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 

deeply honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Fiji, the 

Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, 

and Tuvalu. I am grateful to the President and Secretary for their 

confidence in nominating me for this position, and I am equally 

grateful to receive your consideration. 

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to introduce my 

husband, Paul Boyd, who is also a Foreign Service officer. He has 

just capped over 40 years of public service, including combat service with U.S. Special Forces, work in law enforcement, and, for the 

past 30 years, we have shared the adventure of the Foreign Service. 

Senator KAINE. And where is Paul? Thank you. 

And where is Ann? Is Ann here with you, Bill? 

Thank you both. I just wanted to make sure I know who you are. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CEFKIN. Thank you. 

My Foreign Service experience has taught me the power of our 

country’s values-based diplomacy. If confirmed, I will relish the opportunity to draw on the lessons of my many years of regional policy experience also to advance U.S. strategic interests in the South 

Pacific. 

As a Pacific nation, the United States shares an important history with our Pacific Island nations. We also share a common destiny. This is reflected in President Obama’s rebalance to the AsiaPacific region. If confirmed, I look forward to working in partnership with the five nations to which I would be accredited to seek 

to ensure that our common future is one of prosperity, peace, stability, and human fulfillment. 

Perhaps nowhere is the need for this focus more compelling than 

on the waters that bind us, those of the mighty Pacific Ocean. As 

Secretary Kerry noted when he organized the recent Oceans ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00644 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
637 

ference, our oceans facilitate our trade and provide much of the 

food we eat, and even the air we breathe. Yet, today Kiribati, 

Tuvalu, Nauru, Tonga, and Fiji face dramatic challenges related to 

rising sea levels, ocean warming and acidification, marine pollution, and overfishing. These challenges threaten the very existence 

of them, these populations. They also threaten broader global commerce and food security, issues that directly impact the United 

States. If confirmed, I will strive to advance solutions to improve 

regional environmental management, support adaptation projects, 

and promote sustainable fisheries methods. 

The Pacific Islands are global players. Both Fiji and Tonga have 

been important contributors to international peacekeeping operations. We also work closely with Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu, and 

Tonga in the U.N. They take very seriously their responsibilities in 

that forum. 

Furthermore, Fiji plays an important role in the Pacific region as 

a hub for commerce, diplomacy, academic affairs, transportation, 

and communications. And Suva is headquarters for the Pacific Island Forum and the Secretariat for the Pacific Community regional 

offices. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to build this regional and global cooperation. 

Success in tackling our common regional and global challenges 

will depend on fostering internal strength of our Pacific Island 

partners that comes from strong democratic institutions, rule of 

law, and respect for human rights. The Pacific islanders share our 

values, but realizing them, in practice, has been challenging. We 

are encouraged that, after 8 years of a coup-installed military regime, Fiji is scheduled to hold elections next week that offer the 

hope for a return to democratic governance. If confirmed, I will 

take great satisfaction in working to build foundations of democracy and good governments through all means available to us. 

Embassy Suva is responsible for the United States largest geographic consular district in the world. At the same time, the region 

is challenged by frequent natural disasters. If confirmed, I will 

make emergency preparedness and attention to support for American citizens a priority focus. 

My career at the State Department has taught me that our people are our most precious resource. If confirmed, it will be my privilege to lead Embassy Suva’s diverse and dedicated team of American and local staff and support our 85 Peace Corps Volunteers who 

are in Fiji and Tonga, and I will work diligently to ensure our mission community’s safety and security and to advance the professional enrichment of every member of our team. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for 

considering my nomination. If confirmed, I pledge to work closely 

with Congress to realize the full potential of our Pacific partnerships. It would be my pleasure to answer any questions that you 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cefkin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDITH B. CEFKIN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to appear 

before you today as the President’s nominee to be United States Ambassador to the 

Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, the 

Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu. I am grateful to the President and the Secretary 

638 

for their confidence in nominating me for this position, and I am equally grateful 

to receive your consideration. 

With the chairman’s permission, I would like to introduce my husband, Paul 

Boyd. Paul, who is also a Foreign Service officer, has just returned from his assignment in Seoul, Korea. With this assignment, Paul has capped over 40 years of public 

service, including combat service with the U.S. Special Forces and 9 years as a 

police officer. For the past 30 years, we have shared the adventure of the Foreign 

Service. 

As a Foreign Service officer I have been privileged to serve in a varied and fascinating mix of assignments touching on practically every region of the world. Certainly, the Asia-Pacific region has been a cherished area of focus, and much of my 

career has been dedicated to issues of countries in transition, striving to advance 

democratic and economic development. In my current position as senior advisor for 

Burma, I have been honored to work closely with Congress to elaborate strategies 

to expand freedom and opportunity for the people of Burma as they navigate a historic transition. 

As Deputy Chief of Mission in Thailand, I took pride in motivating collaboration 

among a diverse and dynamic 3,000-person interagency team to enhance Bangkok’s 

position as a regional platform supporting programs and operations throughout 

Asia. And as Deputy Chief of Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was gratifying 

to guide U.S. initiatives to cement the peace established by the Dayton Accords and 

encourage Bosnia’s path toward integration in Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

My experience has taught me the power of our country’s values-based diplomacy. 

If confirmed, I will relish the opportunity to draw on these lessons and my many 

years of regional policy experience to advance the United States strategic interests 

in the South Pacific. 

The United States is a Pacific nation. We share an important history with the 

Pacific Island nations. We also share a common destiny. This is reflected in President Obama’s rebalance to the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. If confirmed, I look forward to working in partnership with the five nations to which I would be accredited 

to seek to ensure that our common future is one of prosperity, peace and stability, 

and human fulfillment. 

Perhaps nowhere is the need for this focus more compelling than on the waters 

that bind us—those of the mighty Pacific Ocean. As Secretary Kerry noted when he 

organized the recent Oceans Conference, our oceans facilitate our trade and provide 

much of the food we eat and even the air we breathe. This is abundantly true for 

the Pacific. Yet, today, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Nauru, Tonga, and Fiji face dramatic challenges related to rising sea levels, ocean warming and acidification, marine pollution, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and overfishing. These challenges 

threaten the very existence of some of their populations. They also threaten broader 

global commerce and food security—issues that directly impact the United States. 

If confirmed I will strive to advance solutions to improve regional environmental 

management, support adaptation projects, and promote Exclusive Economic Zones’ 

surveillance arrangements and sustainable fisheries methods. 

The Pacific Island nations are global players. Both Fiji and Tonga have been important contributors to international Peacekeeping Operations. Fijian forces are currently participating in the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force mission in the 

Golan, the Multinational Force and Observers mission in the Sinai, and the U.N. 

Assistance Mission in Iraq, where they are responsible for providing security for 

mission personnel and facilities. Tonga was an early member of the Coalition to liberate Iraq, and until April of this year provided security at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu are also committed to their responsibilities 

as U.N. members, and the United States cooperates closely with them on a wide 

range of issues in that forum. Furthermore, Fiji plays many important roles in the 

Pacific region as a hub for commerce, diplomacy, and academic affairs as well as 

transportation and communications. Suva is home to the University of the South 

Pacific and the headquarters of the Pacific Islands Forum, the preeminent multilateral organization in the region. It is also home to regional offices of the Secretariat 

of the Pacific Community, which manages technical and development programs 

throughout the Pacific. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to build this 

regional and global cooperation. 

Success in tackling our common regional and global challenges will depend on fostering the internal strength of our Pacific Island partners that comes from strong 

democratic institutions, rule of law, and respect for human rights. The Pacific 

Islanders share our respect for democratic values, but realizing those values in practice has been challenging, most notably in Fiji and to varying degrees in the other 

countries as well. We are encouraged that after 8 years of a coup-installed military 

regime, Fiji is scheduled to hold elections on September 17 that offer the hope of 

639 

return to democratic governance. The Kingdom of Tonga, which has also made 

progress toward a more representative form of government, holds its elections later 

this year. If confirmed, I will take great satisfaction in working to build foundations 

of democracy and good governance through all means available to us, including by 

expanding people-to-people ties and nurturing civil society. And as a special personal priority, I will champion efforts to combat violence against women—sadly, a 

challenge with which all too many South Pacific women struggle. 

Embassy Suva is responsible for the United States largest geographic consular 

district in the world—over 2 million square miles. In addition to Fiji, Kiribati, 

Nauru, Tonga, and Tuvalu, that includes French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and 

Wallis and Futuna. An estimated 45,000 American Citizens are resident in these 

countries and territories and 30,000 more are estimated to visit each year to enjoy 

the region’s wealth of natural wonders and rich cultural diversity. At the same time 

the region is challenged by almost yearly cyclones, floods, and tsunami warnings. 

If confirmed, I will make emergency preparedness and attention to support for 

American citizens a priority focus. 

My career at the State Department has taught me that our people are our most 

precious resource. If confirmed, it will be my privilege to lead Embassy Suva’s 

diverse and dedicated team of American and local staff and to support our 85 Peace 

Corps Volunteers who are serving in Fiji and Tonga. I will work diligently to ensure 

our mission community’s safety and security and to advance the professional enrichment of every member of our team. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for considering my 

nomination. If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with this committee and others 

in Congress to realize the full potential of our Pacific partnerships. It would be my 

pleasure to answer any questions that you might have. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you very much, Ms. Cefkin. 

Ms. Leaf. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA A. LEAF, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINEE TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 

Ms. LEAF. Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, members of 

the subcommittee, it is a great honor to appear before you today 

as President Obama’s nominee to be Ambassador to the United 

Arab Emirates. I am deeply grateful to the President and Secretary 

Kerry for the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I 

will do my very best to uphold my responsibilities on behalf of the 

U.S. Government and the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recognizing and thanking 

my family who are here today with me: my husband, Chris, our 

wonderful daughters, my mother, Madonna, my sister, Mary Beth, 

and my brother, Tim. My family’s loving support and willingness 

to bear sacrifice in their own right have been indispensable to my 

ability to serve our country wherever needed. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent much of my career working in or on 

the Middle East, serving in Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, and Jerusalem. 

Most recently, I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Arabian Peninsula, where the growing importance of the UAE in the 

region and as a foreign policy partner for us were driven home almost daily. 

The UAE shares many of the same interests that animate our 

own regional and international policies, and our two governments 

work closely on these shared priorities. The Emiratis have sent 

troops to Afghanistan and given nearly a billion dollars in aid 

there. On Iraq, they have provided substantial diplomatic and humanitarian support since 2003, and I believe we are about to see 

that reach new levels of cooperation as we confront ISIL together. 

The UAE remains engaged with the moderate Syrian opposition, 

pledging $360 million in humanitarian assistance. The UAE supVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00647 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
640 

ports international sanctions on Iran and P5+1 negotiations to negotiate a comprehensive solution on Iran’s nuclear program. In Egypt, the Emiratis have pledged over $7 billion in aid and 

work with the Egyptian Government and the United States to foster economic recovery and stability there. The UAE has also provided a central political and financial underpinnings to U.S.-led efforts on the Middle East—on Middle East peace efforts. 

And on Libya, we share a goal of a stable democratic state, and 

we are consulting closely to synchronize our efforts. 

The UAE is a first-rate military partner, and Emirati troops and 

pilots have participated with the United States in five major coalition operations since 1990. Bilateral defense cooperation is superb. 

The Port of Jabel Ali is the U.S. Navy’s busiest overseas port of 

call, hosting more of our ships on liberty calls than any other port 

outside of Norfolk. The Emirates play host to some 3,000 U.S. military personnel and U.S. military assets that support and undergird 

regional security. 

Our bilateral trade is an especially vital part of the relationship. 

The UAE is the largest market for U.S. goods and services in the 

Middle East, with a trade surplus of over $22 billion last year, our 

third-largest globally. Over 1,000 American firms have regional 

headquarters in the Emirates, working in petroleum, defense, education, and health care. 

The UAE is also a regional leader on energy diversification and 

met the gold standard in 2009 on nonproliferation when it signed 

a 30-year 1-2-3 Agreement with the United States that opened the 

door to partnering with us on civil nuclear technology. In doing so, 

the Emirates took on a voluntary obligation to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing. They will rely on 

international markets for fuel for the four nuclear power plants 

they are constructing. 

One of the Emirates’ most noteworthy human capital investments is the drive to bring women into all levels of government 

and business. Women make up 70 percent of university graduates 

today. They are training as military pilots. And, increasingly, they 

fill key diplomatic and government positions. Four Cabinet Members are women. The UAE stands out in the region in recognizing 

it cannot realize its potential without the full participation of half 

of its citizenry. 

The United States works closely with the UAE on human rights 

and countering trafficking in persons. And, while it does not fully 

comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, it is making significant efforts to do so: prosecuting cases, 

funding shelters for victims, and implementing public awareness 

campaigns. That said, there is more work to be done on these and 

other human rights issues. 

In the wake of the region’s 2011 revolutions, we have seen the 

UAE act against certain civil society organizations and curtail certain activities of individuals. The UAE views the forces of extremism that stalk the region today as the preeminent threat to the 

modern, moderate, forward-looking country built with breathtaking 

speed and success by the country’s founding father, Sheikh Zayed 

bin Sultan Al Nahyan. But, in defense of that project, the UAE 

Government has periodically encroached on its citizens’ freedoms of 

641 

expression and association. If confirmed, I pledge to engage in a 

productive and candid dialogue on these issues, working from the 

core values and democratic principles that define America. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the United 

States has a deeply committed foreign policy and security partner 

in the UAE. If confirmed, I pledge to work with its government to 

promote our national security and a more stable and prosperous 

Middle East. I will advocate aggressively for U.S. companies. 

And, finally and most importantly, more than 50,000 American 

citizens make the UAE their home, in addition to our own diplomatic and military personnel. If confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to protect the safety and security of the dedicated men and 

women at our mission, as well as that of all Americans living, 

working, or traveling in the UAE. 

I appreciate the committee’s oversight of our mission in the 

United Arab Emirates, and, if confirmed, look forward to hosting 

members and staff there. 

Thank you for letting me appear today before you, and I would 

be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leaf follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA A. LEAF

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, members of the subcommittee, it is a 

great honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as 

Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. I am deeply humbled and grateful to the 

President and Secretary Kerry for the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I will do my best to live up to their trust and to work as closely as possible 

with this committee to carry out my responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit my full statement for 

the record and begin by expressing my enormous appreciation for the support of my 

family, who are here today with me: my husband, Chris, and our two wonderful 

girls. Suffice to say that that my family’s loving support and willingness to bear sacrifice in their own right have been indispensable to my ability to carry out my 

responsibilities as a Foreign Service officer. I would also like to thank my mother, 

Madonna, and sister, Mary Beth, who have joined us today. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spent much of my career working in or on the Middle East, 

including in assignments in Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, and Jerusalem. Most recently I 

served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Arabian Peninsula, where the growing 

importance of the UAE in the region, as well as its critical value as a foreign policy 

partner for the U.S., were driven home almost daily. 

The UAE is a young nation gifted with extraordinary resources and ambitions to 

match. It is a country that benefited early on from the region’s oil wealth, but one 

which took a longer view of what success would look like, committing to economic 

diversification, education of its people, moderate government, and global engagement. In the last decade in particular, the UAE’s role on the world stage has 

evolved accordingly, as it has increasingly demonstrated leadership in grappling 

with global issues such as violent extremism, illicit trade and proliferation, and poverty. If confirmed, I pledge to broaden and deepen our cooperation with the UAE 

on these and the many other issues of direct national security interest to the U.S. 

The UAE shares many of the same goals and interests that animate our policy 

in the region and internationally, and our two governments work closely and collaboratively on these shared priorities. As a member of the International Security 

Assistance Force in Afghanistan since 2003, the UAE has sent troops to Afghanistan, and, in the last 5 years alone, has contributed nearly $1 billion for humanitarian aid and reconstruction in that country. On Iraq, the UAE has provided substantial diplomatic, humanitarian, and other support to U.S.-led efforts, and I 

believe we are about to see that reach new levels; in 2008 the UAE forgave over 

$7 billion in Iraqi debt, and it has contributed over $60 million in aid to Iraq since 

2009. On Syria, the UAE remains engaged with the United States in supporting the 

Syrian Opposition, is an active member of the Friends of the Syrian People (FoSP) 

Core Group known as the London 11, and has pledged $360 million in humanitarian 

642 

assistance for Syria and the region. On Iran, the UAE supports international efforts 

to implement sanctions on Iran and the P5+1’s efforts to achieve a comprehensive 

solution on Iran’s nuclear program. In Egypt, the UAE has pledged over $7 billion 

in loans, grants and in-kind goods while working with the Government of Egypt and 

the U.S. to foster economic reform there. On Libya, we share with the UAE a goal 

of a stable, democratic end state. We are consulting closely with the UAE on Libya, 

and we are continuing to make clear to all countries with an interest in Libya that 

we believe unilateral foreign intervention undermines the process of achieving a stable government. The UAE, along with other Arab League states, has played a key 

supporting role in the Middle East peace process, urging both sides to remain committed to achieving a durable peace. The UAE has also been a major provider of 

humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian Authority and in Gaza. It has been a 

supporter of the post-conflict reconstruction process in Somalia, providing extensive 

aid ($213 million since 2009) and establishing formal diplomatic ties with Somalia 

in 2013. As a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which brokered the 

historic political transition in Yemen in 2011, the UAE supports the Yemeni Government’s efforts to achieve peace and stability. The UAE is also a valued member 

of the multilateral Friends of Yemen group, and has contributed over $1.3 billion 

in aid to Yemen since 2009. 

The UAE is a strong military partner and a reliable contributor to coalition operations, participating in five major such efforts with the U.S. since Operation Desert 

Storm. This cooperation is only amplified on a bilateral basis. The port of Jebel Ali 

in Dubai is the U.S. Navy’s busiest overseas port-of-call, hosting more Navy liberty 

ship visits than any other port outside of Norfolk. The UAE plays host to some 3,000 

U.S. military personnel and key U.S. military assets. The UAE is one of our largest 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers, with over 90 implemented FMS cases valued at approximately $19.2 billion. The UAE has actively participated in international operations to police the gulf and has supported U.S. forces in our various 

military operations in the region. The UAE’s security partnership with the U.S. and 

the international community is not new; in 1999, the UAE was among the first nonNATO states to publicly support NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, and the 

UAE sent almost 1,500 peacekeeping and special operations troops to participate in 

the NATO-led peacekeeping mission there, the single largest contribution to the 

mission by a predominantly Muslim state. During Operation Desert Storm, UAE 

troops took part in the Gulf Cooperation Council’s Peninsula Shield Force, participating in the liberation of Kuwait in March 1991; UAE forces also participated in 

international coalitions in Somalia and Libya. 

Our trade relationship with the UAE is an especially vital part of the bilateral 

relationship. The UAE is the largest market for U.S. goods and services in the Middle East. Our bilateral trade surplus in 2013 was $22.3 billion, the third-largest surplus in the world for the United States. The United States continues to be a premier 

destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) from the UAE, with the Emirates 

now among the top 20 sources of FDI into the United States. Just as significantly, 

the UAE is a great place for American business. With its infrastructure and business and logistical services, the UAE has become the regional headquarters for over 

1,000 American companies active in the petroleum, defense, services, education, and 

health care sectors. It has developed a leading role in business services, including 

finance and logistics, and has emerged as the preeminent business hub between 

Asia and Europe. Dubai’s Emirates Airlines is the single largest customer for 

Boeing’s 777 aircraft. 

The UAE is also a partner on energy policy and environmental responsibility. 

While it holds nearly 8 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and nearly 5 percent of proven gas reserves, the UAE has also sought to expand to renewable energy 

and is home to the newly established International Renewable Energy Agency. The 

UAE early on made a commitment to diversify its economy beyond fossil fuels, 

adopting long-term plans to develop its manufacturing base, services sector, and 

nonoil trade. In 2012, the UAE launched a long-term Green Economy Initiative, 

which aims to make the UAE a world leader in energy efficiency and environmental 

safety. As part of its effort to diversify its energy sources, the UAE is constructing 

four civil nuclear power plants, the first of which is expected to start operating in 

2017, and is reported to be considering the construction of additional plants after 

that. U.S. companies including Westinghouse Electric and Bechtel are providing 

equipment, fuel, and design and project management services for the Baraka 

project. The vision of the UAE on sustainability can also be seen with the establishment of the Masdar Institute, which was created in cooperation with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a cutting edge institution looking at ways to meet 

the energy challenges of the future. 

643 

In the area of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the UAE takes its 

international obligations seriously. In my own time working on Middle East issues, 

I have seen a significant evolution of the UAE’s approach to proliferation—from a 

country with many informal and unregulated trade routes, to a global trade leader 

and regional transshipment hub that is taking meaningful steps to ensure its trade 

links are not exploited by illicit actors. Not only has the UAE cooperated vigorously 

with U.S. law enforcement on interdiction, but it has also helped conduct interdiction training for other gulf countries. 

In another sign of the UAE’s forward-thinking support for international standards, in 2009 the UAE signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. This 

30-year agreement, which allows the UAE to partner with the U.S. on civil nuclear 

technology, includes a voluntary obligation by the UAE to forgo domestic uranium 

enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing and instead rely on existing international 

markets for nuclear fuel. 

One of the UAE’s most noteworthy efforts in human capital terms is its effort to 

involve women in all levels of government and business. In 2012, the UAE adopted 

a requirement that the boards of directors of all UAE Government agencies and corporations must include women. Emirati women make up 70 percent of the UAE’s 

university graduates today. Four UAE Cabinet Ministers are women—including 

international cooperation and development minister Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi, who 

was on Forbes magazine’s 2007 list of the 100 most powerful women in the world, 

along with UAE businesswoman Fatima Al Jaber. The UAE stands out in its recognition that it cannot realize its economic, political and cultural potential without 

the full participation of half of its citizens. It goes without saying that, if confirmed, 

I will look for opportunities to encourage just this kind of forward-thinking among 

Emirati leaders at all levels of society, to increase opportunities for women to participate fully in business, government, and society. 

The U.S. also works closely with the UAE on human rights and countering trafficking in persons. The UAE is working to improve its response to the scourge of 

forced labor and forced prostitution, particularly among the substantial foreign 

migrant worker population the country hosts. The Department’s most recent congressionally mandated Trafficking in Persons report found that the UAE does not 

fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but that 

it is making significant efforts to do so. During the past year, the UAE continued 

to prosecute sex trafficking cases, fund shelters for sex trafficking victims, and 

implement public awareness campaigns. 

That said, there is more work to be done on these and other human rights issues. 

While the UAE Government provides some avenues for migrant workers’ complaints, some forced labor victims remain unidentified, unprotected, and are vulnerable to being punished for offenses committed as a direct result of being subjected 

to human trafficking. Over the last several years, in the wake of the so-called Arab 

Spring revolutions of 2011, we have also seen the UAE act against certain civil society organizations, shutting down offices of organizations such as the National Democratic Institute and Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and curtailing certain activities 

of individuals. The UAE views the forces of extremism which stalk the region today 

as the preeminent threat to the modern, moderate, forward-looking country built 

with breathtaking speed and success over the last 40 years, by the country’s founding father, Shaikh Zayed al-Nayahn. But in defense of that project, the UAE Government has periodically encroached on its citizens’ freedoms of expression and 

association. If confirmed as U.S Ambassador to the UAE, I pledge to engage in a 

productive and candid dialogue on these issues, working from the core values and 

democratic principles that define America. 

As the UAE’s political and economic prominence only continues to grow, so too 

must our engagement. With Abu Dhabi’s growing engagement in some of our top 

foreign policy priorities including Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, there is no question that 

the United States has a serious and committed partner in the UAE. If confirmed, 

I pledge to work with the UAE Government to promote our foreign policy objectives 

and a more stable and prosperous Middle East. 

The UAE is ripe for increased U.S. business as Abu Dhabi invests to diversify 

beyond oil production and Dubai continues its expansion as a regional and global 

commercial hub. If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador, I will advocate aggressively for 

U.S. companies and work to find new export opportunities for American goods and 

services in the UAE. 

It goes without saying that paramount among my priorities, if confirmed, will be 

the welfare, security, and interests of all American citizens in the UAE. More than 

50,000 American citizens make the UAE their home; add to that the staff in the 

U.S. diplomatic mission and U.S. military personnel in the UAE. If confirmed, I 

pledge to do everything possible to protect the safety and security of the dedicated 

644 

men and women at our mission, as well as that of all Americans living and working 

or traveling in the United Arab Emirates. 

I appreciate and value this committee’s oversight of our mission in United Arab 

Emirates. If confirmed, I look forward to welcoming the committee’s members and 

staff to the UAE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ms. Leaf. 

Ambassador Spratlen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAMELA LEORA SPRATLEN, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC 

OF UZBEKISTAN 

Ambassador SPRATLEN. Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member 

Risch, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today as the United States Ambassador-designate to the Republic of Uzbekistan. 

I am deeply grateful for the confidence President Obama and 

Secretary Kerry have entrusted in me with this nomination. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen bilateral relations with 

Uzbekistan and promote U.S. interests and values there. I look forward to working with Congress in pursuit of these goals. 

My 25 years in the Foreign Service have prepared me for this position. I know and appreciate the region. As the U.S. Ambassador 

to the Kyrgyz Republic, I have the opportunity to implement important U.S. security, human dimension, and development policies in 

a fragile democracy. As the Deputy Chief of Mission in 

Kazakhstan, I helped deepen our partnership with that country, a 

key ally during the time that it hosted the 2010 summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. As Director for 

Central Asian Affairs and then-Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

I became well acquainted with U.S. policy priorities in Uzbekistan 

and played a role in the earliest days of the South and Central 

Asia Bureau. With the experience I have gained to date, I feel well 

prepared to tackle the challenges and seek opportunities for the 

United States in Uzbekistan. 

Uzbekistan lies at the heart of Central Asia and is the most populous country in the region. Since its independence from the Soviet 

Union in 1991, the United States has always maintained a strong 

commitment to Uzbekistan’s sovereignty and stability. The United 

States also remains committed to encouraging Uzbekistan’s development toward becoming a more tolerant, prosperous democratic 

society that cooperates effectively with its neighbors, adheres to its 

international obligations, and promotes peace and stability domestically, regionally, and globally. 

Uzbekistan is an important partner in our ongoing efforts to help 

neighboring Afghanistan reach its full potential. Uzbekistan continues to provide vital assistance to Afghanistan in the form of 

electricity that keeps the lights on in homes and businesses across 

Kabul. The only railroad that connects Afghanistan to the outside 

world runs through Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is also a key link in 

the northern distribution network, which helps keep U.S. and 

NATO troops well supplied and helps U.S. and NATO forces remove cargo from Afghanistan now that the mission there is in tranVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00652 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
645 

sition. If confirmed, I will encourage the Government of Uzbekistan 

to continue that important support. 

Our security cooperation with Uzbekistan is in a time of transition, but will continue to focus on the common goal of preventing 

Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists. 

Increased cooperation with Uzbekistan on a number of training 

programs would help prevent a resurgence of terrorism in the region, stem the flow of illegal narcotics, and prevent human trafficking and illicit smuggling. Our security cooperation also includes 

efforts to professionalize the conduct of security forces and reinforce the need for accountability in law enforcement institutions. If 

confirmed, I would build on our existing partnership to continue 

this cooperation. 

Uzbekistan’s large population and energy and mineral resources 

make it a natural choice for U.S. companies seeking to invest in 

Central Asia. The United States has been working with Uzbekistan 

to improve its investment climate and foster a cooperative regional 

economic environment. If confirmed, I will encourage Uzbekistan to 

implement necessary changes to further attract U.S. investment, 

diversify its economy, and promote regional and economic 

connectivity. 

As Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, I have highlighted the 

importance of nurturing nascent democratic institutions, civil society groups, and a free and open media. I also understand the profound importance of protecting respect for human rights, the rule 

of law, and fundamental freedoms. If confirmed, I will strongly encourage the Government of Uzbekistan to comply with all of its 

international legal obligations on human rights. I will also continue 

to press the government on specific prisoner cases, such as those 

raised by Senator Menendez and others in recent letters to President Karimov. I will work closely with my government counterparts in a diverse array of civil society institutions to address concerns about forced and child labor, allegations of torture, arbitrary 

arrests and imprisonment, restrictions on independent civil society 

opposition and media, as well as religious freedom. 

I know from my past experience on Central Asian affairs that 

progress on some of the issues will not be easy. If confirmed, I am 

fully committed to working with Members of Congress, the executive branch, and the people of Uzbekistan to make concrete 

progress on tough issues, like human rights and economic reforms. 

I will employ constant engagement to stress the need for meaningful action in these areas. 

I place the utmost importance on protecting American citizens 

and U.S. values overseas, and, if confirmed, I will focus my efforts 

on protecting U.S. citizens and their interests in Uzbekistan. 

The position of Ambassador is a position of public trust, and I 

take this responsibility very seriously. Direct engagement with the 

people of Uzbekistan will be a priority if I am confirmed. Public diplomacy efforts, outreach, and educational exchanges promote mutual understanding and foster deeper bilateral ties. 

Finally, I place great emphasis on strong leadership. If confirmed, I will bring my experience, enthusiasm, and knowledge to 

bear as I lead the mission to the best of my ability. 

646 

I thank you for your consideration of this nomination, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Spratlen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAMELA L. SPRATLEN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before 

you today as the United States Ambassador-designate to the Republic of Uzbekistan. I am deeply grateful for the confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry 

have entrusted in me with this nomination. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen 

bilateral relations with Uzbekistan and promote U.S. interests and values there. I 

look forward to working with Congress in pursuit of these goals. 

My 25 years in the Foreign Service have prepared me for this position. I know 

and appreciate the region. As the U.S. Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, I have 

had the opportunity to implement important U.S. security, human dimension, and 

development policies in a fragile democracy. As the Deputy Chief of Mission in 

Kazakhstan, I was able to help deepen our partnership with Kazakhstan, a key ally 

during the time the country hosted the 2010 summit of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe. During my tenure as Director for Central Asian Affairs 

and then Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, I became well acquainted with U.S. 

policy priorities in Uzbekistan and played a role in the earliest days of the South 

and Central Asia Bureau. With the experience I have gained to date, I feel wellprepared to tackle the challenges and seek opportunities for the United States in 

Uzbekistan. 

Uzbekistan lies at the heart of Central Asia and is the most populous country in 

the region. Since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States 

has always maintained a strong commitment to Uzbekistan’s sovereignty and stability. The United States also remains committed to encouraging Uzbekistan’s development toward becoming a tolerant, prosperous, democratic society that cooperates 

effectively with its neighbors, adheres to its international obligations, and promotes 

peace and stability domestically, regionally, and globally. 

Uzbekistan is an important partner in our ongoing efforts to help neighboring 

Afghanistan reach its full potential. Uzbekistan continues to provide vital assistance 

to Afghanistan in the form of electricity that keeps the lights on in homes and businesses across Kabul. The only railroad connecting Afghanistan to the outside world 

runs through Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is also a key link in the Northern Distribution 

Network, or NDN, which helps keep U.S. and NATO troops well-supplied and helps 

U.S. and NATO forces remove cargo from Afghanistan now that the mission there 

is in transition. If confirmed, I will encourage the Government of Uzbekistan to continue this important support. 

Our security cooperation with Uzbekistan is in a time of transition, but will continue to focus on the common goal of preventing Afghanistan from once again 

becoming a safe haven for terrorists. Increased cooperation with Uzbekistan on a 

number of training programs would help prevent a resurgence of terrorism in the 

region, stem the flow of illegal narcotics, and prevent human trafficking and illicit 

smuggling. Our security cooperation also includes efforts to professionalize the conduct of security forces and reinforce the need for accountability in law-enforcement 

institutions. Uzbekistan is an increasingly important partner in these efforts, especially in light of its deliberate, reliable resistance to Russian pressure in the postSoviet space. If confirmed, I will build on our existing partnership to continue this 

cooperation. 

Uzbekistan’s large population and energy and mineral resources make it a natural 

choice for U.S. companies seeking to invest in Central Asia. The United States has 

been working with Uzbekistan to improve its investment climate and foster a cooperative regional economic environment. If confirmed, I will encourage Uzbekistan to 

implement necessary changes to further attract U.S. investment, diversify its economy, and promote regional economic connectivity. 

My most recent experience as Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic highlighted the 

importance of nurturing nascent democratic institutions, civil society groups, and a 

free and open media atmosphere. I also understand the profound importance of promoting respect for human rights, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. If confirmed, I will strongly encourage the Government of Uzbekistan to comply with all 

of its international legal obligations on human rights. I will also continue to press 

the government on specific prisoner cases such those raised by Senator Menendez 

and others in recent letters to President Karimov. I will work closely with my government counterparts and a diverse array of civil society institutions to address concerns about forced and child labor, allegations of torture, arbitrary arrests and 

647 

imprisonment, restrictions on independent civil society, opposition, and media, and 

religious freedom. 

I know from my past experiences on Central Asian affairs that progress on some 

of the issues I just described will not be easy. If confirmed, I am fully committed 

to working with Members of Congress, the executive branch, and the people of 

Uzbekistan to make concrete progress on tough issues like human rights and economic reforms. I will employ constant, consistent engagement to stress the need for 

meaningful action in these areas. 

I place the utmost importance on protecting American citizens and U.S. values 

overseas. If confirmed, I will focus my efforts on protecting U.S. citizens and their 

interests in Uzbekistan. The position of Ambassador is a position of public trust, 

and I take this responsibility very seriously. 

Direct engagement with the people of Uzbekistan will also be a priority if I am 

confirmed. Public diplomacy efforts, outreach, and educational exchanges promote 

mutual understanding and foster deeper bilateral ties. 

Finally, I place great personal emphasis on strong leadership. If confirmed, I will 

bring my experience, enthusiasm, and knowledge to lead the mission to the best of 

my ability. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador Spratlen. 

We will have 7-minute rounds of questions. And if we do not get 

to you on a first round, do not relax, because we will often have 

multiple rounds. 

I will start with Mr. Roebuck. I was very distressed about the 

news of the recent arrest of a prominent human rights activist, 

Meriam al-Khawaja in Bahrain. If you could, describe the status of 

that case and what the State Department is doing to raise that 

issue, please. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Senator Kaine. 

We have followed this case closely. We are aware of Ms. 

Khawaja’s arrest. We have raised this case publicly with the Bahraini Government, and we have also done so privately. And we 

have urged the government to ensure that Ms. Khawaja’s due-process rights are protected, that she has the right to expeditious judicial proceedings, access to a lawyer, and hopefully that this matter 

will be resolved as quickly as possible. So, we have raised this matter, and we are following it very closely. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KAINE. Sort of in a related area, and then I think a number of the questions about Bahrain will be dealing with this. The 

Bahraini Government—and you alluded to this—expelled visiting 

Assistant Secretary Tom Malinowski, and the ostensible reason 

was for holding a meeting with opposition representatives without 

government officials present. Also, Representative Jim McGovern 

and human rights researchers have been denied entry in Bahrain. 

Talk about the current status of the dialogue between the governments on the situation with Assistant Secretary Malinowski and 

how you, in your post, will handle the issue of interacting with all 

segments of Bahraini society, including folks associated with opposition parties. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Senator. 

The expulsion of Assistant Secretary Malinowski, we have made 

clear to the Bahraini Government, was unnecessary and unhelpful. 

We have dealt with the aftermath of the expulsion primarily 

through diplomatic channels. We believe the Bahraini Government 

has understood our position clearly. We expect, going forward, that 

the Bahraini Government will take steps more consistent with our 

648 

strong bilateral relationship, and that they will address this issue. 

We continue to support a strong reform reconciliation process in 

Bahrain, hopefully leading to inclusive elections across broad Bahraini society sectors. 

With regard to the return of Assistant Secretary Malinowski, I 

have discussed this with Assistant Secretary Malinowski. He wants 

to return at a time that would be most helpful. We have discussed 

this with the Bahraini Government. They have indicated they 

would welcome his return. And so, we are discussing with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the timing for that. 

Bottom line, we have made our position known to them. We expect, in the future, that they will take steps more consistent with 

our strong bilateral relationship and with existing diplomatic 

norms. 

Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. What is the—I was in Bahrain in December 

2013, and one of the issues at that time—it was a significant point 

of discussion, and I imagine it still is—is the status of U.S. arms 

sales to Bahrain. It is been significant, but there has also been suspensions of arms sales because of human rights concern. What is 

the current status of the situation with respect to the arms sales 

between the United States and Bahrain? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Senator, we continue to carefully evaluate our security cooperation posture toward Bahrain. We have not made 

changes in the policies recently. We will consult closely with Congress before making any such changes. 

At present, we are withholding the export of lethal and crowdcontrol items intended predominantly for internal security purposes, and certain other items. We have resumed, on a case-by-case 

basis, the export of certain items related exclusively to external defense, counterterrorism, and the protection of U.S. forces in Bahrain. Our strong assessment is that we continue to have a very 

strong security partnership with the Government of Bahrain. And, 

if confirmed, I will do everything I can to strengthen that relationship. 

Senator KAINE. There is some difference of opinion, I think, on 

the degree to which Iran is supporting Shiite hardline opposition 

factions within Bahrain. What is your current understanding of the 

role that Iran is playing, if any, in civil unrest in that country? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Senator, we have seen Iranian attempts, in the 

past, to exploit and exacerbate sectarian unrest of the kind that is 

going on in—and has gone on—in Bahrain. They do this to advance 

their own agenda and to undermine peace and stability in the region. I think it is inevitable that prolonged unrest and instability 

in Bahrain would open the door to Iranian influence among extremists in that country. We also believe that further efforts at reform will promote reconciliation, restore confidence. And, in doing 

so, it lessens sectarian tensions and it denies Iran the ability to exploit such situations. 

Senator KAINE. I am trying to remember, from my visit last December, the population of Bahrain is—the leadership is predominantly Sunni, but the population is dramatically—65–70 percent 

Shia. Do I remember that correctly? 

649 

Mr. ROEBUCK. The population is about 1.25 million, and the figures that you have given are approximately the breakdown we understand on the demographics. 

Senator KAINE. One last question, and then to Senator Risch. 

Another key influence in Bahrain is Saudi Arabia, because of 

their closeness to the Bahraini Government. Are we working in 

tandem with Saudi Arabia in efforts to promote, you know, additional reforms or the national dialogue efforts to reduce unrest in 

Bahrain? Does Saudi Arabia play a role in that effort? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Senator. 

The Saudis have a very important relationship with Bahrain. 

They are close allies. I think it is fair to say that they have significant influence. And we believe that the Saudis can play a positive 

role. We discuss this issue and related regional issues with the 

Saudis on a regular basis. 

We also underscore, with the Saudis and with our other gulf 

partners, the importance to Bahrain of a reconciliation process, reform and political dialogue, not only for Bahrain’s security and stability, but also for regional security and stability. And we will continue those discussions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Roebuck. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Roebuck, let us take the Malinowski incident first. Did State 

Department know that the meeting was going to take place with 

the opposition prior to the time it took place? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Yes, sir, we did. This was part of an arranged 

schedule of meetings that Assistant Secretary Malinowski arranged 

with the Embassy. This is a fairly typical way that a U.S. Government official would fly into the country and arrange a set of meetings across the board with all sectors of a political society. 

Senator RISCH. So, was the Bahrainian response to that a surprise to State Department? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Yes. I would say that we were—I think that is a 

fair description. As I noted to Senator Kaine, we found the response of the Bahraini Government unnecessary and unhelpful, 

and we made that clear to them in the aftermath of the expulsion. 

Senator RISCH. But, at this point, the wound is healed, you say 

that Malinowski’s now welcome back in Bahrain? Did I catch that 

right? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. I would say, Senator, that we are continuing to 

address this issue. We have discussed it at the most senior levels 

with the Bahraini Government. They understand the importance of 

taking corrective action, and they have indicated that they would 

welcome Senator Malinowski back. So, we are considering that and 

considering the proper timing for a return visit. 

Senator RISCH. Do they appreciate the fact that they have overreacted on the issue? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. I think that the Government of Bahrain has understood our position, which we have made clear, publicly and privately. I think they understand the need to take corrective steps, 

and they have indicated that they would do so. 

Senator RISCH. I guess the thing I am struggling with here, as 

you can see, is that a lot of us, when we go to various countries, 

650 

meet with the opposition. I mean, it is not—like you say, it is not 

an unusual thing. And I am just—I am wondering what happened, 

here, that caused this kind of a reaction. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. I think, Senator, that the negotiations and the 

dialogue that have gone on between the government and the opposition over the last couple of years has taken place in a difficult atmosphere, with a lack of trust on both sides, and that sometimes, 

you know, this atmosphere has prompted reactions—temporary reactions that require a change of course in—a course correction subsequently down the line. I think that is in the period where we are 

now. 

Senator RISCH. Again, though, what—the description of the situation between the in-power and the opposition, that is not unusual. 

I mean, the description you gave is what usually happens in these 

circumstances. So, I am just—I am surprised at the reaction. 

In any event, let us move on. I have a very local issue, and that 

is that the small arms sales to Bahrain is very important to my 

State, in that we do have a growing industry, manufacturers of 

small arms. And because of the sanctions that have been in place, 

they have some sales—specific sales that were stopped, as far as 

Bahrain is concerned, and they ask me, ‘‘Well, you know, what are 

you trying to do, here?’’ And you explain to them that what you are 

trying to do is to get some conformance to certain standards, as far 

as human rights are concerned. And, of course, they come back and 

say, ‘‘Well, look, if we do not sell them these, they are going to the 

Italians, or they are going somewhere, because these small arms 

are ubiquitous and easily obtained on the market, so you are not 

really gaining anything by stopping these kinds of sales, when they 

are easily obtainable from about anywhere.’’ 

What do I respond to them when they say that? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Senator, thank you for the question. 

I think the response needs to be that the United States maintains a relatively comprehensive arms policy with any given country. We have established a set of arms policies with regard to Bahrain, carefully vetted in our interagency process. We do not have 

plans to change it now, but we are looking carefully at when we 

would change it down the line. 

I think that the current policy toward arms reflects our strong 

security cooperation with Bahrain, but it also reflects our other interests and values, and that we are postured about where we need 

to be, overall, with regards to our arms policies. I understand the 

particular issue you raise with some group of sales in that larger 

policy, but I think, overall, we are where we need to be right now 

with regard to our arms policy regarding Bahrain. 

Senator RISCH. I heard what you just said, and I appreciate that. 

And I do not think there is anyone that wants to undermine the 

objective of trying to get compliance to basic human rights standards. After listening to your answer, I am not persuaded that stopping them from buying something in the United States that they 

can buy anywhere on the market is going to have any influence 

whatsoever in their decisionmaking. Again, do not get me wrong, 

I want to see you continue to pressure and attempt to get compliance, but I have real difficulties believing that keeping out of their 

hands an item that they can buy anywhere reaches that goal. And, 

651 

for Idahoans that want to work and for the good-paying jobs that 

are created here, it would seem to me that, if they are not created 

here, they are going to be created in China or Italy or somewhere 

like that. So, I hope you would keep that in mind as you help to 

form policy in that regard. 

And my time is almost up, but I want to—a very short question 

for Ms. Leaf. 

There has been quite a bit of disagreement between the UAE and 

Qatar regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. Could you talk about 

that for just a minute and what you think is the prescription for 

trying to resolve that? 

Ms. LEAF. Thank you, Senator. 

You know, the UAE and Qatar are two parts of a larger set of 

discussions and disputes that have been ongoing in the GCC. We 

saw, in the spring, a rather dramatic demonstration of that, when 

the Saudis, Emiratis, and Bahrainis withdrew their ambassadors. 

What I would say, more broadly, is that the GCC has gone 

through these kind of internal disputes before, and they have come 

together. And we saw evidence of that this last weekend, when 

there was a GCC Foreign Ministerial, and they closed ranks. It is 

not to say they have thoroughly resolved these disputes. One of 

them is over the issue—as you say, over the issue of support to the 

Muslim Brotherhood or each state’s stance on the Muslim Brotherhood, but they closed ranks in a very important way, and I think 

that is a reflection of all of the member states’ recognition that 

there are huge security challenges afoot in the Middle East that directly threaten their interests and that now is the time to pull together in—and I think we are going to see evidence of that to an 

even greater degree over the coming days as we work with the 

GCC, including both of those members, in confronting ISIL. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Ms. Leaf, I could not disagree with you more. 

It is unprecedented what the other countries did when they withdrew their ambassadors. You will have to tell me another time 

when that happened. The Qataris continue to provide funding to 

the most extreme elements, particularly in Iraq and Syria. The 

Qataris have, basically, been the strongest supporters, not just of 

the Muslim Brotherhood, but their money is going to people like alNusra, people like ISIS, and others. How can you sit there and say 

that this is just something normal? And, because they had a meeting of the GCC, that certainly does not address the issue—you are 

going to be the Ambassador to UAE, but our problems with Qatar 

are very deep-seated, ranging from funding to money laundering to 

all kinds of problems that we have with the Qataris. It is well 

known that they are extending financial and other support to the 

most extreme elements that we are trying to fight against. Would 

you disagree with that? 

Ms. LEAF. Senator, I would say that they have a history with a 

number of Islamist movements in the region, and I think this—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Wait a minute. Let me—— 

Ms. LEAF. Sorry. 

652 

Senator MCCAIN [continuing]. Just stop you right there. ‘‘Have a 

history.’’ Are they still doing it? 

Ms. LEAF. Senator, I cannot discuss all of this in this setting. I 

would be happy to take these questions back and provide a fuller 

response in a classified setting. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, until you can give me a full response, in 

response to published information in newspapers and television 

and radio all over America and all over the world, then you have 

got the wrong guy, here. This is a serious problem of Qatar’s assistance to these radical elements and funding which is going on as we 

speak. So, to just say, ‘‘Well, this kind of thing has happened before,’’ it has not. And it is very serious. And, as long as ISIS is able 

to do the things they are doing with the assistance and cooperation 

of Qatar, our challenge with ISIS is dramatically, significantly increased. 

I had not even intended, frankly, to ask you a question. But, 

when you sit there and say, ‘‘Well, this is just a normal thing,’’ it 

is not normal. It is not. And the relations between Qatar and Iran 

are also troubling. That is not normal. It is not what we are trying 

to achieve in the Middle East. 

So, I will be submitting to you some questions that are based on 

public information—not on sensitive information, but based on public information. And I would expect an answer from you. 

But, believe me, I have spent enough time over there to know 

that this is a normal situation, the behavior of Qatar. 

And, by the way, do you know whether UAE and Egypt notified 

the United States of America when they launched airstrikes 

against Libya? 

Ms. LEAF. Senator, regarding this incident that you are referring 

to, there is very little that I could say in this hearing, but I would 

be happy to ask for a classified briefing for you on that matter. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am not going to a classified hearing with you. 

I am asking you a question, whether the published reports, in the 

New York Times and the Washington Post, that UAE and Egypt 

launched airstrikes in Libya—whether the United States of America was informed by them, or not. Do you refuse to answer that 

question? 

Ms. LEAF. No, Senator, I will answer that question. I cannot 

speak to those reports in this setting. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then I cannot support your nomination if the 

Senate of the United States is not entitled to have that information. 

Ms. LEAF. Senator, I would be happy to provide that to you in 

a classified setting. 

Senator MCCAIN. It is not necessary, in a classified setting, if it 

is published information whether it is true, or not. 

Ms. LEAF. I am aware of what the press has reported, but all I 

can say to you, Senator, in this setting, is the following, that I 

would be happy to take that back. I cannot—— 

Senator MCCAIN. What is classified about it? They either told the 

United States of America, or not. What is classified about that? 

Ms. LEAF. Senator, I would be happy to take it back. 

653 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, perhaps you can tell me, in preparation 

for this hearing, why you were told that that—were you told that 

that is classified information? 

Ms. LEAF. These are all issues—related to those events, they are 

classified, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Ms. Cefkin, I have a special feeling—it is nice 

to see you again—I have a special feeling for Fiji, and I wish you 

well. They have been through a terrible, difficult time, and I am 

interested in your assessment as to whether this first-time election 

in so long is going to be successful, or not. And thank you for—they 

are wonderful, gentle people, and they have had a very great— 

great difficulties in recent years. So, I thank you for your service. 

And I am interested in your assessment. I think it is September 

17, is going to—the vote is going to be? 

Ms. CEFKIN. Thank you very much for that question, Senator. 

You are correct, the vote is scheduled for September 17, next 

week. We are working very closely with an international coalition 

led by Australia and Indonesia that is organizing international observers. We have several Americans that will participate in that 

observer mission. We have also been providing some voter education support through NGOs to the people of Fiji to help support 

a credible election outcome. 

Of course, there are various predictions. I am reluctant to speculate and to give you any absolute prediction about what the outcome will be, but we remain cautiously hopeful that there will be 

a credible election that takes place that will allow us to move to 

another phase of our cooperation, our relations, and to look for 

ways to continue to deepen support for democratic institutions and 

democratic culture in Fiji. 

We have, and we—the United States—will continue to urge that 

Fiji continue the progress, build on this progress, to further expand 

the rights of its citizens to fully participate, to fully enjoy freedom 

of expression and organization. We know that—I know, from my 

personal experience, that transitions are difficult, that they take 

time, generally. One election is not sufficient to complete the process of democratic transition. But, yes, we are committed, and, if 

confirmed, I will make that an absolute priority to focus on support 

for democratic development in Fiji. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, there are many places where Ambassadors are very important. It is one of those. And I know you will 

be working closely with, especially, the Australians, as well as the 

other countries in the region that have imposed embargoes and 

other restrictions on Fiji. And I appreciate very much what the 

Australians, particularly, have done in addressing this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I had additional questions, but I would wait until 

next round if—— 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. Senator McCain, you can continue. I 

am going to have some additional questions, too, but I will hit 

cleanup if you want to continue, and then we will move to Senator 

Rubio. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. I just wanted to talk to Mr. Roebuck for a minute. 

The situation in Bahrain is pretty clear cut in some respects, I 

think, in that there has been a suppression of the opposition and 

654 

the treatment of Tom Malinowski is not an acceptable situation. 

Obviously, we cannot have our representatives thrown out of a 

country that is supposed to be a friend of ours. But, at the same 

time, there is ample evidence of Iranian influence; in fact, even Iranian weapons have been intercepted trying to be delivered to the 

opposition. So, it is not just a sort of a human rights issue and lack 

of democratization. We have got the Iranians playing heavily, here. 

And I am curious, How do we balance that, in your view? And, by 

the way, it is good to see you again, and thank you for your service. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. Tell me how we can thread that needle. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Senator. 

As you indicate, we have a range of important interests in Bahrain. I have addressed the human rights dimension of our relationship in some detail in the—in my statement and in the questions. 

We will continue to raise those important issues. 

We also have, of course, a very, very important security partnership with Bahrain. They host NAVCENT, they host the Fifth Fleet, 

8,000 servicemembers live and work there. This hosting allows us 

to do a range of incredibly significant—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I understand all that. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. OK. Got it. 

So, the security relationship is very important. We want to ensure that that is maintained. 

On the human rights and the internal security situation that you 

mentioned, we are encouraging the government and the opposition 

to continue political dialogue reform efforts and a reconciliation 

process to address the type of social and economic grievances that 

you allude to. They have had problems. There was significant unrest in 2011. And the efforts of the—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I want you to get to Iran. 

Mr. ROEBUCK [continuing]. And the efforts of the—thank you, 

sir—the efforts of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry 

have been important to help them address these issues. 

With regard to Iran, we are aware of Iranian attempts to have 

influence in Bahrain, in places like Bahrain, where there is sectarian unrest. I think it is inevitable that, you know, given that unrest and instability, they are trying to take advantage of that situation. We are aware of the reports that you mentioned. Much of the 

discussion surrounding these reports, Senator, is limited to classified sourcing and information. It is difficult for me to get into too 

much of it. But, your basic point about this involvement is accurate, in the broad sense—— 

Senator MCCAIN. So, is there not a—this is my final question— 

is there not a real threat, here, that this could turn into a—basically, a proxy war between the Saudis and the Iranians? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. I think there is always a risk of outside powers 

getting involved in a situation like in Bahrain, where there has 

been—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, the Saudis have already been in, militarily, once. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Correct. They went in as part of the GCC Peninsula Shield Forces for a few months in 2011. There is that danger. 

And I think it is—and it is important that we continue to talk 

655 

closely with our allies, like the Saudis, ensure that they are playing 

a positive role. We believe, from our discussions, that they want to 

play a positive role. It is 2014 now, it is not 2011. I think they understand the—that. And I think, on the Iran side, you know, we 

continue with the P5+1 talks. Bahrain and others in the region 

clearly understand the dangers of a nuclear Iran to the region and 

to the world. And we will—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, could I say—— 

Mr. ROEBUCK [continuing]. Continue to address that—— 

Senator MCCAIN [continuing]. I am not so worried about a nuclear Iran, in this case, I am worried about Iranian arms and 

equipping the opposition and you are getting into a real firefight, 

here. 

But, I thank you, Mr. Roebuck, and I thank you for your previous 

service. And you are inheriting a very, very delicate situation, 

where a lot of interests have to be balanced, here, probably one of 

the most difficult that I know of in the entire region. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, sir. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Thank you all for your willingness to serve or prior to service to 

our country. 

Mr. Roebuck, the bulk of my questions in the time I have will 

be toward you, just simply because of my interest in Bahrain and 

what is occurring there. 

You may have answered this already. I may have missed it, so 

I may be restating it. But, I want to talk about the expulsion of 

Tom Malinowski, ostensibly for holding a meeting with the Wefaq 

representatives without a government representative present. My 

understanding is, the government also, reportedly, barred a Member of Congress, in the last few weeks, from visiting the country, 

based on a similar concern. 

If and when, as I anticipate you will be, you are confirmed as 

Ambassador of the United States, do you plan to comply with this 

requirement, that they have a government representative anytime 

we meet with members of an opposition party? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. No, sir, Senator Rubio. We have made it clear to 

the Bahraini government that this an unacceptable condition. It is 

not only unacceptable in Bahrain, it is worldwide. There are established diplomatic protocols for such meetings. And we use those 

types of—we expect compliance with those types of international 

norms in our meetings worldwide. And that goes for Bahrain, also. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, there is an invitation out to Mr. 

Malinowski to return to the Kingdom. Do you know, what is the 

status of that? And have they set any ‘‘ground rules,’’ for his return, for him to be able to come back? 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Senator, I spoke with Assistant Secretary 

Malinowski late last week about this. He wants to return at a time 

that would be most helpful to the broader political dialogue and 

reconciliation process. We have discussed this at senior levels with 

the Bahraini Government. They have indicated they would welVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00663 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
656 

come him back. They understand the need for corrective steps to 

address the previous expulsion. And we will continue to work 

through this issue to try to resolve it. But, the conditions that you 

cite would not be acceptable for a return visit, and that has been 

part of the broader conversation. 

Senator RUBIO. Now, I want to get a little broader on this, and 

I think some of the questions around here have touched upon it, 

because Bahrain is a nation that I have taken an interest in, a couple of years ago, for reasons of both human rights and geopolitical 

reality. And, you know, I believe human rights should always be 

at the forefront of what we do from a national security perspective 

and from a foreign policy perspective. And so, I was deeply concerned to see that a minority in that country felt oppressed and felt 

like they did not have the space to speak out in the Kingdom. And 

we engaged ourselves early in that conversation; in fact, met with 

some young people from there that expressed to us that their desire was not to overthrow the Kingdom, but simply to create a political accommodation where they had a greater role and more of 

a voice. 

As that process has broken down over the last few years, you 

have begun to see evidence or indications that the opposition in the 

country has become increasingly potentially more radicalized, or at 

least elements of it there have become more radicalized, and that 

potentially have created stronger links with Iran as their sponsor 

in these efforts. 

The answer we always get back, whenever we express our desire 

to speak forcefully on these issues of human rights, is, we have to 

be careful not to go too far on human rights, I am told, because 

Bahrain has such critical importance to the United States, from a 

geopolitical perspective, that somehow we need to push aside the 

human rights considerations because they are such an important 

partner in that region, from a defense perspective. 

I think that is troubling and shortsighted, for a couple of reasons. 

One, I think it undermines our credibility, when we go around the 

world talking about how we are fighters on behalf of human rights 

and democracy, freedom, and the liberty of all people, and, on the 

other hand, we are willing, or appear willing, to tolerate it in some 

parts of the world because they are good partners. We did that in 

the cold war, as well, in many instances. And I do not criticize it 

now, and hindsight is always 20/20, but it was, to some—we still, 

in some extent, pay the price for that in some parts of the world. 

The other is, I think it is actually bad for our allies, because, 

when they do this, when you have a large number of people in this 

country—in this instance, not even a minority—I just called it a 

minority; it is not a minority, but a group that feels being oppressed because they do not have a voice—I think, long term, that 

is unsustainable. If you are an ally of the United States, what we 

should be explaining to these countries—and I hope that we are— 

is, ‘‘What you have today is an unsustainable position. You have 

got to create space for every segment of your society to be involved. 

Otherwise, you have put for yourself—you put yourself in an 

unsustainable long-term position that actually is ripe for the sorts 

of instability that do not just undermine you, but ultimately undermine our standing in that part of the world.’’ But, again, the arguVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00664 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
657 

ment I get back is, ‘‘We have got to be careful not to push too hard, 

because Bahrain is too important.’’ 

I will say that in 2013 a former Director of National Intelligence, 

Dennis Blair, said, ‘‘Bahrain needs the United States, from both 

the security and economic points of view, more than the United 

States needs Bahrain.’’ He went on to say, ‘‘The Fifth Fleet Headquarters should be moved back onboard a flagship as it was until 

1993. Permanent basing in a repressive Bahrain undermines our 

support for reform and is vulnerable if instability continues.’’ 

So, I guess my point is, as you walk into this role there, what 

is your view of this balance, to the extent there needs to be a balance? And how would you—and, furthermore, how would you 

evaluate our alternatives for the naval support activity facility in 

Bahrain? How crucial is that facility? How crucial is that facility 

being stationed in that place, in Bahrain? How crucial is that to 

U.S. defense strategy in the Persian Gulf region? 

But, the first one is the most important. How do you view that 

balance? Because I am not even sure there should be a balance, per 

se. I think all of our national security and foreign policy credibility 

is undermined when we are seen to be the sponsor of, and looking 

the other way to, repression. 

Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Senator Rubio. 

I believe there does need to be a balance. I think that a country 

that promotes and protects human rights will be ultimately a more 

stable country and can be a more effective security partner. My 

commitment is to make the case, publicly and privately, if confirmed, to the Bahrain Government that it is in their long-term interest to promote and protect human rights, and also to support a 

vibrant political dialogue, reform, and reconciliation process. My 

view—and I think our policy is informed by this view—is that these 

two objectives—security partnership and human rights—are not in 

conflict, but that they mutually reinforce each other. I think it 

takes work to make sure that the policy functions in that way, but 

I do believe that that is a fundamental understanding of our policies towards Bahrain. 

I do think that the hosting of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, the Fifth Fleet, in Bahrain is incredibly important to our regional interest. That deepwater port’s central location allows us to 

cover 2.3 million square miles of critical oceans and seas, demonstrate resolve to Iran, ensure the free flow of oil and commerce, 

and mount counterterrorism, counterpiracy, counternarcotics efforts. 

So, yes, it is critical, but I believe we can balance that interest 

with our concern for human rights. And it is absolutely essential 

that we do so. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator RUBIO. Can I just—— 

Senator KAINE. Please continue. 

Senator RUBIO. Here was what I would just say. When you go 

that part of the world or you speak to people and say, ‘‘Well, why 

is the United States involved, and why do we care about what is 

happening in different parts of the world?’’—one of the things we 

should always lead with is, ‘‘Well, we care about human rights. 

There are certain realities,’’ I mean, this Nation was founded on 

658 

the principle that all human beings were created equal, endowed 

by a creator with certain rights that belong to them that are not 

granted to them by government. These are the founding principles 

of our Nation. And I think we have been a beacon to the world for 

over 240 years because we have been willing to go around the 

world and help those who aspire to that for themselves. It gives 

credibility to—and standing. And it makes us more than just a geopolitical player. It makes us, in essence, someone other countries 

look at as an inspiration. 

Here is where we run into trouble. When you go to these parts 

of the world and say, ‘‘Well, you care about human rights, and you 

care about democracy, and you care about freedom unless it is 

some country that is critically important to you in some way. Then 

you are willing to look the other way. I mean, you looked the other 

way in Saudi Arabia, where there are no human rights, per se, 

where women are not even allowed to drive a car. You look the 

other way in Bahrain.’’ You know, and I have had these conversations, where they are—you know, where I have explained to Bahraini officials that it is critical that the space be created, because 

what they have, long term, is a powder keg. 

People are not all of a sudden just going to decide to take it. This 

will continue to be a problem, and an unsustainable one. 

And I look at other examples, where, over time, we were able to 

convince allies of ours, in a different era—the Philippines comes to 

mind—where, slowly but surely, we pressured and put—during the 

Reagan administration, created conditions, where eventually that 

dictatorship fell and transitioned to a democracy, albeit one that 

has some challenges, but certainly no longer governed by a dictatorship, as an example of a role the United States should also play. 

If we are truly someone’s ally, I think it is critical for us to explain 

and be forceful and continuing to nudge them toward a sustainable 

position that honors both human rights and democracy and does 

not cost us our credibility. Because I think when we look the other 

way, whether it is Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else, and 

say, ‘‘We care about human rights unless we happen to have bases 

in your country and you are helping us achieve some other foreign 

policy objective’’—I actually think that threatens and undermines 

our credibility, our standing, and ultimately those countries, as 

well. So, as their allies, I think it is important that we continue 

to be forceful in explaining to them that, if they do not create these 

spaces where people can become legitimate and open and free parts 

of that society, where they feel like they have an outlet and a voice 

in the politics for those nations, those countries are in an 

unsustainable place and ultimately are going to continue to be 

places where Iran and others can come in and try to exploit that 

division. 

So, I hope you will use this post as an opportunity to continue 

to further that dialogue and continue to nudge them in that direction. Otherwise, the situation they find themselves in is 

unsustainable, and I think Bahrain will continue to be susceptible 

to Iranian influence trying to stir up Shia militants and others to 

take actions against the Kingdom. 

So, thank you. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator Rubio. 

659 

Ms. Leaf, let me pick up with you on the—I want to make sure 

I understand the dialogue you had with Senator McCain. We are 

very concerned on the committee, as you know, about this issue of 

the airstrikes in Libya. And I have seen it—you know, I have seen 

it kind of interpreted a couple of different ways. One interpretation 

is, you know, ‘‘How dare something like this happen without the 

U.S. being deeply involved.’’ I think a willingness to publicly selfpolice in the region is actually—could be a real healthy thing. I 

think this has been a region where often nations have, you know, 

quietly told us we need to do things, and they have been unwilling 

to stand up and do things themselves. Nevertheless, there is—you 

know, there is a lot of concerns about how it could be interpreted. 

I understood your answers to be, this question about whether the 

United States was notified is certainly a question that is important, that is worthy of an answer, the Senate should get an answer, 

but, to answer that question, you would have to reveal what you 

know through classified information that you are not at liberty to 

reveal. Is that basically correct? 

Ms. LEAF. Yes, that is the—that is correct, Senator. And I—what 

I would say is there are more things that I simply cannot discuss 

in this setting, much as I would like to be responsive to Senator 

McCain’s question, and to your own. I think perhaps if it is helpful, 

I could add a few comments about the larger issue of the U.S. and 

UAE collaboration on Libya, because that actually is a policy—— 

Senator KAINE. That would be helpful. 

Ms. LEAF. Thank you. That is an issue that we have been discussing in some depth with Emiratis since—well, since at least the 

spring and into the summer, and we are going to have another 

round of such discussions, in addition to the—to very regular senior-level contacts that we have between our government and theirs. 

Libya is a place that the Emiratis engaged on as part of the 

NATO-led coalition, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and they have 

had an abiding interest, as we do, in seeing that country stabilize 

and become secure. And their concerns have been growing for some 

time, which they have reflected to us, about the growth of Libyan 

and transnational extremist groups. 

So, we are enhancing—we are deepening the dialogue with them 

and other key partners on this issue as we speak. 

Senator KAINE. You talked a little bit about events of the last 

weekend in kind of a—at least, kind of at face value, a reunification of some of the foreign ministers in the GCC. I am also struck, 

as I watch this—sometimes there is a theatrical element to breaks, 

and then there is a theatrical element to reunifications. And I am 

trying to determine what is theater and what is real. 

Talk a little bit about the events of the last weekend and, sort 

of, what that—— 

Ms. LEAF. I would—— 

Senator KAINE [continuing]. Suggests to you is occurring. 

Ms. LEAF. I would be happy to do so. In fact, I mean, these are 

very serious differences of view that have roiled the waters of the 

GCC. So, I perhaps gave an impression that it was business as normal. I would not by any means suggest so. Rather, that the overriding security challenges that have beset the region over the last 

couple of years and really have perhaps crested at this point in 

660 

Iraq with the emergence of, really, a truly terrifying and brutal 

movement—ISIL—that has had a very sobering effect on many 

people across the region, not the least of which are GCC partners. 

I would not suggest that they have been able to put all differences aside on the issues that Senator McCain addressed. Far 

from it. And it was dramatic, what occurred in the spring. It was 

significant. But, there has been a pretty steady pulling together 

over the last weeks, in part led by the Saudi Government. But, I 

think it is a collective reflection that we see right now that they 

have got really, really bigger fish to fry, if you will. They are addressing their internal differences over the Muslim Brotherhood 

and other issues. They are addressing them as brothers in a family. 

Senator KAINE. What more can the UAE do to support countries 

like Lebanon and Jordan with the Syrian refugee issues? I know 

they have been engaged on this humanitarian front, but talk a little bit about the status of that engagement, what more they can 

do. 

Ms. LEAF. I will do so, happily. 

The UAE is a really generous foreign assistance donor. I was 

looking at figures the other day that indicated they have provided 

assistance to 137 different countries around the world. Jordan 

ranks right at the top of their regional priorities. And the figure 

that I mentioned earlier is really meant to address this wave of 

Syrian refugees and the enormous impact that that has had on 

Syria’s neighbors. Jordan and Lebanon together remain key diplomatic and humanitarian assistance priorities for the UAE. That 

goes without saying. Without us even raising it, that is a priority 

for that government. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ms. Leaf. 

Ambassador Spratlen, a couple of questions. Talk a little bit 

about the current status of, sort of, democratization and human 

rights in Uzbekistan. And, in particular, I am always interested 

whether U.S. and other international-based NGOs are able to operate freely in the country. If you could address that issue. 

Ambassador SPRATLEN. Well, thank you for the question, Senator 

Kaine. 

Yes, the issue of human rights has been at the top of U.S. priorities with Uzbekistan for as long as we have had our diplomatic relations with them, over 20 years. And, as you may know from having read some of the congressionally mandated reports—the 

Human Rights Report, the International Religious Freedom Report, 

and others—Uzbekistan, quite unfortunately, ranks very, very low, 

in global terms, when it comes to compliance with internationally 

respected human rights norms. As a result, this is a conversation 

we consistently have as part of our bilateral relationship. I think 

one of the main differences is that Uzbekistan is a country that has 

a great deal of concern about the issue of terrorism, about the issue 

of dissent. And the central government uses considerable resources 

to constrain that dissent. 

What I would also say, however, is that Uzbekistan highly values 

its relationship with the United States. We know each other well. 

And I think those conversations that we do have with them quite 

regularly are built on mutual understanding and mutual respect. 

But, what we would like to see is for the Uzbekistan government 

661 

to recognize that it is in its own interest to meet those international commitments. 

With respect to the international human rights community, we 

are aware that there are a number of groups, such as Human 

Rights Watch and Freedom House and so on, that previously operated in Uzbekistan and have not been able to do so for a number 

of years. It is also true, however, that in recent years, I would say 

that the relationship with Uzbekistan has been improving. And 

that would include in terms of our conversations with them about 

human rights. And, while we have not seen, necessarily, actions on 

the part of the government that would signal a change in their policy, we have seen that they have been willing to release some prisoners when we, the United States, has made those requests, and 

we also know that a limited number of international human rights 

organizations are operating in Uzbekistan. For example, the National Democratic Institute is operating there, and they have a very 

good professional. 

This individual just recently arrived, and so we will have to see 

what will happen with the person’s ability. 

The issue really—to operate there—the concern is that this—the 

operating space for human rights for civil society is really quite 

narrow in Uzbekistan. And the only thing I can say, Senator, is 

that this is very much a high priority for me in my current position, and it will remain so. We have had some limited successes in 

Uzbekistan. And I think as we continue to press, not only at the 

Embassy level, but with our visitors, we will continue to make the 

case that it is in the interest of Uzbekistan to narrow the gap between its international commitments and put the realities that we 

see on the ground. 

Senator KAINE. I am aware of some reports that anticipate a possible retirement of the President, President Karimov, and that 

there could be some kind of internal power struggle among political 

elites in that event that could be destabilizing. I mean, those are 

in country; you know, those are issues that will be decided there. 

But, what is your current, sort of, outlook on the political stability 

of leadership in Uzbekistan? 

Ambassador SPRATLEN. Well, I would say that political stability 

is really at the top of Uzbekistan’s priorities. It has been led by 

Islam Karimov since the independence of Uzbekistan in 1991. I do 

not really want to get into speculating about—— 

Senator KAINE. Right. 

Ambassador SPRATLEN. [continuing]. What will happen in the future. I think that we just have to watch very carefully what happens. There are all kinds of scenarios that might occur, but I think 

the most important thing is for us to deal with the reality that we 

have in Uzbekistan right at the moment. I think, from the point 

of view of President Karimov, he is very proud of the fact that the 

country has been very, very stable. I think there are a lot of things 

that could be different in Uzbekistan, and we have, as I said, been 

able to have those conversations with them. But, I would prefer not 

to speculate about what might happen in the future about the leadership. 

Senator KAINE. I want to ask you some questions about the current energy outlook in Uzbekistan. Can they produce additional gas 

662 

for export? Is there any ability for them to use those resources to 

enter the European market? Would Russia try to block them from 

doing that? Talk a little bit about energy resources and their potential in Uzbekistan. 

Ambassador SPRATLEN. Certainly. Thank you for the question. 

Senator, during the Soviet period, Uzbekistan was really at the 

center of the energy situation for the countries in the region. It was 

really the hub. After the breakup of the former Soviet Union, and 

with the independence of all of the states, what turned out to be 

true is that countries like Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan ended up 

being the places that had enormous reserves for oil and gas. 

Uzbekistan does not have those kinds of resources, the kinds of resources that Azerbaijan, that Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have. 

However, they do strategically use the oil and gas revenues that 

they do have. Of course, it is very important to them to use those 

resources for domestic consumption. They also sell to China. In the 

past, Russia has been an important customer of theirs, but, of 

course, the economic situation in Russia right at the moment has 

caused some changes in that. But, I would say that, yes, energy is 

important for Uzbekistan, but they are not going to be playing 

this—the kind of major role in the global energy market and for 

Europe that some of the other countries in the region have played. 

Senator KAINE. How would you characterize the current relationships between Uzbekistan and Russia, on one hand, and 

Uzbekistan and China, on the other? 

Ambassador SPRATLEN. Well, I would say the most important 

thing about Uzbekistan as a state is that it highly values its sovereignty and its independence, and it does not want to be put in 

a position of being forced to choose its partners. And, therefore, I 

think it has been very shrewd and very careful in developing relations with a variety of major partners. Obviously, as a former Soviet state, the relationship with Russia is an important one. But, 

I think Uzbekistan has signaled, in a number of ways, that it intends to safeguard its sovereignty. It was previously a member of 

the Collective Security Treaty Organization. It pulled out of that. 

It suspended its membership a couple of years ago. I think that 

was a kind of signal of their independence. And they have had a 

very robust relationship with China that has been developing at a 

very measured but important pace since 1991. In 2012, they raised 

the level of their relationship with China to a strategic partnership, 

and there have been exchanges of visits between Presidents that 

have been marked by signing various documents. And the relationship continues to grow strongly economically. There are some 500 

companies—Chinese companies operating in Uzbekistan, and there 

is significant economic activity on the part of China. 

So, what I would say is that Uzbekistan is using its relationships 

with major partners to ensure that it maintains its sovereignty and 

its independence, that it is not forced to choose partners, but, at 

the same time, that it sustains relationships that are meaningful 

and important to them. 

With respect to Russia, I would just note that there are a considerable number of Uzbekistan citizens who work in the Russian 

Federation, and that the remittances that they send back home are 

extremely important to Uzbekistan’s GDP. 

663 

So, I would say that these relationships, both with Russia and 

with China and with other important partners, continue to develop 

and grow, but all with the idea that Uzbekistan is at the center 

of it, wanting to safeguard its sovereignty and its independence. 

Senator KAINE. One last question, and it deals with equitable 

water-sharing in Central Asia. I understand that Uzbekistan has 

some concerns about hydroelectric dams being built in neighboring 

countries, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. But, what is the appropriate 

role that we can play to encourage equitable water-sharing in these 

Central Asian nations? 

Ambassador SPRATLEN. Well, Senator, yes, you have touched on 

one of the most sensitive questions in the region right at the moment. Uzbekistan is a downstream country, and the countries such 

as the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan hold significant hydropower 

resources. And, in the case of Tajikistan, there is an interest in 

building a major dam project, which Uzbekistan has very strongly 

opposed. 

What I would say is that the United States, as a matter of policy, 

is interested in having—we believe that all of the countries of Central Asia would prosper more and would enjoy more stability and 

security if they cooperated together. And this is also true in the 

area of water resources. 

With respect to the specific issue of the Rogun Dam, our goal 

and, I think, the role of the United States is really to facilitate the 

dialogue and to ensure that the negotiations or the discussions that 

take place among countries are done—happen on the basis of facts, 

happen on the basis of what is technologically true. But, we know 

that these are also political questions for the country, for the individual countries. 

But, the main role for the United States is to be a facilitator of 

dialogue. And if confirmed, of course, that is a role I will continue 

to play. 

Senator KAINE. Ambassador Spratlen, thank you for those answers. 

And, Ms. Cefkin, I would—this is a little bit of a followup on a 

line of questioning from Senator McCain, as well. But, I was intrigued, your position in Fiji in a time of political transition—how 

can you draw on your experience in working on Burma issues, 

which has been through an important transition—and you have, 

you know, seen that up close and personal—how can you draw on 

that experience to assist in your efforts, your work in—with Fiji? 

Ms. CEFKIN. Thank you very much, Senator, for that question. 

That is correct, that I feel very privileged that, through many of 

my assignments, the constant thread has been working with countries that are in transition, that are striving to develop their democratic systems, as well as promote their economic development. 

And I find great personal satisfaction in engaging on those issues. 

I think that, first and foremost, what I have learned is the importance of really building people-to-people ties and networks. We 

have such a wealth, in the United States, of groups ranging from 

our nongovernmental organizations to our academic institutions to 

our government officials that can bring a lot of expertise and experience that they have to share. And I find, in general, that people 

664 

of the countries do aspire to really take on board these lessons, and 

they are very hungry for the information. 

So, I certainly will look, if confirmed, to tap our programs 

through our public diplomacy programs and through whatever assistance resources are available to continue to expand that peopleto-people engagement, as well, of course, as our diplomatic engagement and making sure that our positions on these issues are clearly understood. 

Senator KAINE. To what extent has the ban on U.S. military assistance to Fiji sort of affected our objectives in the region? 

Ms. CEFKIN. Well, I think certainly, Senator, that there is a very 

clear strategic importance to this region that can greatly benefit 

from greater military engagement. We have seen, as I noted in my 

comments, that several of these countries, including Fiji, have been 

very willing participants in international peacekeeping operations. 

They have participated with us, in the case of Tonga, in the coalition in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Currently, we have 45 Fijian 

peacekeepers who are being held captive in the Golan. So, it shows 

very much their willingness to accept risk, to support global peacekeeping. So, it would be, obviously, I think, to our benefit, if their 

political conditions allow, for us to be able to expand our support 

to them in these efforts. 

And we also, I am happy to say, have a wealth of expertise in 

the United States Government, and resources also on the law enforcement front, where we are working very closely with these 

countries to support their surveillance efforts to protect fisheries. 

So, I think that we would hope to be able to look for opportunities 

to expand those efforts. 

Senator KAINE. I was in the Sinai in February and had a chance 

to visit with the multinational force of observers that, since the 

1970s, I guess, has been performing the border security with Israel 

in that region. And Fiji plays a major presence in that, and has for 

years. And while I did not visit their units, the American military 

personnel who were sort of head of that operation had very, very 

complimentary things to say about the Fijian commitment to this 

mission, these peacekeepers there in the Golan and other places. 

They have been a good partner in some very important parts of the 

world. And I hope the political transition would move at a pace 

where we would feel more comfortable in expanding our degrees of 

military cooperation. 

You raised the issue of climate change in Fiji, and the other nations that you represent are affected by this. Has the—when we, 

as the United States, are in international fora concerning climate 

change issues, you know, do we publicly give support to, or raise 

the issues of, these small Pacific nations who are certainly seeing 

some of the most dramatic impacts of changing climate? 

Ms. CEFKIN. Thank you for raising this very important issue, 

Senator. 

Yes, we are working very closely with them in international fora, 

in international negotiations, U.N. Climate Convention negotiations, as well as through other less formal fora; for example, the 

Oceans Conference, which Secretary Kerry organized, in June this 

year. Several of the Pacific Island nations were represented at a 

very senior level, including Kiribati. President Tong, of Kiribati, 

665 

was one of the keynote speakers, and he made the very important 

point that, really, these countries are on the front lines of this effort, the strategic priority of mitigating climate change and preserving our ocean resources, that these countries, in many senses, 

are our early warning system, and the very dramatic existential 

challenges they are facing, from rising ocean levels, warming, acidification, and overfishing, is quite dramatic. We are working with 

them through some USAID resources on climate adaptation 

projects to support their communities’ efforts to find ways to adapt 

and help mitigate the effects of climate change. We are working 

with them on programs to help improve environmental governance 

and also efforts to look at alternative energy resources. So, that is 

another important tool we have to support our common interest in 

working to mitigate climate change and to help preserve ocean resources. Through our public diplomacy programs, we have sponsored groups that have been able to come and to learn the benefit 

of some of our experiences. 

So, there are a number of activities that are ongoing, where I 

think we are working very cooperatively together. And it is very 

important that we continue to do so. 

Senator KAINE. I would definitely encourage that we do more of 

that. You know, this is in the, kind of, ‘‘for what it is worth’’ category. In Virginia, as I deal with Virginians on climate issues, 

some climate issues are perceived by Virginians to—Virginians actually are very concerned about the issue, overwhelmingly believe 

that humans are having an impact on climate, it is a serious thing, 

we ought to do something about it. What to do about it, how quickly to—how quickly to take those steps, there are a lot of differences 

of opinion there. But, many climate issues, Virginians kind of see 

as ‘‘tomorrow issues’’ that we ought to do something, because we 

want tomorrow to be OK. But, sea level rise is a ‘‘today issue’’ in 

Virginia. It is very visible. It is not a tomorrow issue that is kind 

of theoretical, ‘‘We should get to it sometime’’; it is a today issue. 

And if it is a today issue in the Hampton Roads part of Virginia, 

it is a today issue probably on steroids in the nations where you 

will be serving. And I think people can see that so visibly that it 

has a way of convincing people of the science and of the urgency 

of a response. So, I think, working together with these nations is 

not only in their interest, but it also, I think, can have the ability 

of really shining a spotlight and educating people about the critical 

nature of this challenge that we are all dealing with as a planet. 

So, I would encourage you in those ways. 

Last question I wanted to ask is this. We have our own policy 

with respect to these nations, but Australia and New Zealand do, 

as well. Talk a little bit about the relationship between the United 

States, Australia, and New Zealand and how we work together to 

coordinate economic or diplomatic or strategic efforts in the region. 

Ms. CEFKIN. Senator, thank you. 

They are, of course, very critical partners for us in working in 

the South Pacific, as also is the United Kingdom, which, of course, 

has deep historic interest and connections. And we are working 

very closely with them, both bilaterally and multilaterally, and informally in a smaller like-minded grouping. We are regularly sharing our assessments and our plans and looking for synergies where 

666 

we can collaborate. For example, on this issue of working on environmental management, currently the United States and New Zealand are cooperating on a very important waste management 

project in Kiribati. We are active partners in the various regional 

fora that are currently active in the region, including the Pacific Island Forum. And so, we work closely with them on all those levels. 

But, you are right. Obviously we all have mutual interests, but 

first and foremost, if confirmed, I would be very attentive to, fundamentally, what is the U.S. interest and what can we do and 

what can we bring to the table in support of our common objectives. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you very much. 

Well, this will conclude the hearing. I will ask that the record remain open until 5 p.m. on Friday for members of the committee 

who want to submit questions for response by any of the nominees. 

Again, I will state what I stated at the beginning of the hearing. 

Each of you have very distinguished and very diverse careers of 

serving this country in a variety of places, including in some challenging assignments, and we are in your debt for your service. We 

thank you and wish you the best, going forward. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF WILLIAM V. ROEBUCK TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. In President Obama’s 2011 speech following the outbreak of peaceful 

protests in Bahrain and other Arab nations, he said to the Bahraini Government, 

‘‘The only way forward is for the government and the opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are 

in jail.’’ I hope that this message has been reiterated privately, though it has not 

been publically reaffirmed. Other civil society leaders have been detained such as 

human rights defender Meriam al-Khawaja, who testified in the House in 2011. She 

was arrested on her return to Bahrain on Saturday, August 30, and international 

NGOs believe she was targeted for her international advocacy work in Washington 

and elsewhere. 

♦ Does the President’s call for the release from prison of peaceful opposition leaders remain U.S. policy? 

♦ Is President Obama’s message one you will be conveying publicly and privately 

to the Bahraini Government? 

Answer. Yes—it remains our position that peaceful members of Bahrain’s political 

opposition should be released; such imprisonment undermines the right of political 

expression and compromises the atmosphere for reconciliation. 

We have repeatedly voiced concern about these cases, both publicly and privately, 

at the highest levels. As I said in my statement, if confirmed, I will make a strong 

case for why political dialogue, reform, and promoting and protecting human rights 

are in Bahrain’s long-term interest. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you engage with the Bahraini Government and opposition 

leaders to move forward with a national dialogue and political process? 

♦ What specific ideas or proposals do you plan to offer? 

♦ Are there specific actions that the Government of Bahrain or opposition societies 

have already taken that represent significant steps toward reconciliation? 

Answer. I believe a stable Bahrain will be a more stable partner to the United 

States, and that the country’s long-term stability requires advancements in its 

reform and reconciliation agenda. If confirmed, I will commit to supporting the Bahraini people in seeking a resolution to Bahrain’s ongoing unrest. This is a Bahraini 

challenge that will require a Bahraini solution, but Bahrain’s partners, including 

the United States, can also be supportive in the process. 

667 

Both sides—the government and the opposition—have taken good-faith steps 

toward reconciliation, but there is much more to be done. Before bringing any specific proposals to the table, I would first want to engage with the range of Bahraini 

stakeholders and assess how I can be helpful to the process. 

Question. The U.S. Government has called on the Government of Bahrain to fully 

implement all of the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of 

Inquiry (BICI), including Recommendation 1722(a), which requires investigations 

into all gross violations of human rights, including torture and extrajudicial killings, 

and that officials ‘‘at all levels of responsibility’’ be included in the scope of the 

inquiry. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you encourage the Government of Bahrain to take steps 

to fully implement the BICI recommendations, including undertaking credible 

investigations into the role of all levels of Bahraini security forces in the torture 

and extrajudicial killings of its citizens? 

Answer. King Hamad has repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to implementing 

reforms. The Bahraini Government has taken some important steps in line with 

BICI’s recommendations, including rebuilding mosques, establishing the Ombudsman’s Office, establishing a Special Investigative Unit, establishing the Commission 

on the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees, some training of police in human rights 

standards, and other measures. 

However, the Government of Bahrain has more to do on its implementation of 

unfulfilled BICI recommendations and we will continue to press them on this. We 

have stated publically and privately that the Government has made no meaningful 

progress on accountability for abuses committed by security forces, media incitement, or antitorture safeguards. In fact, we have unfortunately seen backsliding in 

some of these areas, including reduced sentences for the few security officials convicted of mistreatment and ongoing cases of individuals subject to arrest and long 

prison sentences for peaceful political expression. 

Implementation of the BICI recommendations is an important tool to move beyond 

the events of 2011. This report, however, did not fully address the broader social, 

political, and economic concerns that many Bahrainis have voiced and that a successful National Dialogue may begin to address. If confirmed, I will engage Bahraini 

stakeholders on the BICI recommendations, and more broadly, on the dialogue and 

reconciliation process. 

Question. Over the past several months, Bahrain has established new trade and 

military ties with Russia, including ordering a new weapons system from Russian 

state arms company Rosoboronexport. 

♦ How should the United States interpret this warming relationship and how 

should we respond? 

Answer. Bahrain, like many of its Gulf Cooperation Council partners, has a 

diverse range of defense relationships, but its preeminent defense relationship is 

with the United States. Our Navy arrived in Bahrain during the 1940s, and today 

more than 8,000 Americans who are attached to the Fifth Fleet or U.S. Naval 

Forces Central Command live there. We work closely with the Bahraini Defense 

Forces, in particular their Navy and Air Force, on a range of fronts, including 

counterterrorism and antipiracy operations. 

Bahrain is an important partner of the United States and our mutual interests 

intersect more than they diverge. If confirmed, I will directly engage the Government of Bahrain to ensure that the space where our interests overlap continues to 

grow. 

Question. For several years the U.S. Government has refrained from selling certain items—including TOW missiles, Humvees, and crowd control items—to Bahrain, citing concerns of ‘‘increased polarization’’ throughout Bahrain and ‘‘the excessive use of force and tear gas by police.’’ The U.S. Government has continued to sell 

Bahrain numerous other items that are used reportedly only for ‘‘external defense,’’ 

though several Foreign Military Sales cases remain on hold. 

♦ Please list the FMS cases that remain on hold. What is the administration’s policy on steps that need to be taken in order to lift the hold on these cases? 

Answer. We continue to withhold the transfer of items to Bahrain that could be 

used for internal security, including small arms and crowd control items. We will 

be pleased to provide a list to the committee via confidential means. The administration does not currently have plans to modify our security cooperation policy with 

Bahrain. We continually reassess the policy and the situation in Bahrain, and we 

will continue to consult with the Congress prior to enacting any changes to the 

policy. 

668 

♦ Do you assess that if these holds are lifted, Bahraini security forces will use 

U.S. origin items responsibly? 

Answer. Whether a government would use defense articles appropriately is a critical factor we consider in making arms transfer decisions for any country. The Conventional Arms Transfer policy, updated in January 2014, provides significant detail 

into how these decisions are made. 

If confirmed, a principal factor in my recommendations to the Department of 

State on the appropriateness of any arms transfer to Bahrain will be whether such 

defense articles would be appropriately used if transferred. 

Question. If confirmed, please describe steps that you will take to enhance effective implementation of Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, commonly known as the Leahy amendment, within the Embassy in Bahrain, as well as 

the steps you would take to accomplish the goal of the law, namely, helping the 

Government of Bahrain end impunity for human rights violations by security forces. 

Answer. The Department closely monitors human rights developments worldwide, 

including for evidence of misconduct by foreign security forces. This information is 

used for various purposes such as policy decisions or the annual Report on Human 

Rights, and is retained for use in Leahy vetting. 

Leahy vetting takes place when assistance is proposed for a unit or individual 

member of foreign security forces. Bahrain is no exception. If confirmed, I will 

ensure that Embassy Manama and the Department of State continue to gather 

information on the conduct of Bahraini forces that will be taken into account in 

Leahy vetting and for any future security assistance to Bahrain. 

RESPONSES OF BARBARA A. LEAF TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. A coalition of nations is currently forming to defeat the regional threat 

caused by ISIS. Does the U.A.E. actively support this coalition led by the United 

States? If so, what will the U.A.E. contribute? 

Answer. The UAE has been one of the earliest and strongest voices supporting 

the international coalition to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 

(ISIL). In addition to private expressions of support for the U.S.-led campaign 

against ISIL, the UAE on September 3 issued a statement unequivocally condemning ISIL’s atrocities and calling on the international community to take action 

against extremism and terrorism. In a September 10 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 

UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef al-Otaiba wrote of the threat posed by Islamic 

extremism, and said, ‘‘Now is the time to act,’’ including through direct intervention. 

We have been in touch with the UAE and many other partners on the need for 

an international coalition to combat ISIL and we are pleased with the UAE’s initial 

response. Secretary Kerry will continue to meet with regional partners, including 

the UAE in Jeddah to continue working out details of this coalition. Most of the specific military and security contributions of gulf partners will be classified, but we 

are prepared to provide a briefing on this subject in a classified setting. 

Question. The State Department describes the U.A.E. as a ‘‘key partner.’’ 

♦ A. How would you define the core elements of our strategic relationship with 

the U.A.E.? 

Answer. The core elements of our strategic partnership with the UAE are our 

shared goals for a stable region, our military and security partnership to confront 

the threats to the region, and our significant trade relationship. 

On security, over 3,000 U.S. military personnel and key U.S. military assets are 

deployed to UAE bases. The UAE has been a reliable contributor to international 

coalition operations, participating in five major efforts with the United States since 

Operation Desert Storm—the only Arab country to do so. The UAE Air Force is built 

around the F–16 fighter, and the UAE has acquired a range of U.S. weapons systems to make its military interoperable with U.S. Forces. The UAE military is 

among the most capable in the Middle East, and the UAE modeled its new National 

Defense College on our own. 

The UAE is one of our most important trading partners in the Middle East, 

importing over $22 billion in U.S. goods in 2013. It is the largest destination for 

U.S. exports in the region. In November 2013, Boeing and GE announced orders of 

over $100 billion for aircraft and engine sales to Etihad Airways, Emirates Airlines, 

and Flydubai. These combined deals, the largest in civil aviation history, will support hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs for the next decade. 

669 

The Emiratis have been an important partner on Afghanistan, where they have 

fielded troops as part of ISAF; on Syria, where they are engaged in support for the 

SOC and in humanitarian relief efforts to offset the huge strain placed by Syrian 

refugees on neighboring countries such as Jordan; on Iran, where they have strongly 

supported and implemented a broad range of sanctions; and on Somalia, where they 

play a key role in stabilization efforts and counterpiracy. 

♦ B. In your opinion, how does the U.A.E. view this relationship? 

Answer. Speaking from my experience as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

for Gulf Affairs, and my many conversations with Emirati leaders, I am confident 

that the UAE values its relationship with the United States deeply. We have differences of perspective and approach on issues from time to time, as we do with 

even our closest allies. However, Emirati leaders are clear that they aspire to a 

truly strategic relationship with the United States, and view U.S. leadership in the 

region as indispensable to the UAE’s security. 

♦ C. Is the United States regarded as an indispensable partner of the U.A.E.? 

Answer. I believe the relationship is hugely valuable to both parties, and if confirmed I will work to ensure that the partnership continues to support U.S. national 

security objectives regionally and internationally. 

Question. According to State’s Human Rights Report, the U.A.E. has an estimated 

20,000 to 100,000 Bidoon (stateless individuals) who are mostly Baluchis or Pakistanis who came to the U.A.E. before there were defined boundaries. In many cases 

these individuals have lived there for centuries. 

♦ What progress is being made by the U.A.E. Government to address the problems routinely faced by the Bidoon, including harassment and discrimination? 

Answer. In July 2012, the UAE Government expanded the mandate of a government committee charged with reviewing requests for citizenship. Under the broader 

mandate, the committee could take up applications of those Bidoon who could satisfy certain legal conditions to be eligible for naturalization and subsequently could 

gain access to education, health care, and other public services. Separate from that, 

Bidoon who register with the government are able to receive identification cards, 

which allow individuals to work in public sector jobs and obtain medical services. 

The government is working with individual Bidoon to correct their residential status, and some Bidoon have begun to attend public schools alongside Emiratis. Some 

Bidoon have availed themselves of another country’s citizenship, namely that of the 

Republic of Comoros, to gain a passport and legal identification under a program 

supported by the UAE Government. Nevertheless, if they were deported, the Republic of Comoros would not accept these persons. 

More work must be done to ensure that the status of these stateless individuals 

is rectified. The U.S. Embassy regularly raises these concerns with the UAE Government, and meets with stateless individuals to stay apprised of the current situation facing the Bidoon. 

Question. The U.A.E. has long-standing worker rights issues for noncitizens, 

including allegations in May of serious abuse toward South Asian workers constructing buildings for an Abu Dhabi branch of NYU. 

♦ A. What is the U.A.E. doing to correct these abuses? 

Answer. On the specific question of the NYU allegations, NYU Abu Dhabi is 

working on an ongoing basis with the Mott McDonald Group, a third-party auditor. 

In addition, the government of Abu Dhabi and the New York University announced 

in June that Daniel Nardello, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, would 

lead an investigation to inquire into labor conditions at NYU Abu Dhabi. 

While the UAE Government views labor conditions as a serious issue, and UAE 

law prohibits all forms of forced or compulsory labor, enforcement of the law is far 

from adequate. The Emirati Government has taken some steps to prevent forced 

labor, including developing a Wages Protection System (WPS), an electronic salary 

transfer system intended to ensure timely and full payment of agreed wages. The 

government fines employers who violate workers’ rights by entering incorrect information into the WPS, not paying workers for over 60 days, making workers sign 

documents falsely attesting to benefits, or making workers pay recruitment fees 

issued by the Ministry of Labor or recruitment agencies. The Ministry of Labor 

made 200 inspection and followup visits to recruitment agencies. The Ministry’s 

Combating Human Trafficking Department conducted 474 inspection visits. However, the government rarely prosecutes potential forced labor cases under the country’s antitrafficking law and does not provide protection services for forced labor 

victims. 

670 

♦ B. How can the Embassy help the U.A.E. to develop laws or other mechanisms 

to stop these problems? 

Answer. As part of our ongoing dialogue with the UAE Government, the Embassy 

urges the UAE to continue investigating any allegations of abuse, as well as to pursue new means of protecting laborers and improve labor conditions. 

♦ C. Has the Embassy used the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) 

in the last 12 months to train prosecutors and/or judges handling worker abuse 

cases? 

Answer. During the past 12 months, our Embassy has sought to use the IVLP 

program to familiarize UAE judges with U.S. practices on worker/labor abuse cases 

during a Single Country Program (SCP) arranged for the Dubai Judicial Institute 

in December 2013. While the SCP was focused on cyber crime, Mission UAE recommended that the visiting group engage with New York’s Court Innovation Center 

because of the center’s focus on human trafficking issues. This meeting took place, 

and the judges reported that it was one of the most productive of their trip. 

RESPONSES OF PAMELA LEORA SPRATLEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. I sent a letter to President Karimov in May to express concern about 

the imprisonment of Dilmurod Saidov, Salijon Abdurakhmanov, Akzam Turganov, 

Bobmurod Razzokov, and Muhammad Bekjanov. Several human rights groups as 

well as the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor have highlighted the 

political nature of these cases and called for their release. 

♦ What is the current status of these five prisoners? 

♦ Please provide a summary of recent U.S. efforts to secure their release. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you advocate on behalf of these and other prisoners of 

conscience in Uzbekistan? 

Answer. These five prisoners remain incarcerated. Muhammad Bekjanov is in 

urgent need of medical care because his health has severely deteriorated over the 

last 15 years he spent in prison. In a press release after a January 2014 prison visit, 

human rights activists reported that Salijon Abdurakhmanov’s health had improved 

after he received 2 months of treatment for a stomach ailment. Dilmurod Saidov 

stated that he had not been subject to mistreatment and had been exempted from 

physical labor while Akzam Turgunov reportedly linked an improvement in his prison conditions with the June 2013 letter that Senator Durbin and 11 of his colleagues sent to President Karimov. 

The United States has ongoing concerns about the human rights situation in 

Uzbekistan. The Department of State consistently raises prisoner cases at the highest levels of the Uzbekistani Government, and we have made specific inquiries 

about the plight of several prisoners. In May 2014, Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns raised the cases of Dilmurod Saidov, Salijon Abdurakhmanov, and 

Akzam Turganov with Foreign Minister Kamilov. On April 28, the State Department Spokesperson publicly highlighted the case of Muhammad Bekjanov as part 

of the Department’s 2014 Free the Press Campaign. The State Department highlighted Bobmurod Razzokov’s case in its most recent Human Rights Report. 

If confirmed, I will employ persistent engagement with the Government of 

Uzbekistan to advocate on behalf of these and other prisoners of conscience in 

Uzbekistan, and for needed broader reforms to address torture, due process, and 

other serious human rights concerns. I will use congressionally mandated reports, 

multilateral fora, and my own good offices to urge the government to end its practice of politically motivated imprisonment. I will also encourage the government to 

allow civil society organizations such as the International Committee of the Red 

Cross access to prisons to monitor conditions there. I will work with Members of 

Congress to amplify the messages of advocacy on behalf of prisoners of conscience. 

Prisoner cases will be a top priority for me if confirmed. 

Question. Large-scale, government-organized use of forced labor, particularly for 

harvesting cotton, is a serious and entrenched human rights issue in Uzbekistan. 

♦ If confirmed, what approach will you take with the Government of Uzbekistan 

to persuade it to end this practice? 

♦ What role, if any, can the United States play in supporting agricultural sector 

reforms that will end the use of forced labor? 

Answer. The State Department has long-standing concerns about forced labor of 

children and adults in Uzbekistan, as evidenced by Uzbekistan’s Tier 3 ranking on 

the State Department’s ‘‘Trafficking in Persons Report.’’ If confirmed, I will continue 

671 

to make ending the forced labor of children and adults in Uzbekistan a top priority. 

To this end, I will continue to work with the Government of Uzbekistan and the 

International Labor Organization (ILO) on a program for cooperation aimed at ultimately eliminating forced labor in Uzbekistan. If confirmed, I will urge the government to continue to engage with the ILO and press for further action by the government to address the forced labor of 15–18 year olds and of adults. If confirmed, I 

will also seek to hold the Government of Uzbekistan to its recent commitment to 

keep all children under the age of 18 out of the cotton fields during the 2014 harvest, which began on September 8. 

The United States can continue to press for agricultural sector reforms that will 

end the use of forced labor. The United States strongly supports the ILO’s recently 

established Decent Work Country Program (DWCP), and if confirmed, I will continue this important support. The DWCP is designed to help Uzbekistan comply 

with international labor standards and will analyze the forced labor problem in 

Uzbekistan, including the economic, political, and social causes, and provide specific 

recommendations to the government on how to improve. Given the complexity of 

this problem, if confirmed, I will employ steady, persistent engagement over the full 

course of my tenure as Ambassador with the goal of ultimately ending the forced 

labor of adults and children in Uzbekistan. If confirmed, I will also work with Members of Congress and civil society to address this problem. 

Question. I am concerned about the nature of our security cooperation with 

Uzbekistan and strongly support the assistance conditions outlined in section 7076 

of the FY14 appropriations law related to human rights, the establishment of a 

multiparty political system, free and fair elections, freedom of expression, and the 

independence of the media. In July, the administration exercised a national security 

waiver to continue assistance to Uzbekistan despite lack of progress on those issues. 

♦ Can U.S. security assistance be used to leverage progress on democracy and 

human rights? 

♦ Does exercising this waiver diminish the U.S. ability to promote the democratic 

principles outlined in section 7076 of the FY14 appropriations law? 

♦ How will you specifically work to advance the principles laid out in section 7076 

of the FY14 appropriations law? 

Answer. Increased security cooperation with Uzbekistan has afforded us the 

opportunity to address issues like respect for human rights with Uzbekistan’s security forces. We view the expanded access afforded by this enhanced cooperation as 

an opportunity to make the point to our Uzbekistani partners that effectiveness in 

countering terrorism and violent extremism—our common objective—is undermined 

by repression of citizens’ rights. 

Our security cooperation is complemented by a foreign assistance portfolio that 

aims to increase civil-society participation in government decisionmaking and support rule-of-law and judicial reform. Several of our programs, such as exchanges and 

health sector cooperation, increase our ability to promote the democratic principles 

outlined in prior congressional legislation by promoting engagement with the people 

of Uzbekistan. 

Exercising this waiver does not diminish the U.S. ability to promote democratic 

principles. It allows the United States to provide assistance to the central government of Uzbekistan, including nonlethal equipment to enhance Uzbekistan’s ability 

to combat transnational and terrorist threats. Enhancing Uzbekistan’s defensive 

capacity improves the security of the United States supply transit system to Afghanistan and our ability to support U.S. troops there. 

The State Department anticipates that the nature of our security cooperation with 

Uzbekistan will soon transition from NDN-focused to an effort aimed at preventing 

Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists who seek to attack 

U.S. interests or the homeland. The United States seeks to cooperate with 

Uzbekistan on preventing a resurgence of terrorism in this region, particularly 

through training on counterterrorism and counternarcotics missions. Uzbekistan is 

an increasingly important partner in these efforts, especially in light of the threat 

that terrorist groups like ISIL pose to the Middle East and Southwest Asia. 

If confirmed, I will continue Embassy Tashkent’s steadfast efforts to improve the 

human rights situation in Uzbekistan. I believe that respect for human rights and 

security cooperation both are high priority objectives, and if confirmed, I will pursue 

U.S. objectives vigorously in both arenas. If confirmed, I will employ persistent, 

pragmatic engagement at the highest levels to urge Uzbekistan to improve its 

human rights record. I will press for expanded operating space for civil society and 

partner with both domestic and international nongovernmental organizations to 

hold the Government of Uzbekistan accountable on respect for fundamental freedoms. I will also use U.S. assistance programs to effect the changes called for by 

672 

prior congressional legislation. Finally, I will regularly consult with Members of 

Congress in order to keep them informed on Uzbekistan’s progress. 

Question. If confirmed, please describe steps that you will take to enhance effective implementation of Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, commonly known as the Leahy amendment, within the Embassy in Tashkent as well 

as the steps you would take to accomplish the goal of the law, namely, ending impunity for human rights violations by security forces. 

Answer. Encouraging accountability and respect for human rights among security 

forces features prominently in the U.S. security relationship with Uzbekistan. If 

confirmed, I will continue to encourage the Government of Uzbekistan to improve 

its human rights record and end impunity for human rights violators, especially 

among security forces. 

If confirmed, I will continue Embassy Tashkent’s effective implementation of Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act, commonly known as the Leahy amendment. Embassy Tashkent has a comprehensive system in place to implement the 

Leahy amendment, commonly known as ‘‘Leahy vetting.’’ If confirmed, I will ensure 

we are conducting Leahy vetting based on the most complete information available. 

If the vetting process reveals credible information that a unit or a security force 

member has committed a gross violation of human rights, the Embassy will deny 

that unit or individual from receiving assistance and will notify the host government 

promptly. In these cases, if confirmed, I will instruct my team to join me in strongly 

encouraging Uzbekistan to take effective steps to thoroughly investigate any allegations of gross human rights violations. 

To assist Uzbekistan in ending impunity for human rights violations by security 

forces, if confirmed, I will use existing and future military exchange and assistance 

programs to promote respect for human rights among Uzbekistan’s security forces. 

Also, if confirmed, I will stress with my Uzbek interlocutors that the lack of sufficient progress on human rights will continue to constrain our bilateral relationship. 

Finally, if confirmed, I will keep Members of Congress informed of our efforts and 

cooperate closely with the legislative branch on improving Uzbekistan’s overall 

human rights record. 

RESPONSES OF RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. Many who support your nomination differ with you on questions related 

to religious freedom, such as the meaning of marriage and the right to life. 

♦ May I have your assurance that you will use your position to protect the religious freedom of those who disagree with you on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion? 

Answer. Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to serve in leadership 

roles in interfaith coalitions spanning all major faith groups, and in faith groups in 

the United States with a broad range of theological views. My work with these 

groups has been driven by our shared values, including the universal freedoms of 

thought, conscience, and belief. This includes the freedom to manifest one’s beliefs 

not only through worship but through teaching, preaching, practice, observance, and 

political expression. If confirmed, I will work to ensure these internationally recognized rights of religious freedom for everyone, including those with differing views 

on marriage and abortion. 

Question. On numerous occasions, I have voiced concern on the issuance of the 

Country of Particular Concern designations. Until recently, the administration had 

waited almost 3 years to reissue this designation. 

♦ Would you support making the CPC designation an annual occurrence as part 

of the International Religious Freedom Report rollout? 

Answer. The International Religious Freedom office leads an annual review of all 

Countries of Particular Concern and other countries where gross violations of religious freedom are alleged to occur. If confirmed, I will participate fully in the 

annual review of countries and work within the Department of State to regularize 

the designation or redesignation processes as appropriate. The CPC process should 

be regular and systematic to be most effective. Indeed, under IRFA, we do not need 

to wait for the annual report if designation of a country is justified. Ultimately, my 

goal will be to put the CPC designations to the most effective use possible to encourage needed reform. We will use the CPC process, plus a range of diplomatic tools, 

in our efforts to end violence and discrimination and promote international religious 

freedom. 

673 

Question. A common concern is that the Ambassador at Large is buried in the 

bureaucracy at the State Department, without the authority or resources to accomplish anything. In the past, the State Department’s treatment of this position has 

shown that it is a far lesser priority than, for example, the Ambassador at Large 

for Global Women’s Issues. 

♦ Who will you directly report to? 

♦ Have you received assurances that you will be given the authority and resources 

to succeed? 

♦ If after you enter your post, you find that you do not have the tools to succeed, 

will you return to this committee and recommend changes to the International 

Religious Freedom Act? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will serve as the principal advisor on religious freedom 

issues to the President and Secretary of State. The office that supports me is located 

administratively in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), permitting me to draw on DRL’s staffing, resources, and administrative support. I will 

report my findings and advice directly to the Secretary, as I deem appropriate, and 

I look forward to working with colleagues throughout the State Department and 

interagency to coordinate policy on religious freedom issues. If confirmed, I promise 

to work closely with this committee and Congress to advance our shared goal of promoting religious freedom worldwide. 

Question. Earlier this year, Boko Haram kidnapped nearly 300 school girls in 

Nigeria. Although some of these girls have escaped, most remain captives of this 

terrorist organization. The Christian Association of Nigeria and International Christian Concern have stated that the majority of the girls kidnapped were Christian 

and that is why this particular school was targeted. 

♦ Would you agree that Boko Haram is a terrorist organization with a religious 

agenda aimed at persecuting Christians? 

♦ If confirmed, what specifically would you do to address the problem of religious 

persecution in Nigeria and to assist Nigeria’s Christian community, which is 

increasingly under attack from Boko Haram? 

Answer. Boko Haram, seeks to impose its violent extremist ideology on the territory it controls and was designated a terrorist organization on November 13, 2013, 

Boko Haram has murdered more than 5,000 people over the last 4 years. Their 

attacks have included indiscriminate acts of violence and targeted violence against 

perceived enemies and while the majority of their victims have been Muslim, the 

group has deliberately targeted Christians, as well as Muslims who spoke out 

against or opposed their radical ideology. 

The Department takes the issue of religious persecution in Nigeria very seriously, 

and if confirmed, addressing this will be a priority for me. In fiscal years 2012 and 

2013, the Department of State allocated approximately $35.8 million in security 

assistance programs that benefited Nigeria, subject to congressional notification and 

approval. The Department of State is working with vetted police and civilian security components to build Nigerian law enforcement capacities to investigate terrorist 

cases, manage explosive devices, and secure Nigeria’s borders. The Department of 

State is also supporting training of a vetted Army infantry unit to combat Boko 

Haram militarily. 

If confirmed, I will work with the Government of Nigeria, Nigerian religious leaders, and civil society groups in their efforts to combat Boko Haram and to promote 

respect for ethnic and religious diversity as a central component to bringing peace 

and stability back to the people of Nigeria. If confirmed, I will also support DRL’s 

work with Nigerian civil society to increase accountability for perpetrators of violence by addressing the ethnoreligious violence in the Middle Belt and by building 

strong, nonpartisan institutions. 

Question. Religious freedom violations rarely occur in a vacuum; they are usually 

deeply connected to a complex context: deep-rooted militant religious nationalism in 

countries like Burma, Sri Lanka, and India, repressive regimes like those we see 

in China, Central Asia, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea, internal conflict and the 

influence of terrorist or criminal groups as we see in Pakistan and Indonesia or religious extremism of the sort we see in much of the Middle East but also on the rise 

in North Africa and parts of Asia. U.S. policy on international religious freedom is 

often further complicated by economic or geopolitical strategic relationships and 

interests. 

♦ As Ambassador, how will you seek to address the root causes of international 

religious freedom violations in a holistic way—within the State Department, but 

also with Congress, the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the White House’s National Security Council? 

674 

Answer. Threats to international religious freedom worldwide are interlinked with 

many other factors, such as repressive regimes, internal conflict, and violent extremism. Promoting religious freedom is a whole-of-government effort, and effectively 

elevating and advocating for religious freedom requires a unified effort to engage 

with foreign governments on this issue. If confirmed, I will highlight international 

religious freedom concerns at all levels within the State Department, including our 

missions around the globe and I will seek to work cooperatively with the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and with the White House’s 

National Security Council. In addition, if confirmed, I will pursue discussions with 

civil society members, including religious leaders, people of faith, and NGO representatives, regarding the root causes of religious freedom violations and will work 

multilaterally as well as bilaterally to urge and advance reforms. 

(675) 

NOMINATIONS OF PETER ZUMWALT; ROBERT 

YAMATE; VIRGINIA PALMER; RABBI DAVID 

SAPERSTEIN 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

James Peter Zumwalt, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Senegal and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of GuineaBissau 

Robert T. Yamate, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Madagascar, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Union of the 

Comoros 

Virginia E. Palmer, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Malawi 

Rabbi David Nathan Saperstein, of the District of Columbia, to be 

Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher A. 

Coons presiding. 

Present: Senators Coons, Kaine, and Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE 

Senator COONS. I am pleased to chair this hearing for the ambassadorial nominees to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar and 

Comoros, and Malawi, as well as for the nominee to serve as our 

Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom. All four individuals 

before us today have impressive records of accomplishment and I 

look forward to hearing their priorities for advancing U.S. interests 

and goals. 

Our first nominee is to serve in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. Senegal has a strong record as a stable democratic partner, a regional 

ally in peacekeeping and counterterrorism. Especially since the 

election in 2012 of President Sall, Senegal has also been a partner 

in countering corruption and promoting growth. In contrast, Guinea-Bissau has faced numerous challenges, including civil war, 

coups, and narcotrafficking, that have contributed to instability. 

676 

James Zumwalt, nominee for the post in Senegal and GuineaBissau, is a career Foreign Service officer currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Japan and Korea. He has experience 

with difficult circumstances which have well prepared him for this 

post. He led the interagency team that managed the U.S. response 

to the 2011 tsunami and previously served in the DRC. 

Next we consider Malawi, a country that recently experienced 

elections that were successful and is working to improve development and governance and growth. Malawi has been a strong contributor to regional peacekeeping missions and is an MCC partner. 

Virginia Palmer, our second nominee, is a career member of the 

Foreign Service with a distinguished record, most recently serving 

as DCM in the Embassy in South Africa. I had the privilege, indeed the joy, of visiting Ms. Palmer and seeing her leadership firsthand during a CODEL last year and was impressed with her broad 

understanding of regional dynamics, including the importance of 

AGOA and the U.S. economic relationship. 

Next we consider Madagascar and the Comoros. Madagascar is 

finally emerging from 5 years of unrest and transitioning to a 

democratically elected government. Resumption of its eligibility for 

AGOA is an indicator of its recent progress. Challenges remain and 

the next U.S. Ambassador will have to work on continuing to rebuild our ties. 

Meanwhile, Comoros has a strong relationship with the United 

States, particularly as it relates to security. Robert Yamate, our 

nominee to serve in both countries, has experience serving in 

Madagascar in addition to other valuable African posts. His experience on the continent, most recently as DCM in Senegal, makes 

him a strong candidate for reestablishing and strengthening our 

ties with Madagascar and Comoros. 

Finally, we consider Rabbi David Saperstein, our nominee for 

Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, a critically important issue as religious minorities face grave threats 

around the world. Just yesterday Senator Kirk and I cochaired the 

first Senate Human Rights Caucus event, focusing on the brutal 

human rights violations perpetrated by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, including violence against Christians, Yazidis, Shia, Sunnis, and others. 

As religious minorities face persecution globally, I am pleased 

President Obama has nominated Rabbi David Saperstein for this 

important post. As the first chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, he has ably demonstrated his ability 

to defend and advance U.S. values and protect religious freedom. 

I would like to welcome all our nominees and encourage them to 

introduce their families. These positions require a whole-of-family 

effort and we are grateful for your sacrifices and ongoing support. 

But first I would like to invite Senator Flake to give his opening 

statement. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Senator Coons. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

I appreciated the opportunity to meet all of you in my office earlier this week and last week. I really appreciate the sacrifices that 

677 

the families go through, for a lot of these far-away posts in particular. Some of you have been doing it actually a long time. I enjoyed meeting Ms. Palmer also last year on a different CODEL and 

look forward to hearing from you, and I appreciate your willingness 

to serve. 

Thanks. 

Senator COONS. I would now like to invite each of our four nominees to make your opening statement and to introduce your families. Let me start with Mr. Zumwalt. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES PETER ZUMWALT, OF CALIFORNIA, 

NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF 

SENEGAL AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT 

ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA–BISSAU 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Flake, I am 

honored to appear before you today. I wish to thank President 

Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust and confidence they have 

placed in me as their nominee for United States Ambassador to the 

Republic of Senegal and to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my wife, Ann Kambara, 

who is sitting behind me, and until last month also served her 

country as a Foreign Service officer. Since we met 31 years ago, we 

have worked together in a variety of countries and in Washington. 

Ann has been my anchor, my sounding board, and my inspiration. 

She has supported me enthusiastically as I prepared for this new 

opportunity to serve. 

I also wish to acknowledge my mother, who I think is watching 

this hearing. She is the person who first stimulated my interest in 

foreign cultures and she supported my career choice to join the Foreign Service, even though she knew it would mean that we would 

live far apart. So, Mom, thanks so much for your love and your 

support all of these years. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I have a written statement 

that I would like to submit for the record. 

Senator COONS. Without objection. 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Thank you. 

As a regional leader, Senegal has helped to resolve conflicts by 

deploying peacekeepers across Africa, and we have worked together 

with Senegal to combat religious extremism, transnational crime, 

and infectious diseases. If confirmed, I would work closely with the 

government and civil society in Senegal to sustain and build upon 

this partnership. 

Senegal is one of our most important African partners. As you 

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the 2012 Presidential election reinforced 

Senegal’s role as a model of stable democracy. We share common 

values, including religious tolerance and respect for ethnic and cultural diversity. President Macky Sall’s visit to Washington, DC, for 

the U.S.-Africa Leaders summit underscored the importance of our 

partnership. If confirmed, I would look forward to strengthening 

our close ties. 

Senegal is also a leading U.S. development partner, where the 

United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and other U.S. agenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00685 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
678 

cies build regional infrastructure, improve food security, and 

strengthen education and health care services. If confirmed, I 

would continue these efforts to help Senegal achieve inclusive economic growth, including through expanded bilateral trade and investment flows. 

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Guinea-Bissau has suffered 

from decades of poor governance and widespread corruption, which 

have weakened state institutions there. However, we do see signs 

of progress. Guinea-Bissau held parliamentary and Presidential 

elections in April and May of this year. Bissau-Guineans voted in 

large numbers, highlighted the people’s desire for domestic and responsive government. 

Following the inauguration of a democratically elected president, 

President Jose Mario Vaz, the United States lifted restrictions on 

foreign assistance. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the 

Government of Guinea-Bissau and our international partners to 

support this democratic process. In order to break its cycle of instability, the Guinea-Bissau Government must address reconciliation, 

combat trafficking of narcotics and natural resources, and implement economic reforms. But if confirmed I would travel frequently 

to Bissau to build strong relationships with the government, with 

civil society, business, and religious leaders, and with the people of 

Guinea-Bissau in order to advance U.S. interests there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Flake, for your 

continuing interest in Africa. We are truly fortunate to enjoy strong 

bipartisan support from the Congress for our efforts to promote 

democratic values, sustainable economic development, and to 

strengthen people-to-people ties. If confirmed, I look forward to 

working with you, with your committee, and other Members of 

Congress to represent the interests of the American people in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. 

I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zumwalt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES PETER ZUMWALT

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today. I wish to thank President Obama and Secretary 

Kerry for the trust and confidence they have placed in me as their nominee for 

Ambassador to the Republic of Senegal and to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my wife, Ann Kambara. Ann, until last 

month, also served her country as a Foreign Service officer. We met 31 years ago 

when we both worked at our mission in Japan. Since then we have worked together 

to advance U.S. interests in a variety of countries and in Washington. When we 

worked together far from home, Ann became my anchor, my sounding board and my 

inspiration. She has supported me enthusiastically as I prepare for this new opportunity to serve. If confirmed, it would be a great honor and privilege to promote 

again U.S. interests in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. 

Senegal is one of our most important African partners. The transparent, free, and 

peaceful 2012 Presidential election reinforced the country’s role as a model of stable 

democracy in Africa. We share common values, including democracy, religious tolerance, and respect for ethnic and cultural diversity. President Macky Sall’s visit to 

Washington, DC, to participate in the U.S.-Africa Leaders summit last month— 

where he agreed to play a leading role to establish the Partnership on Illicit 

Finance, an anticorruption and transparency initiative—and President Obama’s 

visit to Senegal last year further underscored the importance of our bilateral relationship. If confirmed, I look forward to strengthening our shared democratic values 

and our close ties. 

Senegal is a leading U.S. development partner in West Africa, where investments 

by the United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium ChalVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00686 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
679 

lenge Corporation and other U.S. agencies are helping to build rural infrastructure, 

improve food security, and strengthen education and health care services. In addition, 220 American Peace Corps Volunteers play an important role in grassroots 

development and building people-to-people ties. To reinforce these efforts, the Government of Senegal this year unveiled an ambitious development plan, which aims 

to accelerate economic reforms, and mobilize private sector investment in order to 

boost economic growth. If confirmed, I will continue these efforts to help Senegal 

achieve inclusive economic growth, including through business climate reforms to 

facilitate private sector-led growth. Senegal is well-positioned to build on its role as 

a regional business hub, and, if confirmed, I would engage U.S. and Senegalese Government and business leaders to promote bilateral trade and investment. 

As a regional leader, Senegal has helped to resolve conflicts across the continent— 

most recently by deploying peacekeeping troops to the U.N. Mission in Mali. As a 

result of Senegal’s commitment to promoting peace and security, Senegal was 

selected as one of six countries to participate in the African Peacekeeping Rapid 

Response Partnership, a $110 million, 3–5 year initiative announced at the U.S.- 

Africa Leaders summit. Senegal also serves as an important partner for the United 

States as we work together to combat religious extremism, transnational crime, and 

infectious diseases in West Africa. If confirmed, I would work closely with the government and civil society in Senegal to sustain and build upon our regional partnership to promote democracy, economic development, and combating transnational 

threats. 

Under President Sall’s leadership, we have seen significant progress in the 

Casamance peace process—Africa’s longest running conflict. Negotiations continue 

and we hope the remaining obstacles to a long-lasting peace agreement will be 

resolved. We support the peace process through our Casamance advisor, based at 

the U.S. Embassy in Dakar. In addition, the United States Agency for International 

Development, the Department of Agriculture and the Millennium Challenge Corporation are also engaged in programs and projects which contribute to regional stability and prosperity. If confirmed, I would continue to prioritize the Casamance 

peace process in our engagement with Senegal. 

Guinea-Bissau has suffered from decades of poor governance and widespread corruption, which have weakened state institutions and rendered the government ineffective in providing basic services to its citizens. However, we are beginning to see 

progress. Guinea-Bissau held parliamentary and Presidential elections in April and 

May of this year, 2 years after a military coup. Bissau-Guineans went peacefully 

to the polls in the large numbers, highlighting their strong desire for democracy and 

responsive government. 

Following the inauguration of democratically elected President Jose Mario Vaz, 

the United States lifted coup-related restrictions on foreign assistance to GuineaBissau. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Government of GuineaBissau and our international partners to determine how best the United States can 

support democratic progress. In order for Guinea-Bissau to break its cycle of instability, its government must address reconciliation, combat trafficking of narcotics 

and natural resources, and implement multisector economic reforms, which would 

increase investment, spur sustainable development, generate employment, and 

reduce poverty. If confirmed I would continue to promote U.S interests in GuineaBissau from the U.S. Embassy in Dakar. Embassy Dakar officials, including one 

position dedicated full time to Guinea-Bissau, will continue to play an invaluable 

role by traveling frequently to Guinea-Bissau to build strong relationships with government, civil society, business, and religious leaders, to inform our policy, and to 

advance U.S. interests. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Flake, for your continuing interest in the United States relations with Africa. We are fortunate to have the strong 

bipartisan support for our efforts to promote democratic values, sustainable economic development, and vibrant partnerships through people to people ties. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working with you, your committee and other Members 

of Congress in representing the interests of the American people in Senegal and 

Guinea-Bissau. 

I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Zumwalt. 

Mr. Yamate. 

680 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. YAMATE, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MADAGASCAR, AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE UNION 

OF THE COMOROS 

Mr. YAMATE. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Flake, I am 

honored to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee 

as Ambassador to the Republic of Madagascar and the Union of the 

Comoros. If confirmed, I look forward to strengthening our relationships with the Government of Madagascar and the Government of 

the Comoros. 

Mr. Chairman, please allow me at this time to introduce to you 

my wife, Michiko, who has been my partner and confidante 

through almost 30 years of Foreign Service assignments. 

My career with the Department of State, particularly my postings in Africa, has given me the expertise and experience that will 

enable me to lead our relationships with Madagascar and the 

Comoros effectively. I particularly enjoyed my assignments in the 

region, in Dakar, Abidjan, Harare, and, most significant in today’s 

discussion, Antananarivo, where I served over 20 years ago. 

This is a critical time in our engagement with Madagascar. The 

2009 coup resulted in sanctions and restrictions during the regime 

of the de facto government. After nearly 5 years of international 

isolation, President Rajaonarimampianina’s win in the 2013 democratic elections has given us to opportunity to engage with the new 

government in support of the country’s domestic, development, security, and economic improvement. 

The new Government of Madagascar outlined in their general 

state policy its principal priorities: alleviating poverty and instability, strengthening rule of law, combating corruption, increasing 

foreign direct investment, and developing the private sector. 

Mr. Chairman, Madagascar has unique and abundant flora and 

fauna, 80 percent of which are endemic to this island nation. Madagascar is known for its rosewood as well as its diverse wildlife, including lemurs and tortoises. Due to illegal harvesting and export, 

this valuable natural heritage is under threat. With our assistance 

restrictions lifted, USAID has allocated $2.5 million in fiscal year 

2014 funds to help protect the country’s unique ecosystem, working 

toward the United States aim of conserving global biodiversity. 

In June of this year, the U.S. Government reestablished 

Madagascar’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity 

Act, creating new opportunities for employment for thousands of 

Malagasy and improving the business and investment climate. 

Strengthening the economy is crucial to Madagascar, where the latest figures for 2012 show that 81 percent of the population lives on 

less than $1.25 per day. Natural disasters, including periodic cyclones, droughts, and locust infestations have further compromised 

the living standard of the Malagasy people. USAID’s development 

assistance programs continue to play a significant role in preserving the health and welfare of millions of Malagasy. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I will also serve as Ambassador to 

the Union of the Comoros. Our aim is to expand positive relationships in these strategically located islands, which are home to moderate Sunni Muslim communities and a fledgling democratic state. 

681 

Comoros is in its second decade of democratic rule, with peaceful 

transfers of power since 2001. 

While we lack a full-time U.S. presence in the Comoros, we 

maintain a close relationship with our public affairs programming, 

mil-to-mil cooperation, and regular weekly visits by a full-time 

Comoros action officer resident in Madagascar. If confirmed, I plan 

to visit the Comoros regularly. 

Looking ahead, if confirmed I look forward to the opportunity to 

serve as Ambassador to Madagascar and the Comoros, to advance 

and strengthen our relationships with both countries in a number 

of areas, notably development, stability, and economic cooperation. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, I thank you for considering my nomination and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yamate follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. YAMATE

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee as Ambassador to 

the Republic of Madagascar and the Union of the Comoros. If confirmed, I look forward to strengthening our relationships with the Government of Madagascar and 

the Government of the Comoros. 

Mr. Chairman, please allow me at this time to introduce to you and the rest of 

the committee my wife, Michiko, who has been my partner and confidante through 

almost 30 years of Foreign Service assignments. 

My career with the Department of State, particularly my postings in Africa, has 

given me the expertise and experience that will enable me to lead our relations with 

Madagascar and the Comoros effectively. I particularly enjoyed my assignments in 

the region, in Dakar, Abidjan, Harare, and, most significant in today’s discussion, 

Antananarivo where I served over 20 years ago. 

This is a critical time in our engagement with Madagascar. The 2009 coup 

resulted in sanctions and restrictions during the regime of the de-facto government. 

After nearly 5 years of international isolation, President Rajaonarimampianina’s 

(Ra-Jo-Nar-Mam-PYANN’s) win in the 2013 democratic elections has given us the 

opportunity to engage with the new government in support of the country’s democracy, development, security, and economic improvement. 

The new Government of Madagascar outlined in the ‘‘General State Policy,’’ its 

principal priorities: alleviating poverty and instability, strengthening rule of law, 

combating corruption, increasing foreign direct investment, and developing the private sector. The U.S. goals in Madagascar align well with Madagascar’s and also 

include promoting good governance and respect for human rights. President 

Rajaonarimampianina has taken steps in the right direction. The Ministry of Justice’s recent assessment of anticorruption efforts, carried out in conjunction with the 

United Nations Development Program is one such step. Early in his Presidency, 

Rajaonarimampianina also dismantled two military units that were believed to have 

committed human rights abuses and illicit activity. If confirmed as Ambassador, I 

will work with my counterparts to increase the capacity of the Malagasy maritime 

forces and law enforcement entities. 

Mr. Chairman, Madagascar has unique and abundant flora and fauna, 80 percent 

of which are endemic to this island nation. Madagascar is known for its rosewood, 

as well as its diverse wildlife, including lemurs and tortoises. Due to illegal harvesting and export, this valuable natural heritage is under threat. With our assistance restrictions lifted, USAID has allocated $2.5 million in FY 2014 funds to help 

protect the country’s unique ecosystem, working toward the U.S. aim of conserving 

global biodiversity. 

The U.S. Embassy in Antananarivo is committed to supporting the National 

Export Initiative in Madagascar, increasing exports from America. The best prospects for exports and investment lie in the extractive, construction, tourism, and 

textile sectors. In June of this year, the U.S. Government reestablished 

Madagascar’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), creating new opportunities for employment for thousands of Malagasy, and improving 

the business and investment climate. 

682 

Strengthening the economy is crucial in Madagascar, where the latest figures 

from 2012 show that 81 percent of the population lives on less than $1.25 per day. 

Natural disasters—including periodic cyclones, drought, and locust infestation— 

have further compromised the living standard of the Malagasy people. USAID’s 

development assistance programs continue to play a significant role in preserving 

the health and welfare of millions of Malagasy. In FY 2014, we intend to provide 

$63 million for food aid and health programs. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will also serve as Ambassador to the Union of the 

Comoros. Our aim is to expand positive relationships in these strategically located 

islands, which are home to moderate Sunni Muslim communities and a fledgling 

democratic state. From the time Comoros gained independence from France in 1975 

until 2000, Comoros suffered 20 coups or attempted coups. Today, I am happy to 

note, Comoros is in its second decade of democratic rule, with peaceful transfers of 

power since 2001. President Dhoinine (dwah-hee-NEE-nee) came into power in 2011, 

and welcomes increased U.S. Government engagement with Comoros to improve the 

capacity of government operations, provide English language instruction, encourage 

U.S. direct investment, and enhance security cooperation. While we lack a full-time 

U.S. presence in the Comoros, we maintain a close relationship with our public 

affairs programming, mil-to-mil cooperation, and regular weekly visits by a full-time 

Comoros officer resident in Madagascar. If confirmed, I plan to visit the Comoros 

regularly. In addition, the Department of Defense supports an English-language 

military training facility and medical clinic. 

Looking ahead, if confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to serve as Ambassador to Madagascar and the Comoros, to advance and strengthen our relationships 

with both countries in a number of areas, notably development, stability, and economic cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for considering 

my nomination, and look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Yamate. 

Ms. Palmer. 

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA E. PALMER, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MALAWI 

Ms. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake. 

It is a very great honor and privilege to appear before you as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Malawi. I appreciate the confidence that the President 

and Secretary Kerry have expressed in me by putting my name forward for your consideration. 

I am also truly grateful for the support of my husband and fellow 

Foreign Service officer, Ismail Asmal, who is here with me today, 

my daughters, Aliya and Nadia Asmal, who have served for five 

tours overseas with us—Nadia is here today and her sister is 

watching online from California—and my parents, Richard and 

Becky Palmer, who first exposed me to the international world and 

allowed me to take those grandbabies far away. My mother is here 

today. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and 

Congress to promote U.S. interests in Malawi, including strengthening Malawi’s democratic institutions, encouraging economic 

growth, and improving health and education there. In many jobs 

since joining the Foreign Service in 1986, but particularly in overseas assignments as DCM in South Africa and Vietnam, as economic counselor in Nairobi, and political chief in Harare, I worked 

to promote good governance and private sector-led economic 

growth. If confirmed, this is the experience I will draw on to lead 

the terrific team that we have at the Embassy in Malawi to advance U.S. interests there. 

Over the last 20 years, Malawi has had multiple democratic 

transfers of power from one political party to another. When former 

683 

President Bingu wa Mutharika died unexpectedly in 2012, principled leaders demanded and achieved a constitutionally correct 

handover of power, a triumph for Malawi. Malawi’s 2014 elections 

marked another democratic milestone for Africa. The election of 

President Peter Mutharika was unambiguous and power again 

passed peacefully from one party to another. 

If confirmed, I will work to further develop democratic institutions in Malawi. I look forward to supporting priorities shared by 

the United States and Malawi of improving Malawi’s public financial management, modernizing the civil service to increase government accountability, and ending corruption. 

Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world, with per capita GDP of only $226. Over 45 percent of Malawians are under the 

age of 15, presenting daunting economic and educational challenges 

as Malawi strives to meet the Millennium Development Goals. If 

confirmed, I will support U.S. Government efforts to encourage private sector-driven sustainable economic growth to help alleviate 

this crushing poverty. 

A member of the New Alliance for Food Security, Malawi has 

committed to improving its investment climate and to expanding 

its markets. Our Feed the Future program, which focuses on crop 

diversification and enhanced trade, is directly supportive of the 

new alliance and will make Malawi more food secure. Our $350 

million Millennium Challenge Corporation compact, which will help 

with infrastructure improvements and power sector reforms, will 

expand access to much-needed electricity and encourage private 

sector investment. 

Our broad economic engagement in Malawi is complemented by 

our strong commitment to health and education assistance, vital to 

helping Malawi’s human capital. The United States is the largest 

bilateral donor to the Malawi health system, with a 2014 budget 

of $155 million. If confirmed, I will work to maximize the effectiveness of our PEPFAR and other health care programs in Malawi. 

Improvements in Malawi’s education system are likewise essential if Malawi is to achieve its full potential. If confirmed, I will be 

proud to lead the United States efforts to bolster the quality of primary education, a $20 million annual investment to promote literacy and encourage children, particularly girls, to stay in school. 

Finally, our security cooperation with Malawi is outstanding. In 

recent years, the United States has trained six battalions of 

Malawian peacekeepers who have been deployed in the DRC and 

in the Cote d’Ivoire. In 2013 and 2014, Malawi hosted the largest 

counterterrorism exercise on the African Continent and a regional 

peacekeeping exercise, both sponsored by the U.S. Africa Command. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our strong security cooperation to advance our shared objective of peace and stability in Africa. 

Despite its challenges, Malawi holds great promise and is a 

strong partner of the United States. If confirmed, I look forward to 

continuing the momentum of the U.S.-Africa Leaders summit and 

to working with the Government of Malawi and its people on our 

shared goals of a healthier, more prosperous Malawi with an even 

stronger partnership with the United States. 

684 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and I 

would be happy to take any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Palmer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA E. PALMER

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake and members of the committee, it is a 

great honor and privilege to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee 

to serve as United States Ambassador to the Republic of Malawi. I appreciate the 

confidence the President and Secretary Kerry have placed in me by putting my 

name forward for your consideration. I am also deeply grateful for the support of 

my husband and fellow Foreign Service officer, Ismail Asmal, my daughters, Aliya 

and Nadia Asmal, and my parents, Richard and Becky Palmer. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and Congress to 

advance U.S. interests in Malawi, including strengthening its democratic institutions, encouraging economic diversification, and building its health and education 

capacities. 

I most recently served as Deputy Chief of Mission to the Republic of South Africa. 

There, I helped manage one of the largest U.S. missions in Africa. Since joining the 

Foreign Service in 1986, I have served as the Department’s Director for Economic 

Policy in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, as the Economic Counselor 

at Embassy Nairobi, and as a political officer at Embassy Harare—positions in 

which I promoted democracy and encouraged economic growth and better governance. If I am confirmed, I will draw on these experiences to lead our team in 

advancing U.S. interests in Malawi. 

During its first three decades as an independent country, Malawi was a one-party 

state. Since 1994, when the people of Malawi voted in their first democratic, free, 

and fair elections, Malawi has undergone peaceful transfers of power among political parties. When former President Bingu wa Mutharika died unexpectedly in 2012, 

principled leaders demanded and achieved a constitutionally correct succession— 

a triumph for Malawi. Malawi’s 2014 elections marked another democratic milestone for Africa. In the election of President Peter Mutharika, power again peacefully and democratically passed from one party to another. Despite these successes, 

there still is work to be done. If confirmed, I will work to further develop democratic 

processes and strong governing institutions in Malawi. I look forward to supporting 

priorities shared by the United States and Malawi of improved public financial management, civil service modernization, reduced corruption, and increased government 

transparency and accountability. 

A major U.S. Government priority in this nation of 16 million persons, with a per 

capita GDP of only $226 dollars, is to encourage private-sector driven, sustainable 

economic growth. As a member of the New Alliance for Food Security, Malawi has 

committed to improving its investment climate and to expanding its markets. Our 

Feed the Future program, which focuses on crop and nutritional diversification, 

value addition, and enhanced trade, is directly supportive of the New Alliance, and 

strengthens Malawi’s resilience and food security. Our $350.7 million Millennium 

Challenge Account Compact will expand access to electricity and encourage private 

sector investments through infrastructure rehabilitation and energy sector reforms. 

If confirmed, I look forward to advancing this objective. 

Our broad economic engagement in Malawi is complemented by our strong commitment to health and education assistance, vital to building Malawi’s human 

capacity. Nearly 60 percent ($153 million) of the United States $257 million in assistance to Malawi in FY 2013 went to combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases. If confirmed, a priority for me will be to maximize the effectiveness of the President’s 

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program (PEPFAR) in Malawi. Malawi can only 

achieve its full potential if it enjoys improved basic education. If confirmed, I will 

be proud to lead the United States support to bolster the quality of primary education—a $20 million annual investment—to promote literacy and encourage children, and particularly girls, to stay in school. 

Malawi maintains outstanding security cooperation with the United States. 

Malawi has been a peacekeeping partner in the State Department’s Africa Contingency Operations and Training Assistance (ACOTA) program since 1998. Four battalions of ACOTA-trained Malawian peacekeepers deployed to Cote d’Ivoire in 2012 

and 2013 and two battalions deployed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 

2013 and 2014. In 2013, Malawi hosted Epic Guardian, the largest counterterrorism 

exercise on the African Continent, with 1,000 U.S. and Malawian military, police, 

and civilians. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our strong security cooperaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00692 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
685 

tion and assistance, to advance our shared objective of supporting peace, stability, 

and respect for human rights in Africa. 

Malawi faces significant challenges. Over 45 percent of Malawi’s population is 

under the age of 15, presenting daunting economic and educational challenges for 

the Malawi Government, as it strives to achieve the Millennium Development Goals 

(MDGs). In addition, Malawi has a nearly 11 percent adult HIV prevalence rate and 

a very high degree of risk for major infectious diseases. U.S. partnership is integral 

to combating these problems so Malawi can keep moving toward achievement of the 

MDGs. 

Despite these challenges, Malawi holds great promise. Malawi is a strong partner 

of the United States. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing the momentum of 

the U.S.-Africa Leaders summit, advancing youth leadership in programs such as 

the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders, and working with 

the Government of Malawi and its people on our shared goals of a healthier, better 

educated, more prosperous citizenry that embraces democratic values. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. 

Rabbi Saperstein. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI DAVID NATHAN SAPERSTEIN, OF THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR 

AT LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Flake, I 

thank you also for this hearing to consider my nomination as the 

Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. I am 

honored to appear before you, just as I am honored by the confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. 

First, if you will allow me, I would like to pause and remember 

for a moment those we lost 13 years ago on this date. We honor 

all the survivors of those tragic events. We stand with the families 

and loved ones of those who perished. As we say in the Jewish tradition, [zichronom livracha], ‘‘May their memories ever be for a 

blessing.’’ 

I want to acknowledge today and introduce the presence of my 

wife, Ellen Weiss, a distinguished journalist; one of my sons, Daniel, a wonderful musician and ceramist. Another son, Ari, is watching online from California, himself a writer and painter. My remarkable colleagues are here from the Religious Action Center of 

Reformed Judaism, and the superb and dedicated staff of the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department, and an 

array of religious leaders from varied faith traditions and political 

persuasions, who have long been my partners in our work for justice and religious freedom. 

Like most Jews, I know all too well that over the centuries the 

Jewish people have been the quintessential victims of religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, and demonization. We have learned all 

too painfully the cost, the terrible cost, when good people remain 

silent in the face of religious oppression. 

This is just one key reason why I cannot remain silent today, 

when we see the historic Christian, Yazidi, and other communities 

in Iraq and Syria being devastated; when we see Baha’is in Iran, 

Tibetan Buddhists in China; Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Bahrain; Rohingya Muslims in Burma; all victims of either governmental or societal discrimination, harassment, persecution, or physical attacks. And even in Western Europe we are witnessing an alarming resurgence in anti-Semitic discourse and vioVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00693 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
686 

lence against Jewish communities. Sadly, this list is far from exhaustive. 

Religious freedom faces daunting and alarming challenges worldwide. Recently we have all witnessed the nightmare unfold of tragic violent attacks by ISIL against Yezidis, Christians, Alawites, 

Shabak, Turkmen, Shia, and others, including members of their 

own sect, Sunni Muslims, in parts of Iraq and Syria. Using claims 

of religion to justify their abhorrent behavior, we see ISIL terrorize 

vulnerable groups based on religious and ethnic identity with death 

by beheading, crucifixion, stonings, ethnic cleansing, desecration 

and destruction of religious properties, forced conversions, forced 

marriages, rape. It is a symptom of a worldwide challenge. 

Our goal must be to ensure the internationally recognized right 

of religious freedom for everyone. It is an urgent task and the 

needs are great. Toward that end, if confirmed I will do everything 

within my abilities and influence to engage every segment of the 

State Department and the rest of the U.S. Government to integrate 

religious freedom into our Nation’s statecraft and foreign policies. 

Counterterrorism, conflict stability efforts, economic development, 

human rights—all these foreign policy goals and more require the 

stability, security, and contributions of members of religious majorities and religious minorities in countries across the globe if we 

are to further and achieve our Nation’s values, interests, and agenda. 

If confirmed, I pledge to ensure the integrity of the annual International Religious Freedom Report. I expect to regularize annual 

review of country designations for Countries of Particular Concern, 

which I believe are key instruments in motivating progress on religious freedom. And if confirmed I commit to continue the close 

working relationship that I had when I chaired the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), with USCIRF 

and the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Office and to consult closely and fully with Congress, for I know full well that we 

do the best work when the legislative and executive branches are 

reinforcing each other’s respective efforts. 

In sum, religious freedom was essential in the founding of America. Our magnificent Bill of Rights began with religious freedom, 

knowing without it all freedoms were imperiled. So to the religiously oppressed in every land who live in fear, afraid to speak of 

what they believe in, who worship in underground churches, 

mosques, or temples lest authorities discover and punish them for 

devotion to an authority beyond the state, who languish in prisons, 

bodies broken, spirits too often disfigured, simply because they love 

God in their own way or question the existence of God, who feel 

so desperate that they feel forced to flee their homes to avoid killing and persecution because of their faith, to all of them together, 

the State Department, the Congress, you and I, if you confirm me, 

can be a beacon of light and hope. I pray that contributing to that 

dream will be my legacy if you confirm me. 

Thank you again for your consideration. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Rabbi Saperstein follows:] 

687 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RABBI DAVID NATHAN SAPERSTEIN

Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee, thank 

you for this hearing to consider my nomination as Ambassador At Large for International Religious Freedom. I am honored by this opportunity to appear before you, 

as I am honored by the confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry have 

placed in me to serve our Nation in advancing the right to freedom of religion 

around the world. 

First, I want to pause and remember those we lost on September 11, 13 years 

ago. On this day, we stand with their families and loved ones, and honor all survivors of those tragic events. As we say in the Jewish tradition: ‘‘zichronom 

livracha—may their memories ever be for a blessing.’’ 

I want to acknowledge the presence today of my wife, Ellen Weiss, a distinguished 

journalist, and my son, Daniel; my remarkable colleagues from the Religious Action 

Center of Reform Judaism; and an array of religious leaders from varied faith traditions and political persuasions who have been my partners in the vital work we 

have done to help ensure that religious freedom and our shared values of human 

dignity, justice and peace flourish more fully in our nation and around the world. 

Indeed, it has been one of the great opportunities of my life to have had the opportunity to play a leadership role in interfaith coalitions that span many, diverse faith 

groups around the world, and faith groups in the United States with a broad range 

of theological views. To current events, efforts to isolate extremist groups willing to 

use force to impose their views on others must include, among other things, empowering and strengthening civil society actors (including religious communities) that 

subscribe to the rule of law, freedom of religion, and principles of religious tolerance 

and coexistence. I hope I can draw on those long relations and experiences in this 

urgent task. 

I want to express, as well, my abiding appreciation to the members of this committee, and to the Congress, for consistently elevating international religious freedom issues and concerns. Enacting the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) 

sent a clear and strong signal that the universal right of religious freedom would 

be a priority in U.S. foreign policy. I was honored to have worked closely with key 

Senators and other Members of Congress of both parties in the shaping of that legislation as part of the broad coalition of religious organizations and denominations 

who so staunchly supported the passage of IRFA. 

During my career, my mandate has covered a wide range of issues. I believe that 

the ability to see the interconnected relationship of varied issues will be an asset 

for the work of the International Religious Freedom office. But there are few issues 

that have been as central to my career as that of religious freedom, and with it the 

universal freedoms of thought, conscience, and belief—including freedom to change 

one’s religion or beliefs, and to manifest one’s beliefs not only through worship but 

through teaching, preaching, practice, and observance—as well as the right to hold 

no religious beliefs. 

I started young in my exposure to these issues in that my father, a beloved congregational rabbi for 60 years and my mother, herself active in varied social justice 

causes, managed to travel to some 80 nations, sometimes bringing my brother and 

myself, visiting Jewish communities and engaging with other religious leaders wherever they could. Both spoke widely to community forums on issues of Jewish and 

religious life across the globe. They were outspoken advocates for Soviet Jewry long 

before it became the norm. My older brother, Marc Saperstein, a leading Jewish historian, has written extensively on the history of Jewish-Christian relations. 

Like most Jews, I know all too well that, over the centuries, the Jewish people 

have been a quintessential victim of religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, and 

demonization. We have learned, first hand, the costs to the universal rights, security 

and well-being of religious communities when good people remain silent in the face 

of such persecution. 

This is just one key reason why I cannot remain silent today, when we see historic Christian, Yezidi, and other communities in Iraq and Syria being devastated; 

when we see Bahais in Iran; Tibetan Buddhists in China; Shia Muslims in Saudi 

Arabia, Pakistan, and Bahrain; Rohingya Muslims in Burma—all victims of governmental or societal discrimination, harassment, persecution or physical attacks. And 

even in Western Europe we are witnessing a steady increase in anti-Semitic discourse and violence against Jewish communities. Sadly, this list is far from exhaustive but shows the broad range of very serious threats to religious freedom and religious communities in nearly every corner of the globe. 

It was these passions that led, 16 years ago, to my engagement with passage of 

IRFA. And, I suspect, my track-record of engagement with religious freedom issues 

led in 1999, to the honor of being appointed to the first USCIRF—and the subseVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00695 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
688 

quent honor of being chosen unanimously by my colleagues to serve as its first 

Chair. 

This nomination comes at a time when forces aligned against religious freedom 

have grown quite strong. Encouragingly, in many countries, such freedoms flourish. 

Yet in even more, religious freedom faces daunting and alarming challenges. Seventy-five percent of the world’s population lives in countries where religious freedom 

remains seriously limited, and many religious minorities face persecution, intimidation and harassment. 

Recently, we have all seen the tragic violent attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq 

and the Levant (ISIL) against Yezidis, Christians, Alawites, Shabak, Turkmen Shia, 

Sunnis, and others, in parts of Iraq and Syria. ISIL, and groups like it, use violence 

to impose their views on others who do not share them, and use the claims of religion to justify their abhorrent behavior as they target vulnerable groups based on 

religious and ethnic identity. They terrorize their neighbors and offer nothing but 

death, forced conversions, forced marriages and rape. ISIL’s attacks illustrate, in 

real time, just how vulnerable religious minorities can be to violence, displacement, 

marginalization, gender based violence, and property destruction. This, Mr. Chairman, to say nothing of the unspeakable atrocities they have committed against 

members of their own sect, Sunni Muslims, who make up the majority of the Syrian 

population. We have witnessed ISIL crucify members of their own Sunni sect in 

public squares in Raqqa and stone to death Sunni women accused of adultery, 

proudly tweeting and posting these horrific acts on YouTube and other social media. 

Indeed, ISIL’s brutality spares no one. 

Our goal should be to ensure the internationally recognized right to religious freedom for everyone. It is an urgent task, and the needs are great. With President 

Obama, Secretary Kerry, Under Secretary Sarah Sewall, and Assistant Secretary for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Tom Malinowski, we have gifted leadership 

deeply committed to this agenda. I am well aware that the strong leadership of an 

Ambassador at Large is more important now than ever, and we should participate 

in this important work both because it is the right course of action, and because 

it is in our national interest. Toward that end: 

• If confirmed, I commit to using this position fervently (and fiercely) to advocate 

for the rights of individuals to choose, change, and practice their faith safely, 

to end blasphemy and apostasy laws, and without government interference or 

the threat of violence or marginalization, to ensure that people are free and safe 

to assemble, worship, teach, learn, and share their faith with others. 

• If confirmed, I will seek to engage every segment of the State Department and 

the rest of the U.S. Government, to integrate religious freedom into our Nation’s 

statecraft: counterterrorism, conflict stability efforts, economic development, 

human rights—all these foreign policy goals need the stability, the security, the 

contributions of members of religious majorities and religious minorities, in 

every country, to further our Nation’s values, interests, and agenda. 

• If confirmed, I pledge to ensure the integrity of the annual International Religious Freedom Report. I expect to regularize annual reviews of country designations for Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs) to ensure timely and appropriate designation of CPCs and Presidential Actions, which I believe are key 

instruments in motivating progress on religious freedom. 

• If confirmed, I will do everything within my abilities and influence to continue 

the close working relationship with USCIRF and consult closely with the Congress. I know full well from my tenure on USCIRF that we do the best work 

when the legislative and administrative branches are reinforcing our respective 

efforts. 

• If confirmed, I pledge to elevate the focus on religious freedom in regional and 

multilateral organizations, and within the international community at large. 

And if confirmed, I will work closely with all faith groups domestically and 

abroad, and expand efforts to coordinate with outside stakeholders and civil society 

groups in order to pursue our religious freedom goals abroad. To this end, I will 

work closely with my long-time friend, Shaun Casey, a brilliant and talented leader, 

appointed by Secretary Kerry to enhance the Department’s engagement with religious leaders in the United States and across the globe. 

In sum, religious freedom was essential in the founding of America, and the 

American people continue to value the freedoms of religion, thought, conscience, 

belief, expression, and association. We began our magnificent Bill of Rights with a 

commitment to religious freedom, knowing that without it, all other freedoms were 

imperiled. And so too today. 

I am dedicated to advancing those freedoms, and hope to be able to do so from 

the position of Ambassador At Large for International Religious Freedom. 

689 

Allow me to conclude with a personal story. In 1939, my father traveled throughout Palestine and Central Europe on the eve of the Second World War. He was one 

of the last to see the glory of European Jewry in full bloom before the nightmare 

of Nazism enveloped and destroyed it. He visited Danzig, now Gdansk, just days 

after the Nazis had been elected in the May elections. He went with enthusiasm 

to see the magnificent historic main synagogue of this vibrant Jewish community. 

To his utter dismay; it lay in ruins, only the portal over what had been the beautiful 

entrance front doors was still intact. On the front lawn, there was a sign that had 

been erected during the election campaign by the Nazis which said ‘‘Komm lieber 

Mai und mache von Juden uns jetzt frei—come dear month of May and free us from 

the Jews.’’ With tears welling up in his eyes and a chilling sense of the impending 

disaster symbolized by this scene, his glance gazed upward and then he saw the 

words—the ancient vision of Malachi, still inscribed over the remaining doorway: 

‘‘Halo Av echad l’chulanu; halo eyl echad b’ra’anu:have we all not one Father? Has 

not one God not created us?’’ (Mal. 2:10). Two visions: one of hatred and tyranny, 

the other of brotherhood and sisterhood, of unity and peace; one of oppression, the 

other of freedom; one of darkness and despair, the other of light and hope. This is 

the choice we face today with a sense of great urgency. 

To the religiously oppressed in every land who live in fear, afraid to speak of what 

they believe in; who worship in underground churches, mosques or temples—lest 

authorities discover and punish their devotion to an authority beyond the state; who 

languish in prisons, bodies broken, spirits too often disfigured—simply because they 

love God in their own way or question the existence of God; who feel so desperate 

that they flee their homes to avoid killing and persecution because of their faith— 

to all of them, together, you and I, the State Department and the Congress, can be 

a beacon of light and hope. Should you confirm me, I pray that contributing to fulfilling that dream will be my legacy. 

Thank you again for your consideration and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Rabbi. 

We will now go to questions in 7-minute rounds. If I might, Mr. 

Zumwalt, first just speak, if you would, for a few minutes about 

how we could continue to strengthen and broaden our security cooperation with Senegal; and if you would talk as well to how we 

might make progress in combating narcotrafficking in GuineaBissau? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Thank you. We have a very strong relationship 

with the Senegalese military. As you know, Senegal is a net provider of security and today they are participating in peacekeeping 

operations throughout Africa. So some of our engagement is involved in trying to strengthen their capabilities to provide that 

peacekeeping. 

But we also, the Senegalese military and we, have other areas 

of cooperation—border security and the increasing capability to 

combat the narcotrafficking and the smuggling that you mentioned. 

Also, maritime security is important. Senegal has an important 

fishing industry and they need ought protect their resources. 

For Guinea-Bissau, you are very correct to identify narcotrafficking as one of the key issues. The challenge really is narcotraffickers look for the weak link, the country with weak judicial systems and not having the rule of law. So I think since we now have 

had a democratic transition, one of the things we need to do is to 

look how can we strengthen the judicial system, the law enforcement capabilities, also to talk frankly about corruption and issues 

there to see if we can reduce the attractiveness of that country to 

narcotraffickers. 

Senator COONS. Mr. Yamate and Ms. Palmer, both the countries 

to which we hope you will be confirmed, Madagascar and Malawi, 

are AGOA eligible, but have not really fully taken advantage of 

690 

AGOA. Would each of you in turn speak to how you might work 

to strengthen the opportunities they might have, given the significant challenges of poverty and underdevelopment in Madagascar 

and in Malawi. 

Mr. Yamate. 

Mr. YAMATE. Thank you. Madagascar has just recently become 

AGOA eligible, after 5 years of being ineligible following the coup 

of 2009. Prior to 2009, Madagascar utilized AGOA basically to their 

fullest within the textile industry. Forty-five percent of their exports for Madagascar was through AGOA in the textile area. Now, 

currently it is down to just over 20 percent. 

Madagascar, the Government of Madagascar and President 

Rajaonarimampianina is very, very thankful for reestablishing 

AGOA benefits. There is still some work to be done in getting that 

process utilized. But there are approximately 50,000 individuals 

who lost jobs because of the loss of AGOA. This is an absolute positive again for AGOA and for AGOA eligibility, and Madagascar is 

very much going to benefit from it. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Ms. Palmer. 

Ms. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About 90 percent of 

Malawi’s exports to the United States enter duty-free under AGOA, 

GSP, or MFN. I think the basic problem is that Malawi is not exporting very much, and U.S. Government efforts will be, or are centered on, improving their economic standard. 

We need to focus on agriculture. Eighty percent of the Malawians 

are working in the agricultural field. So we need to help them with 

crop diversification, with value addition, and with trade facilitation 

so that they can trade with their neighbors better and produce better for export to us. 

They also need to address governance challenges that I mentioned briefly, and the President has been very committed to tackling corruption. We will also be helpful with the MCC account in 

helping them to have better power, which will help manufacturing 

in general and commercial agriculture in Malawi. 

Senator COONS. What is the status of the MCC compact, which 

was recently restored? What do you see as the opportunities for its 

full restoration and progress? 

Ms. PALMER. Actually, progress has been good in the year since 

it was begun again. They are doing the initial sort of survey work 

and contract-letting and they are talking to the power utility, 

ESCOM, about power sector reforms that are required. They have 

had structural engineers look at the major hydrodam to see what 

kind of infrastructure improvements need to be made, and they 

have conducted a survey to improve the transmission lines. 

I think that the MCC is going to be vital to getting Malawi the 

electricity it needs. Only 7 percent of Malawians have access to 

electricity and they cannot have the economic growth that we need 

without having it. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Rabbi Saperstein, thank you for your stirring opening statement 

and for your passionate commitment to religious freedom. Like you, 

I am deeply troubled by the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and 

691 

globally and by the sweep of oppressions that you cited in your 

opening statement. 

Please tell me, if confirmed, what role would you play, first in 

partnership with the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat 

Anti-Semitism? Then second, what do you consider your priority actions, in addition to this, to take on all the different challenges you 

spoke about, from ISIS’s barbaric actions against Christians and 

Yazidis to oppression of Muslims in Burma? Last, to that end, do 

you have the resources you need? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Senator Kaine, it is good to see you, sir. 

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism that 

exists in the State Department work in a fully integrated manner 

within the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 

(DRL), and particularly with the International Religious Freedom 

Office. Special Envoy Ira Forman has done a superb job on this, 

traveling tirelessly, visited 17 countries. 

Just last week I attended a gathering he had of the key people 

throughout the State Department who work on this issue and the 

prominent leaders of the American Jewish community and the European Jewish community. It was a very productive meeting, mapping out the problems in more detail and what strategies would be 

most effective to respond to them. 

So we would work very closely. It is a joint responsibility between the Religious Freedom Office and the Special Envoy’s office 

to address this issue, and if confirmed I would be working with 

someone who is a personal friend that I have worked with for 

many, many years. Together, I think we reinforce each other. I 

think that is true of all the special envoys. 

In terms of the enormity of the problems we face, there are certain urgent priorities simply by the facts on the ground, what is 

happening in the CAR, what is happening in the Near East region, 

and particularly in Iraq. I am prepared to travel anywhere that I 

can be of help to an already superb staff in the International Religious Freedom Office that is fully engaged. It was their relationships with many of these religious minorities in Iraq that provided 

invaluable information that helped guide the response of our armed 

forces and our diplomatic forces in addressing the rise of ISIL, the 

plight of the Yezidis, and the challenge to the Christian communities there. 

We have the situation in Pakistan and other countries across the 

globe which are urgent challenges. I am really prepared to work as 

tirelessly as I can to focus on where I think we can make a real 

difference, or where the urgency of the moment requires a response. We cannot do everything, but if there are countries we can 

actually move to improve the situation that is where I want to 

focus my efforts. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Rabbi. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

I appreciate the answers so far. Mr. Zumwalt, when we talked 

in my office we talked about the trouble with Ebola a few countries 

away, but in the region, and Senegal’s response not to have flights 

go, for example, to Liberia and how that kind of imperils our ability 

to get people there when flights do not fly, in terms of international 

692 

aid workers and others. What can we do to help them address the 

concerns that they have, the security concerns and health concerns, 

but also help out the international community here? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Thank you very much for that question. Ebola is 

a very serious problem that requires a sustained, coordinated U.S. 

Government effort to help countries who are affected by Ebola to 

deal with the issue. I think from the perspective of the Embassy 

in Dakar, if I were confirmed I would have four priorities for dealing with Ebola. The first would be to make sure that the United 

States Government were approaching the problem in Senegal with 

a whole-of-government response. We have many talented, good people from CDC, Department of Defense, AID, and other places who 

each are doing good work, but we have to make sure we are presenting a very coherent approach toward the government. 

The second priority would be coordinating with other donors to 

make sure that we are not leaving gaps or overlapping or overwhelming the host government with requests for information. So 

the donors would need to work together, and it is ideally suited in 

Dakar to do that because all the donors are present there. 

Third would be the relations with Senegal, and really we would 

have three aspects to that. One is assessing the situation and making sure that policymakers back in Washington understood the situation on the ground. Senegal, as you know, has had one Ebola 

case they are working hard to prevent others from occurring. 

But the second is to understand the government and what it is 

trying to do. You mentioned the reaction the Senegal Government 

had is to close off flights, which we do not think is the right action. 

But we need to understand why they are taking this action and 

help them deal with the concerns they have about the public health 

situation in Senegal. 

Then finally, the last priority in our communications would be influencing Senegal’s actions. I think you have laid out one important 

area where perhaps we would prefer a different approach, and so 

we need to engage and talk to the government. 

Then finally, the fourth priority as a mission I would have is the 

safety, welfare, and security of American citizens. We have about 

6,000 Americans living in Senegal. Many of them are in remote 

places. So if I were at the mission I would want to make sure that 

American citizens had the information they needed to make the 

right kind of decisions to protect their own health and welfare of 

themselves and their families. 

Thank you. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Yamate, you mentioned the unique flora and fauna that 

Madagascar has. It is certainly envied by a lot of places. We have 

committed, you mentioned, $2.5 million, USAID, to help them conserve and protect their ecosystem. How can we leverage that? That 

is not a lot, but can we leverage that with other partners and with 

the host government to help out? 

Mr. YAMATE. Absolutely, sir. Leverage is necessary and we need 

collaboration, cooperation with all the different sectors, nongovernment organizations, the government itself, and all members of society, to work in preserving this ecosystem which exists nowhere else 

in the world. 

693 

Senator FLAKE. Do you think the government values that sufficiently now? 

Mr. YAMATE. Yes, they do. In their general state policy that they 

have just brought about about a month and a half ago, this is one 

of their main priorities, is preservation of the environment, which 

includes flora, fauna, animal life, rosewood. Rosewood logging, illegal logging, is ongoing. There is very strong ongoing effort by the 

government of President Rajaonarimampianina to try and offset 

the rosewood logging. My understanding is that most recently within the last week there have been individuals at the highest level 

that have been identified and we are hopeful of arrests in the near 

future. 

But again, this is a concerted effort led by the Government of 

Madagascar, but also with the assistance and with the acknowledgment of the international community. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Last, and my confirmation for you 

hinges on this, can you spell the President’s name? [Laughter.] 

Mr. YAMATE. I will have to get back to you about that. [Laughter.] 

Senator FLAKE. It is only 19 letters. Come on. 

Ms. Palmer, you mentioned education and 45 percent of the population under the age of 15. That is something important, and particularly for young girls. What percentage of young girls make it 

through the primary education system there? 

Ms. PALMER. Just over 50 percent, I believe, sir. And even fewer 

then complete high school. Apparently, a Malawian girl has a 50 

times higher chance of being married in her late teens than she 

does of going to university. 

Senator FLAKE. Do we have programs to help? Do we think that 

we can push that number higher? 

Ms. PALMER. Absolutely, sir. We are working primarily on teacher preservice and in-service training and providing textbooks and 

then doing work with communities to encourage the cultural values 

necessary to keep girls in school. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Saperstein, I just wish you were a little more passionate 

about the issue that you are facing here. [Laughter.] 

I am completely kidding, for anybody who did not get that. But 

we had a great discussion in my office and here again it is evident 

that you care very much about the topic. We spoke at length in my 

office about the challenges you face, particularly with countries 

that we have other relationships with, and it is difficult to pressure 

them on these particular issues, but to find ways, and I think you 

have identified some ways, that we can elevate these religious freedom issues into the other discussions that we have. So I look forward to supporting your nomination. In the interest of time, I will 

not ask you to go into any of those. I know that you have thought 

deeply and have worked a lifetime on this. 

I appreciate all of you have devoted your careers to representing 

the United States around the world and I really appreciate what 

you are doing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

Senator Kaine. 

694 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Chairman Coons. 

Thank you to the witnesses. Congratulations on your nominations and thank you for your service. I visited last week American 

consuls and Embassies in North Africa and Spain, and I always try 

to meet with first-term FSO’s when I do. I am always just struck 

by we have some great capital ‘‘A’’ Ambassadors; we also have some 

spectacular small ‘‘a’’ ambassadors all over the world. You are 

lucky to be working with such a good organization and we are 

lucky to have you serving in this way that involves some significant personal sacrifice. 

I am going to focus my questions on Rabbi Saperstein. Let me 

start off by putting a lot of pressure on you. I heard the historian 

Gary Wills speak once and he said that every great idea in the 

American Constitution had been in some other constitution and we 

were just good scavengers of picking really good ideas and putting 

them together, save one. And the one that was really uniquely 

American was the protection of free religious exercise, and also the 

absence of an established religion, that all could worship as they 

please or not and there would not be any punishment or preference 

because of how you made that choice. 

That was a conceptual idea that could have led to a society indifferent to religion. Instead, it has led to a society that is very spiritual in nature. Look at this accident of who you have up on the 

stage here, the dias: Senator Coons worked with the Council of 

Churches in South Africa; Senator Flake did missionary service 

with the Mormon Church in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia; 

I worked with Jesuit missionaries in Honduras. 

We have a society that tolerates free exercise, but it does not 

lead to an indifference. It leads to a real flourishing of spirituality 

and religious organizations. It has had to mature. The Mormons 

were subject to significant prejudice. Catholics have been at times. 

So it has not all been smooth, and it is not smooth today. 

The United States still has such a leadership role to play in the 

world. In the 20th century it was our industrial might and military 

might in World War I and World War II that played such an important role in our global leadership. In the 21st century we still 

have a leadership role to play, an important one, and one of the 

important, maybe one of the most important, things we can do is 

be a beacon or example to nations of a place that tolerates a diversity of religious feeling and opinion and has had a flourishing culture where we live and work and go to school with people of different religious backgrounds and we make it work. 

As we see these challenges that you alluded to in your testimony 

in any part of the world, we just have such a leadership role to 

offer. I think your position as Ambassador for this first freedom, we 

call it in Virginia—it was put in the First Amendment for a reason 

when Madison was drafting the Constitution. We can hold ourselves out as an example of hope where people of different backgrounds can live together productively and happily. 

I really was excited that you as the first chair of the U.S. Commission in International Religious Freedom have taken this post, 

because you have this in your DNA and your bloodstream. I really 

just want to encourage you. We should raise the profile of religious 

freedom issues and raise our, in a humble way, our example of a 

695 

society that gets it right more often than not on this. We should 

raise this across the board in everything we do, in foreign policy 

and structurally throughout the Department of State. And you 

have the profile to do that. 

We talked yesterday in my office and one of the things I did not 

know and I was interested in was your discussion of how the Department of State’s report to Congress on international freedom is 

now not just used by the United States, but other nations who do 

not have the ability to do their own are actually using that report 

in positive ways. Could you talk a little bit about that? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Well, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution 

had the revolutionary idea that our rights would not depend upon 

our religious identity, our religious practices, or our religious beliefs, and that our rights came from within and were not just 

granted by the state. This is an idea that has helped reshape the 

world. Slowly, steadily, though it has ebbed and flowed, we are 

making progress. 

So take the religious freedom issue. We created this idea. We, 

you, the Congress of the United States, created this idea of an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. Now there 

are a score of countries around the globe that either have their own 

ambassador, minister, special offices, or councils designated for advocating for religious freedom. And it is spreading across the globe. 

It is not just western countries now. Morocco is undertaking this 

effort. The President of Senegal has announced that he is going to 

be gathering Muslim leaders and scholars from sub-Saharan African to talk about religious freedom and minority religions. 

This is a model that is spreading across the globe. One of my priorities will be to actually reach out to these representatives, because if we can coordinate and reinforce our efforts can be far more 

effective than what any one of us could do alone. 

So that vision really has begun to transform the world. It will 

not be an easy task to get where we want to go, but, working together, we will achieve much more than any of us alone. 

Senator KAINE. I look forward to working with you in that regard. 

Again, I thank all the witnesses. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Kaine. I always enjoy your 

questions. I wish you could come to every one of our hearings. 

If you will forgive me, as all the witnesses know, given the pending briefing for all Senators on ISIS, although we have many more 

questions we wish we could force you to ask, your written statements, your personal testimony, your answers to our questions 

have been compelling and engaging, and thank you very much for 

your willingness to serve, for your long records of service both in 

advancing the principles of religious freedom and in representing 

our Nation in many places around the world. 

I would also like to thank Ann, Michiko, Ismail, Nadia, Becky, 

and Ellen, as well as Daniel, who have all shared your wonderful 

parents with us, your spouses, your children with us, over so many 

years. We are grateful to your families for their support. 

696 

We will leave the record open until Tuesday, September 16, for 

any members of the committee who were not able to join us today 

who may wish to submit questions for the record. With that, this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(697) 

NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT CEKUTA; RICHARD 

MILLS; JESS BAILY; MARGARET UYEHARA 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Robert Francis Cekuta, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Azerbaijan 

Richard M. Mills, Jr., of Texas, to be Ambassador of the United 

States to the Republic of Armenia 

Jess Lippincott Baily, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to the Republic 

of Macedonia 

Margaret Ann Uyehara, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to Montenegro 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher Murphy, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murphy and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator MURPHY. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee will now come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to our nominees and their families, 

other guests who are joining us here today. 

We are considering the nomination today of Robert Cekuta to be 

the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Azerbaijan, Richard Mills to be Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia, Jess Baily 

to be Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, and Margaret Ann 

Uyehara to be our Ambassador to Montenegro. 

To begin with, Senator Johnson and I will give brief opening 

statements. I will very quickly introduce our nominees with short 

bios, and then the floor shall be yours. 

One year ago, this likely would have been a very different hearing. Many of the questions would be the same: the frozen conflict 

between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the name issue in Macedonia, 

the status of Montenegro’s NATO accession. But today, even those 

questions are going to be informed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine 

and annexation of Crimea, by the realization that Russia does not 

view its neighbors as sovereign, independent states who will determine their own destinies. There has been a paradigm shift in EuroVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00705 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
698 

pean security, and we are unlikely to go back to business as usual 

any time soon. 

As a result of this shift, you can expect that Congress is going 

to be more engaged in many of the challenges that you are going 

to be taking on in your new assignments. This includes energy security, economic development, NATO and EU integration, good governance and respect for ethnic minorities. 

The Balkan region in particular deserves additional U.S. attention and resources. Montenegro is close to attaining NATO membership, and I encourage you to help them get over the finish line. 

In the meantime, we look forward to seeing progress in areas such 

as press freedom and the rule of law. Macedonia has contributed 

significantly to NATO operations in Afghanistan, and they too deserve an opportunity to join the alliance. The so-called name issue 

has persisted for too long. It is holding back the Balkans’ Euro-Atlantic integration. Unresolved ethnic tensions in Macedonia are a 

potential flashpoint, and I hope that our next Ambassador will find 

ways to promote reconciliation. 

Moving to our nominees from the Caucasus, Armenia is further 

behind in terms of economic growth and political independence 

from Moscow, and it was disappointing to see Armenia cast one of 

the few votes against condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea. 

Nevertheless, we should continue to find ways to work with Armenia, strengthen their democracy, help them reduce their regional 

isolation. Ultimately the United States benefits from having a 

strong, independent, prosperous partner in Armenia. 

Azerbaijan is an increasingly important partner in this area particularly when it comes to energy security. And I am pleased that 

our nominee has significant experience on this particular subject. 

While there are lots of areas that we are going to work with, one 

area that I hope that you will not neglect is the importance of an 

active civil society and a peaceful political opposition. Senator 

Johnson and I have both worked together on raising concerns about 

a growing crackdown on civil society activists, and my colleagues 

and I here in the Senate are going to continue to raise those concerns. 

We are glad that you are all here. We look forward to your testimony, and let me turn it over to Senator Johnson for opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have 

done your usual good job of summarizing the issues with the four 

countries. 

I just want to thank the nominees for coming here to testify 

today and thank you for your willingness to serve. Being an ambassador of the United States is a serious responsibility. I certainly 

hope that you will convey our intentions to the country, that you 

will be representing the United States. I believe the United States 

is, although not perfect, a phenomenal force for good in the world, 

and we want to help people. Your jobs as ambassadors are to convey that to the peoples of those countries, but also to make sure 

that we here in Congress and America in general understand the 

699 

issues and the viewpoints of the countries that you will be representing America to. So it is kind of a dual role. It is very similar 

to business. You have a sales guy. He is certainly representing 

your products to the customer but he is representing the customer 

back to the company. 

So, again, I just want to thank you for your willingness to serve 

and look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

I will introduce you from our right to left and then you can give 

testimony in that same order. 

First, Robert Cekuta is a career member of the Senior Foreign 

Service. He has served most recently as Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary in the Bureau of Energy Resources of the Department of 

State. Mr. Cekuta has developed a deep energy expertise and broad 

experience in fostering democratic and free market reforms, which 

are going to be key issues in Azerbaijan. He played a critical senior 

management role in establishing the new Energy Bureau where he 

has developed programs advancing global energy security, while 

overseeing initiatives to fight corruption and build good governance 

and accountability when it comes to oil and gas production. 

Mr. Cekuta earned his bachelor’s degree from Georgetown, a 

master’s degree from the Thunderbird School of Global Management, and a master’s degree from the National Defense University. 

Richard Mills, Rick Mills, is our nominee to the Republic of Armenia, another career member of the Senior Foreign Service. Most 

recently he served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Beirut. Mr. Mills 

has served with distinction at some of the most difficult and important posts in the Foreign Service. Known for raising morale within 

his assigned missions and engaging local media and officials to effectively articulate U.S. policy, Mr. Mills will bring essential skills 

to the task of furthering bilateral relations with the Government 

of Armenia, an important U.S. partner in Eastern Europe. 

Mr. Mills earned his bachelor’s degree from Georgetown as well, 

a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law, and a master’s 

degree from the National Defense University. 

Jess Baily, a good friend of members of this committee, is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service as well. Most recently 

served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Turkey where he skillfully 

managed a complex mission in a NATO ally in the heart of a critical region. His years of experience in Europe, his strong interagency and management skills, and his public diplomacy expertise 

will enable him to further bilateral relations with the Government 

of Macedonia and engage effectively with the Macedonian public. 

Mr. Baily is the only member of this panel who was wise enough 

to get his undergraduate degree in Connecticut from Yale University, and he has his master’s degree from Columbia, which is located, I think, in a State near Connecticut. [Laughter.] 

Margaret Uyehara is another career member of the Senior Foreign Service. Most recently she served as Executive Director to the 

Bureaus of European and Eurasian Affairs and the International 

Organization Affairs in the Department of State. She has three 

decades of experience managing Department of State staff and resources in the Balkans, in Washington, and around the world. She 

700 

is going to bring these essential skills to the tasks of developing a 

cadre of largely entry-level officers at the Embassy in Montenegro 

and to further bilateral relations with the Government of Montenegro, a key U.S. partner in the Balkans. 

Ms. Uyehara earned her bachelor’s degree at Kalamazoo and also 

studied at Georgetown University. 

Margaret, I understand that you have four of your five children— 

three of your five children today. As the father of two young ones 

myself, I am ready to vote for you simply based on your impressive 

family management experience alone. 

Thank you all for being here. Why do we not start with you, Mr. 

Cekuta, and move down the row? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT FRANCIS CEKUTA, OF NEW YORK, TO 

BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN 

Mr. CEKUTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, for the privilege of appearing here as President Obama’s nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to Azerbaijan. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify and am humbled by the 

confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in 

me. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee 

and with all Members of Congress to advance the interests of the 

United States in Azerbaijan. 

I would like to introduce my wife, Anne, who has joined me. Our 

daughter, Margaret, our sons, Matthew and Stephen, are unfortunately unable to be here today. 

For over 36 years, I have been dedicated to promoting U.S. foreign policy interests around the world. As Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the State Department’s Energy Resources Bureau, for example, I worked to advance U.S. energy policy in complex regions from the Middle East to the Caucasus to Ukraine. My 

unwavering focus throughout my career has been to advance U.S. 

interests, including universal values of democracy, strong rule of 

law, and the protection of human rights and dignity. 

Many of you have been personally engaged on developments in 

Azerbaijan. It is a country with a rich history and with the potential for a bright and prosperous future. Our relationship is important not just to our two countries, but to Azerbaijan’s neighbors 

and to the wider region. We stand only to gain from a stable, democratic, peaceful, prosperous Azerbaijan strategically linked to the 

United States and to our European friends and allies. 

Since establishing diplomatic relations, we have worked with 

Azerbaijan on three equally important areas, each of which is key 

to its full integration into the Euro-Atlantic community: security, 

energy, and democracy. 

The United States has long recognized Azerbaijan as a stalwart 

partner on international security. After the attacks of September 

11, then-Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev was among the first 

to extend support and to offer close cooperation to combat terrorism. That cooperation continues. American and Azerbaijani 

troops served together in Kosovo and Iraq. They serve together now 

in Afghanistan where Azerbaijan has shown a sustained commitment to the international effort, including its part of the Northern 

Distribution Network for supporting NATO’s operations. 

701 

If confirmed, I will also work to enhance our security cooperation 

in other areas, including border security, nonproliferation, and 

countering human trafficking. 

The United States and Azerbaijan have also cooperated for over 

20 years on energy. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and 

progress on the Southern corridor for gas are powerful symbols of 

Azerbaijan’s commitment to global energy security, a key element 

of our efforts to diversify energy routes and sources for European 

markets. If confirmed, I will continue to work with Azerbaijan to 

diversify its energy routes and bolster its critical energy infrastructure protection. 

Just as we continue cooperating on energy and security, we must 

work with Azerbaijan to advance democratic institutions and processes and to strengthen the rule of law. 

Azerbaijanis point to the 1918 constitution to say they were the 

Muslim world’s first democracy and that women could vote in Azerbaijan before they won that right here in the United States. That 

constitution and republic fell in 1920, but it set a tradition of which 

Azerbaijanis can be proud. 

Azerbaijan lives in a very difficult neighborhood. It must maintain its security and stability, but these can only come with a 

strong commitment to democratic principles, including respect for 

the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. This is 

an area of great concern to the administration, as I know it is for 

you and for your colleagues here in Congress. If confirmed, I will 

work ceaselessly with Azerbaijanis to build the strong democracy 

and economy they want and deserve. 

Finally and no less importantly, Azerbaijan is a pivotal player in 

the region’s peace and stability, and there is no higher priority for 

achieving a more secure and prosperous future for the Caucasus 

than the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As 

cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States continues 

helping all sides achieve a peaceful, lasting negotiated settlement 

for the conflict based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act 

and the U.N. charter, including the non-use of force or threat of 

force, territorial integrity, and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples. 

The United States has made major efforts to facilitate a settlement. On September 4, the Secretary met with the two Presidents 

at the NATO summit to discuss a way forward. We publicly commended the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan for these important steps, and we encouraged them to continue to discuss elements of a settlement. Such meetings must continue. Only a negotiated settlement can lead to a long-term peace and stability in the 

region. If confirmed, I will support the administration’s commitment to achieving this goal. 

As President Obama stated in June, ‘‘True democracy, real prosperity, lasting security—these are neither simply given, nor imposed from the outside. They must be earned and built from within.’’ If confirmed, I will do all I can to work with Azerbaijanis to 

build a strong, vibrant, modern democracy and sustainable, diversified economy they want and deserve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering my nomination. I look 

forward to your questions. 

702 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cekuta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. CEKUTA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished members 

of the committee, for the privilege of appearing here today as President Obama’s 

nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to Azerbaijan. I deeply appreciate 

the opportunity to testify this afternoon, and am humbled by the confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working with this committee and all Members of Congress to advance the interests of the United States in Azerbaijan. 

I would like to introduce my wife, Anne, who has joined me here today, along with 

my daughter, Margaret. My sons, Matthew, who is working in Maine, and Stephen, 

who has just started university, are unfortunately unable to be here. 

For just over 36 years, I have been dedicated to promoting U.S. foreign policy 

interests across the world. Most recently, as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for the State Department’s Energy Resources Bureau, I have worked to advance 

U.S. energy policy in some of the most complex regions from the Middle East to the 

Caucasus to Ukraine. The core objective of my work has been boosting our energy 

security and diversifying our supply. 

In this and all my previous assignments, my work has been defined by an unwavering commitment to advancing U.S. interests, including universal values of democracy, strong rule of law, and the protection of human rights and dignity. As Deputy 

Chief of Mission in Tirana, I advocated judicial independence, expansion of the operating space for civil society, and supported electoral reform in Albania. If confirmed, 

I will bring all of these experiences to bear in the service of advancing these and 

other core U.S. interests in Azerbaijan. 

Many of you have been personally engaged on developments in Azerbaijan. Senator Cardin just led an OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation to Baku in June 

and chaired a hearing on Azerbaijan prior to that trip. Azerbaijan is a country with 

a rich history and has the potential for a bright and prosperous future. Our relationship with Azerbaijan is important not just to our two countries, but to Azerbaijan’s 

neighbors and the wider region. The United States and Azerbaijan stand only to 

gain from a stable, democratic, peaceful, prosperous Azerbaijan strategically linked 

to the United States and our European friends and allies. 

In the 22 years since the United States and Azerbaijan established diplomatic 

relations, we have worked with Azerbaijan on three equally important areas—security, energy, and democracy—necessary for the country’s full integration into the 

Euro-Atlantic community. Allow me to speak to each of these three areas briefly. 

The United States has long recognized Azerbaijan as a stalwart partner on international security. We remember that following the attacks of September 11, 2001, 

then-Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev was among the first to extend a hand of 

support and to offer his country’s close cooperation in our efforts to combat terrorism. That cooperation continues. American and Azerbaijani troops served together 

in Kosovo and Iraq. They serve together now in Afghanistan where Azerbaijan has 

shown a sustained commitment to the international effort including its role as a 

transportation route in the Northern Distribution Network for supporting NATO’s 

operations. Thousands of flights have crossed Azerbaijan’s airspace en route to 

Afghanistan, and thousands of containers have departed Baku in support of the 

International Security Assistance Force. 

If confirmed, I will also work to enhance our security cooperation in numerous 

other areas, including border security, nonproliferation, and countering human trafficking. Later this month nonstop flights will begin between Azerbaijan and the 

United States, following several years of cooperation in bolstering Azerbaijan’s civil 

aviation safety and security capacity. 

The United States and Azerbaijan have also enjoyed more than 20 years of cooperation on energy security. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the progress 

on the Southern corridor for gas represent powerful symbols of Azerbaijan’s commitment to global energy security—a key element of our efforts to diversify energy 

routes and sources for European markets. If confirmed, I will continue to work with 

Azerbaijan to diversify its energy routes and bolster its critical energy infrastructure 

protection. 

But, just as we continue our security and energy cooperation, we must also continue our efforts to work with Azerbaijan on advancing democratic institutions and 

processes, and strengthening rule of law. Both are essential to ensure long-term stability and to help Azerbaijanis unleash the full potential of their country. Democracies only thrive when they are bolstered by an independent judiciary, respect for 

the rule of just laws, a free media, a vibrant civil society, pluralism, competitive, 

703 

democratic electoral processes, and respect for human rights and fundamental 

freedoms, including freedom of assembly, association, expression, movement, and 

religion. 

Azerbaijanis point to their 1918 post-Tsarist constitution to say they were the 

Muslim world’s first democracy and that women had the right to vote in Azerbaijan 

before they won that right in our country. That constitution and republic fell in 

1920, but it is a tradition of which Azerbaijanis can be proud. Recently, Azerbaijan 

decided to continue a well-publicized program to decrease corruption at lower levels 

of public administration. The government established six administrative service centers in Baku and the regions, which function as one-stop centers for government 

services from nine ministries, where Azerbaijanis can obtain documents such as 

birth certificates and marriage licenses. However, much more needs to be done to 

combat corruption and protect those who identify it. 

We recognize that Azerbaijan lives in a very difficult neighborhood and must 

maintain its security and stability, which the United States strongly supports. But 

we also recognize that the security, stability, and prosperity that Azerbaijan seeks 

can only come with a strong commitment to democratic principles, including respect 

for rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. Those are critical components of security and stability for any country. This is an area of great concern to 

this administration, as I know it is for you and your colleagues in Congress. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to work with Azerbaijanis to build the 

strong, vibrant, modern democracy and sustainable, diversified economy that they 

want and deserve. 

Finally, but no less importantly, Azerbaijan is a pivotal player in the region’s 

future peace and stability. And there is no higher priority today for achieving a 

more secure and prosperous future for the Caucasus than the peaceful settlement 

of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As a cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the 

United States continues to assist all sides as they seek to achieve a peaceful, lasting 

negotiated settlement of the conflict based on the U.N. Charter and relevant documents, and the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, including the nonuse of force 

or threat of force, territorial integrity, and the equal rights and self-determination 

of peoples. 

The Secretary of State and Ambassador Warlick have made major efforts to facilitate a settlement. On September 4, Secretary Kerry met with the Presidents at the 

NATO summit in Wales to discuss a way forward in peace negotiations. We publicly 

commended the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan for these important steps, 

and we encourage them to continue to discuss elements of a settlement. 

Such meetings must continue, as only a negotiated settlement can lead to longterm peace and stability in the region. If confirmed, I will support the administration’s commitment, at the highest levels, to achieving this goal. In this, I will support the efforts of the U.S. cochair, Ambassador James Warlick, as we work closely 

with the sides to reach a settlement. 

As President Obama stated in June in Warsaw, ‘‘True democracy, real prosperity, 

lasting security—these are neither simply given, nor imposed from the outside. They 

must be earned and built from within.’’ If confirmed, I will do everything in my 

power to work with Azerbaijanis to build the strong, vibrant, modern democracy and 

sustainable, diversified economy that they want and deserve. And I will work to advance our relationship in ways consistent with our shared interests and our shared 

values. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for considering my nomination. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Mills. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. MILLS, JR., OF TEXAS, TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA 

Mr. MILLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Johnson. 

Twenty-three years ago, I served as the Department of State’s 

first desk officer for the newly independent Armenia. So it is a particular honor for me to be before you today as President Obama’s 

nominee to serve as the next Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. 

704 

With me today is my wife, Leigh, a retired Foreign Service officer 

who has been my partner throughout this two-decade career from 

desk officer to this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, the goal of our Armenian policy is straightforward: a free and prosperous Armenia at peace with its neighbors. Achieving this goal means helping Armenia strengthen its democracy and fight corruption, liberalize its economy, resolve the 

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully through the Minsk Group 

process, and to reconcile with its neighbor Turkey through a full, 

frank, and just acknowledgement of the sufferings of the Armenian 

people. If confirmed, these will be my priorities. 

Like you, Mr. Chairman, while we have been clear about our disappointment over some of Armenia’s recent decisions such as its 

vote in the U.N. General Assembly with Russia against upholding 

Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the U.S. Government’s commitment to a strong bilateral relationship with Armenia 

remains unchanged. Armenia’s decision in September 2013 to end 

its negotiations with the EU on a comprehensive free trade area 

and to join the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union I think underscored the need to achieve our goals of decreasing Armenia’s regional isolation and bolstering its economic and security independence. If we achieve that, this will give Armenia greater ability to 

build economic and security relationships with a range of partners, 

including not only Russia, but its immediate neighbors, the Europeans, and the United States as well. We are stressing, since Armenia’s decision, that strengthened economic collaboration with the 

United States and Europe can complement Armenia’s future membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. 

This year marks the fifth anniversary of Armenia and Turkey’s 

signing of the protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations 

and the development of bilateral relations. We continue to emphasize the importance of proceeding with final approval of these protocols, without preconditions or linkage to any other issues. We 

have been clear that responsibility for moving forward now lies 

with the Turkish Government, and we continue to press at the 

highest levels for Turkish movement and ratification of the protocols. 

Efforts toward Turkish-Armenian reconciliation are especially 

important at this time, as I know you know, because the United 

States and the world will stand in solidarity with the Armenian 

people next year to mark the centenary of one of the 20th century’s 

worst atrocities when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or 

marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. 

In advance of this tragic anniversary, it is important that Turkey 

engage with Armenia to achieve a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts so that the two nations can begin to forge a 

productive relationship. 

The protracted conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh continues to be a 

source of concern to the U.S. Government, as you heard from my 

colleague. The administration is committed to a peaceful settlement 

through the Minsk Group process. Secretary Kerry delivered this 

message when he met with the Presidents at the NATO summit in 

Wales on September 4. If confirmed, I will coordinate with Ambassador James Warlick, the U.S. cochair of the Minsk Group, on how 

705 

Embassy Yerevan and I can assist the administration’s efforts to 

facilitate followup meetings in the months ahead. 

Our goal of a free and prosperous Armenia equally requires work 

inside Armenia itself. There are many fronts in this effort: progress 

on democratic and economic reforms, increased respect for human 

rights, and combating corruption. If confirmed, I will build on my 

predecessor’s public and private advocacy these issues, as well as 

work to effectively implement targeted U.S. assistance programs 

that can focus on the development of civil society and judicial independence. 

In addition, I will continue our efforts to advance market reforms 

with the goal of increased bilateral trade and investment to the 

benefit of both countries. 

My work 23 years ago introduced me to Armenia, its inspiring 

history, and its capacity for political and cultural renewal. If confirmed, I look forward to enhancing my understanding of the country and to working closely with the members of this committee and 

with the Congress as a whole in representing my fellow Americans 

as the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. 

Thank you. I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. MILLS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished members 

of the committee. 

Twenty-three years ago, I served as the Department of State’s first desk officer 

for newly independent Armenia, so it is a particular honor for me to be before you 

today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the next Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. With me today is my wife, Leigh, a retired Foreign Service officer, 

who has been my partner throughout my two-decade, professional journey from desk 

officer to this hearing. It means a great deal to me that she was able to join me 

here today and, if I am confirmed, will be with me in Yerevan. 

My parents blessed me with curiosity about the world and a conviction that a 

public service career dedicated to promoting understanding of the United States and 

our values would be a fulfilling one. My parents were my inspiration to join the U.S. 

Foreign Service. Even though they were not able to travel from Texas to be here 

today, they are both certainly here with me in spirit. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will build upon the achievements of my predecessors and continue the Obama administration’s commitment to achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives for Armenia. 

The goal of our Armenian policy is simple: a free and prosperous Armenia, at 

peace with its neighbors. Achieving this goal means helping Armenia strengthen its 

democracy and rule of law; liberalize its economy, expand trade, and attract diversified foreign investment; resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully through 

the Minsk Group Process; and to reconcile with its neighbor Turkey through a full, 

frank, and just acknowledgment of the painful elements of the past. If confirmed, 

these will be my priorities. 

While we have been clear about our disappointment over some of Armenia’s 

recent decisions, such as its vote in the U.N. General Assembly with Russia against 

upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty that put Armenia at odds with the overwhelming 

majority of the international community, the U.S. Government’s commitment to a 

strong bilateral relationship with Armenia remains unchanged. Armenia’s decision, 

in September 2013, to join the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union and to end its 

negotiations with the European Union on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade 

Area, served to emphasize the need to achieve our goals of decreasing Armenia’s 

regional isolation and bolstering its economic and security independence. This would 

give Yerevan greater ability to build economic and security relationships with a 

range of partners, including not only Russia, but its immediate neighbors, the EU, 

and the United States as well. We have stressed since Armenia’s decision that 

strengthened economic collaboration with the United States and Europe can complement Armenia’s future membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. 

706 

Important to reducing Armenia’s isolation and bolstering its economy is timely 

progress toward reconciliation with neighboring Turkey. This year marks the fifth 

anniversary of Armenia and Turkey’s signing of the Protocol on the Establishment 

of Diplomatic Relations and the Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations. 

We continue to emphasize the importance of proceeding with final approval of these 

Protocols, without preconditions or linkage to other issues, and have been clear that 

responsibility for moving forward lies with the Turkish Government. The administration will continue to press at the highest levels for Turkish ratification of the 

Protocols. While the Protocols remain the administration’s preferred path to normalized relations, the process outlined in the Protocols has stalled. The pressing need 

for reconciliation between the two states requires that both sides consider other 

confidence-building measures that they could take now pending progress on the 

Protocols. 

Efforts toward Turkish-Armenian reconciliation are especially important at this 

time, as the United States and the world will stand in solidarity with the Armenian 

people next year to mark the centenary of one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities, 

when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final 

days of the Ottoman Empire. In advance of this tragic anniversary, it is important 

that Turkey engage with Armenia to achieve a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts so that both nations can begin to forge a relationship that is peaceful, productive, and prosperous. 

The protracted conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno- Karabakh 

continues to be a source of concern to the U.S. Government, especially as the loss 

of life on both sides of the line of contact has tragically and sharply increased over 

the last few months. The administration is committed to a peaceful settlement 

through the Minsk Group process. Secretary Kerry delivered this message when he 

met with the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents at the NATO summit in Wales 

on September 4 to discuss a way forward in peace negotiations. If confirmed, I will 

coordinate with Ambassador James Warlick, the U.S. cochair of the Minsk Group, 

on how Embassy Yerevan and I can assist the administration’s efforts to facilitate 

followup meetings in the months ahead. 

As important as it is to assist Armenia to build relations with all of its neighbors 

and secure a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, our goal of a free 

and prosperous Armenia equally requires work inside Armenia as well. There are 

many fronts in this effort: enhanced progress on democratic and economic reforms; 

increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and strengthened 

rule of law and systemic reforms to combat corruption that address the real concerns of Armenian citizens and international investors. If confirmed, I will build on 

my predecessor’s advocacy on these issues and work to implement targeted U.S. 

assistance programs that place a strong emphasis on the development of civil society, good governance, and judicial independence. 

Our military cooperation with Armenia is strong and deepening. As a result of 

that military cooperation and U.S. support, Armenia is expanding its peacekeeping 

commitments with the U.N. in the Middle East, in addition to its long-standing 

efforts in support of the peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and with ISAF in Afghanistan. 

In addition, I will continue our efforts to deepen economic ties, increase trade and 

investment, and advance market reforms, with the goal of increased bilateral trade 

and investment to the benefit of both countries. We have had success working with 

our Armenian partners in the U.S.-Armenia Task Force (USATF) to strengthen the 

business and investment environment in Armenia and are considering whether to 

begin negotiations with Yerevan on a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. 

There are opportunities for significant trade and investment in Armenia, especially 

in the county’s information technology sector. But before Armenia can unleash the 

full potential of U.S. and foreign business interest, there must be progress on issues 

such as intellectual property rights protection, customs reform, and respect for contracts, so if confirmed these will be priorities as the Embassy works to strengthen 

the rule-of-law inside Armenia. There are also opportunities to leverage publicprivate partnerships, especially drawing on the resources and knowledge of the 

Armenian-American diaspora, to augment what is overall a decreasing foreign 

assistance budget for Armenia. If confirmed, I will continue my predecessor’s focus 

on pursuing such partnerships. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by assuring you that, if confirmed, I look forward 

to working closely with you, with members of this committee, and with the Congress 

as a whole in representing my fellow Americans as the United States Ambassador 

to the Republic of Armenia. And, in accordance with the Foreign Service’s own values and traditions, I will, if confirmed, report candidly and objectively to WashVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00714 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
707 

ington about developments in Armenia and provide recommendations for action that 

I believe are in the best interests of the United States. 

My work 22 years ago introduced me to Armenia, its inspiring history, its capacity 

for political and cultural renewal, and its potential to be a catalyst for regional economic development. If confirmed, I look forward to enhancing my understanding of 

the country and the region by working with you, the Armenian Government, the 

Armenian people, and the Armenian-American community. 

Thank you and I welcome your questions. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Baily. 

STATEMENT OF JESS LIPPINCOTT BAILY, OF OHIO, TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 

Mr. BAILY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, I am honored to appear to you today as President Obama’s nominee for the 

position of United States Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia. And I am grateful for the confidence that President Obama 

and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, this committee, and the Congress to advance and protect United States interests in Macedonia. 

I am proud to be accompanied today by my wife, Capie, a former 

Foreign Service officer; our son, Noah, a college sophomore in Connecticut and Navy ROTC student; and my sister, Mary Wheeler. 

Unfortunately, my parents, Joan and Oliver Baily, who did so 

much to nurture my enduring curiosity in the world were not able 

to attend today. My family has provided me unwavering support 

through 29 years of moves around the world, often in challenging 

places. To Capie and Noah, thank you for sharing with me the joys 

and the hardships of this fantastic and rewarding career. 

Having returned 2 weeks ago from serving for 3 years in Turkey, 

I am as aware as you of the worrisome set of challenges which require effective U.S. diplomacy. As Russia sows conflict in Ukraine 

and ISIL terrorizes fragile societies and preys on vulnerable recruits, the United States must fortify relationships with friends 

and partners to achieve our shared goals of peace, prosperity, and 

security. And while Macedonia has not yet achieved full integration 

into the Euro-Atlantic community, we share the goal of forging a 

Europe whole, free, and at peace, and we confront global challenges 

together. 

Macedonia has been a steadfast partner in international security 

operations. This past July, Macedonia deployed its 17th rotation of 

troops in Afghanistan and has affirmed its willingness to stay beyond 2014. At the U.N., Macedonia has supported Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And earlier this month, Macedonia’s Parliament passed legislation to address the problem of foreign fighters. It is in the United States interest that we continue 

to help this committed friend and partner achieve readiness for 

NATO and EU membership. 

Mr. Chairman, we are all familiar with the long-standing dispute 

between Macedonia and Greece over the former’s name, and the resulting stagnation in Macedonia’s NATO and EU accession processes. If confirmed, I pledge to bring my diplomatic experience to 

bear on helping Macedonia to work with Greece to find a mutually 

agreeable solution to this issue. Such a resolution would increase 

708 

security and stability in Macedonia, in the Balkan region, and 

across Europe. 

And even as we encourage resolution of the name issue, our Embassy in Skopje works daily to increase security, promote the rule 

of law, and media freedom, combat terrorism, and expand trade 

and investment. My experience in leading multiagency missions 

and in working with Europe and the United Nations has prepared 

me to help Macedonia confront the challenges it faces today. 

Among these is full implementation of the Ohrid Framework 

Agreement, which ended the civil conflict in 2001. And although 

the largest ethnic Albanian party is in the ruling coalition, gaps 

persist between ethnic Albanian and Macedonian populations. If 

confirmed, I would build on the efforts of our Embassy to encourage all parties to bridge ethnic divides and seek a common future. 

And while Macedonia has developed strong democratic structures, the United States, the European Union, and most importantly Macedonian citizens have expressed concerns about freedom 

of the press, the independence of the judiciary, and corruption. The 

United States is already a partner in addressing these issues, and 

should I be confirmed, I will engage with the leaders and the public 

on Macedonia’s reform agenda and not only because that agenda 

advances its membership in European institutions. A free media, 

an independent and impartial judiciary, and a transparent government strengthen the democracy and promote the prosperity to 

which Macedonians rightly aspire. Along with Macedonia’s economic reforms, they are critical to opening up new opportunities for 

bilateral trade and investment. 

And of course, while working on these issues, I will always remember that my top priority is to serve and protect U.S. citizens, 

whether colleagues working in the mission, Peace Corps Volunteers, U.S. investors and exporters, or your constituents in need of 

help. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, thank you very much 

for this opportunity to appear today, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baily follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESS LIPPINCOTT BAILY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am honored to appear 

before you today as President Obama’s nominee for the position of United States 

Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, and I am grateful for the confidence the 

President and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to 

working with this committee and Congress to advance and protect U.S. interests in 

Macedonia. 

I am proud to be accompanied by my wife, Capie, a former Foreign Service officer; 

our son, Noah, who just began his sophomore year as a Navy ROTC student at Yale; 

and my sister, Mary. Unfortunately, my parents Joan and Oliver Baily, who did so 

much to nurture my enduring curiosity about the world, were not able to attend. 

Diplomatic service is a team effort. My family has provided me unwavering support 

through 29 years of moves around the world, often in challenging places and uncertain times. To Capie and Noah, I owe my enduring thanks for sharing with me the 

joys and hardships of this fantastic and rewarding career. 

Having returned last week from serving 3 years as Deputy Chief of Mission in 

Turkey, I am as aware as you that we face a worrisome set of global challenges in 

which effective diplomacy is essential to defeating the forces that threaten democracy and peace. As Russia sows conflict in Ukraine and ISIL terrorizes fragile societies and preys on vulnerable recruits internationally, the United States must fortify relationships with friends and partners to achieve our shared goals of peace, 

709 

security, and prosperity. While Macedonia has not yet achieved full integration into 

the Euro-Atlantic community—and certainly work remains to be done as it continues down that path—we share the goal of forging a Europe whole, free, and at 

peace and confront together global challenges. 

Macedonia has been a steadfast partner in international security operations: this 

past July, 153 Macedonian soldiers deployed in the country’s 17th rotation to 

Afghanistan to provide force protection at International Security Assistance Force 

headquarters in Kabul. Macedonia is one of the highest per capita contributors to 

ISAF. It has affirmed its willingness to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014; and it supports the EU peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the U.N. mission 

in Lebanon. In March, Macedonia voted in favor of the U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. And earlier this month, Macedonia’s Parliament passed legislation to address the problem of foreign fighters. As our 

committed friend and partner, Macedonia deserves our assistance in achieving readiness for NATO and EU membership. It is in the United States and Europe’s interest that we continue to lend that help. 

Mr. Chairman, we are all familiar with the long-standing dispute between Macedonia and Greece over the former’s name and with the resulting stagnation for 

Macedonia’s NATO and EU accession processes. If confirmed, I pledge to bring my 

diplomatic experience to bear on helping Macedonia as it works with Greece to find 

a mutually agreeable solution. When Macedonia and other countries of the Western 

Balkans gathered in Berlin 2 weeks ago, they declared that this dispute ‘‘must 

urgently be resolved by a willingness to compromise on all sides.’’ Six years have 

passed since NATO’s Bucharest Summit Declaration promised an invitation to Macedonia as soon as the name issue was resolved. A resolution will be a key step 

toward increased stability and security in Macedonia, in the Balkan region and 

across Europe. 

Even as we encourage resolution of the name issue, our Embassy in Skopje works 

daily to increase security, promote the rule of law and fundamental rights, combat 

terrorism, and expand trade and investment—in partnership with our European 

allies. My experience in leading complex missions in Ankara and Erbil and in working with Europe and the United Nations has prepared me to help Macedonia confront the challenges it faces today. The 13th anniversary of the Ohrid Framework 

Agreement, which ended the civil conflict in 2001 by providing a plan for ensuring 

equal rights for citizens of all ethnicities, just passed, but there is more work to be 

done on implementation of the agreement. Although the largest ethnic Albanian 

party is in the ruling coalition, gaps persist between the ethnic Albanian and Macedonian populations, as evidenced by protests this summer. If confirmed, I would 

build on the efforts of our Embassy team to encourage all parties to bridge these 

ethnic divides and to call on leaders from both sides to increase interethnic communication and understanding. 

And while Macedonia has developed strong democratic structures, the United 

States, the European Union, other friends of Macedonia, and—importantly, its own 

citizens—have expressed concerns about the freedom of the Macedonian press, the 

independence of the judiciary, and the transparency of government finances. As 

Assistant Secretary Nuland said at the Croatia Forum in July, ‘‘as we look to shore 

up the values at the core of the transatlantic community, the fight against corruption and democratic backsliding must now be an equally frontline concern.’’ The 

United States is already a partner in confronting these challenges. Should I be confirmed, I will engage with leaders and the public on Macedonia’s reform agenda, and 

not only because that agenda advances its European Union candidacy. A free media, 

an independent and impartial judiciary, and transparent government decisions 

strengthen the democracy and promote the economic prosperity to which Macedonians aspire. Along with Macedonia’s economic reforms, they are critical to opening 

up new opportunities for bilateral trade and investment, another U.S. priority. 

Of course, while working to help Macedonia reinforce its democratic institutions 

and achieve its full Euro-Atlantic aspirations, I will always remember that my top 

priority is to serve and protect U.S. citizens, whether colleagues working in our mission, U.S. investors and exporters, or your constituents in need of help. Such service 

remains a core task of our overseas missions. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for this 

opportunity to appear today. I look forward to working with you if confirmed and 

to answering any questions you may have for me. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Uyehara. 

710 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET ANN UYEHARA, OF OHIO, TO BE 

AMBASSADOR TO MONTENEGRO 

Ms. UYEHARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Johnson. 

It is a great honor to appear before you today as President 

Obama’s nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to 

Montenegro. I deeply appreciate the confidence the President and 

Secretary Kerry have placed in me. If confirmed, I pledge to work 

closely with this committee and Congress to protect and promote 

U.S. interests in Montenegro. 

My husband and best friend, Michael, also a career Foreign Service officer, is not here today, but he is no doubt watching from Belgrade streaming live where he just began a new assignment with 

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

My son, Andrew, and my daughter, Leilani, who is teaching 

English in Japan, are also not here, but they are here in spirit. 

But I am delighted to have my other three children with me: my 

daughter, Malia, an undergrad at the University of Virginia; my 

son, Chris, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of North Carolina; 

and most importantly—sorry, kids—my son, a captain in the U.S. 

Army who just returned from a yearlong deployment in Kuwait 

and surprised the heck out of me on Saturday night, by the way. 

It is on YouTube. 

I could not be prouder of all of them and grateful for their love 

and support and indeed the support of all of my colleagues, many 

of whom are sitting right back behind me this morning. 

Today’s hearing marks a pivotal moment in my 32-year Foreign 

Service career. In my current position as Executive Director for European and Eurasian Affairs and International Organizations, I 

lead a team responsible for the support of 79 overseas posts with 

over 26,000 people and an annual operating budget of over $700 

million. This team is the operational backbone of our foreign policy 

in the region and at the world’s key international organizations. 

Over the years, I have worked to increase efficiency and contain 

costs, all the while ensuring that our diplomats have the resources 

necessary to represent our interests abroad. I believe my decades 

of experience will enable me to be an innovative and effective leader of our mission to Montenegro and a partner to the Montenegrin 

Government and its people as they progress on their path toward 

Euro-Atlantic integration. 

If confirmed, my top priority will be ensuring that Montenegro 

attains full partnership in the Euro-Atlantic community. A democratic and prosperous Montenegro that meets the requirements for 

NATO and EU membership will be a stronger, more capable partner for the United States. Montenegro has been steadfast in its 

commitment to becoming a NATO ally and has already shown that 

it is a dedicated security partner by deploying forces in NATO, EU, 

and U.N. missions from Africa to Afghanistan. Importantly, in the 

wake of the current crisis in Ukraine, Montenegro sent a powerful 

signal by voting with the United States and the overwhelming majority of the international community on the U.N. resolution condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine and publicly supporting the 

EU sanctions. 

711 

Recognizing this commitment to Euro-Atlantic values, NATO 

Foreign Ministers agreed this past June to begin an intensified and 

focused dialogue with Montenegro to assess its readiness for NATO 

membership and promised to review its progress no later than the 

end of 2015. This decision recognizes the great strides Montenegro 

has already made and how very close it is to the finish line. If confirmed, I will work closely with Montenegro as it focuses on the 

areas that are instrumental to eventual NATO membership. 

But our shared interests extend far beyond security. 

Montenegro’s continued economic growth and prosperity yield direct benefits for U.S. investment, exports, and jobs. Major U.S. 

companies are doing business in Montenegro with several important projects on the horizon. But there is room for even greater 

growth. If confirmed, I will work with Montenegro’s already active 

business community to strongly advocate for U.S. businesses. Together, I am confident that we can further enhance the economic 

ties that bind our two nations and help create jobs on both sides 

of the Atlantic. 

A key element in the United States-Montenegrin economic and 

security relationship is the guarantee of transparent and accountable public institutions steeped in the rule of law. Montenegro has 

worked to root out its corruption. It is forming a fully independent 

special prosecutor’s office to fight organized crime and has established a new preventive anti-corruption agency. But more can be 

done. And the United States is a strong partner in these efforts. 

If confirmed, my team and I will continue that collaboration to advance the goal of a Montenegro that is a democratic source of stability in the Balkans. 

And finally, if I am confirmed, I pledge to place the safety and 

security of U.S. citizens in Montenegro and our mission above all 

else and to provide excellent services to all U.S. citizens in Montenegro. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, our relationship with 

Montenegro is an important one, built on shared commitment to 

Euro-Atlantic values, security, prosperity, democracy for all Americans and Montenegrins. And if confirmed, I pledge to work with 

you to further advance those values in the service of our common 

strategic goal: a Europe whole, free, and at peace. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you, 

and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Uyehara follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET ANN UYEHARA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is a great honor to 

appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the United 

States Ambassador to Montenegro. I deeply appreciate the confidence the President 

and Secretary Kerry have shown in me. If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with 

this committee and Congress to protect and promote U.S. interests in Montenegro. 

My husband and best friend, also a career Foreign Service officer, is not able to 

be here today but he is no doubt watching from Belgrade, where he just began a 

new assignment. But I am delighted to have my daughter, Malia, an undergrad at 

UVA, with me. My other four children could not be present, but they are here in 

spirit. My sons, Andrew, and Ryan, a Captain in the U.S. Army, is returning today 

from Kuwait where he has just finished a tour of duty with a Patriot missile unit, 

defending our freedom. Leilani is teaching English in Japan, and Christopher is 

earning his Ph.D. I could not be prouder of all five of them and grateful for their 

712 

love and support. Lastly, I am touched by the presence of a great number of my 

other family here today: my Foreign Service family of colleagues. 

Today’s hearing marks a pivotal moment in my 32-year Foreign Service career, 

12 years of which I have spent either in Europe or working directly on European 

issues. In my current position as Executive Director for European and Eurasian 

Affairs and International Organizations, I lead a team responsible for the management and support of 79 overseas posts, which translates to a team of over 26,000 

people worldwide, through an annual operating budget of $700 million. This team 

is the operational backbone of our foreign policy in Europe and Eurasia and our representation at the world’s key international organizations. Over the years, I have 

worked to increase efficiency and contain administrative costs overseas, all the 

while ensuring that our diplomats have all the resources necessary to effectively 

represent our interests abroad. And serving in positions around the world, from 

Tokyo to Kiev, I have witnessed first-hand the important role the United States 

plays in working with countries as they strengthen their security, grow their economies, and fortify their democratic institutions. I believe that my decades of experience will enable me to be an innovative and effective leader of our mission to Montenegro and partner to the Montenegrin Government and its people as they progress 

on their path toward Euro-Atlantic integration. 

If confirmed, my top priority will be ensuring that Montenegro attains full partnership in the Euro-Atlantic community. A democratic and prosperous Montenegro 

that meets the requirements for NATO and EU membership will be a stronger, 

more capable partner for the U.S. Montenegro has been steadfast in its commitment 

to becoming a NATO ally, and has already shown that it is a dedicated security 

partner by deploying forces in support of NATO, U.N., and EU missions from Africa 

to Afghanistan. Montenegro is currently providing force protection in Afghanistan 

as part of the International Security Assistance Force. And it enjoys an enduring 

partnership with the Maine National Guard through our State Partnership Program. Importantly, in the wake of the current crisis in Ukraine, Montenegro sent 

a powerful signal by voting with the United States and the overwhelming majority 

of the international community on the U.N. resolution condemning Russia’s actions 

in Crimea, and publicly supporting EU sanctions against Russia. 

Recognizing this commitment to Euro-Atlantic values, NATO Foreign Ministers 

agreed this past June to begin an intensified and focused dialogue with Montenegro 

to assess its readiness for NATO accession, and promised to review Montenegro’s 

progress no later than the end of 2015. This decision is a recognition of the great 

strides Montenegro has already made and of how close they are to the finish line. 

If confirmed, I will work closely with Montenegro as it focuses on the areas that 

are instrumental to eventual NATO membership. 

Our shared interests extend beyond security. Montenegro’s continued economic 

growth and prosperity yield direct benefits for U.S. investment, exports, and U.S. 

jobs. Major U.S. companies are doing business in Montenegro with several important projects involving U.S. companies on the horizon. But there is room for even 

greater growth. In particular, Montenegro’s energy sector presents opportunities for 

hydroelectric power expansion and off-shore oil and gas exploration. If confirmed, 

I will work with Montenegro’s already active business community, including the 

American Chamber of Commerce and U.S.-Montenegro Business Council, to strongly 

advocate for U.S. business in Montenegro. Together I am confident that we can further enhance the economic ties that bind our two nations and help to create new 

jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. 

A key element in the U.S.-Montenegrin economic and security relationship is the 

guarantee of clean, transparent accountable public institutions steeped in the rule 

of law. The fight against corruption must be at the front lines of this effort. Montenegro has worked to root out corruption. It is forming a fully independent Special 

Prosecutor’s Office to fight organized crime and corruption and has established a 

new preventive anticorruption agency. But more must be done. 

The United States is a partner in these efforts. We are providing law enforcement 

and prosecutorial training to the Government of Montenegro to help in this critical 

work. And next week, in fact, Montenegro’s top jurist—the President of the Supreme 

Court of Montenegro—will be here for meetings at the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed, I will continue our collaboration aimed at bolstering rule of law and fighting 

corruption. I will work with my team to advance the goal of a Montenegro that is 

a democratic source of stability in the Balkans. 

Finally, if I am confirmed for this position, I pledge to place the safety and security of U.S. citizens in Montenegro and our mission above all else, and to provide 

excellent service to all U.S. citizens in Montenegro. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, our relationship with Montenegro 

is an important one—built on our shared commitment to security, prosperity, and 

713 

democracy for all Americans and Montenegrins. If confirmed, I pledge to work with 

this committee to further advance these values in the service of our common strategic goal: a Europe whole, free, and at peace. Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much. 

Where is Ryan? Ryan, we have a great deal of gratitude for all 

of the children of diplomats. We know the sacrifice that you make. 

But you are rising above and beyond the call. Thank you very 

much for your service. Thank you for being here. Thank you for 

surprising your mom. 

Let me start with Mr. Cekuta and Mr. Mills and dig a little bit 

deeper into the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

Russia has, at times, taken steps to destabilize the conflict in 

large part by providing military support and arms to both sides of 

it and then has also tried to play a role as a mediator as well. I 

would love for both of you—I will ask you, Mr. Cekuta, first and 

then Mr. Mills. What is your understanding of Russia’s sincerity 

about trying to play a role to bring this conflict to an end? What 

are Russia’s interests in this conflict remaining frozen, semifrozen 

versus their interests in trying to gain some resolution? And is 

there any prospect, amidst the tensions that exist over Ukraine, for 

the United States and Russia to work together, to the extent that 

we do have common interests? So a multipart question. 

Mr. CEKUTA. Thank you, Senator. Those are very important 

points and things which we will need to be considering if we are 

confirmed in this job. 

The United States, along with Russia and France, have been cooperating working together as co-chairs of the Minsk process to 

find a way forward on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, to find a solution to that issue. Our cochair, Ambassador Warlick, has been 

working closely with his counterparts in this process. I note that 

President Putin organized a meeting earlier this past summer in 

Sochi with the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents. But I also 

would note that the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents met last 

November under the auspices of the Minsk Group process, met 

with Secretary Kerry this past September 4th on the margins of 

the NATO summit. 

The Minsk Group process is the one that seems to have the 

greatest—which enjoys the confidence of all the parties and which 

seems the best way forward. And I think, Senator, if confirmed, 

this will be the area where I would see working closely with Ambassador Warlick to move this process ahead and find a solution 

to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I would just echo what Bob has said. 

Just I would underscore Ambassador Warlick in all his discussions 

with me has emphasized that he works well with his Russian cochair and they have been an active participant in the Minsk Group 

process. 

As Bob said, meetings with Presidents can be helpful in moving 

the negotiations along, but we are being very clear to both sides 

that the Minsk Group process remains the best process and mechanism for reaching a solution on this issue because it is the process 

that the two parties have the most confidence in. 

714 

I think in terms of arms being provided into the region, we are 

concerned about arms that come from anywhere that could destabilize the situation. And so we watch that and monitor that very, 

very carefully. 

It will be, obviously, a priority for both Bob and I to remain in 

contact ourselves, but to work with Ambassador Warlick to move 

the issue forward. 

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Baily, you touched on some recent concerns raised about ethnic tensions within Macedonia, and of course, 

ethnic reconciliation is a key element of the lasting regional peace 

in the Balkans. And so you have got a Slavic majority and an Albanian minority. You have got reports of rising tensions. You have 

got, as you mentioned, the Ohrid Agreement. 

What is your understanding of where the Ohrid Agreement 

stands? I know you are not there yet, so you are not deeply enmeshed in this process. But you talked broadly about what our 

mission can do there to try to get at this maybe increasing problem. Maybe provide us a little bit more specificity as to what the 

United States can do possibly within the context of that agreement 

to try to make the situation better, not worse. 

Mr. BAILY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a good observation. 

The Ohrid Agreement, as you know, ended a civil conflict and 

sought to bring active participation by the Albanian minority into 

both the governance of the country as well as its economy and give 

it a future within Macedonia. In many respects, there has been important progress. As I mentioned, the leading Albanian party is 

now part of the governing coalition. There is more local governance 

at a local level so that people have more control over their lives, 

but there is a lot more to do. As we saw in the demonstrations that 

occurred this July after a verdict, many Albanians have questions 

about the fairness of the judiciary. And so that is an area where 

we are working very actively to increase trust in the judiciary not 

only for just ethnic Albanians but for Macedonian citizens at large. 

We are also working in many areas, public diplomacy through 

our Peace Corps programs to build a sense of a common future and 

of tolerance between the ethnic Albanian and Macedonian populations. I would note that, of course, within the fabric of Macedonian society, there are more than Slavs and Albanians. There are 

Turks. There are Roma and others. So this is a microcosm in many 

ways of the richness of the Balkans. And to get all those populations to see a common future, I think the United States has an 

important role given our own history and our own set of values in 

this. 

Senator MURPHY. You mentioned the lack of faith in the judiciary. In 2005 when Macedonia was originally considered for EU candidate status, they were considered a real success story within the 

western Balkans. And since then, there have been significant reports of backsliding in terms of their commitment to democracy 

and the integrity of their institutions. 

Again, I am asking you a question that you may not have a handle on until you are there, but do we have any sense of what has 

been the precipitating cause of some of the deterioration of their 

democratic institutions and judicial institutions? 

715 

Mr. BAILY. I think one of the primary causes is a sense of greater 

politicization of some of these institutions, including the judiciary, 

including the media. And so the United States does have efforts in 

our assistance programs, in our public diplomacy programs to address those. We have increased training within the judiciary, introduced things like sentencing guidelines to ensure fairness, auto 

case management so that you can avoid perhaps politicized case assignment, codes of ethics and so forth. But fundamentally we think 

that it is important to have a strong and free and impartial media 

as well to serve as an important check on political power. That is 

another area where we are working. I look forward to looking into 

all these things and to find out how we can be more effective. 

Senator MURPHY. I will save my questions for Ms. Uyehara for 

the second round. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Certainly as the chairman and I have traveled together in Eastern Europe, a recurring theme always is corruption in government. 

You see where the Eastern European countries have rooted out the 

most corruption, are the ones that are more successful, places like 

Poland. 

Ms. Uyehara, you mentioned an anticorruption process in Montenegro. We met an incredibly courageous young woman in Romania, 

head of their special corruption prosecution group. She was under 

a death threat. We found it extremely important that the United 

States support those efforts. Can you speak to that in terms of 

what your intentions would be within Montenegro to support their 

anticorruption efforts? 

Ms. UYEHARA. Thank you very much, Senator. That is a great 

question and it is certainly a very, very important issue for us, all 

of us on this panel, but throughout particularly the area and in 

Montenegro. Corruption is a horrible thing. To speak very bluntly, 

it corrodes society. It undermines people’s faith and confidence in 

public institutions, and it prevents the kind of economic growth 

and development that all of our countries definitely need particularly in this environment. 

Montenegro, from my reading and preparing for this hearing, 

very much recognizes that it needs to do more in this regard. We 

have a very robust and very targeted rule of law program with two 

very excellent resident legal advisors in Montenegro and work very 

closely with all members and levels of the judiciary, the police 

force, and the prosecutors to try to reform those institutions and 

to try to make them more accountable and transparent. Certainly 

if I am confirmed, Senator, I will do everything I can to make sure 

that we have a very targeted, focused effort that yields the greatest 

possibility of results, and I will work very closely with all levels of 

society and nongovernmental institutions, as well as the Montenegrin Government, to make sure that they have a more robust society and respect the rule of law, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. I appreciate that. I think those individuals fighting against corruption in those countries really do value 

the leadership of America, the support of America. So I would certainly encourage that activity. 

716 

Mr. Mills or Mr. Cekuta, either one of you or both of you can answer this question. I would like to be brought up to speed in terms 

of the history of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What issues were 

at the heart of it? What issues may have been resolved? What 

issues still remain unresolved in the process? Let me start with 

you, Mr. Mills. 

Mr. MILLS. The conflict is over 20 years old, Senator, as you 

know. It involves competing claims to the Nagorno-Karabakh territory. Warfare back and forth in the early 1990s resulted in Armenia assuming responsibility for the territory. And its cease-fire was 

imposed in 1994. There is a line of contact between the two sides. 

The Minsk Group process was created to resolve the future status 

of this territory. We have had some breakthroughs in the past, but 

we have not been able to get the two sides to reach a final solution. 

I think there is wide recognition that any settlement will require 

respect for basic principles contained in international law, the U.N. 

charter, and the Helsinki Final Act. And three principles will be 

key to any settlement: nonuse of force, nonthreat of use of force; 

respect for territorial integrity; and respect for the self-determination of peoples. Any solution requires involvement of all those three 

principles and it will require agreement from all the parties involved. 

I think Ambassador Warlick himself laid out the elements for a 

solution in his speech he gave at the Carnegie Institute here in 

Washington in May. So I would refer you to those as very useful. 

They have gotten a lot of attention in both countries. And the process is moving forward. Ambassador Warlick is actually in Yerevan 

today building on the meeting that the Secretary had with the two 

Presidents on September 4. And he himself was quoted in the papers this morning as saying that he believes there is a window of 

opportunity now for the sides to move forward. Ultimately, though, 

it will require compromise from both sides and preparing peoples 

on all sides for compromise based on those principles. 

Senator JOHNSON. What I am hearing is none of the issues have 

been resolved. There has been a framework. There are discussions 

going on, but the heart of the issues is still there and it is going 

to require compromise. Nothing has been resolved. Is that basically 

true, Mr. Cekuta? 

Mr. CEKUTA. Thank you, Senator. 

I think I agree with what Rick said, and I think the point here 

is that from talking to Ambassador Warlick and our understanding 

where he sees the situation right now and what he has put forward 

in his Carnegie statement back in the spring, the outlines for an 

agreement seem to be there. And the principles for reaching that 

agreement are sort of in place. The question now is bringing the 

two sides together. And this is what can be done from the Minsk 

Group. This is what the Secretary was trying to do in the meetings 

in Wales earlier this month and where Jim is working right now 

to try to bring this together. 

One of the things which I think is important to bear in mind is 

that there is no military solution to this conflict, that it really is 

something that needs to be worked out and it can be worked out. 

And so one of the things, I think, for both Rick and for me to be 

doing will be working with Jim, working with the Minsk Group to 

717 

try to help build the framework for an agreement that could bring 

peace to this part of the world. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. I am almost out of time. I will just 

wait for a second round, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Uyehara, I want to talk to you about Montenegro’s potential 

NATO membership. We talked about this privately. I am a believer 

that Montenegro is ready and could have been offered a plan for 

membership in Wales. And my frustration has been that it has not 

appeared clear to me that Montenegro has been told in explicit 

enough terms exactly what they need to do from here until now, 

as you mentioned, 2015 when a decision will be made up or down. 

What is your understanding of the communication that has been 

made to Montenegro as to what they need to do, and what is the 

role of our Embassy to try to get them from here to there in time 

for this decision to be made next year? 

Ms. UYEHARA. Thank you very, very much, Senator. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, certainly assisting Montenegro 

in its quest for full integration into the Euro-Atlantic community 

and to fulfill its aspirations to join NATO will be one of my top foreign policy priorities, if I am confirmed as Ambassador. And I agree 

with you, Senator. We need to do everything we can to help them 

ensure that they are ready when NATO and the NATO allies decide that they want to offer them a place in that community. 

In June, the NATO Foreign Ministers offered to begin an intensified and focused dialogue with Montenegro. That includes a number of visits both to Montenegro and of Montenegrins coming to 

Brussels to discuss exactly what the criteria are and what they 

need to do. The NATO Foreign Ministers identified four areas 

where there needed to be continued progress, and those areas include defense and intelligence sector reforms and bolstering public 

support for NATO, as well as the rule of law issues that we have 

talked about previously. 

I am personally very excited. This offers a great opportunity for 

Montenegro to showcase its successes and really to demonstrate its 

strong and sustained track record of reforms. 

If I am confirmed, I will definitely work very closely with the 

Montenegrin Government and with our allies to ensure that Montenegro knows exactly what it needs to do and is ready to get across 

the finish line. 

Senator MURPHY. You talked about public support. Montenegrins 

have a very clear memory of the damage done by NATO bombing 

in the 1990s, but this is clearly a place where our Embassy, where 

our Ambassador can make a difference in trying to build public 

support for a new NATO mission. I would assume that that is a 

place that you can be of help. 

Ms. UYEHARA. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely. I very much look 

forward, if I am confirmed, to getting out and taking every public 

speaking opportunity and every public diplomacy opportunity there 

is. I tend to be a bit of an extrovert, and I think this would be a 

great—both in my role and personally, I look forward to meeting 

as many people as I can really talking about the benefits of NATO 

membership, as well as the responsibilities, the very important responsibilities, that go with it. 

718 

Senator MURPHY. I will just end not in the form of a question but 

as my one editorial comment of the hearing, which is that as we 

seek to craft a unified transatlantic response to Russian aggression, I believe it is critical in order for us to maintain the commitment of open doors that NATO historically has had. If the message 

is sent forth that the doors are shut and that countries like Montenegro and Georgia that, while they have obstacles, I believe are 

ready for membership action plans, do not have a pathway into 

NATO, then it rewards the kind of tactics that Russia is using to 

try to destabilize countries from inside. This is exactly what Russia 

wants. Russia wants an EU and a NATO that has no interest in 

continuing to expand partnerships. And I think that this is important for the future of the bilateral relationship, that we would be 

strong players in bringing Montenegro across the finish line. But 

I think that this is a critical component of a larger strategy to answer this new security paradigm inside Europe. 

Mr. Cekuta, just one more question for you. I want to draw on 

your experience in energy security and have you just talk a little 

bit about the prospects for TAP and its potential ultimately for enlargement—it is only about 2 percent of Europe’s energy needs but 

could be larger—and then the future prospects of a trans-Caspian 

pipeline that can bring gas through Azerbaijan from Turkmenistan 

into Europe. What are the prospects for these pipeline projects to 

make a difference in Europe, and what can we do to help them 

along? 

Mr. CEKUTA. Thank you, Senator. It is also a particularly timely 

question because this weekend we will see the ceremonial 

groundbreaking, if you will, for construction of the Southern Corridor of the new pipeline from Azerbaijan across through Turkey to 

Italy. 

In terms of energy diversification, Azerbaijan is—well, it is the 

country which actually did have the first oil well. It has tremendous energy resources. More work will need to be done to develop 

them in the area I would see where it would be a great focus for 

the Embassy both in terms of the broader security picture, as well 

as an area where we could be working with U.S. companies both 

in terms of oil companies but also the services companies, the technology companies that can help provide what is needed for a country to develop its energy resources. 

The United States has been long engaged with Azerbaijan and 

with other European countries in terms of diversifying routes and 

diversifying sources of energy. This is one of the things which has 

become increasingly important I think particularly in the recent 

months and an area of great focus for the United States and something where I know in my former work in the Energy Bureau, my 

boss, Ambassador Pascual, was focused very much on engaging 

with the European Union, with the countries in the region to find 

ways forward and an area where I think we will continue to be engaged. Diversification of energy and those resources is going to be 

important for the well-being and for strengthening the European 

economy and for the ability of those countries to be able to stand 

up and conduct the foreign policies they want to do. 

Senator MURPHY. Lastly, Mr. Cekuta, I hope that at the top of 

your list, we will be raising concerns with the Azerbaijan GovernVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00726 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
719 

ment regarding the number, the increasing number of individuals 

whose imprisonments have very troubling political overtones. Senator Durbin, Cardin, and I recently sent a letter to President 

Aliyev expressing concerns. We are particularly concerned with two 

individuals, Leyla and Arif Yunus, who are leaders of the Democracy Unit but may both be in failing health. I hope that you will 

raise those specific concerns regarding those prisoners but make 

the more general issue one of top concern while you are there. 

Mr. CEKUTA. Thank you, Senator. 

As I noted, there are three pillars we need to be working on in 

our relationship with Azerbaijan: security, energy, and democracy, 

rule of law. And you have put your finger on one of the areas that 

is really important. I very much share your concerns. It will be one 

of the things which I will look into when I get there. It is an area 

that we will work on, but I need to get on the ground and understand it a little bit better. But thank you very much, Senator, for 

making that expression. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Baily, I just had to take advantage of the fact that you have 

recent experience in Turkey. As we are facing a very real threat 

from ISIS, both regionally as well as worldwide, including here in 

America and the West, I am very supportive of President Obama’s 

desire to assemble a coalition of the willing. I think I share the disappointment that Turkey did not step forward and offer a full partnership in allowing us to, for example, use the Incirlik Air Base for 

potentially launching strikes. 

Can you just give us some insight in terms of what Turkey was 

thinking, why they would be reluctant to do so as a full member 

of NATO, also being, I would think, threatened and concerned 

about the growth of ISIS? 

Mr. BAILY. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

As you noted, Turkey is a tremendously important partner of the 

United States in dealing with Syria, in combating terrorism. They 

have taken in millions of Syrian refugees and displaced persons. 

They are working to try to secure their border to stop the flow of 

foreign fighters. They have several of their diplomats who are right 

now held hostage by ISIL forces in Mosul. And we have had a number of strong partnerships with Turkey in combating these. 

Secretary Kerry, as you know, was just out in Ankara last Friday, and I think he will be testifying later today before this committee. I can give you my view. I think he can give you a fresher 

view from speaking with President Erdogan and Prime Minister 

Davutoglu and other Turkish leaders. So I will leave it to the Secretary, I think, to give a fuller assessment of where we are today 

with Turkey. 

Senator JOHNSON. I understand that, and I will potentially ask 

that question of the Secretary. You have been there. And this is 

just a genuine desire to understand what their thinking is. 

Listen, I am pretty sympathetic with the fact that they have 40 

diplomats who are being held hostage right now. Is that why they 

are being restrained here? Quite honestly, that would make some 

sense. I am just trying to understand. 

720 

Mr. BAILY. That is certainly one of the issues, sir, that has them 

concerned, as it would any government. I think they also probably 

want to fully understand the long-term strategy going forward not 

only with regard to ISIL but with regard to the Assad regime. I 

think that is also a concern. So from my experience in working 

with Turkey, I think we have a good dialogue, and I think together 

we have a long history of coming together with common solutions. 

So I am confident that Turkey has condemned ISIL, has condemned al Nusrah, and will be a partner and is a partner in this 

effort. 

Senator JOHNSON. I certainly have been disappointed over the 

last few years with the direction that Turkey has moved. Internally 

in terms of a free, democratic society, moving more toward more 

autocratic rule, more Islamic. And to me, this is just another symptom or a symbol of that movement away from a strong western democracy toward a different form of government, more autocratic. 

Am I incorrect in that perception? 

Mr. BAILY. Sir, we would share many of the perceptions you have 

just said particularly in terms of checks and balances within the 

system, concerns that we have expressed regarding freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. We detail those in reports publicly. We bring those up in conversations privately. I think that 

Turkey has a strong history of secular democracy, and so I think 

there are many in Turkey who are also sharing those concerns and 

it is important to work with them on these issues as well. 

Senator JOHNSON. What is the best way to work with them? How 

can we shape them? How can we pull them back in a better direction? Let us put it that way. 

Mr. BAILY. Well, I think you would look to what Turkish leaders 

have said. They want to have the highest standards of democracy. 

They are a candidate member of the European Union. They are a 

member of other European institutions. And so I think one of the 

ways we can do that is to remind Turkish leaders, to remind the 

Turkish people of the very values to which they aspire. I think that 

is an important role. And I think it is one that is shared by many, 

many Turks. Some of these issues in terms of religious expression 

and other issues within Turkey have a long history and have a different history than in this Nation. So I think that is an important 

way to do it. But these are values that Turks share. I have come 

to know that over 16 years and working there. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

I just want to close out by, again, thanking the nominees here 

for serving your Nation over a number of years. I think the chairman probably shares my view. I have been involved in the Foreign 

Relations Committee now for only a little over a year and a half. 

I have been, as we have traveled around, just incredibly impressed 

with the quality, the dedication, and the professionalism of the 

members of our Foreign Service. I think all four of you represent 

that dedication, that quality of individual, that type of commitment 

to your profession. So I just want to thank you for your willingness 

to serve. God bless you and I wish you the best of luck in your 

posts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

721 

Senator MURPHY. A well-said wrap-up. We are going to potentially give you some homework assignments in that we are going 

to close the record at 5 o’clock today. So if there are any additional 

questions for the record from our colleagues, we would appreciate 

you turning them around very quickly so that if there is a chance 

to get you on the agenda for tomorrow, we are available to take advantage of it. I cannot promise that that will happen, but we are 

going to expedite the formal closing of this hearing for 5 o’clock 

today to at least make that an available opportunity. 

Thank you all for being here. Thank you to your families, and 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF ROBERT FRANCIS CEKUTA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What is the impact of your actions? 

Why were your actions significant? 

Answer. I was deputy chief of mission in Albania in the late 1990s and worked 

with the Albanian Government, political figures, civil society, USAID, other donors, 

and the OSCE to help create or rebuild institutions to put the country back on a 

track toward rule of law and a market economy following the political, economic, 

and social disruptions resulting from the collapse of a massive set of pyramid 

schemes. The focus was on allaying suspicions, reforming and strengthening the 

laws and institutions for the conduct of elections, reinforcing the idea that allowing 

different views leads to a healthy, stable country, and strengthening the ability of 

the post-Communist Albanian media to report developments freely. While the country’s progress after the 1997 crisis was not always straight-forward, the changes I 

and the Embassy helped put in place contributed to Albania being able today to be 

a member of NATO and pursue EU membership. 

Promotion of human rights and democracy has been an important aspect of other 

subsequent jobs I’ve held as well. As Economic Minister Counselor in Berlin, I was 

the point person working with Germany to boost the country’s efforts to combat trafficking in persons. As Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Energy Resources Bureau, a key focus was working with other countries to 

strengthen rule of law and fight corruption and the so-called ‘‘resource curse’’ that 

has meant that the benefits of developing oil, gas, or other extractive industries in 

resource-rich countries have flowed to only a few individuals rather than helping 

grow the overall economy and yield benefits to the broader population. In this connection, I sat on the Board of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative for 

more than 2 years, and worked to develop and implement the EITI’s new global 

standard, and to support the fight against corruption in a number of countries 

around the world. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Azerbaijan? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take—if confirmed—to promote human 

rights and democracy in Azerbaijan? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge the Azerbaijani authorities, consistent with Azerbaijan’s constitutional and international commitments, to ensure freedoms of assembly, association, and expression, to foster an environment conducive to a vibrant and 

peaceful civil society, respect pluralism, and to strengthen judicial independence and 

due process. I look forward to working closely with all partners to ensure that civil 

society can conduct its work as effectively as possible. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Azerbaijan in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. It is a cause for concern that the authorities have erected challenges and 

obstacles for U.S.-funded and other organizations. If confirmed, I will urge the Government of Azerbaijan to create an environment in which civil society can operate 

722 

freely, and I will work closely with all partners to ensure that they can conduct 

their work as effectively as possible. Rule of law is critical to democratic and economic development as well as to human and national security. The Department has 

raised our concerns about respect for human rights and the rule of law in Azerbaijan with the government and has spoken out publicly about these concerns. 

For example, during this year, we have raised our concerns bilaterally and at the 

OSCE Permanent Council about the arrests and sentencing of civil society activists 

and journalists as well as the adoption of recent legislative amendments that have 

restricted the activities of nongovernmental organizations in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s progress in this area would help to deepen our bilateral relationship. 

Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in the U.S. and with local human rights NGOs in Azerbaijan? 

Answer. Yes, and, if confirmed, it will be among my first priorities upon arriving 

in Azerbaijan. I will continue the Embassy’s current commitment to have Embassy 

officers, at all levels, meet with those outside of the government, such as civil society representatives, and independent journalists, to demonstrate our support for 

universal values of pluralism and fundamental freedoms. 

Question. Secretary Kerry met with the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, 

Sargsian and Aliyev, respectively, at the Wales NATO summit on September 4, 

2014, regarding renewed fighting in July along the Nagorno-Karabakh line of contact. Given the importance of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ensuring 

it does not turn into an all-out conflict, what is the administration currently doing 

to support the OSCE Minsk Group Talks? Has there been progress in the Minsk 

Group talks toward reaching a political settlement? What are the chances an allout conflict will resume? 

Answer. The OSCE Minsk Group has continued to engage with the sides at the 

highest levels and to promote dialogue to help them reach a peaceful settlement. 

In November 2013, Presidents Aliyev and Sargsian met for the first time in almost 

2 years in Vienna, under the auspices of the Minsk Group cochairs. The administration is also committed to a peaceful settlement through the Minsk Group process. 

Secretary Kerry delivered this message when he met with the Presidents at the 

NATO summit in Wales on September 4 to discuss a way forward in peace negotiations. We encourage the Presidents to continue to work with the cochairs and discuss elements of a settlement. 

Question. Clashes this year along Nagorno-Karabakh’s Line of Conflict have been 

the worst since the cease-fire was signed in 1994, claiming 15 lives this summer. 

If confirmed, how will you respond to these new instances of aggression and provocation? What will you do to support the successive appeals by the Minsk Group and 

the United Nations Secretary General for Azerbaijan to withdraw its snipers from 

the line of contact, which Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have agreed to do? 

Answer. The United States strongly condemns violations of the cease-fire and 

deeply regrets the loss of life that resulted from these incidents along the Line of 

Contact. We have frequently, publicly, and privately, called upon both sides to take 

all measures to respect the cease-fire. If confirmed as Ambassador, I, too, will 

strongly advocate for de-escalating tensions and preparing the public for a peace the 

people of Armenia and Azerbaijan deserve. I will also support the U.S. cochair of 

the OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassador James Warlick, in his efforts to help achieve 

a peaceful and lasting settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

Question. If confirmed, will you commit to meeting with the Armenia-American 

diaspora in the U.S. before you take up your post, and regularly meet and communicate with the diaspora thereafter, on progress toward lifting the Azeri blockade 

of Armenia and other Azeri policies that run counter to U.S. policies intended to 

encourage regional cooperation and economic integration? 

Answer. Yes, and, if confirmed, meeting with Armenian and Azerbaijani-American 

diaspora groups will be among my first priorities. Long-term stability and economic 

prosperity in the Caucasus is dependent on the full normalization of relations 

among all the states in the region. The United States has long believed that opening 

the border between Turkey and Armenia would contribute to regional stability and 

economic development. If confirmed, I will strongly support the administration’s 

efforts to pursue regional peace and reconciliation. I would make a strong case that 

Azerbaijan—along with Armenia and Turkey—stands to gain from a Caucasus 

region that is stable, secure, and at peace. 

Question. By any measure, the human rights situation in Azerbaijan has deteriorated over the last year. Freedom House, in its annual Freedom in the World report, 

723 

determined that freedom declined in 2013, and has stated that the country is in the 

midst of what some would call the most brutal crackdown on civil society in recent 

history, citing arrests and attacks against the media, activists, and government critics, as well as travel bans, the freezing of bank accounts, and public smears to 

silence dissent. According to international NGOs, the Azerbaijani Government currently has over 100 political prisoners. 

♦ If confirmed, what will you do to secure the release of these political prisoners 

and advocate against these myriad and worsening human rights abuses? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge the Azerbaijani authorities, consistent with Azerbaijan’s constitutional and international commitments, to ensure freedoms of assembly, association, and expression, to foster an environment conducive to a vibrant and 

peaceful civil society, respect pluralism, and to strengthen judicial independence and 

due process. I will follow up on the U.S. Statement at the August 14 OSCE Permanent Council, which urged ‘‘the Government of Azerbaijan to halt the continuing 

arrests of peaceful activists, to stop freezing organizations’ and individuals’ bank 

accounts, and to release those who have been incarcerated in connection with the 

exercise of their fundamental freedoms.’’ I look forward to working closely with all 

partners—domestic and international—to ensure that civil society can conduct its 

work as effectively as possible. 

Question. The Djulfa Armenian cemetery, an over 1,300-year-old Armenian cemetery that used to have thousands of intricately carved tombstones, has been desecrated but has not been included in the State Department’s International Religious 

Freedom Report or its Human Rights Report? Why has the Djulfa Armenian cemetery been excluded from these reports? If confirmed, what specific steps will you 

take to restore, preserve, or protect the Djulfa Armenian cemetery as a holy site? 

Answer. I do not know why the Djulfa Armenian cemetery was not mentioned in 

the State Department’s reports at the time of its desecration, but I can assure 

that—if confirmed—I will direct my staff to include recent developments related to 

this cemetery in Department reports such as the annual International Religious 

Freedom Report on Azerbaijan. The United States condemned the desecration of the 

Djulfa Cemetery and urged the Azerbaijanis to investigate the incident. Despite our 

repeated requests to visit the Djulfa Cemetery, local authorities have so far refused 

permission to do so. If I am confirmed, I will amplify our concerns to the Government of Azerbaijan. If confirmed, I also will urge the government to protect the 

rights and holy sites of all groups. 

Question. The European Court of Human Rights recently requested that Azerbaijan explain the circumstances surrounding its refusal to repatriate to Armenia 

the remains of Karen Petrosyan, an Armenian and political prisoner who was taken 

into captivity on August 7, 2014, and died shortly thereafter while in captivity. If 

confirmed, will you commit to actively support the efforts of the United States, 

France, Russia, and the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure the 

remains of Mr. Petrosyan are returned to his family? 

Answer. We lament the death of detainees in custody and call on the sides to 

investigate when such incidents occur. We will continue to encourage all sides to 

continue to work with international humanitarian organizations to repatriate 

remains of the deceased and call on the sides to fulfill their humanitarian obligations. The tragic loss of life in the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia reminds 

us that there cannot be a military solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Only 

a lasting and peaceful settlement can bring stability, prosperity, and reconciliation 

to the region. As a cochair of the Minsk Group, the United States remains firmly 

committed to working with the sides to achieve peace. 

RESPONSES OF RICHARD M. MILLS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What is the impact of your actions? 

Why were your actions significant? 

Answer. The United States believes that ensuring respect for human rights, rule 

of law, and democratic processes is fundamentally important to Armenia’s political 

and economic development as well as its internal stability and security. If confirmed, I will bring hands-on experience in these areas gained from many of my previous tours, but especially from my work in post-Soviet St. Petersburg in 1993–95 

and in Baghdad from 2009–10. 

724 

In St. Petersburg, I identified nascent civil society groups, focused on good governance and human rights, whose work could benefit from U.S. Government support, 

worked to obtain appropriate program funding and training for them, and provided 

these new organizations with guidance on identifying other possible sources of support in the United States. I built partnerships among these groups to increase their 

leverage and influence, using the consulate’s convening power to chair regular meetings in which they came together to pursue strategies to move forward legislation 

or to create public campaigns to reach a broader public in northwest Russia. As the 

Democracy Advisor at Embassy Baghdad I managed approximately $100 million in 

State Department-funded programs designed to build grassroots, democratic infrastructure and support Iraqis working to protect human rights. A particular focus of 

my work was to promote an Iraqi parliamentary election process in 2010 that was 

free, fair, and carried out in accordance with international standards. I targeted our 

programs to train Iraqi media on the principles of balanced election reporting, ensure local community and constituent issues were part of the political debate, and 

provide Iraqi civil society and political parties with poll watching capability, using 

new social media techniques. In addition to meeting with activists across Iraq, I 

worked with colleagues at the Embassy, USAID and other U.S. Government agencies to bring concerns about the election process to the attention of Iraqi officials 

and media for resolution. The international monitors that traveled to Iraq to monitor the 2010 election process and voting praised them for meeting international 

standards, transparency, and media coverage. This experience will inform my efforts 

to work closely with Armenian political parties and Government to help foster the 

same kind of positive process in advance of parliamentary elections in 2017. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Armenia? What are 

the most important steps you expect to take—if confirmed—to promote human 

rights and democracy in Armenia? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. If confirmed, strengthening democracy and human rights in Armenia will 

be a high priority. Despite some positive steps in areas such as freedom of association and the press over the past 5 years, much remains to be done in Armenia. I 

will continue to regularly highlight in my discussions with Armenian officials the 

importance of democratic reform, including strengthening the rule of law bolstered 

by an independent judiciary, combating corruption, and conducting democratic electoral processes. 

In addition, I will continue to emphasize Embassy engagement and public solidarity with those outside of the government, such as opposition party leaders, civil 

society representatives, and independent journalists, to demonstrate our support for 

the universal values of pluralism and fundamental freedoms. I will actively seek 

partnerships with like-minded organizations and individuals to advance our democracy and human rights goals, and, if confirmed, want to explore with the ArmenianAmerican community ways it can enhance its ongoing contributions to strengthening judicial independence, ensuring freedom of assembly and expression, and 

supporting an open, vibrant, and prosperous society. 

Among the goals of all these efforts will be to work with Armenian political parties and the government to help foster Armenian parliamentary elections in 2017 

that meet international standards and reflect fundamental freedoms. As a first step, 

I will encourage the government to work closely with the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to implement the electoral reforms 

ODIHR proposed following Armenia’s last parliamentary elections in 2012 and Presidential election in 2013. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Armenia in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. Despite some positive steps in areas such as freedom of association and 

of the press over the past 5 years, much remains to be done in Armenia. 

Systemic corruption is Armenia’s primary obstacle to its democratic development. 

Corruption is too common in Armenia and hinders economic growth, undermines 

public confidence in government and the rule of law, and fosters cynicism about the 

efficacy of democratic change. It is positive, however, that President Sargsian and 

newly appointed Prime Minister Abrahamyan have spoken publicly about the need 

to combat corruption in order to stimulate the economy and enhance Armenia’s 

growth as a society. If confirmed, I intend to follow up on their pledges to address 

the issue. 

The Armenian Government has taken some steps to address corruption and is 

working on a new anticorruption strategy. These steps have produced some meanVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00732 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
725 

ingful progress, as evidenced by Armenia’s improved score on the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s corruption index in FY14 over the previous year. In addition, 

USAID, through technical assistance and local government support, is implementing 

programs to increase the level of transparency and accountability in government by 

supporting procurement reform initiatives and efforts to improve public access to 

government-held information. 

If confirmed, I am committed to working with the government and civil society 

to help them each move forward, and cooperate where necessary, to address corruption and promote democratic governance. 

Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in the U.S. and with local human rights NGOs in Armenia? 

Answer. Yes, and, if confirmed, it will be among my first priorities upon arriving 

in Armenia. I will continue the Embassy’s current commitment to have Embassy 

officers, at all levels, meet with those outside of the government, such as opposition 

party leaders, civil society representatives, and independent journalists, to demonstrate our support for universal values of pluralism and fundamental freedoms. 

Question. Secretary Kerry met with the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, 

Sargsian and Aliyev, respectively, at the Wales NATO summit on September 4, 

2014, regarding renewed fighting in July along the Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact. Given the importance of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ensuring 

it does not turn into an all-out conflict, what is the administration currently doing 

to support the OSCE Minsk Group Talks? Has there been progress in the Minsk 

Group talks toward reaching a political settlement? What are the chances an allout conflict will resume? 

Answer. The OSCE Minsk Group has continued to engage with the sides at the 

highest levels and to promote dialogue to help them reach a peaceful settlement. 

In November 2013, Presidents Aliyev and Sargsian met for the first time in almost 

2 years in Vienna, under the auspices of the Minsk Group cochairs. The administration is also committed to a peaceful settlement through the Minsk Group process. 

Secretary Kerry delivered this message when he met with the Presidents at the 

NATO summit in Wales on September 4 to discuss a way forward in peace negotiations. We encourage the Presidents to continue to work with the cochairs and discuss elements of a settlement. 

Question. It is estimated that Russia supplies Armenia with nearly 80 percent of 

its energy needs. What assistance is the U.S. providing to Armenia to help it diversify its energy portfolio and decrease its dependence on Russia? Russia, under the 

Presidency of Vladimir Putin, has placed a high priority on exercising its military 

and economic influence in Armenia. If confirmed, how will you counter Russia’s 

growing influence in the country? 

Answer. The U.S. has provided approximately $82 million since 1993 through the 

Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission to upgrade the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (ANPP) and to ensure the safest possible operation until 

its closure. For example, the U.S. began providing training to the Armenian Nuclear 

Regulatory Authority (ANRA) on internationally recognized approaches to performing nuclear power plant safety analyses and funded equipment upgrades at ANPP. 

USAID has also provided approximately $85 million in assistance since 1992 on 

energy efficiency and energy regulation. Currently, USAID is funding a $5.6 million 

program on clean energy and water to promote alternate energy sources, as well as 

supporting Armenia’s energy security and regional integration. 

The best way to counter Russia’s influence in Armenia is to maintain our effort 

to decrease Armenia’s regional isolation and bolster its economic and security independence. We will make clear to the Armenian people, business community, and 

officials that the door to strengthened economic collaboration with the United States 

and Europe remains open. We will continue to work with our Armenian partners 

to continue its democratic and economic reforms and preserve the progress made in 

the Eastern Partnership over the past 31⁄2 years, in addition to the reforms made 

through the U.S.-Armenia relationship, spanning over 20 years. 

Question. If confirmed, you will be Ambassador to Armenia during the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On this 100th anniversary, as a representative 

of the government and people of the United States, a nation that is home to well 

over a million Americans whose families were decimated by the Genocide, how will 

you demonstrate America’s uncompromising commitment to forcefully condemn and 

properly commemorate all instance of genocide, regardless of foreign pressures or 

political considerations? 

726 

♦ Will you commit to participating in events to recognize the Armenian Genocide’s 

100th anniversary? 

In your written testimony, you state that 2015 will ‘‘mark the centenary of one 

of the 20th century’s worst atrocities, when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred 

or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire,’’ and that ‘‘it 

is important that Turkey engage with Armenia to achieve a full, frank, and just 

acknowledgement of the facts so that both nations can begin to forge a relationship 

that is peaceful, productive, and prosperous.’’ 

♦ What do you characterize as a ‘‘full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the 

facts?’’ If confirmed, what will you do to encourage Turkey to fully recognize the 

Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the tradition of officially participating in the 

memorial event in Yerevan every April. The event will have special resonance in 

2015, as Armenia and the world will mark the centenary of one of the 20th century’s 

worst atrocities, when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their 

deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. I will work to identify ways that 

the Embassy can amplify our message to the Armenian people that the United 

States stands in solidarity with Armenia at this time of remembrance and acknowledgement of the facts of that terrible time. 

To achieve full reconciliation, Turkey must come to terms with its past. Delays 

in fully addressing this history only add to the pain experienced by many Armenians and Armenian-Americans. Enhancing contacts could begin to build trust, 

which is the necessary first step to reconciliation. If confirmed, I will work to continue to promote not only government-to-government discussions, but also peopleto-people contacts, cultural and economic partnerships, and other cross-border and 

regional initiatives. 

Question. If confirmed, will you commit to meeting with the Armenia-American 

diaspora in the U.S. before you take up your post in Yerevan, and regularly meet 

and communicate with the diaspora thereafter? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed I intend to meet with representatives of the ArmenianAmerican diaspora community as part of my preparations before departing for 

Yerevan. I will continue the practice of my predecessors by communicating regularly, including meetings whenever possible, with members of the diaspora during 

my tenure as Ambassador to Armenia. 

Question. This year marks the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Protocol on 

the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations and the Protocol on the Development of 

Bilateral Relations by Armenia and Turkey. As you reference in your written testimony, the process outlined in the Protocols has stalled. If confirmed, what will you 

do to put pressure on Turkey to normalize relations with, and end its blockade of, 

landlocked Armenia, which destabilizes the region and prevents Armenia’s further 

development? 

Answer. We support the work done by both Armenia and Turkey to normalize 

relations. In particular, we strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian 

people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive. We continue to emphasize the importance of proceeding with final 

approval of these Protocols, without preconditions or linkage to other issues, and 

have been clear that responsibility for moving forward lies with the Turkish Government. And we continue to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to pursue direct 

talks that would facilitate normalization. Armenia has reached out recently by sending Foreign Minister Nalbandyan to President Erdogan’s inauguration. Facilitating 

Armenia’s regional integration by opening its border with Turkey is a priority for 

the United States. If confirmed, this would be one of my key priorities as Ambassador—not only by supporting government-to-government discussions—but by promoting people-to-people contacts and partnerships, and other cross-border and 

regional initiatives. Contact begins to build trust, and trust is the necessary first 

step to reconciliation and conflict resolution. Clearly, the status quo is not helpful 

to anyone. 

RESPONSES OF JESS LIPPINCOTT BAILY TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What is the impact of your actions? 

Why were your actions significant? 

727 

Answer. Promoting human rights and democracy has been a central part of my 

career, not only in the public diplomacy positions I have held, but also when I 

worked on policy issues before the U.N. Security Council and when I held leadership 

positions in Turkey and Iraq. My most important actions include promoting independent media in Senegal, where state press organizations dominated; providing 

grants to emerging civil society organizations in Turkey in the 1990s when government restrictions hindered their growth; and helping the Kurdistan Regional Government improve the rule of law and its judicial system, assisting a variety of organizations to highlight concerns about freedom of expression and media in Turkey. 

In addition to specific programs and activities, as an American official, I have also 

engaged activists, government critics, and ethnic and religious minorities as important voices in their societies. Our actions as U.S. Government officials convey 

respect and often provide hope to people working against difficult odds. I know this 

from conversations with the individuals whom I have helped, from a struggling 

opposition editor in Senegal in 1988 to an academic imprisoned in Turkey in 2013. 

Finally, I am particularly gratified to have led Mission Turkey’s efforts to establish 

a U.S. Government structure to coordinate assistance to Syrian civilians in Turkey 

and in Syria. This team delivered humanitarian aid to millions of displaced and 

injured Syrians and strengthened the ability of civil society and local government 

councils to deliver much-needed services. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Macedonia? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take—if confirmed—to promote human 

rights and democracy in Macedonia? What do you hope to accomplish through these 

actions? 

Answer. The Government of Macedonia generally respects the human rights of its 

citizens, but as the State Department Human Rights Report has documented, we 

have identified concerns, including the rule of law, interethnic relations and minority rights, and media freedom. 

Politicization of the judicial system undermines courts’ independence, transparency, and respect for human rights, including the appearance of selective prosecution of the government leaders’ political enemies. Tensions between ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian populations and their respective political parties continue 

to complicate individuals’ opportunities for education, employment, and political 

participation. Interethnic tensions have exacerbated, and been exacerbated by, several recent high-profile court cases. 

Promoting media freedom has been a key U.S. priority in Macedonia, and is of 

particular interest to me as a public diplomacy officer who has worked on media 

issues throughout my career. Most media outlets are owned by or have strong ties 

to political parties. Government spending on media advertising can exert heavy 

influence over media content. 

If confirmed, I will continue to place a premium on the Embassy’s human rights 

and democracy promotion. I will also work closely with the OSCE and EU missions 

in Macedonia, which have programs in these areas that complement U.S. efforts. As 

a signatory to the Ohrid Framework Agreement, the United States coordinates 

closely with the EU, OSCE, NATO, and others to encourage continued reforms in 

Macedonia, and should I be confirmed, I would continue our work through these 

invaluable partnerships. U.S. assistance is now primarily geared toward rule of law, 

democracy and good governance (including support for independent media), economic growth, education, border security, and military reform. I would lead 

Embassy Skopje in urging the Government of Macedonia to address rule of law 

issues, especially official interference in the judiciary, while maintaining an overall 

cooperative relationship. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Montenegro in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The potential obstacles to addressing the human rights issues will be 

their long-standing and pervasive natures. It will require sustained effort by the 

Macedonians themselves, and continued strong advocacy from the United States and 

other leading international community partners, to address these concerns. Macedonia’s multiethnic coalition government has made some reform progress, but the pace 

has slowed. Despite regular pro-reform rhetoric, coalition partners VMRO–DPMNE 

and DUI have enacted few meaningful reforms in recent years. Macedonia is proceeding with the legislative and practical implementation of the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement, including working toward equitable representation of minorities in 

state structures and decentralization of authority to the municipal level; however, 

accusations are common from minority ethnic groups, particularly ethnic Albanians, 

728 

that the government is not doing enough to implement the agreement. Of particular 

concern are the areas of rule of law and media freedom, but I would continue to 

encourage increased judicial independence, which would boost the currently low 

level of public trust in the judiciary. Additionally, Macedonia has passed many laws 

that should improve the investment climate and interethnic relations, and accomplish other necessary reforms, and the Embassy continues to encourage their full 

implementation. Still, reliable implementation of existing laws is needed. 

Notably, Macedonia has sustained its Tier 1 in the State Department’s annual 

TIP reports since 2011. Aside from Slovenia, Macedonia is the only country in the 

Balkans to hold a Tier 1 status. The Government of Macedonia fully complies with 

the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. We consider this a success 

story in our bilateral relationship, as last year the Government of Macedonia identified more victims of trafficking and adopted a budget for the implementation of the 

national action plan for 2013. However, the government decreased law enforcement 

efforts by investigating and convicting fewer offenders. We have recommended additional law enforcement efforts to combat TIP, and improved victim identification and 

protection, and have encouraged the government to work closer with nongovernment 

organizations to achieve this goal. 

Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in the U.S. and with local human rights NGOs in Macedonia? 

Answer. As I have throughout my Foreign Service career, I would welcome and 

seek out opportunities to engage with human rights and other NGOs both in the 

U.S. and Macedonia. Should I be confirmed, I would continue the excellent ongoing 

collaboration between our Embassy in Skopje and NGOs in Macedonia, from the 

grants our Public Affairs Section gave to the Holocaust Fund of the Jews from Macedonia this past year, to the planned support of youth LGBT through the BeLonG 

project as a way to prevent bullying, with the long-term goal of fostering inclusiveness and tolerance in schools. Our Embassy also already partners with some excellent NGOs that focus on human rights issues, whose work I hope to further build 

upon, including Open Gate La Strada on antitrafficking, the Helsinki Committee for 

Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia, and HERA, which works toward 

advancing sexual and reproductive rights. 

Question. Macedonia has asserted its right to use and be recognized by it constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia, since its independence from Yugoslavia in 

1991. Greece, whose largest province is also called Macedonia and whose heritage 

provides legitimate claims to use of the name, has requested that Macedonia include 

a geographic qualifier, such as Northern Macedonia, to distinguish itself. 

♦ How would you characterize Greece’s claims to the name Macedonia? If confirmed, will you support efforts to resolve the name dispute during your tenure 

as Ambassador to Macedonia? 

Answer. The United States strongly supports the ongoing U.N. mediation effort, 

led by Matthew Nimetz, to settle the issue in the near term. We also continue to 

support active engagement between Athens and Skopje. We encourage both governments to be flexible and cooperative in this process. We will embrace any mutually 

acceptable solution that emerges from the negotiations. 

Regional stability in Southeast Europe is a U.S. priority. Greece and Macedonia 

are both important partners in that regard. The status quo prevents the full integration of Macedonia into Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

We look to political leaders of both countries to exercise leadership. This dispute 

is more than 20 years old. It is in both parties’ interest to finally bring this issue 

to a close. If I am confirmed, I will continue to emphasize in my dealings with Macedonian authorities that flexibility and compromise are absolutely necessary. 

RESPONSES OF MARGARET ANN UYEHARA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What is the impact of your actions? 

Why were your actions significant? 

Answer. Throughout my career, I have worked diligently to ensure that our efforts 

to promote human rights and democracy have had the resources necessary to be efficient and effective. As Executive Director for European and Eurasian Affairs and 

International Organizations (EUR–IO/EX), I have been a staunch supporter of U.S. 

Government policies for the OSCE, particularly the OSCE’s Office for Democratic 

Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and its efforts to promote democracy and 

729 

the rule of law throughout the OSCE region and beyond. Specifically, my office provided funding for our contributions to ODIHR, including our support for Election 

Observation Missions (EOMs) throughout Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia. 

In the past year, EUR–IO/EX established six new Foreign Service positions in 

Kiev and sent over 100 people on temporary duty deployments to ensure that 

Embassy Kiev had adequate staff—including a senior Assistance Coordinator—to 

support the critical activities to support Ukraine’s democracy including its crucial 

May 25. Separately, we also obtained the additional resources to add another fulltime human rights officer within the Europe and Eurasia Bureau in Washington, 

to create a three-member team. This allowed us to be more responsive to the human 

rights challenges in the European region, including an expanded focus on anti-Semitism, Roma issues, LGBT rights, civil society, and religious freedom. 

In addition, I have directed the provision of additional financial and human 

resources to U.S. Embassy Kosovo, which has strongly supported the development 

of effective democratic, political, and rule of law institutions in the aftermath of that 

country’s independence struggle. My team ensured that Embassy Tbilisi was able 

to sustain its operations, another locale where U.S. support has played a leading 

role in advancing democracy. My office was also instrumental in helping ensure that 

the United States was appropriately represented in the Human Rights Council 

(HRC) in Geneva. Since we joined the HRC in 2010, my office has provided creative 

and cost-effective staffing to ensure the advancement of U.S. policy goals in that 

international body. 

Earlier in my career, as the Management Counselor at Embassy Kiev from 2005– 

08 in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution, I successfully obtained the necessary 

resources for the Embassy to support democratic development in Ukraine. As Chief 

of the American Citizens Services Unit at Embassy Tokyo from 1995 to 1998, I recognized the conditions for U.S. citizen and all prisoners were of grave concern. Prisons were not heated, often leading to frostbite in the winter, and meals provided 

often did not give sufficient calories to U.S. citizen prisoners. I engaged vigorously 

with the Government of Japan to improve prison conditions and worked closely with 

the Embassy’s political section to more appropriately detail these problems in the 

State Department’s annual Human Rights Report. Thanks to my team’s efforts, we 

garnered improved medical care, warmer winter clothing, and better reading materials for prisoners. One U.S. citizen, who was in solitary confinement, was not permitted even a radio in his cell. His only contact was my quarterly visits. With vigorous advocacy, he was given access to both print material and a radio. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Montenegro? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take—if confirmed—to promote human 

rights and democracy in Montenegro? What do you hope to accomplish through 

these actions? 

Answer. As the State Department has documented in the annual Human Rights 

Report, pervasive corruption—marked by nepotism, political favoritism, and weak 

controls over conflicts of interest in all branches of the government—represent the 

country’s most serious human rights problem. A second major problem has been 

societal discrimination and violence against minorities, including the lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, and the Romani, Ashkali, and Egyptian ethnic minorities. A third major problem is the chilling effect on freedom of 

expression created by the continuing harassment of journalists and the failure to 

resolve several past cases of violence and threats against journalists and government critics. 

To address these problems, I would, if confirmed, support efforts to make 

Montenegro’s law enforcement institutions more professional, competent, and able 

to effectively fight corruption and bring to justice those who commit violent acts 

against minorities or harass journalists. I would likewise support the work of the 

independent human rights Ombudsman in Montenegro, and continue to support and 

strengthen civil society, which serves as an important watchdog over the police and 

justice system. In that regard, I would support the Civil Society component of our 

Resident Legal Advisor program, which provides grants to NGOs involved in raising 

public participation in, and awareness of, ongoing rule of law reform efforts. I would 

also ensure that the Embassy continues advocacy on this issue in public and in private, which has proved effective in drawing attention to deficiencies and encouraging better compliance with international norms. 

Progress in all of these areas will require sustained efforts over time. I firmly 

believe that Montenegro can—with continued U.S. and EU assistance—achieve real 

progress in all of these areas and thus further the protection of human rights in 

Montenegro. My hope, if confirmed as Ambassador, is to see steady progress in makVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00737 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
730 

ing the police and judiciary more professional and accountable, closer to Western 

standards, and to see stronger protection of the media. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in Montenegro in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. The potential obstacles to addressing the human rights issues are tied 

up in the issues themselves: corruption, discrimination, and limits on freedom of expression are pervasive and long-standing societal ills that will take time to eradicate 

completely. Their entrenched nature will be our principal challenge, as will obtaining adequate funding to continue our sponsored programming. Fortunately, for fiscal 

year 2014, the United States is providing $4.5 million in foreign assistance to Montenegro; assistance which will help to strengthen judicial institutions; combat trafficking in persons, organized crime, and corruption; and support exchange programs 

to bolster civic participation and civil society. Our targeted assistance programs 

showed impressive results in the past year. For example, with the help of the 

Embassy’s Resident Legal Advisor and Senior Police Advisor, Montenegro agreed 

this year to establish a new fully independent Special State Prosecutor’s Office, a 

new elite police team to support the Special Prosecutor, and a new preventive AntiCorruption Agency. The challenge will be in helping Montenegro ensure that its 

reform efforts take root and strengthen. 

Additionally, while the Government of Montenegro has made significant efforts to 

combat trafficking in persons, it does not fully comply with the minimum standards 

for the elimination of trafficking as established by Congress, and is thus ranked Tier 

2 in the Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report. Some positive efforts 

highlighted in the 2014 report include the government’s increase of the antitrafficking budget; elevation of the National Coordinator position from under the 

Ministry of Interior to an independent agency; and the conviction of more trafficking 

defendants than in previous years. However, challenges remain, including limited 

law enforcement efforts resulting in few prosecutions and inadequate victim identification efforts. 

Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in the U.S. and with local human rights NGOs in Montenegro? 

Answer. I am fully committed to meeting with human rights and other NGOs 

both in the U.S. and Montenegro. I am a strong believer in the value of civil society, 

NGOs, and public advocacy groups as drivers of human rights protection and continuing democratic progress in many countries. Should I be confirmed, I would continue the excellent work already in progress by our Embassy in Montenegro to support the rights of the country’s vulnerable populations, including women, at-risk 

youth, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT community. The Embassy’s notable support 

to the LGBT community through participation in Podgorica’s first Pride March and 

its widely covered statements of public support, as well as its work with the Red 

Cross to organize a youth camp for children from economically and socially vulnerable households are strong examples of the foundation on which I hope to build, if 

confirmed, once I am on the ground in Montenegro. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT FRANCIS CEKUTA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. According to U.S. and Azerbaijani NGOs, there are approximately 100 

political prisoners in Azerbaijan. What will you do to support democracy and human 

rights activists at a time when the government is intensifying its crackdown on civil 

society? Will you maintain regular contacts with these activists and speak out publicly in their defense? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge the Azerbaijani authorities, consistent with Azerbaijan’s constitutional and international commitments, to ensure freedoms of assembly, association, and expression, to foster an environment conducive to a vibrant and 

peaceful civil society, respect pluralism, and to strengthen judicial independence and 

due process. I look forward to working closely with all partners to ensure that civil 

society can conduct its work as effectively as possible. 

Question. The National Democratic Institute (NDI) was forced to close its office 

in Azerbaijan earlier this year and IREX—a USAID contractor—is under criminal 

investigation. Moreover, subrecipients of IREX, the National Endowment for Democracy, and other U.S.-funded organizations have been denied access to their bank 

accounts and their leadership has been jailed in some cases. 

731 

♦ Is the current crackdown anti-American? What impact has the crackdown had 

on the U.S.-Azerbaijani relationship? 

Answer. It is unfortunate that the authorities have erected challenges and obstacles for U.S.-funded and other organizations. If confirmed, I will urge the Government of Azerbaijan to create an environment in which civil society can operate freely, and I will work closely with all partners to ensure that they can conduct their 

work as effectively as possible. Rule of law is critical to democratic and economic 

development as well as to human and national security. The Department has raised 

our concerns about respect for human rights and the rule of law in Azerbaijan with 

the government and has spoken out publicly about these concerns. 

For example, during this year, we have raised our concerns bilaterally and at the 

OSCE Permanent Council about the arrests and sentencing of civil society activists 

and journalists as well as the adoption of recent legislative amendments that have 

restricted the activities of nongovernmental organizations in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s progress in this area would help to deepen our bilateral relationship. 

Question. The State Department has been working for some time to secure a new 

Embassy compound (NEC) in Baku, in order to replace the current and arguably 

obsolete Embassy facility. Federal efforts to obtain a NEC, however, have proven 

difficult in the face of host government resistance, and have usually faced the most 

resistance when U.S. officials, including former Ambassador Richard Morningstar, 

have voiced their concerns about human rights and civil society abuses in Azerbaijan. 

♦ What specific steps would you pursue as Ambassador to accelerate the acquisition of property for use for the NEC? 

♦ Please provide details about how you would engage with the State Department’s 

Office of Foreign Missions, which can theoretically leverage domestic property 

and other interests of the Azerbaijani Government in order to leverage acquisition of the NEC. 

♦ What additional points of leverage, political or otherwise, would you pursue in 

order to accelerate the Azerbaijani Government’s movement toward the provision of the NEC? 

Answer. Protecting American citizens—both our Embassy staff and Americans 

working and traveling abroad—is one of the State Department’s highest priorities. 

The State Department has been working to secure a site on which to construct a 

New Embassy Compound, fully compliant with current security standards, in Azerbaijan for several years now including visits by senior Department officials. This 

process requires cooperation by the Government of Azerbaijan. We have identified 

several prospective sites for this new compound. If confirmed, I will ensure that the 

acquisition of property and the construction of the needed New Embassy Compound 

remain a priority. Simultaneously, Azerbaijan is seeking a new Embassy building 

in Washington, DC, and discussions on reciprocal property issues between our two 

governments are ongoing. 

Question. Russian aggression in Ukraine has demonstrated the pitfalls associated 

with an overreliance on Russia to fulfill the energy demands of American allies and 

partners in Europe. Despite Russian pressure, Azerbaijan is currently constructing 

the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP), which will reduce Europe’s 

dependence on Russian natural gas and increase the continent’s diversity of supply. 

♦ What else can the U.S. do to expand Azerbaijan’s role in meeting Europe’s 

energy requirements? 

Answer. We will continue to work closely with Azerbaijan and other countries in 

the region to ensure that TANAP and the other parts of the Southern Gas Corridor 

are completed as quickly as possible. Further, we will encourage Azerbaijan to move 

swiftly to develop new fields in the Caspian. These gas fields have the potential to 

add significant volumes of gas to the Southern corridor beyond the gas from the 

Shah Deniz project, which will supply the initial gas to the Southern corridor. At 

the same time, we will work with both Azerbaijan and Turkey to identify other 

sources of gas that can be transmitted through TANAP and the Southern corridor, 

possibly including gas from Turkmenistan, Iraq, and the Eastern Mediterranean. 

Question. Azerbaijan has provided troops to the ISAF mission in Afghanistan and 

facilitated the transport of supplies and personnel through the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). How important is Azerbaijan’s troop contribution and role in 

NDN to coalition efforts on the ground in Afghanistan? Will the U.S. be able to rely 

on Azerbaijan’s cooperation moving forward? What effect would Azerbaijan’s withdrawal from this form of cooperation have on U.S. national interests? 

732 

Answer. Azerbaijan has been a strong supporter of coalition operations in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan has 94 troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the International 

Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Azerbaijan provides valuable overflight, refueling, 

and landing rights for U.S. and coalition aircraft bound for Afghanistan. As such, 

Azerbaijan is a key node on the Northern Distribution Network allowing nonlethal 

goods to transit its territory to resupply our forces in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan has 

also contributed to the Afghan National Army Trust Fund, including a 1 million 

euro donation announced in January 2014. 

If the Government of Azerbaijan scaled back its cooperation with the United 

States, it could harm our shared interests in building regional security, diversifying 

energy supplies, pursuing democratic and economic reforms, combating terrorism, 

and stemming the flow of illegal narcotics and weapons of mass destruction. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT FRANCIS CEKUTA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. Earlier this summer, more than 20 Armenian and Azeri soldiers were 

killed during fighting along the Line of Contact—the deadliest cease-fire violation 

since 1994. This recent violence—which reportedly began after Azeri forces 

attempted to penetrate Armenian lines—is deeply concerning. 

♦ If confirmed how will you respond, both publicly and privately, to new instances 

of Azerbaijan’s acts of aggression and provocation, which continue to increase 

and claim more lives? 

♦ How will you specifically work to ensure that the Azerbaijani Government 

respects the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) 

Minsk Group negotiated cease-fire? 

Answer. The United States strongly condemns violations of the cease-fire and 

deeply regrets the loss of life that resulted from these incidents along the Line of 

Contact. We have frequently, publicly and privately, called upon both sides to take 

all measures to respect the cease-fire. If confirmed as Ambassador, I, too, will 

strongly advocate for de-escalating tensions and preparing the public for a peace the 

people of Armenia and Azerbaijan deserve. I will also support the U.S. cochair of 

the OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassador James Warlick, in his efforts to help achieve 

a peaceful and lasting settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

Question. The previous two U.S. Ambassadors to Azerbaijan attempted to visit the 

Armenian cemetery of Djulfa to investigate the 2005 destruction of Armenian 

Khachkars, or burial monuments. The Azerbaijani Government officially denied 

both of their requests to visit the site. 

♦ If confirmed, will you commit to attempt to travel to Djulfa to investigate the 

destruction of the cemetery? What steps will you take to ensure that other 

Armenian religious sites and monuments in Azerbaijan are protected? 

Answer. The United States condemned the desecration of the Djulfa Cemetery 

and urged the Azerbaijanis to investigate the incident. Despite our repeated 

requests to visit the Djulfa Cemetery, local authorities have so far refused permission to do so. If I am confirmed, I will amplify our concerns to the Government of 

Azerbaijan. If confirmed, I also will urge the government to protect the rights and 

holy sites of all groups. 

Question. Last month on Twitter Azerbaijani President Aliyev made numerous 

anti-Armenian statements and bellicose threats including that, ‘‘The war is not over. 

Only the first stage of it is. But the second stage may start too.’’ President Aliyev 

also declared that, ‘‘We will restore our territorial integrity either by peaceful or 

military means. We are ready by both options.’’ 

President Aliyev has made previous public statements that ‘‘[Azerbaijan’s] main 

enemies are Armenians of the world.’’ Such statements foment anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, which exacerbates existing tensions and makes it increasingly 

difficult to reach a permanent peace agreement regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh 

region. 

♦ If confirmed, what will you do to work with the Azerbaijani Government to 

strongly counter anti-Armenian sentiment and to build toward a long-lasting 

peace? 

Answer. The United States has repeatedly called on the Presidents of both countries to prepare their publics for a peaceful and lasting settlement to the NagornoKarabakh conflict. Inflammatory rhetoric undermines our common efforts to achieve 

peace. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will support U.S. Minsk Group Co-Chair Jim 

Warlick’s efforts to help the sides reach a lasting settlement to the conflict. In addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00740 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
733 

tion, I will be an advocate for Track II diplomacy, and will support Ambassador 

Warlick’s efforts to work with the sides on implementing people-to-people programs, 

which are so important for building trust between the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

Question. Congress has enacted legislation known as ‘‘Section 907’’ prohibiting 

U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan until it meets a number of conditions, including taking 

demonstrable steps to cease ‘‘offensive uses of force against Armenia and NagornoKarabakh.’’ However, the recent deadly violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the 

threats of war made by President Aliyev call into question the Azerbaijani Government’s commitment to a lasting peace. 

♦ Is the Government of Azerbaijan fully meeting the conditions of section 907? 

♦ Do you support continuing to waive section 907, as the administration has done 

for the last several years? 

♦ Should the U.S. Government be providing military aid to the Government of 

Azerbaijan at the same time that it is committing acts of aggression and threatening renewed war against both Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia? 

Answer. Since 2002, Presidents have waived section 907 on an annual basis, opening the door for bilateral cooperation with Azerbaijan and assistance programs in 

areas limited to counterterrorism efforts, border security and protection, and maritime security. All security assistance and defense cooperation with Azerbaijan is 

carefully considered to ensure it does not undermine efforts for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. 

If confirmed, I will recommend to the administration the policies and programs 

that best serve the interests and goals of the United States in Azerbaijan and the 

region. We will pursue these policies in consultation with Congress, utilizing the 

resources that Congress provides. 

RESPONSES OF RICHARD M. MILLS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. If confirmed, you will be Ambassador to Armenia during the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On this important anniversary, how will you 

work to demonstrate America’s commitment to forcefully condemn and properly 

commemorate all instances of genocide? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the tradition of officially participating in the 

memorial event in Yerevan every April, which will have special resonance this coming year, as Armenia and the world mark the centenary of one of the 20th century’s 

worst atrocities, when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their 

deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. I will work to identify ways that 

the Embassy can amplify our message to the Armenian people that the United 

States stands in solidarity with Armenia at this time of remembrance and is committed to remembering so that such dark chapters of human history are never 

repeated. My goal will be to honor this centenary by working to achieve the U.S. 

Government’s goal of a full and just understanding of the facts of that terrible time. 

Question. In 2013, trade between the United States and Armenia totaled approximately $192 million. What steps is the administration taking to increase trade 

between our two countries? 

Answer. If confirmed, increasing trade to the benefit of both Armenia and the 

United States will be a personal priority, building on the work of my predecessors. 

In the first instance, increasing trade requires addressing factors in Armenia that 

discourage international investment, so I will work to advance market reforms and 

increase the transparency of the business climate in Armenia. U.S. firms have told 

us that the lack of transparency regarding customs and tax administration, as well 

as a lack of respect for signed contracts, are significant factors discouraging investment in Armenia. I will use every opportunity to press Armenian officials to address 

these issues. There have been recent positive steps in the business and regulatory 

climate that can be built upon. We were encouraged by Armenia’s implementation 

of civil aviation liberalization reforms, and a number of U.S. information technology 

companies have opened branches in Armenia, taking advantage of the skills of 

Armenia’s work force in this sector. 

In addition, if confirmed, I intend to work to provide U.S. businesses with information about opportunities involving Armenia and will work to identify new opportunities for U.S. exports to Armenia, such as the considerable opportunities for the 

establishment of U.S.-based franchises in Armenia. I will advocate on behalf of U.S. 

firms pursuing investment projects in Armenia, as well as support reforms to inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00741 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
734 

crease business-to-business exchanges, such as the launch of a visa liberalization 

process. 

Question. For two decades, Turkey has maintained its illegal blockade of landlocked Armenia despite public calls by successive U.S. administrations for an end 

to Europe’s last closed border. 

♦ How can the United States work to finally end this blockade which destabilizes 

the region and prevents economic development? 

♦ If confirmed, how will you work within the State Department and with other 

regional governments to end this illegal blockade? 

Answer. Facilitating Armenia’s regional integration by opening its border with 

Turkey is a priority for the United States. Regional integration is in the economic 

interest of all the countries of the region and certainly in the U.S. interest. U.S. 

investment, for example, is hampered by regional divisions and closed borders. 

If confirmed, working to promote open borders will be one of my key priorities as 

Ambassador—not only by supporting government-to-government discussions—but by 

promoting people-to-people contacts and partnerships, such as historical restoration 

projects, as well as other cross-border and regional initiatives, such as the possibility of reopening cross-border transportation and energy links. Contact begins to 

build confidence, and confidence is the necessary first step to reconciliation and conflict resolution. Clearly, the status quo is not helpful to anyone. 

RESPONSE OF ROBERT FRANCIS CEKUTA TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

Question. Over the past year the environment for civil society, the media and 

opposition parties has deteriorated significantly. Some groups have put the number 

of political prisoners in Azerbaijan at almost 100. Most recently human rights 

defender, Ms. Leyla Yunus, and her husband, Arif Yunus, were charged with serious 

crimes. They remain in pretrial detention and are in poor health. 

♦ As U.S. Ambassador, how would you engage with the Government of Azerbaijan 

to improve the rule of law and respect for civil society? 

Answer. Azerbaijan’s progress in respect for human rights and fundamental 

freedoms would help to deepen our bilateral relationship. The United States believes 

that the rule of law and democratic institutions and processes are fundamentally 

important to Azerbaijan’s political and economic development as well as its internal 

stability and security. We continue to call on the Azerbaijani authorities to strengthen due process, and judicial independence, ensure freedoms of assembly, association, 

and expression, and support an open, vibrant, and peaceful civil society. If confirmed, I will urge the Government of Azerbaijan to create an environment in which 

civil society can operate freely, and I will work closely with all partners to help 

Azerbaijanis build the strong, vibrant modern democracy and pluralistic society they 

want. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT FRANCIS CEKUTA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Question. Given Azerbaijan’s ongoing war rhetoric, continued militarization and 

latest cease-fire violations what steps will you take to condemn or restrain threats 

or acts of aggression by Azerbaijan? Are you satisfied with the effectiveness of U.S. 

and OSCE efforts thus far to restrain Azerbaijan’s threats and acts of aggression? 

Answer. The United States strongly condemns violations of the cease-fire and 

deeply regrets the loss of life that resulted from these incidents along the Line of 

Contact. We have frequently, publicly and privately, called upon both sides to take 

all measures to respect the cease-fire. If confirmed as Ambassador, I, too, will 

strongly advocate for de-escalating tensions and preparing the public for a peace the 

people of Armenia and Azerbaijan deserve. The OSCE Minsk Group has continued 

to engage with the sides at the highest levels and to promote dialogue to help them 

reach a peaceful settlement. In November 2013, Presidents Aliyev and Sargsian met 

for the first time in almost 2 years in Vienna, under the auspices of the Minsk 

Group cochairs. The administration is also committed to a peaceful settlement 

through the Minsk Group process. Secretary Kerry delivered this message when he 

met with the Presidents at the NATO summit in Wales on September 4 to discuss 

a way forward in peace negotiations. We encourage the Presidents to continue to 

work with the cochairs and discuss elements of a settlement. I will also support the 

735 

U.S. cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassador James Warlick, in his efforts 

to help achieve a peaceful and lasting settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. 

Question. If Azerbaijan follows through on its declarations to renew its aggression 

against Nagorno-Karabakh, what would you propose as a response? 

Answer. The United States has repeatedly called on the Presidents of both countries to prepare their publics for a peaceful and lasting settlement to the NagornoKarabakh conflict. Inflammatory rhetoric undermines our common efforts to achieve 

peace. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will support U.S. Minsk Group Co-Chair Jim 

Warlick’s efforts to help the sides reach a lasting settlement to the conflict. In addition, I will be an advocate for Track II diplomacy, and will support Ambassador 

Warlick’s efforts to work with the sides on implementing people-to-people programs, 

which are so important for building trust between the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

Question. Fostering regional cooperation and economic integration in the South 

Caucasus is the stated policy of the United States. What actions will you take to 

confront Azerbaijan’s continued attempts to isolate Armenia and what steps will you 

take to foster regional cooperation and economic integration? 

Answer. Facilitating regional integration is a particular priority for the United 

States. We work steadfastly to end Armenia’s isolation both by seeking a peaceful 

and lasting settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and by promoting reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We believe regional integration is in the economic interest of all three countries and certainly in our interest. In looking at the 

region as a whole, our strategic interests are focused on several priorities: the advance of freedom and democracy; regional security, including counterterrorism and 

peaceful resolution of ethnic conflicts; and economic prosperity, including energy. All 

would benefit from neighborly relations and regional integration of the South 

Caucasus. 

RESPONSES OF RICHARD M. MILLS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Question. Do you agree with the accounts of U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire 

from 1913 to 1916, regarding the attempted annihilation of the Armenian people? 

Answer. I have read original source material and later histories addressing the 

tragic massacres and forced exile that occurred at the end of the Ottoman Empire. 

I have also reviewed the independently published book titled ‘‘U.S. Official Records 

on the Armenian Genocide 1915–1917,’’ which contains the reports submitted by 

various U.S. officials at that time, including Ambassador Morgenthau and other 

U.S. diplomats in the Ottoman Empire. They are all important, eyewitness records 

of these tragic events. In addition, I have read books by historians and journalists 

that address the subject. The individual stories that these histories contain are horrifying; the magnitude of the terrible acts these volumes report—over 1.5 million 

killed or forcibly deported—is simply incomprehensible. 

Question. The written statement of the United States before the International 

Court of Justice in 1951 stated that: ‘‘the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the 

extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples 

of the crime of genocide.’’ Do you agree with this statement by the United States 

that the Turkish massacres of Armenians is an example of the crime of genocide? 

Answer. I, like all people of good will, mourn these tragic events and the great 

suffering experienced by the Armenian people. I, too, grieve the loss of so many 

innocent lives and fully respect that the Armenian-American community and the 

Armenian people want their pain and loss to be acknowledged. This is why the 

administration—and I—acknowledge and mourn the mass killings and forced deportations of over 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire as one of 

the worst atrocities of the 20th century. 

Question. Do you acknowledge and recognize the record of the United States 

affirming the Armenian Genocide? 

Answer. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the U.S. Government— 

and I—certainly recognize and deplore the mass killings and deportations that 

occurred in 1915. I too mourn the loss of so many innocent lives and fully respect 

that the Armenian-American community and the Armenian people want their pain 

and loss to be acknowledged. As the President has emphasized in his April 24 

736 

Remembrance Day statements, the achievement of a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all our interests. 

Question. What instructions were you given, if any, regarding the use of the term 

genocide when referring to the Armenian Genocide of 1915 prior to this hearing? 

Answer. Like all executive branch officials, I have a responsibility to represent the 

policy of the President on this and all other issues. The President’s position on this 

issue is well known and on the record. The administration has consistently acknowledged, as a historical fact, that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched 

to their deaths in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. As the President 

has emphasized in his April 24 Remembrance Day statements, the achievement of 

a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in 

all our interests. 

(737) 

NOMINATION OF ANTONY BLINKEN 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

Antony John Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, 

Kaine, Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. This nomination hearing for Tony Blinken as 

Deputy Secretary of State will come to order. Let me welcome you 

back to the committee. As the former staff director of the committee for Chairman Biden at the time, you know as much about 

the nomination process as anyone, although perhaps you are less 

familiar with being on that side of the table. 

Between your service here and in the White House, you also understand, I think, the challenge of managing multiple complex situations concurrently, and those experiences, I believe, will serve you 

well as confirmed for this position. 

Your nomination as Deputy Secretary of State comes at a time 

when the United States is facing a range of critical challenges, 

from Ebola in West Africa to Russian aggression in Ukraine, to the 

challenge of countering ISIL in Syria and Iraq, to Iran’s continued 

quest for a nuclear weapons program. At the same time, we are 

seeking to forge new global partnerships with India, in the Middle 

East and Asia, and looking for opportunities to expand American 

exports and business opportunities. 

So there will be no shortage of critical issues that you will face. 

Each will require your full attention and the full attention of this 

committee, and I look forward to hearing your views on all of these 

issues and working closely with you on issues of mutual concern 

should you be confirmed. 

Foremost on our national security agenda is countering the barbarity of ISIL, whose terrorist ambitions threaten our national security as well as the stability of the entire region. I would like to 

738 

hear from you today about the administration’s views on a new 

ISIL-specific AUMF. 

I was hoping that the committee would hear from security Kerry 

and/or security Hagel this week on the President’s announced plan 

to work with Congress on a new AUMF, an authorization for the 

use of military force, but that did not happen. I continue to believe 

it is incumbent that Congress take the lead in authorizing the use 

of force, and in my view any prolonged military campaign requires 

a new, congressionally approved AUMF, and I believe that Congress should act and the administration should seek expeditious 

congressional action. 

We also face a continued crisis in Ukraine, where the cease-fire 

is collapsing, as more Russian tanks, troops, and weapons cross the 

border into eastern Ukraine. In my view it is time to provide defensive lethal military assistance to Ukraine and escalate pressure on 

Putin. Sanctions are impacting Russia’s economy, but Putin continues on a reckless path and all indicators point to an imminent 

offensive to carve out a land bridge to Crimea. 

I believe we must be willing to raise the cost to Putin, which will 

only come through the provision of defensive lethal military assistance to the government in Kiev. Clearly, that is just a beginning 

of a long list of challenges. The diplomatic calculations are complicated, and all of these challenges will be part of your portfolio 

as the Deputy Secretary of State. 

I know that there will be times when we will agree and times 

that we will disagree. But I look forward to working closely with 

you should you be confirmed. I think your experience to date poises 

you to do an excellent job in this regard. And I look forward to the 

answers to your questions, but unless they surprise me I look forward to supporting you. 

Senator Corker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this 

hearing. I want to thank Mr. Blinken for his service to our country 

and his willingness to serve in this capacity. 

This position I think, as most people know, is a very, very important position. The Deputy Secretary serves as the Secretary of 

State when the Secretary is out of country, and he also is the principal adviser to the Secretary. A lot of people, I think, do not understand the importance sometimes of this position, so it is very 

important, and it is important that he is a very candid adviser to 

the Secretary. 

We have had the benefit of having someone who is a professional 

for 30 years. He has just left, and he is someone who is very independent. He shared the good, the bad, and the ugly. I know we had 

a very private conversation the other day. I hope you are going to 

be as forthcoming today as you were in our office. 

But it is my strong desire that the person who fills this position 

is equally as independent and has the ability to share with us, because it is our liaison to be able to make the kinds of judgments 

we need to make here. On that note, I just have to say we have 

had some terse conversations in the past when I felt like, speaking 

739 

for the White House, I was being spun, I was not being talked to 

as a person about reality; I was being spun. We have had a conversation about that and likely will have a conversation today 

about that. But obviously this position is a very different position 

than someone spinning, if you will, for the White House and trying 

to paint a flowery picture about what has occurred. 

So it will be your responsibility, if confirmed, to provide us the 

kind of information and work with us directly to help us create the 

best foreign policy for our Nation. It is my hope that during this 

hearing again you will demonstrate that independence. If you are 

confirmed, again I expect you to work very, very closely with us. 

Again I look forward to your testimony today, and again I want to 

thank you. I know we talked extensively about your background 

and your upbringing. I hope you will share some of that during 

your opening comments. But I do appreciate the fact that you have 

an extensive background and I do appreciate your commitment to 

serving our country in an appropriate way. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I know Senator Schumer wanted to be here to introduce you. But 

because of votes we decided to move up the hearing, with the 

agreement of the ranking member, in order to try to get the bulk 

of this hearing in before we have a large number of votes, votes 

that are going to take a fair amount of time. So I appreciate his 

willingness to come before the committee and recommend you to 

the committee and we look forward to putting his statement in the 

record. 

Let me remind you that your full statement will be entered into 

the record, without objection. I would ask you to summarize in 

about 5 minutes or so, so we can get to the heart of questions and 

answers that the members are going to want to hear. I certainly 

invite you to introduce any family members who are here with you 

today, since we know that they are part of the sacrifice of serving 

our Nation and we thank them in advance for the support they 

lend you in carrying out your duties. 

With that, you are welcome to proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ANTONY BLINKEN, OF NEW YORK, 

NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE 

Mr. BLINKEN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, thank 

you very much. And to you members of the entire committee, it is 

an honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee 

to become Deputy Secretary of State. I am grateful to the President 

for the privilege of this nomination and I am grateful to two past 

chairmen of this committee: to Secretary of State Kerry for his confidence in me; and to Vice President Biden for his friendship, his 

partnership, and his mentorship for more than a decade. 

It is indeed a novel experience for me to sit on this side of the 

dais. For 6 years I served as staff director of this committee, in the 

majority, in the minority. I sat where Mr. Ryan and Mr. Munson 

are sitting right now, in my case behind then-Senators Biden, 

Helms, Lugar, Hagel, Dodd, Kerry, Obama, as well as several distinguished Senators who will be here today. 

740 

I watched them work together in the best tradition of bipartisan 

American foreign policy, to strengthen our diplomacy, to advance 

our interests and our values around the world. 

During those 6 years, I developed enormous respect for the Senate as a whole and for this committee in particular, for its members, for its staff, and for its indispensable role in shaping our Nation’s foreign policy. If confirmed, I will do my best to uphold the 

standards of professionalism that I learned here in this room, in 

these halls, and I pledge to work closely with all of you to try to 

fulfill the potential of American leadership. 

There is another reason I am very attached to this committee. It 

confirmed my father, Donald Blinken, to be Ambassador to Hungary. It confirmed my uncle, Alan Blinken, to be Ambassador to 

Belgium. And just last year, it confirmed my wife, who is sitting 

behind me, Evan Ryan, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. So I really hope that nothing I do 

today gives you cause to break this fine tradition of diplomatic 

service in our family. 

The CHAIRMAN. We hope you can do as well as she did. (Laughter.) 

Mr. BLINKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say—and, Ranking Member Corker, we have talked 

about this; Chairman Menendez, we have talked about this—I recognize that, if confirmed, I will play a difficult role. Part of my current job at the White House is to explain and defend this administration’s policies, including with Congress. If confirmed, my new job 

would bring a different responsibility—to work with this committee 

and the leadership of the State Department to advance our foreign 

policy and the national interest around the world. 

I have consulted with leaders I consider friends who played similar roles in the past, including Bob Zoellick, John Negroponte, Rich 

Armitage, Jim Steinberg, Strobe Talbott. I have to tell you that, if 

confirmed, my role model would be my immediate predecessor, Bill 

Burns, a man who epitomizes the word ‘‘professional,’’ who served 

Republican and Democratic administrations alike with integrity, 

with balance, and with decency. 

Let me also begin by thanking the committee for its work over 

the last 2 years. Whether it was the Ukraine loan guarantee, 

PEPFAR reauthorization, embassy security, OAS reform, pushing 

forward State Department nominees, this committee has played an 

indispensable role in translating our foreign policy vision into practice, and indeed bringing the vision itself. If confirmed to my new 

position, I would again want to work very closely with every member. 

If I am confirmed, I would also be coming full circle to where I 

started in government 21 years ago, in the Department of State. 

Virtually every day since then—during my time at State; during 13 

years over two administrations at the White House on the National 

Security Council staff; and during my tenure with this committee— 

I have worked with the men and women of the State Department. 

I have experienced firsthand their extraordinary leadership of our 

foreign policy at a time of immense challenge and change. I have 

watched them do more than most Americans will ever know to 

keep us safe, to keep us secure, to keep us prosperous. I have witVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00748 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
741 

nessed their passion, I have witnessed their energy, I have witnessed their courage. And I have seen them bring luster and 

strength to a word that deserves our respect: diplomacy. 

Just in the past year, American diplomacy has mobilized countries around the world to confront ISIL and Ebola, to sanction Russia for its aggression in Ukraine, to revitalize NATO’s commitment 

to the defense of its own members. That same hard-nosed diplomacy, backed by the credible threat of force, eliminated Syria’s 

chemical weapons stockpiles, achieved a first-step agreement with 

Iran that stopped and in some respects rolled back its nuclear program. 

Secretary Kerry’s personal diplomacy helped the competing Afghan political blocks achieve the first peaceful political transition 

in that country’s history, and the Secretary has worked tirelessly 

to build a secure, lasting peace and the Jewish, democratic State 

of Israel and the Palestinians, just as we stand resolutely with 

Israel whenever and wherever it is under threat. 

We saw American diplomacy in action this summer at the firstever U.S.-Africa Leaders summit, building new relationships 

among governments, with the private sector, to unleash the next 

era of African growth, strengthen democratic institutions, deepen 

our security partnerships. 

We saw it at the Inter-American Development Bank just a week 

ago, with Vice President Biden bringing countries together to support the leaders of Central America as they develop plans to 

strengthen their institutions and economies and combat the corruption, crime, and trafficking that affect us here at home. 

Just this past week, we also saw it in Asia, where President 

Obama led our diplomacy to strengthen the core institutions in 

Asia, to enlist China in the effort to roll back climate change, to 

build greater confidence between our militaries, lower tariffs on information technology, expand visas to the benefit of our students, 

businesses, and the economy, to advance Burma’s democratization, 

to bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership closer to fruition, representing 40 percent of world GDP. 

You know, in a few weeks, just before Christmas, I think many 

of us, certainly we, will engage in what is an annual ritual, and 

that is to watch ‘‘It’s a Wonderful Life’’ on television. We all know 

what happened to Bedford Falls when George Bailey was out of the 

picture, and to me, at least, it is self-evident where the world 

would be without American leadership in the picture on all the 

challenges I just mentioned. 

So I would submit to you that the question before us is not 

whether America is leading, for I believe we are, but rather how 

we are leading, to what ends, to what effect? That is a proper subject for debate, discussion, and dialogue. 

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted for the record some of my 

thoughts on the answer to this question. I would just like to leave 

you, if I could, with a personal note. I wanted to give you some 

very brief insight into what brought me to government service and 

what motivates me every day to carry out that service. I am very 

fortunate. I was born into a family that had done very well. I actually acquired four parents along the way. I am blessed with two 

742 

wonderful stepparents, as well as my parents, who have given me 

incredible love and support in everything that I have done. 

I grew up in New York, then at an early age moved to France. 

In France I had the unique experience from age 9 to 18 of beginning to see the world through the eyes of others, but in particular 

to see my own country through the eyes of others. I found myself 

enlisted at a very young age in playing junior diplomat, trying to 

explain the United States to my fellow students. This was during 

the end of the Vietnam war, the cold war, Afghanistan. And I think 

that is what got me most motivated and interested to do this work. 

But even more than that, it is the family story. I think we all 

come from family stories that resonate and move us in certain directions. My grandfather—my father’s father—fled what is now 

Ukraine, fleeing a pogrom, coming to the United States like so 

many others, supporting his mother, his younger brother, working 

his way through school, sending his own sons off to Harvard, including my father, who became Ambassador to Hungary and was 

in Hungary and got the Hungarian Government to help bring in 

American troops so that they could go into Bosnia and protect its 

people. I am proud of my father every day for the way he has conducted his life and his service. 

His wife, my stepmother, fled Communist Hungary, literally at 

night on a train, as a young child, spirited out of the country. Her 

mother, married in a sham marriage to get out of the country, she 

came to the United States. She was welcomed here, and she has 

given so much service over her life to the International Rescue 

Committee, to help others in need. 

My own mother, who has spent her entire career bringing the 

greatest American artists around the world—at times when our 

policies are under challenge, that soft power that she has done so 

much to advance has done wonders for our foreign policy. 

Finally, her husband, my stepfather. He was made an American 

by a special act of Congress. He served in the Kennedy administration. He started life in Bialystok, Poland. He is among, if not the 

youngest, survivor of Auschwitz, having spent 4 years in the concentration camps. 

At the very end of the war, when he was being marched on a 

death march out of the camps—the allies were advancing from one 

side, the Russians from the other—he made a run for it, and he 

found cover despite the German fire. A day later, having taken 

cover, he heard a sound, a rumbling sound. It was a large tank, 

and as he looked out from his shelter he looked at the tank and, 

instead of seeing the dreaded swastika, he saw something else—a 

five-pointed white star. 

And he ran for the tank. The hatch opened up. He got down on 

his knees and he spoke the only three words in English that he 

knew and that his mother had taught him: ‘‘God bless America.’’ 

And the GI lifted him from the ground into the tank, into the 

United States, into freedom. 

It is those experiences from my parents, their lives, their service, 

that have motivated me to come to this place and motivated me to 

want to do the job that I stand before you for consideration. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, I am grateful for 

this opportunity. I am grateful for your consideration. I look forVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00750 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
743 

ward, if confirmed, to working with everyone on this committee, 

and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blinken follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTONY J. BLINKEN

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s 

nominee to become Deputy Secretary of State. 

I’m grateful to President Obama for the privilege of this nomination and to two 

past chairmen of this committee—to Secretary of State Kerry for his confidence in 

me; and to Vice President Biden for his friendship, partnership and mentorship for 

more than a decade. 

It is a novel experience for me to sit on this side of the dais. For 6 years, I served 

as staff director of this committee, in the majority and the minority. I sat where 

Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Munson sit—in my case behind then-Senators Biden, Helms, 

Lugar, Hagel, Dodd, Kerry, Obama, as well as several distinguished Senators here 

today. I watched them work together in the best tradition of bipartisan American 

foreign policy to strengthen American diplomacy and advance our interests and values around the world. During those 6 years, I developed enormous respect for the 

Senate as a whole and for this committee in particular—for its members, its staff, 

and its indispensable role in shaping our foreign policy. 

If confirmed, I will do my best to uphold the standards of professionalism that 

I learned here, in this room and in these halls. And I pledge to work closely with 

all of you to fulfill the potential of American leadership. 

There is another reason I am so attached to this committee. It confirmed my 

father, Donald Blinken, to be Ambassador to Hungary; my uncle, Alan Blinken, to 

be Ambassador to Belgium, and just last year, my wife, Evan Ryan, to be Assistant 

Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. I hope that nothing I do 

today gives you cause to break this family tradition of diplomatic service. 

I recognize that, if confirmed, I will play a different role. Part of my current job 

at the White House is to explain and defend this administration’s policies—including with Congress. If confirmed, my new job would bring a different responsibility— 

to work with this committee and the leadership of the State Department to advance 

our foreign policy and the national interest around the world. I’ve consulted with 

leaders I consider friends who have played this role in the past—including Bob 

Zoellick, John Negroponte, Rich Armitage, Jim Steinberg, and Strobe Talbott. If confirmed, my role model would be my immediate predecessor, Bill Burns—a man who 

epitomizes the word ‘‘professional,’’ and who served Republican and Democratic 

administrations alike with integrity, balance, and decency. 

I want to begin by thanking the committee for its work over the last 2 years. 

Whether it was the Ukraine loan guarantee, PEPFAR reauthorization, Embassy 

Security, OAS reform, or pushing forward State Department nominees, this committee played an indispensable role in translating our foreign policy vision into 

practice. 

If confirmed, my new position would bring me full circle to where I started in government 21 years ago: the Department of State. Virtually every day since—during 

my time at State; my 13 years over two administrations on the National Security 

Council Staff at the White House; and my tenure with this committee—I’ve worked 

with the men and women of the State Department. I’ve experienced firsthand their 

extraordinary leadership of our foreign policy at a time of immense challenge and 

change. I’ve watched them do more than most Americans will ever know to keep 

us safe, secure, and prosperous. I’ve witnessed their passion, energy, and courage. 

I’ve seen them bring luster and strength to a word that deserves our respect: diplomacy. 

Just in the past year, American diplomacy has mobilized countries around the 

world to confront ISIL and Ebola, to sanction Russia for its aggression in Ukraine 

and to revitalize NATO’s commitment to the defense of its members. That same 

hard-nosed diplomacy, backed by a credible threat of military force, eliminated Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and achieved a first-step agreement with Iran that 

stopped and in some respects rolled back its nuclear program. Secretary Kerry’s personal diplomacy helped competing Afghan political blocs achieve the first peaceful 

political transition in their country’s history. And he has worked tirelessly to build 

a secure, lasting peace between the Jewish, democratic State of Israel and the Palestinians—just as we stand resolutely with Israel whenever and wherever it is 

under threat. 

744 

We saw American diplomacy in action this summer, at the first-ever U.S.-Africa 

Leaders summit—building new relationships among governments and the private 

sector to unleash the next era of African growth, to strengthen democratic institutions, and to deepen our security partnerships. 

We saw it again at the Inter-American Development Bank, where Vice President 

Biden convened two dozen countries to build support for the efforts of Central American leaders to strengthen their institutions and economies, and combat the corruption, crime, and trafficking that affect our own security here in the United States. 

And just this past week, President Obama led the administration’s diplomacy in 

Asia to strengthen its core institutions; to enlist China in the effort to roll back climate change, build greater confidence between our militaries, lower tariffs on information technology and expand visas to the benefit of our students, businesses, and 

economy; to advance Burma’s democratization; and to bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership closer to fruition—further liberalizing trade among economies that represent 40 percent of world GDP. 

In a few weeks, just before Christmas, many of us will engage in an annual ritual: 

watching ‘‘It’s a Wonderful Life’’ on television. We all know what happened to Bedford Falls when George Bailey was out of the picture. I think it is self-evident where 

the world would be without American leadership on all the challenges I just mentioned. 

So I would submit to you that the question before us is not whether America is 

leading—for we are—but rather how we are leading—by what means and to what 

ends—now and into the future. That is the question we can—and must—answer 

together. 

For all the progress we’ve made, many daunting challenges remain. 

We’ve struck huge blows against al-Qaeda’s senior leadership; now, we must 

defeat its progeny in the Middle East and North Africa, which threaten our interests, allies, and partners. 

We liberated the people of Libya from a tyrant; now, we must work with the new 

government to fill a power vacuum and address that country’s turmoil. 

We eliminated the strategic threat posed by Syria’s chemical weapons; now, we 

must stop a civil war that rages on, killing innocents, sending waves of refugees 

throughout the region and attracting violent extremists. 

We’ve advanced nuclear security around the world, with countries taking concrete 

steps to secure or eliminate materials; now, we must press for the denuclearization 

of the Korean Peninsula and pursue a comprehensive agreement to ensure that 

Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. 

We have strengthened the security and resilience of the Internet that is so vital 

to our economy, safety, and health; now, we must get ahead of attacks by malicious 

governments, criminals, and individual actors. 

We’ve made America the world leader in fighting pandemics and improving global 

health security—building on the work of the Bush administration; now our leadership is vital to checking the spread of infectious diseases, with new microbes and 

viruses and the potential deliberate release of pathogens all accelerated by 

globalization. 

We’ve led the way in promoting more open governance, combating corruption and 

empowering civil society and young leaders in emerging democracies; now, we must 

help those making the transition from demanding rights and freedoms to building 

the institutions that can guarantee them. 

We’ve emerged from the global economic crisis and revitalized our own economy 

as an engine for global economic growth; now, our leadership remains critical to prevent future crises that threaten global stability. 

The strategic environment in which we must contend with these and other challenges is more fluid, fraught with complexity but also more full of opportunity than 

ever before. 

Power among states is shifting, with new entrants and aspirants to the ranks of 

the majors. 

Power is shifting below and beyond the nation-state, requiring governments to be 

more accountable to substate and nonstate actors—including increasingly empowered individuals. 

The growing interdependence of the global economy and the rapid pace of technological change are linking people, groups, and governments in unprecedented 

ways—incentivizing new forms of cooperation but also creating shared vulnerabilities. 

A struggle for power is underway among and within many states in the Middle 

East and North Africa—a combustible process of defining a new order. 

The global energy market is in the midst of profound change, with developing 

countries now consuming more energy than developed ones and the United States, 

745 

the world’s largest natural gas and oil producer, with our dependence on foreign oil 

at a 20-year low and declining. 

To most effectively advance America’s interests in such a volatile environment, we 

must lead with purpose—to ensure the security of our country, its citizens, our allies 

and our partners; to promote a strong U.S. economy; to advance our values; and to 

shape an international order that bolsters peace, security, and opportunity. 

We must lead from a position of strength—with unrivaled military might, a dynamic economy and the unmatched strength of our human resources. 

We must lead by example—lifting our citizens, growing our economy, and living 

our values here at home, all of which strengthen our leadership abroad. 

We must lead with capable partners—because we can best advance our interests 

in an interconnected world when others are working with us, while recognizing that 

American leadership is necessary to mobilize collective action. 

We must lead with all of the instruments of American power—with an ever-ready 

military and our economic might that can empower diplomacy and development. 

And we must lead with perspective. For all our unique power, there are historic 

transitions underway in the world that are not about us and cannot be fully controlled by us. But American leadership, more than that of any other nation, can 

shape this change, mitigate its risks, and seize its opportunities. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, members of the committee—we all share 

a stake in, and a commitment to, the continued renewal of American leadership in 

the world. Congress plays a vital role in this. Our foreign policy is more effective 

and sustainable when it benefits from strong congressional engagement and oversight. Even when there are disagreements, I know firsthand and from both ends of 

Pennsylvania Avenue the imperative of open dialogue and working together. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to advance American leadership and 

diplomacy, to deliver results for the American people and to make our country—and 

the world—more peaceful and prosperous. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. That is a very riveting personal 

history. That is very insightful. 

Let me ask you a couple questions. As you know, the President 

has stated that he is interested in engaging Congress on a new 

AUMF. As you also may know, I am personally uncomfortable— 

and I understand all the claims of both constitutional and other authorities under existing AUMF’s, but I am personally uncomfortable on relying on either the 2001 September 11 AUMF and certainly the 2002 Iraq AUMF to prosecute action against ISIL. I 

think if you are going to have, as the President has clearly stated, 

a new prolonged military campaign, that that needs a congressionally approved AUMF. 

First of all, do you agree that we should be pursuing a new ISILspecific AUMF? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The President has said that the administration 

would be presenting what he thinks needs to be the set of authorities in that AUMF. In my own view, such an authorization for the 

use of military force should be specific to ISIL and should not—and 

should include authority, I should say, to go after individuals and 

organizations fighting for or on behalf of ISIL, should be limited to 

3 years or some other reasonable timeframe, should foreclose the 

possibility of a large-scale, enduring ground combat mission that 

we saw in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 as some of the elements of it. 

Do you agree that those are appropriate elements of an AUMF 

to address the ISIL-specific threat? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Mr. Chairman, without negotiating the specifics 

today, I think the elements you have laid out as a general matter 

would be appropriate. I know we have had some opportunity to disVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00753 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
746 

cuss them and those would seem to me to form a good basis for a 

conversation on developing a new AUMF. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you on Ukraine. This committee has 

taken a forward-leaning view on a bipartisan basis about helping 

the Ukrainians not only financially, but also in defensive weapons. 

I know there has been a reticence by the administration to do that 

because we are going to, quote unquote, ‘‘provoke the Russians.’’ 

Well, I do not think the Russians need much provoking because 

they seem to be acting without provocation. 

They did it in the first instance when they invaded and ultimately annexed Crimea through irregular forces. Now, for the second time, with much less camouflage, they are engaged in having 

Russian troops, tanks, armored vehicles, surface-to-surface missiles—some of which I witnessed when I was in Ukraine—taking 

place in the original time, and now we see even after the cease-fire 

it happening again. 

While I applaud the sanctions that the administration has pursued and this committee has supported, the reality is that unless 

there is a change in Putin’s calculus which includes the cost of 

what he is pursuing in eastern Ukraine and from every information 

that we have seeking for that bridge to the sea there, that unless 

we change that calculus we are just going to see a continuous action moving forward. 

So can you give me your insights—I am not talking about the administration, National Secretary Council. I am talking about what 

your insights are if you were to be confirmed in this position, as 

to what you would say about those views? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few 

things. Since the beginning of this crisis, we have sought to do 

three things. We have sought to support Ukraine, and I will come 

back to that. We have sought to impose costs on Russia for its actions in Ukraine. And we have sought to reassure our partners, 

particularly in NATO. And we have been moving aggressively, at 

least in my judgment, on all three of those lines of effort. 

With regard to Ukraine, as you know, we have provided to date 

a significant amount of assistance, including about $100 million 

worth of security assistance, and this includes everything from the 

infamous MREs and blankets, but also, as you know, things like 

night vision goggles, protective vests, countermortar radar—which 

is in fact just being delivered—communications gear, transportation gear, et cetera. 

We have not, you are right, provided lethal defensive assistance. 

Part of the reason has been that in our judgment, as much as we 

are able to throw at the Ukrainians, anyone can give them in 

terms of lethal support, unfortunately, if the Russians choose to, 

they will outmatch that easily. 

That said, what we have seen in recent days and in recent 

weeks, including the blatant violation by Russia of the very agreements it signed, the Minsk Accords, which among other things require it to help reestablish the international border, to make sure 

that Ukraine has sovereignty over its own border, to make sure 

that that border is monitored and that there is a buffer zone—instead of doing that, it has gone in exactly the opposite direction. 

It has deployed more forces to the border. We have compelling inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00754 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
747 

formation that those forces have been sent into Ukraine and sent 

to the separatists. 

So the question of defensive lethal assistance has never been off 

the table. It remains on the table. It is something that we are looking at, and indeed the Vice President will be in Ukraine in the next 

few days and I am sure that will be a topic of discussion. 

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we have worked very hard to 

impose significant costs on Russia for its actions there. I believe we 

have. The challenge is that many of those costs will play out over 

time. But I think some of them are already visible and they are 

getting more and more visible. 

As a result of bringing the Europeans together on sanctions repeatedly, we have seen already a significant impact on the Russian 

economy. We have seen capital flight that is of great magnitude. 

We have seen foreign direct investment drying up. We have seen 

the ruble hit an all-time low. We have seen Russia having to dip 

into foreign reserves, $70, $80 billion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt you—but we have seen that, 

too, and we have also seen Putin continue to invade Ukraine. So 

while I appreciate that it is not off the table, if we do not exercise 

the—from my perspective, if we do not exercise the ability to give 

Ukraine defensive weapons, maybe Russia can overpower it if it 

chooses to do so—I will not dispute that—but by the same token, 

the consequences of how many Russian sons will be sent back to 

Russia as a result of that has to affect Putin’s calculation. 

The problem is that as time progresses that becomes an increasingly less likely proposition and less effective. So I hope that you 

are going to calculate that in a much more significant way, because, yes, the sanctions are biting, yes, there are consequences, 

and also yes, they have not deterred Putin from acting. 

Let me ask you one other question. There is a whole universe of 

the world to engage in here, so it is difficult. Let me ask you one 

other question. I specifically—working with Senator Rubio—looked 

at what was happening in Venezuela and said to ourselves: This 

is amazing; here in the Western Hemisphere you have a country 

that is violating its citizens’ human rights simply protesting 

against its government, repressed by military force, and a country 

that, even though it has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, 

cannot put basic commodities on the shelves for its people. So people protest peacefully to try to make a point to their government. 

We were rebuffed by the administration in pursuing sanctions 

against the Maduro regime. We gave time for everybody who had 

some expectation of negotiations, and they were going to get there 

and bring Maduro to a different place. And guess what, we are in 

the same circumstances. We have the leader of the opposition in a 

sham trial where he cannot even present defenses, which tells you 

everything about the legal system in Venezuela. And if I go visit 

Venezuela, the screening process I have to go through is with 

Cuban security agents who run Venezuela’s security. 

Can you really tell me that our policy there is a success or have 

we recalibrated and decided that at this point sanctions is an appropriate way to proceed? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Mr. Chairman, we share your views of the Maduro 

government and his leadership. We are working with partners in 

748 

Latin America to see if they could, with us and others, get some 

of the opposition leaders out of jail, move forward on electoral reform. In doing that, they told us that sanctions at that point might 

be counterproductive, and we thought it was worth letting them 

try, with our support, to move forward. 

As we sit here today, that has not succeeded. They have tried. 

It has not produced results. So, given that, we would not oppose 

moving forward with additional sanctions. As you know, the administration took steps of its own this summer, in consultation with 

Congress, including visa restrictions on violators of human rights. 

But we would look forward to working with you to go further. 

I think there is still an opportunity to try to get a reformed electoral commission that brings the opposition onto the commission, 

that has Congress do that before it gets pushed to the Supreme 

Court, where of course nothing will happen. I think that is worth 

a shot and I would like to be able to work, if confirmed, with you 

on that. 

I would also say that you are exactly right, Maduro is going to 

have increasingly difficult problems delivering for his people. He 

needs oil to be at about $85 a barrel—and it is, of course, lower 

than that—in order for him to make good on his social contract. 

That is not happening. So I think the squeeze is getting tougher 

and tougher. 

The last thing I will say on this: My cousin went to school with 

Leopoldo Lopez, so, believe me, I hear from her regularly about his 

status and what we are doing to help him. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, want to thank you for sharing the compelling stories of 

your family and again for your desire to serve in this way. 

I think you know this because we have had this conversation, 

and I am sure you have read this, but there has been some concern 

about the President’s desire, it seems, to have people that are very 

close to him in various positions and to be very insular. While your 

role in your current job is one to champion the administration’s 

policies, as you mentioned in your opening statement, this one is 

very different. One of the criticisms of the administration, I think, 

it would be hard to debate, although I am sure it would be debated, 

has been that he has been a day late and a dollar short on so many 

things, has been cautious, has had internal debates that protract. 

Things fester, things get worse, it is very difficult to overcome, as 

your conversation with Chairman Menendez about Ukraine. 

Do you believe you have the abilities in this other position to be 

a bulwark against this cautious navel-gazing and to bring clarity 

to foreign policy in a way that would allow our Nation to move 

ahead and show the leadership that you talked about in your opening comments? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Thank you, Senator. In my current job, my role 

has been to try to bring what we call the interagency together, so 

that every voice is heard as we deliberate policy, we bring all of 

these judgments to bear, and then we try and lift up a recommendation to the Cabinet, to the President. Part of that is a deliberative process to make sure that everyone is heard and we factor everything in. 

749 

If I move over to the State Department, if confirmed, my job, 

among other things, will be to advocate strongly for the position of 

the State Department in those interagency deliberations, to do that 

and to try and move the process forward and to get decisions made. 

Secretary Kerry is someone who is, as you know, a very passionate and energetic participant in that process. We worked very 

hard to deal with what is an extraordinary number of challenges 

that are all coming, so it seems, at the same time. But I pledge to 

you that, if confirmed, that is exactly what I will try to do. I have 

to say, I have tried to do that in my current job. I recognize the 

frustrations that emerge and it is something that I will continue 

to try to do if confirmed. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you for that. I know that is the same answer you gave in the office and I appreciate that. 

On Ukraine, to get specific, will you be urging, if confirmed, the 

Secretary of State to give lethal assistance to Ukraine now? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, I believe that that is something that we 

must look at and look at—— 

Senator CORKER. I know looking at it is one thing. We have been 

looking at it now for a long time. The question is, yes or no: In this 

new position, as you leave the White House, where you have to be 

a part of whatever is decided there, will you—again, just to raise 

the cost; we understand that Russia is always going to be able to 

overwhelm a country like Ukraine. But will you, yes or no, urge the 

Secretary of State to pursue a policy of arming with lethal support—appropriate lethal support that they are ready for, Ukraine? 

Mr. BLINKEN. I know this may not be a satisfactory answer. Here 

is what I can say. I have to keep what counsel I would give—what 

counsel I give now to the President, what counsel I would give to 

the Secretary of State if confirmed, private. That would be part of 

the job. 

But let me say this—— 

Senator CORKER. What is your own view? 

Mr. BLINKEN. I believe that, given the serious Russian violations 

of the agreement that they signed, the Minsk Accord, that one element that could hopefully get them to think twice and deter them 

from further action is strengthening the capacity of the Ukrainian 

forces, including with defensive lethal equipment. So that is why 

I think it is something that we should be looking at. 

Senator CORKER. That is not as satisfactory as our conversation 

the other day, but I understand we are in a public setting. 

The AUMF that the chairman discussed. It has been the tradition, it is the standard, that when an AUMF is sought, as you mentioned is semi-being sought, although being sought in a very tricky 

way, that the administration seeks explicitly an AUMF and actually sends a draft up of what they would like for it to be, and then 

we begin the negotiations. do you believe that it is appropriate that 

if an AUMF is going to be written that the administration explicitly seek that and that you and your office are up here with a draft 

in direct negotiations in seeking that, yes or no? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, first can I just thank you, the committee, 

you personally, the chairman, for the work that you have done in 

the past on the Syria AUMF a year ago, on the AUMF most recently. 

750 

As you know, we have said that we would welcome an AUMF. 

I can tell you, not only would we welcome it, we would like it, and 

we would like to have a targeted, focused AUMF that deals with 

the challenge before us, which is defeating ISIL. The question is 

what is the best way to get something that gets bipartisan support, 

because we are much stronger if the executive branch and the legislative branch are working together and acting together, especially 

on issues of war and peace. And if we can get an AUMF that gets 

broad support, there is no question we will be better off. 

We have engaged, as you know, with you, with other Members 

of Congress, in recent weeks on an AUMF. 

Senator CORKER. You have not engaged with me. That is totally 

untrue. 

Mr. BLINKEN. All right. Well, I know we have engaged with certain members. Let me tell you that, going forward from today, we 

will absolutely actively engage with you, with other interested 

members, on trying to come up with an AUMF that answers what 

is needed, which is something that is focused on ISIL, that preserves the authorities the President needs to take action in the national interest, and I hope has everyone coming together so that we 

can demonstrate that we are united. 

So the short answer is we want to work with you on that, we 

want to work with you on that in the days and weeks ahead. 

Senator CORKER. A very important component of seeking an 

AUMF explicitly is laying out what it is the administration hopes 

to achieve. It is a very important element. And I know that when 

this was all announced this fall this was a half-baked deal. I actually believe that General Allen and others are putting some elements together that are beginning to make some sense. But I think 

it is very important—beginning to make some sense, I might add. 

I think it is very important for you to explicitly ask for it and to 

come up here and explain fully, both in classified settings and in 

public settings, what the Nation can expect as an outcome if, in 

fact, this is authorized. 

On Iran, do you believe that Congress, who put the sanctions in 

place, working with the administration no doubt, do you think that 

Congress should have the right to vote on a deal that is maybe the 

biggest, one of the biggest, geopolitical decisions that is going to be 

made by this Nation, in the event an agreement is reached with 

Iran? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, Congress will vote on any deal. It will 

have to vote on any deal, because any deal at the end of the day 

would include at some point the lifting of sanctions. 

Senator CORKER. But if you suspend sanctions, which you can do, 

certainly the permanent lifting we have to vote on. The moment 

you suspend sanctions, you break apart the international coalition. 

And you know that, and Iran knows that, and that is why they 

have been urging you to suspend. We know that, because they 

know that the moment you do that and you actually begin the actual lifting under that expansion you have broken apart the entire 

coalition that has put these sanctions in place. 

So do you not think on the front end that Congress should play 

a role? I am not talking about on the permanent lifting, that could 

751 

be, by the way, years down the road. I am talking about on the 

front end. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Our view would be that we would not even suspend sanctions until Iran has taken significant steps to comply 

with any agreement that is reached. We have to see that first before suspension. 

Senator CORKER. I understand that. 

Mr. BLINKEN. And then, precisely because the hammer that Congress has wielded and has held over the heads of the Iranians has 

been so effective, we want to keep that in place as long as possible. 

We also want to make sure that there is a snapback provision so 

that if any sanctions are suspended, not lifted, if Iran violates the 

agreement or cheats in any way, the sanctions can be snapped back 

with some automaticity to avoid exactly the problem that you rightfully raise. 

Senator CORKER. And that addresses them violating the agreement. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Absolutely. 

Senator CORKER. What it does not address is on the front end, 

if Congress believes the arrangement you have reached, even if 

they honor it, is unacceptable. So again I would just ask, having 

come from this committee, stepping into now an independent position if confirmed, do you believe that we should have the opportunity to give an approval of an agreement that has so much to do 

with the future of that region and the world? 

Mr. BLINKEN. I think if we get to an agreement and are able to 

reach one, one of the things that we need to talk about and work 

together on is how we can most effectively work together to make 

sure that it is implemented and the Iranians make good on their 

commitments. So there may be schemes under which Congress, acting at certain times in certain ways, will make that more effective. 

We should talk about that. Not knowing right now what any deal 

is going to actually look like, what the terms will be, what the commitments will be, what the timelines will be, I think it is something we should come back and talk about and figure out how we 

can most effectively continue to work together to make sure any 

deal is implemented. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. First, Mr. Blinken, thank you very much for 

your public service and thank you for sharing your family’s story. 

It is inspirational. 

I just want to underscore the point that Senator Corker just 

made, because I think there is bipartisan support for the comments 

that we must be together. I think there is concern. First, I want 

to compliment the administration for keeping the coalition together 

and keeping the sanctions in the position where it has kept Iran 

at the negotiating table. You have been effective in doing that. 

There is concern that there will be some agreements reached in 

the very near future, by the 24th, that may jeopardize the unity 

of the sanctions moving forward. I would just urge you in the 

strongest possible terms to work with Congress so that we are together on the strategy moving forward with Iran. 

752 

Our greatest hope is that you reach a comprehensive agreement 

that prevents Iran from having a breakout capacity for a nuclear 

weapon, with inspections, et cetera. We look forward to that. If that 

is not the case, then I think it is critically important that we understand and are together on the strategy moving forward and that 

we are together in our resolve that Iran will not become a nuclear 

weapons state. I would just urge you to listen to what Senator 

Corker has said, because I think there is strong support in Congress for the statements that he made. 

I want to underscore a point that Chairman Menendez said. We 

were talking about the sanctions in our hemisphere that you have 

imposed on visas. I also applaud the administration for imposing 

visa restrictions on Hungary in regards to six individuals who were 

implicated for corruption. Senator McCain and I have authored legislation that would make the Magnitsky sanctions global, which 

are basically visa bans, but add the ingredient that Congress can 

initiate a required review by the State Department on matters that 

we believe should be subject to consideration of visa restrictions. 

You and I had a chance to talk and I very much appreciate your 

commitment to basic human rights and your understanding that 

the U.S. national security very much depends upon stable regimes 

respecting human rights, and that we need to be more open about 

that and making that more of a priority. 

My point for raising that is that I will be looking for your leadership as to how we can move forward while making it clear that this 

country stands strongly in support of human rights, and that we 

will look at ways that countries are fighting corruption. Ukraine is 

a good example. We are all outraged by what Russia has done. We 

have provided a great deal of support. We are working with their 

economy. But they need to deal with their problems of corruption. 

We just had a hearing of the Helsinki Commission today and that 

was the centerpiece. 

I want to ask you a question following up on the point that I 

raised in regards to a provision dealing with the mineral rights of 

countries and the provision that was included in the Dodd-Frank 

law, known as the Cardin-Lugar provisions, that the SEC is still 

struggling with. It requires transparency from the extractive industries. 

The court sent back their first rulings because of First Amendment concerns and the SEC it is now prepared to issue its new regulations. The reason I bring it up is that the SEC is required to 

consider First Amendment issues, which they should, and one of 

the major concerns that was expressed by the administration when 

Dodd-Frank was moving forward was our need for stable energy 

supplies and the importance for transparency and the importance 

of investors knowing what countries are doing and where the funds 

are going. 

It is my understanding that the communication from the State 

Department and the administration could be critically important to 

the SEC in underscoring the importance to our country of stable 

energy supplies. I would just urge you to please follow up on that, 

because time is running out on this issue. 

If you want to respond, that is fine. 

753 

Mr. BLINKEN. Thank you very much, Senator. Let me just say 

very quickly, if confirmed I welcome following up. Even if not confirmed, if there is anything I can do to be helpful—— 

Senator CARDIN. You still have a day job. 

Mr. BLINKEN. For the time being, thank you. 

I just wanted to underscore one thing you said because I think 

it is so important: corruption and the work that you have been 

doing and the other members of this committee have been doing to 

combat corruption. One of the things I think that is a common denominator around the world of virtually every popular movement 

we have seen, whether it is in Ukraine or whether it is the Arab 

Spring, has been people rising up in disgust at corruption. It is one 

of the most powerful instigators of change. 

We have been working in a very deliberate way over the last 6 

years to focus on this issue. I think there is more that we can do 

and particularly more that we can do working with Congress. One 

of the issues I would welcome working on, if confirmed, with you 

and other members of the committee, are the efforts the United 

States is making to combat corruption, because we see it everywhere as an instigator of change and there are ways that we can 

use it effectively to help advance the kind of change that we would 

like to see. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you for that, and I agree with you completely. In Tunisia, the Ukraine, it was about corruption; it was not 

about who was President or who the government was. 

We just saw the recent tragedy in Israel at the synagogue, a barbaric act. Three Americans were killed. One was a relative of a constituent of mine, Judge Karen Friedman. So this hits us. It is 

against our own country in a way. If this happened in America 

there would be justified outrage and demand that our country take 

steps to protect the security of our country. 

Israel always seems to be placed on the defensive when it come 

to defending its own people. Its only strong ally is the United 

States. 

Will you continue to speak up for Israel’s obligations to defend 

its citizens against these types of barbaric actions and preparing 

itself to defend the security of its own country? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Absolutely. Senator, the United States has, is, and 

will continue to stand sentry, even if it is alone, against threats to 

Israel and against any attempt to undermine Israel’s legitimacy. 

We do it day in and day out around the world in international organizations. Secretary Kerry is often at that post, again alone 

sometimes. We will do it as long and as hard as it takes. We will 

always be there. 

What we saw this week was especially barbaric. Any terrorist attack is horrific. To do something in a place of worship is even beyond the pale of what we have seen before. You heard the President condemn it. Immediately the Secretary of State was on the 

phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Abbas condemned it. Unfortunately, we saw Hamas’ true colors come out in 

a statement glorifying it. 

These murderers represent the extremism that threatens to 

bring the region into a bloodbath. So I think the first job—and it 

is incredibly difficult, especially when passions are high—is for 

754 

leaders to work to lower tensions, to reject violence, because majorities want peace. They want to work toward that. And we will 

work with anyone who wants that. We will work to isolate anyone 

who does not. 

I have to tell you as well, these kinds of attacks are personal to 

me. I have a cousin who lives in Tel Aviv with her husband, her 

daughter, two sons. The daughter recently completed her military 

service. During Gaza this summer, her eldest son was in military 

training, and indeed he was training for the engineering unit that 

was the one that was going in to deal with the tunnels and the 

bombs. He was not deployed during Gaza, but he is now deployed. 

And another son is coming of military age. 

We were getting emails from her throughout the summer about 

what it was like to live under the threat of these rockets and terrorists tunneling underground to try and kill or capture civilians. 

She talked about how the bomb shelter that they had at home, that 

is usually a storage room, now a bomb shelter. She talked about 

how, riding to work on her bike, she would ride with one earpiece 

out so that she could hear an air raid siren. She talked about living 

on a 90-second timer because that is how much time you have to 

get to a bomb shelter if the siren goes off. This is something that 

I feel is real, it is visceral. 

We also saw the terrible tragedy of civilians and children being 

killed in Gaza. And I thought to myself as well, getting these 

emails from my cousin, what are Palestinian American mothers 

and fathers writing home to their families here about what they 

have experienced? We have to somehow remember the humanity 

that lies at the heart of all these situations. This is at the end of 

the day about men and women, mothers and fathers, daughters 

and sons. If we lose sight of that, we really lose. 

But one thing is for sure and it is unshakeable. We have a fundamental commitment to Israel’s security and to stand with Israel 

whenever and wherever it is under threat. I am very proud of the 

record of this administration in doing just that and it is something 

that will continue as long as we are acting. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now, let me, for the edification of the members, advise you of 

what my intention is. My intention, since there are votes at 3 

o’clock, is to ask Senator Kaine to take the chair shortly before. I 

am going to go vote and come back, try to keep this going as long 

as we can so that members can get their questions in. So if you 

are a little further down the rung before asking your question, you 

might want to go vote so you can come back and ask your question. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blinken, Monday is the 24th of November. What can we expect on Monday? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, as you know, the negotiating teams are 

engaged at this very moment—— 

Senator RISCH. Understand. 

Mr. BLINKEN [continuing]. On working toward an agreement. So 

I do not want to prejudge what may happen or may not happen. 

Right now, I think it is going to be difficult to get to where we 

755 

want to go. It is not impossible. It depends entirely on whether 

Iran is willing to take the steps it must take to convince us, to convince our partners, that its planning would be for entirely peaceful 

purposes. As we speak, we are not there. The Secretary of State is 

prepared to engage directly and personally if we have enough to go 

on to move this over the goal line. But it is literally a minute-tominute, hour-to-hour thing. I was getting emails before coming 

here. 

As we speak, I can not tell you what to expect. I can tell you that 

in the days ahead as we move toward the 24th we will continue 

to be in very close consultation with you, with the Members of the 

Senate, with the Members of the Congress, on where we are, where 

this is going, and then, depending on where this goes, to work with 

you to figure out what the most effective next steps would be. 

I wish I could tell you today, are we going to get a deal, are we 

not going to get a deal. I just can not. 

Let me add one thing, though. We have been very clear that we 

will not take a bad deal, period. Any deal that we achieve has to 

effectively cut off Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It has to deal with 

the Arak facility and its ability to develop a weapon through a plutonium path. It has to deal with Fordow, the buried facility, where 

it was before the interim agreement producing 20 percent. It has 

to deal with Natanz and an effort to accumulate a large number 

of centrifuges and a large stockpile and be able to produce material 

for a bomb very quickly. And it has to deal as effectively as possible 

with the potential for a covert program by having an unprecedented inspection and access regime. Then we will also have to 

deal with the possible military dimensions of the program, with 

missiles, and with the sanctions piece that we talked about earlier. 

So as you evaluate anything that we are able to produce, you will 

rightly and appropriately evaluate it against all of those lines. That 

is what we need to be talking about as this moves forward, and I 

pledge to you that in the days ahead and the weeks we will be in 

very close contact as we see if we can get there. 

Senator RISCH. I appreciate that. The operative words here are 

good deal versus bad deal. I have heard people from the State Department sit in the exact same chair you are sitting in and describe 

the last couple of deals as good deals. I have to tell you that I 

speak for myself, but I think probably for some other members of 

this committee, and that is our understanding of what a good deal 

is differed greatly from what the State Department’s version of 

what a good deal was. 

As you know, I was very critical of it. Other members of this 

committee were very critical of it. I certainly hope I do not have 

to be put in that position again. 

I could not agree with you more. In fact, we told the Secretary 

of State just what the administration has been saying, and that is 

no deal is substantially better than a bad deal. Once that bad deal 

happens, you will never get that genie back in the bottle again and 

we are going to wind up having to live with what could be a very, 

very difficult situation. 

So I caution you in that regard. I hope our definition and the 

State Department’s definition of what is a good deal is substantially closer to the same point than it has been in the past. 

756 

Let me make a parochial pitch here that I have over and over 

and over again, and particularly to Wendy Sherman, who sat in 

that chair. I have a constituent that is being held there, Pastor 

Abedini. There is absolutely no reason he should be in prison in 

Iran. In addition to that, there are two other Americans that are 

there that are under the same circumstances, that should not be 

there. 

It absolutely escaped logic to me why we released the billions of 

dollars that we did without demanding that those three be released 

before a penny changed hands. I just do not get it. Knowing how 

badly those people wanted the money, I just cannot understand 

why that was not the last consideration, the last requirement that 

was put on the table before the money changed hands. 

I heard Wendy Sherman talk about it. There was a lot of talk. 

I still do not understand it. I would one more time say that if you 

do get close to that, that ought to be paragraph number 236 or 

whatever the last paragraph is, that this thing does not become operative until those three people walk free. 

Again, just listening to you, I do not sense a lot of optimism that 

we are going to get to that point. But should we get to that point, 

I want to urge you in the strongest terms to see that those three 

people are turned loose and we can welcome them back here to 

America and my constituent back to Idaho. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, could I just say, first of all, thank you. I 

want you to know that every single day we are working for the release of Mr. Abedini, but also any other unjustly imprisoned American around the world. This is something that we are not only focused on, we are fixated on. 

The only thing that we talk to the Iranians about other than the 

nuclear agreement on the margins of these conversations are the 

American prisoners who are there. This is something that we are 

determined to resolve. We are determined to bring our people 

home. You have my assurance that, if I am confirmed for this job, 

that will be at the very top of my agenda. 

Senator RISCH. Well, thank you very much. If I can put a little 

more strength into that, you know, there is a human side to this 

that never gets talked about. Mrs. Abedini lives in Boise, ID. She 

has children. The children have not seen their father for some 

time. They have family there. They have a close circle of friends 

there. This has a human component that does not get talked about. 

These people want their father, their husband, home very badly. I 

am glad to hear what you are saying, but I will be much happier 

when actual action takes place. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Shaheen, and I will ask Senator Kaine to preside. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Blinken, for both being here today and for your 

willingness to continue to serve the country. I want to follow up on 

Senator Risch’s questions about the Iranian negotiations, because 

reports about those negotiations have suggested that, as you just 

did, that we are not close to reaching an agreement and that another extension might be something that people could agree on. 

757 

What positive signs or movement do we need to see in order to 

agree to another extension? Because I assume we would all argue 

that unless we think there is some reason to continue these negotiations we should not do that if they are not going anywhere. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, thank you. Here is the challenge. We are 

driving to the 24th. We want to see if we can get an agreement 

that answers our requirements, the requirements of the international community, and that is what we are focused on. As I said 

a moment ago, right now, if I am judging where we are, I think 

it will be difficult to get there, but not impossible, and it really depends on whether Iran can get to ‘‘Yes.’’ The short answer is we 

do not know. 

I do not want right now, at this delicate moment in the negotiations, in a public setting to get into the details, because we really 

have to leave that, and you will understand why, with the negotiators. However, I know that some of my colleagues were up on 

the Hill yesterday in a closed session going through in much more 

detail some of the elements of what we are looking for. I know that 

in the days ahead we will be doing more of that. I would welcome 

any opportunity certainly to talk individually or collectively, in the 

right setting, on those issues. 

But at least as a public matter, I have to leave it to the negotiators to try to have to the flexibility to do the job and get the job 

done. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you. Again to follow up on Senator Risch, I do hope that, in looking at an extension of negotiations, that we have some clear signs there is potential for movement if we are going to extend on our end. 

To follow up on what is happening with ISIS, can you talk a little bit about the new administration in Iraq and whether they are 

making sufficient progress on engaging with the Sunni population 

so that we are seeing any real change there? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, you have raised a critical question and it 

goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve and indeed what 

is necessary to achieve if there is going to be success against ISIL. 

One of the many failures of the previous Iraqi administration is 

that it failed to not only engage, but address, the legitimate grievances of the Sunni community. That created an environment in 

which large parts of that community either acquiesced to ISIL 

when it rose up or indeed even went into league with it because 

it saw it as the only way to advance its interests. 

When Prime Minister Maliki, the former Prime Minister, was 

here in November 2013, I think before ISIL was on the map for 

most people, the President said to him in their meeting: The number one challenge you have is Al Qaeda in Iraq/ISIL—it was becoming ISIL—and we want to give you, and we are working to give 

you, the equipment and assistance you need to deal with it as a 

counterterrorism and military matter, but that is not enough. You 

have to deal with this problem comprehensively, you have to engage the Sunnis, you have to address their legitimate grievances. 

Otherwise we will not succeed. And, as we know, he did not. 

The new government was one of the conditions that the President set before launching the comprehensive effort that we are 

making to counter ISIL and ultimately defeat it, precisely because 

758 

absent a government that was willing to engage the entirety of 

Iraq, to work with the Sunnis, to work with the Kurds, that strategy could not effectively succeed. 

What we have seen, I think, is significant progress. I was in Iraq 

about 4 weeks ago for a week. I spent a lot of time with virtually 

all of the leadership in Baghdad on all sides: military leaders, economic leaders, all of the government leaders, the President, the 

Prime Minister, the head of the Council of Representatives, political party leaders. What I found was that virtually everyone was 

giving the benefit of the doubt to the Prime Minister and the new 

leadership to try to move the country forward. 

He has taken a number of very significant steps already. First, 

the former Prime Minister, Maliki, had established something 

called the Office for the Commander in Chief to basically short-circuit the military and have it report directly to the Prime Minister’s 

office and make it his personal service, which was a disaster. Prime 

Minister Abadi eliminated that office and fired the people in 

charge. 

Last week he fired 36 generals, many of whom were beholden to 

the previous government, had a sectarian agenda, or were incompetent. That was significant. 

Maybe most significant of all, there is a national program that 

they need to move forward on to address legitimate grievances of 

the Sunnis, but also they are seized with an idea that we have 

been working with them on and that is to form a national guard. 

What that would do would be to enlist from local communities and 

provinces people to protect those communities and provinces. So in 

the Sunni areas you would be enlisting Sunnis to protect their own. 

But they would be tethered to the state because it would pay their 

salaries and provide them with equipment. 

This would build on and in a sense institutionalize something 

that was so successful in the 2006–2007 period and that was the 

Sons of Iraq during the surge. There is tremendous promise there. 

It is going to take a little while to get that stood up. So meanwhile we have been working with the Iraqis—and the government 

is really pushing this—on a bridging mechanism to get there. That 

is, how can we now deal with the fact that many of these tribes 

want to work with the government, they see their future is better 

with Iraq than it is with ISIL, but they need support, they need 

equipment, they need money? So the government is working on a 

program, with our support, to bring in about 5,000 tribesmen, to 

pay them, to equip them, to get them working with Iraqi Security 

Forces right now to deal with ISIL. 

So I came away from my most recent trip and from virtually 

daily engagement believing that the Prime Minister is moving 

things in the right direction, he is reaching out, he is engaging, and 

if that succeeds that offers real promise to our overall efforts. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I am almost out of time, but when 

we spoke on the phone we talked about the special immigrant visa 

program and the need to make sure that that moves forward. I 

wonder if you can tell me what we are hearing from Afghanistan 

now as we are looking at the drawdown of our troops and the importance of that program and whether we are going to be able to 

759 

provide the visas that are required for the people who are being 

threatened? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, first I want to commend your leadership 

on this issue. It has been absolutely instrumental in answering an 

obligation that I believe we have, and that is this program, addressed specifically to people in Iraq and in Afghanistan who have 

gone to work with us, who put their lives on the line for us, who 

put their families on the line by their association with us, deserve 

our every effort, if they qualify, to bring them to the United States 

and out of harm’s way. 

This is something that I have been focused on in my current capacity. It is something I believe in deeply. In Afghanistan, in a 

sense because of the success that we have had, we are running up 

against the limit and we need to be able to do more. We want to 

work with you very actively and aggressively to be able to do that, 

because we cannot abandon these people who put themselves on 

the line for the United States. 

So I look forward, if confirmed, to working with you on those 

issues, and I really thank you for everything that you have done 

to date. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KAINE [presiding]. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blinken, again thank you for your service and your willingness to serve. I want to first acknowledge the fact that these issues 

you are dealing with, these problems, are enormously challenging. 

There is nothing easy about them whatsoever. What I want to try 

and find out during my questioning is, Have you, has this administration, learned from the misjudgments, past mistakes? Are we 

willing to recognize reality? 

We talked a little bit earlier about Ukraine. I have heard members of the administration repeatedly talk about how Vladimir 

Putin is looking for off-ramps. I believe Vladimir Putin is looking 

for nothing but on-ramps. Can you just give me your evaluation of 

that? Do you really think that he is looking for a way out of this, 

a way out of this situation, or is he really looking to continue to 

be aggressive? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Thank you very much, Senator. In my judgment, 

President Putin has managed to precipitate virtually everything he 

sought to prevent through this crisis and through the aggressive 

actions he has taken in Ukraine. Ukraine is now more Western-oriented than it has ever been and indeed it has more of a national 

identity than it has had, and in effect, even with the terrible aggression in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, he has lost the bulk of the 

country. 

He has precipitated as well NATO being more energized than it 

has been, Europe more focused on energy security. We talked a little earlier about the economic—— 

Senator JOHNSON. I really want my question answered. Is Vladimir Putin looking for off-ramps? 

Mr. BLINKEN. To get to your question, because it is a very important one, I agree, Senator, here is the challenge. This is at least 

in my judgment. What has happened is this. President Putin has 

760 

probably lost his ability, as a result of their own mismanagement 

of the economy and in my judgment as a result of the pressure exerted, to deliver effectively for his people economically. Of course, 

oil prices have played a big part in that. That leaves him with one 

card and that is the nationalist card. When you play that card, I 

think in the short term it can be beneficial. You rally people 

around the flag, your numbers go up, and we have seen that. 

Here is the problem. If you stop playing the card, people then 

start to focus on the fact that actually things are not going so well 

and you have led them down the wrong path. So that is why this 

is the challenge. He does need an off-ramp. Otherwise he will keep 

playing the card, he will keep taking steps that are dangerous and 

destabilizing and that are going to create even greater conflict. 

So we thought, and we continue to believe, that the Minsk agreement that Russia signed was an appropriate off-ramp, if that is 

what you like to call it, for Russia and a way of moving forward 

to help Ukraine regain its sovereignty. Unfortunately, to date—— 

Senator JOHNSON. He is not taking it. 

Mr. BLINKEN [continuing]. He has not taken it. 

Senator JOHNSON. I thought President Poroshenko gave an extraordinary speech before a joint session of Congress. What was 

your reaction, what was the White House’s reaction, to President 

Poroshenko reminding all of us that you cannot defeat Soviet aggression with blankets? 

Mr. BLINKEN. We saw the President shortly after his speech to 

Congress and the President met with him, the Vice President, and 

others. And we have talked about this a little earlier in this, in today’s session. We have worked very hard to support Ukraine across 

the board. We have worked to develop international support for its 

economy. We produced a package initially of $27 billion from the 

international financial institutions, the Europeans, and others. We 

are working now, as you know, to add—— 

Senator JOHNSON. We covered that ground. What was the reaction? Did it have any effect whatsoever on this administration’s attitude? 

Mr. BLINKEN. You asked at the outset, Senator, Do we go back? 

do we revisit things? do we rethink things? The short answer is 

‘‘Yes,’’ we do, almost literally every single day. As I noted earlier, 

we provided a significant amount of security assistance to date, 

more than $100 million. Again, it is beyond the blankets and the 

MREs. It really is things that matter in the field to the Ukrainians, 

as well as technical advice, assistance, et cetera. 

That said, as I said earlier, we are continuing to look actively 

every day at other forms of assistance, including defensive lethal 

assistance. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Let us shift to ISIS and Iraq. I happen 

to believe it is a historic blunder, a strategic blunder, not leaving 

a stabilizing force behind in Iraq to be the glue to hold that coalition together. What was your reaction in January 2014 when you 

heard President Obama basically imply that ISIS was a JV team? 

Did that surprise you, that the President of the United States 

would say something like that? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, I think as I recall the context of those 

comments was a distinction between terrorist groups that were foVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00768 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
761 

cused inwardly and did not have an agenda that planned to attack 

the United States or, internationally, that did not have an international jihadist agenda and were focused primarily on their own 

countries. That was the distinction that was being made in that 

context. That is my recollection of it. 

Senator JOHNSON. My recollection is you had the President of the 

United States trying to minimize the threat of a group like ISIS. 

Were you aware of the threat, the growing menace, that ISIS represented to not only the region, but also to the world? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Absolutely. Let me, if I can, just tell you a little 

bit about that. And we can certainly talk about the drawdown and 

withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011. I am happy to come back 

to that. 

From the moment that we withdrew our troops from Iraq, we 

worked literally from January 2012 to work our way back in to 

help the Iraqis develop a more effective means to deal with what 

was then Al Qaeda in Iraq and became ISIL. We said to the Iraqis 

at the time: You are making a big mistake if you take your foot 

off the throat of AQI. At that time they were down. The senior 

leadership had been decimated, the Iraqis were feeling overconfident. 

But the fact of the matter is at that point in their history they 

wanted America out of Iraq. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you agree that was a mistake, to not leave 

a stabilizing force behind in Iraq? Do you think that policy has 

worked? 

Mr. BLINKEN. I believe that we tried to leave a stabilizing force, 

precisely because we thought that having the ability to help the 

Iraqis develop a more effective counterterrorism means was necessary going forward. From 2012 on, we started to work aggressively to help them build up their capacity to deal with counterterrorism. We worked with them on developing targeting cells, on 

bringing more intelligence in, on arming them more effectively. 

The year 2012 was an exercise in frustration. They did not see 

the problem. We pushed it. I worked with David Petraeus, who was 

CIA Director at the time, to do that. The Arab League summit 

came around in March 2012. We said: We will bring you ISR—intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—to help protect the 

summit, and we thought that was a means to get better eyes on 

what was going on in Iraq, including the al-Qaeda threat. It became public. They would not do it. 

But let me just quickly tell you what happened after that; 2013 

rolled around and all of a sudden the Iraqis began to be seized with 

this problem because they saw ISIL emerging in Syria and spilling 

over into Iraq. They saw that they had a problem that we had been 

warning them about for more than a year. For a year starting in 

2013, we led an effort and I led an effort to make sure that we 

were getting to the Iraqis the equipment they needed, the technical 

advisers and assistance they needed, the targeting cells, the ISR. 

We started to work with Congress on getting them more. And 

throughout 2013 I led 14 meetings of the Deputies Committee on 

that very issue. We were seized with this before ISIL was in the 

public eye. 

762 

Senator JOHNSON. Just one quick question. When you lay out a 

goal to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS, do you think it is wise 

to signal to your enemy what you may or may not do to accomplish 

that goal? In other words, no combat troops on the ground. Do you 

think that is wise to signal? Whether you intend to do it or not, 

do you think it is wise to signal that to your enemy? 

Mr. BLINKEN. What we have focused on in designing this campaign to deal with ISIL is a comprehensive effort that works on a 

military line of effort, but also dealing with the foreign financing, 

dealing with the fighters, dealing with the ideology. 

On the military piece, we believe that it is not necessary and indeed it is not sustainable to have a repeat of what happened a decade ago, which was to have a large and indefinite American deployment of forces into Iraq or anywhere else to deal with this problem. 

What we believe is more effective and more sustainable is to 

strongly support a partner on the ground with air power, with intelligence, with training and equipping, with advisers, and they 

will then do the fighting to fight for the future of their own countries. 

I believe that in Iraq we have the foundation and the makings 

of being able to do just that. We are working on the same thing 

in Syria. We believe that is the most effective and sustainable way 

forward to deal with the problem. 

Senator JOHNSON. But taking—— 

Senator KAINE. I am sorry. Senator Murphy. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We have got votes on the floor, so I am going to try to be brief. 

A couple questions. Thank you for your service, Mr. Blinken. Long 

days, long nights. It is not going to get any shorter in your new 

capacity. 

I want to ask you a quick question about your new job. You have 

done a good job of defending the administration’s policy here this 

morning. Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times wrote a brilliant 

book a couple years back about the massive buildup of military capabilities at our covert agencies and the great frustration that exists at elements of the State Department when they are trying to 

conduct diplomacy abroad—he specifically was writing about a period from 2010 to 2012 in Pakistan—when they do not know what 

is coming at them from secret drone strikes in that instance, but 

other activities in other parts of the world. 

We find the same frustration here when we are trying to evaluate whether or not we should authorize an overt arming and training of Syrian moderate rebels and we ask the question, well, what 

have we learned from the activities that have been openly reported 

thus far, we cannot get that information. 

It strikes me that we have seen a massive outsourcing over the 

last 10 years of diplomacy from the State Department to the military and a substantial outsourcing of military activity from the Department of Defense to the CIA and to covert authority. You are 

moving from having an umbrella view of all of those activities to 

now a narrower window within the State Department, and I think 

you will find many people in that agency who have some serious 

questions about whether they can do their job when you have this 

763 

level of activity occurring without oversight from the State Department or from this committee, which is charged with overseeing 

American foreign policy. 

I would love your thoughts about what mentality you are going 

to bring to the State Department, having viewed this in a more robust lens at the National Security Staff? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, I think that is a very important question 

and it is one that we grapple with literally every day. Part of my 

responsibility right now in my current job—indeed, it is at the 

heart of the responsibility—is to bring the entire interagency together on any problem, to make sure that not only is every perspective and voice heard, but to make sure indeed that each agency and 

Department knows what the other is doing. 

So when we have a meeting of the so-called Deputies Committee 

that I chair, not only is every agency there that is relevant to the 

question; we bring in, thanks to video technology, our ambassador 

from the field. We bring in, as appropriate, the station chief in the 

field. We bring in the relevant combatant commander or general in 

the field, precisely because we want to make sure that everyone 

knows and has full visibility onto what everyone else is doing, and 

to make sure that the appropriate departments and appropriate 

agencies and appropriate actors are the ones carrying out the appropriate responsibilities. That is something that is essential to the 

proper functioning of our government and our foreign policy, and 

it is something that I focus on every single day. 

If I am confirmed and move over to the State Department, I will 

get to move one seat down on that table, off of the chairman’s seat 

and one seat down. But I will continue to bring that perspective to 

bear on those deliberations, because what you pointed to is vitally 

important and it is the only way we can function effectively. Our 

ambassadors have to know what is going on from other agencies. 

The other agencies need to know what our diplomacy is doing. That 

kind of communication, coordination, if it does not happen it does 

not work. 

Senator MURPHY. I would just argue for a historical realignment 

whereby diplomats are doing diplomacy, our warfighters are doing 

what they do best, and that our covert agencies are gathering intelligence. They have always done operations, but this is a pretty unprecedented scale. 

Just one question on Russia and Ukraine. All of the conversation 

has been about—most of the conversation on this committee has 

been about whether we arm or whether we do not arm the Ukrainians. But it seems to me a lot of the conversation misses the broader picture, which is that Russia is employing a set of tools that is 

unprecedented. Somebody referred to a new phrase I had not heard 

of yesterday, that Russia has militarized information. They are 

using information, propaganda, payoffs, support for NGOs, in a 

way that we have no understanding of and no ability to match. 

Now, we do not necessarily want to go tit for tat, but instead of 

spending all this time talking about what specific arms we are 

going to give to the Ukrainians, we should be paying attention to 

what Russia is doing today in Latvia, in Estonia, in Serbia, in Montenegro, to essentially try to prep the next set of crises. Hopefully, 

this committee will be able to grapple with the need to have a 

764 

much more robust conversation about how we meet those new Russian tactics. 

Hopefully, I think you understand that, but it would be great to 

see some real proposals coming out of the State Department, some 

new innovative proposals about how we revamp programs like 

Radio Free Europe so that it has any semblance of a chance to 

match up against what the Russians are providing in the periphery 

of their area of influence. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, let me just say very briefly that that is 

something that, if confirmed, I would welcome working with you 

and other members of this committee on. You are exactly right, 

Russia has a panoply of asymmetric tools to wield influence in 

countries on its periphery, and we see that every day in the Baltics. We obviously see it in Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova. We 

see it in the Balkans and places farther flung. 

For us to be effective, we have to be focused on that as well, and 

indeed we are. It is something we welcome working on with you. 

We have—just a small point on this, and in the context of Ukraine, 

we immediately stood up an effort that our Under Secretary for 

Public Diplomacy, Rick Stengel, has been running to work on countering the messaging, which is very, very strong and effective. You 

know the Russian propaganda machine at home. That is something 

we are working on very vigorously every day. 

But the larger point that you make, this is an area where I think 

we could very profitably work together and I welcome doing that 

if confirmed. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blinken, on March—oh, by the way, over the weekend I was 

at a seminar, a panel with former Secretary Gates, former Secretary Panetta, and also former National Secretary Adviser Mr. 

Hadley. All of them strongly disagree with every one of your assertions here, particularly about the diminution of American power 

and influence throughout the world, including the fact that they 

said again, including Ryan Crocker, one of the most respected 

members of the diplomatic corps, have all said the administration 

could have succeeded in keeping United States troops in Iraq after 

2011 if it had been more creative and determined. You and I had 

that discussion in my office and you made some assertions which 

are just patently false, which was very disappointing to me. 

In March 2012 you said: ‘‘What is beyond debate is that Iraq 

today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous and 

the United States more deeply engaged there than at any time in 

recent history.’’ I vehemently disagreed with that at the time. So 

did the rest of us. Now, will you admit you were wrong in that assessment? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, at the time—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes or no, will you admit that you were wrong 

with that assessment? 

Mr. BLINKEN. At the time I made that—I stand behind the words 

I said at the time. I think they accurately reflected where we 

thought—— 

765 

Senator MCCAIN. Even though we knew, we knew, that if all the 

troops were going to be removed that the ensuing situation would 

evolve, and predicted it. And you were celebrating the fact that we 

had no more troops left in Iraq. You celebrated it, and so did the 

President: the last troop, combat troop, has left. 

By the way, the Baghdad chief of the New York Times said the 

administration was ignorant of reality, ‘‘and did not want to see 

what was really happening because it conflicted with their narrative that they left Iraq in reasonably good shape.’’ You did not 

leave Iraq in reasonably good shape, Mr. Blinken, and the events 

afterward directly negated your assessment at the time. It is very 

disappointing to me that you will not even admit that you were 

wrong. You were wrong because you said you were leaving behind 

a prosperous and less violent, more democratic—and none of that— 

than any time in recent history. 

Now, I would like to ask you some questions. Do you believe that 

we should be providing the Ukrainian resistance with weapons, 

with lethal weapons with which to defend themselves now? Not 

whether it is on the table or not. Do you believe we should be supplying them with weapons in order to defend themselves, yes or no? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, what I can say is I believe we need to consider that. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am asking you whether you believe we should 

be giving them the weapons or not, Mr. Blinken, and that is a 

straightforward question. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, you will understand that the advice that 

I provide to the President—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I am not asking for your advice. I am asking 

you for your opinion. You are supposed to be coming before this 

committee and give us your views. 

Mr. BLINKEN. My belief is that that can play a role potentially 

in deterring—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Let the record show, Mr. Chairman, that the 

witness would not answer the question. Now—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I will let the record reflect that the witness answered the question as he did. 

Senator MCCAIN. Excuse me. He would not answer either in the 

affirmative or the negative in response. He would not answer in response to the question, the question I will ask one more time: Do 

you believe we should be supplying the Ukrainians with lethal defensive weapons, yes or no? 

Mr. BLINKEN. And again, Senator, I believe that is something 

that we need to look at very actively. 

Senator MCCAIN. After 4,000 dead and the country dismembered 

and 4,000 more Russian troops invading eastern Ukraine, and you 

think it is something that should be looked at. That is really quite 

interesting. 

Do you believe that Bashar Assad is getting stronger now that 

we are attacking only ISIS in Syria? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, I believe that as we work to build up the 

moderate opposition, as we make it a stronger counterweight not 

only to ISIL but to the regime, Assad will get weaker, his position 

will change—— 

766 

Senator MCCAIN. But we are not attacking Bashar Assad, Mr. 

Blinken, and that is a fact. Are we? 

Mr. BLINKEN. We are working to build—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Are we attacking or not? 

Mr. BLINKEN. We are currently—no, we are not attacking Bashar 

Assad. 

Senator MCCAIN. We are not attacking Assad? 

Mr. BLINKEN. No, we are not. 

Senator MCCAIN. At the end of September you stated: ‘‘The best 

way to deal with Assad is to transition him out so that the moderate opposition can fill the vacuum. That is what we have been 

working on.’’ 

At the G20 over the weekend, President Obama was asked if he 

was actively discussing ways to remove President Assad as part of 

a political transition, and his response was ‘‘No.’’ 

Are we working to transition Assad out or not? 

Mr. BLINKEN. We believe, the President has said repeatedly—I 

am not sure the exact words that you are referring to, but I have 

heard him say repeatedly—— 

Senator MCCAIN. It is fairly simple. He said ‘‘No.’’ 

Mr. BLINKEN. Assad has lost his legitimacy. There is no way 

going forward that Syria can be stable with Assad in power. So 

what we have been looking—— 

Senator MCCAIN. So the President was incorrect, when asked if 

he was actively discussing ways to remove Bashar Assad as part 

of a political transition, and his answer was ‘‘No’’? 

Mr. BLINKEN. The President has been focused and consistent on 

the effort to support the moderate opposition, to build it up as a 

counterforce, to change the dynamic so that we can get to a political transition that winds up removing Assad. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Blinken, you quite often referred about the 

moral obligations and the standing of the United States of America. 

Do you believe that it is moral for us to train Syrians to go into 

Syria, in this case in Saudi Arabia, to go into Syria and fight, when 

we are not attacking Bashar Assad and Bashar Assad is intensifying his attacks on the Free Syrian Army? Is that moral? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, we have been working now for more than 

3 years to support the—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Again, we do not answer the question. It is too 

bad that you can not answer straightforward questions, Mr. 

Blinken. I want to ask you whether you think it is immoral or not 

for us to send these young Syrians into an environment where they 

will be barrel-bombed by Bashar Assad. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Thanks to the work that we have been able to do 

with you, with Congress, we are now—— 

Senator MCCAIN. You have done no work with me. You have 

done no work with me, Mr. Blinken. 

Mr. BLINKEN. On the Train and Equip Program for the Syrian 

opposition—— 

Senator MCCAIN. You have not worked with me on anything. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Well, that is something that we would want to do 

and relish doing. 

Senator MCCAIN. After 6 years, you would want to do that. I 

thank you. 

767 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, could I just—if I could just add. We have 

been working with the moderate opposition for nearly 3 years. We 

have been working to build them up, give them support, give them 

greater means to defend themselves—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Blinken, when you say that it is very disturbing to me, because I know these people. I have been in Syria 

and I have met them. A lot of them that I have met with are now 

dead because we would not help them when the President of the 

United States said ‘‘No’’ to the recommendation of his Secretary of 

Defense, Secretary of State, and head of the CIA to provide arms 

to them. A lot of them have died. And we did not do all of those 

things you are saying, and there is ample proof by the fact of the 

situation that they are in today, which is probably more tenuous 

than it has ever been in history. 

So again, I really take strong exception to hear you say something that I know, because I have been on the ground there, is not 

true. And I know these people very well. They feel abandoned. 

There have been many media reports, not just my reporting, but 

just a couple days ago in The Wall Street Journal. They feel abandoned and they have every reason to feel abandoned, and many of 

them are deserting to go to al-Nusra because they do not believe 

that they are getting any assistance. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, all I can tell you is from what I see, what 

I believe, what I know from what we have done. We have been 

working with them. We have been supporting them. We now have 

an opportunity, again thanks to the great work that has been done 

with Congress, to intensify and accelerate that effort, to give them 

even greater means to defend themselves, to defend their families, 

to defend their communities, to become a counterweight to ISIL, 

but also to become a counterweight to Assad. 

We share the same objective. We would welcome continuing to 

work with you and deepen that and figure out a way to get it done 

effectively. 

Senator MCCAIN. We know a way to get it done, Mr. Blinken. We 

have known it for a long time, a way to get it done, and we have 

articulated it time after time after time. And since that way was 

not pursued, we are now in the situation we are in today, whether 

it be Iraq or whether it be in Syria. Dividing Syria and Iraq into 

two different kinds of conflicts when we are fighting one enemy, of 

course, is bizarre. 

One more point. I guess I am way over time. I am sorry, Mr. 

Chairman. Just today we were meeting with some people who affirmed to us our belief, if you move everybody out of Afghanistan 

you will see the Iraq move again. Do you believe that we should 

leave a sustaining force in Afghanistan? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, to me the lesson for Afghanistan from 

Iraq is the need for political accommodation, what we did not get 

sufficiently in Iraq. At the time that I said the remarks that you 

referenced, I actually believed that we were in a position where 

Iraqis were working together politically within the confines of their 

constitution—— 

Senator MCCAIN. But you were wrong. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister chose to take 

Iraq in another direction. The foundation was there, the means 

768 

were there. It did not happen and that is something that unfortunately has stood Iraq in very bad stead. 

But I believe one of the lessons we should draw from that—and 

you are right to focus on—is that, absent that kind of political accommodation and willingness to work together, it will be difficult 

to sustain all of the progress in Afghanistan. Happily, at least for 

now, we have in the new President, Mr. Ghani, the Chief Executive, Abdullah Abdullah, a commitment to work together inclusively, to bring the country together, and to give the investment 

that we made in Afghanistan the chance to succeed, including the 

Afghan Security Forces. 

We need to keep that investment going, we need to keep the financing going, and we need to support them in their efforts. If that 

happens, I believe—and of course we have two more years to continue in an aggressive way to help build up and develop the capacity of those forces. 

Senator MCCAIN. Unfortunately, Mr. Blinken—the time has expired. Unfortunately, you will be wrong again. If we do not leave 

a sustaining force behind, Afghanistan will collapse and you will be 

wrong again. 

I thank the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair has allowed the Senator greater time 

than he allowed himself. 

We have one or two colleagues who wish to come back and ask 

questions. We have a second vote. I think it is important not to 

close the hearing so that we can have them have their expressions 

of whatever questions they want to ask you. 

I would like to take, before I have to go vote, a moment to ask 

you two quick questions. Hopefully, you can answer them quickly. 

One is, when the United States invaded Iraq who was the big winner? 

Mr. BLINKEN. I think you could point to a few potentially. And 

you are talking about in 2003? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BLINKEN. I think certainly Iran benefited at the time. I think 

that arguably, unfortunately, al-Qaeda benefited because it was 

able to then develop a front in Iraq that it did not have. So there 

were some unfortunate consequences to that action. 

On the other hand, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifice of our 

men and women in uniform, our diplomats, our civilians, whatever 

one thinks about the war and how it started and why it started, 

because of that sacrifice, because of that extraordinary effort over 

a decade, we gave Iraq a chance to succeed. We helped give it the 

institutions of governance. We helped create structures that could 

allow it to actually be something relatively unique in the region. 

And there was a moment, at least in my judgment, where people 

were actually working within the confines of the constitution and 

institutions, despite their tremendous differences, to move the 

country together. So—— 

The CHAIRMAN. And it is in that context that you made the comment that Senator McCain referenced? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Yes. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. My own observation, as someone who voted 

against the war in Iraq, was that it was the biggest blunder that 

769 

we committed. We ended up, no weapons of mass destruction, no 

clear and present danger to the United States, no imminent threat, 

and the loss of so many lives and national treasure. 

Now, we certainly cherish the contributions and the sacrifices 

made by American forces to ultimately liberate the Iraqi people. 

But at the end of the day, there is a lot of bad actors in the world. 

I can name a few that I would like to see go. You might imagine 

who is on the top of that list. And yet it is not in the national interest of the United States to necessarily pursue that course of action. 

What we did is give Iran an opportunity for an ascendancy that 

creates challenges throughout the region. I just wanted to create 

context to your comments. And I have filibustered sufficiently to 

have Senator Kaine take the chair as I go to vote. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KAINE [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Blinken, for your 

service and your willingness to be here. What a position of honor 

your position will be. As a member of the committee, I visit a lot 

of countries and I always have meetings with FSOs, usually in 

their first or second term, to talk about their lives and their questions and their sacrifices. Sometimes they ask me about traffic in 

northern Virginia where they own property, but mostly we talk 

about the very serious issues that they deal with. What a wonderful bunch of people that you have worked with and you are going 

to continue to work with. So I will just start off by honoring them. 

I think we do a pretty good job of acknowledging members of our 

military who serve now, but there are so many Americans abroad 

who are small ‘‘a’’ ambassadors, and we just need to thank all of 

them. So I think you are going to have a great opportunity to serve 

with wonderful people, and I know you know that. 

Two thoughts on the AUMF process, and we talked a bit about 

this in the office. I do think it is a mistake for the administration 

not to have sent up AUMF language, because I think you are more 

likely to get an AUMF that you like if you send up language and 

you are less likely if you do not. 

That being said, we are the article I branch. So I do not think 

there is any excuse for us not to do it and to do it with dispatch, 

and I hope we will. And I know we will work together on the terms 

of it. 

So that is a critique. Let me now offer a compliment. Senator 

King and I visited the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in early October 

to see the coalition in action. The administration—and it is both a 

military effort and a diplomatic effort, the efforts to pull together 

a meaningful coalition of nations who believe ISIL is a threat. It 

sounds good on paper and when you see it, it is even more impressive, the seamlessness of the coalition partners working together in 

the air strike campaign. 

We were in a room that looked like the New York Stock Exchange, with big screens up, and folks from so many nations making hard decisions, but making them in an apparently seamless 

way. That was a month ago. It was highly impressive. So I know 

there is a lot of elements to this. The assembly of the coalition may 

be one of the most difficult, at least if the early evidence is an indication. We felt pretty positive about it, both Senator King and I. 

So I will offer that to you as a compliment. 

770 

One thing I would like to caution you, both in the State Department and all of us more broadly—and I would love to hear your 

response on it—is, do not let Iraq-Syria take our eyes off Afghanistan. We let that happen. I think we let that happen in 2003. I 

think we let it happen in 2006–2007. 

I first was in Afghanistan in April 2006 as Governor visiting my 

Virginia Guards men and women who were serving there. I think 

it was the belief of a lot of the American both diplomatic and military leadership on the ground in Afghanistan at that point that 

Iraq was taking our attention away. The achievements that had 

been gained in Afghanistan as a result of American effort, diplomatic effort, military effort, had been significant—life expectancy 

advances, kids in schools. It is fragile under this new government. 

The formation of the new government is a huge tribute to your boss 

and to American diplomatic effort. But it is fragile. 

While I am a supporter of an authorization for military action 

against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, I am mindful of the fact that we 

have turned our attention to one theater and then not paid the attention that was necessary. The Afghanistan situation is hopeful 

enough, but fragile enough, that if we turn our attention too dramatically to the events that are in the newspaper every day we run 

the risk of losing gains that have been achieved at an awful lot of 

sacrifice. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on that. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, what you have just said resonates in a 

very powerful way and it resonates because you said it in this 

room. A decade ago in this room, President Karzai sat where I am 

sitting today and he said almost exactly what you said. This was 

before the war in Iraq and he was testifying on Afghanistan, and 

he said: It is not my role necessarily to give the United States advice about what it should do or should not do somewhere else, but 

I ask you, whatever you do, do not take your eyes off Afghanistan. 

So what you just said seems to have resonated across the decade 

back into this very room, and I could not agree more. 

Secretary Kerry, as you know, is intensely focused on this question. Had it not been for his extraordinary personal diplomacy, I 

am not sure that we would have gotten the accommodation that we 

saw between President Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah 

Abdullah. That is a tribute to, and triumph of, American diplomacy 

and his personal engagement. 

Now, you are exactly right, we need to help sustain that, and we 

are. We are very focused on giving them the support that they need 

to continue to move the country forward in an inclusive way. That 

is very much a focus of the Secretary and of the administration. 

Second, I think you are right to underscore this because we have 

to sustain the investment we have made in Afghanistan. We made 

a commitment to help develop the Afghan National Security 

Forces. We got other countries around the world to do the same 

thing. Countries made commitments and pledges in Chicago and 

Tokyo militarily, on the financial assistance side. Those have to be 

sustained. 

In fact, if you look at the assessments that have been done, our 

analysis and the analysis of the intelligence community is the single most important factor in helping Afghanistan continue to move 

771 

forward is sustained support from the intelligence community. So 

we hear very much what you are saying. We agree with it, and I 

think there is a vital role that we can play together working with 

the committee to make sure that we are doing justice to that. 

Senator KAINE. There were early signs of success in the coalition 

government—the signing of the bilateral security agreement, the 

signing of the status of forces agreement, the reinitiation of a 

criminal investigation into corruption of the Kabul Bank, the signing of a long kind of—dust was all over it—potential energy deal 

with Pakistan, indicating potential for opening up better ties there. 

So there were some good early signs. 

But a sign that is still a troubling one is the difficulty in the formation of a Cabinet. I know that the Afghan leadership is going 

to be going to a donors conference in London in early December, 

and I am sure the donors are going to pepper them with questions 

about that. The United States played such a key role in the diplomatic rapprochement between President Ghani and Executive 

Abdullah. That was key. I think there is going to be diplomatic 

roles to play in some steps along the way, including in this, in the 

formation of the government, because I can not imagine that conversation with the donors will go very well if they walk in and 

there is not tangible evidence of real progress toward the formation 

of an inclusive government. 

Mr. BLINKEN. And we have made exactly that case to them. 

Senator KAINE. Great. 

So many other questions have been asked; numerous questions 

about Iran. Just one point about Iran. I think it was Senator Risch 

who said he had been a harsh critic of the administration or just 

a critic of the administration’s proposal on the interim deal in the 

JPA. I was actually a real supporter. But I may be as hawkish on 

the ultimate, the big deal. 

I really felt like the interim deal had to be done. There had to 

be an interim phased approach that was trust-building because of 

the lack of trust between the parties. When there is a situation 

that is just fundamentally characterized by lack of trust, the only 

way you get to a better place is to test each other out in small 

things and see if the tests are passed enough to move on to larger 

things. 

So the interim deal, a huge supporter. But you are going to—you 

said you cannot say where it is going to go, but it is going to be 

one of three paths. It is either going to be a deal—then we will talk 

about whether it is a good or bad deal. If it is going to be no deal, 

that would be relatively clear. Unfortunately, we have to figure out 

the consequences. Or it is going to be some request for additional 

time to put it together. I think the body will be pretty tough on 

that. To the extent that the toughness of Congress is at all lost on 

the negotiators on the Iranian side, I know that our team over 

there will disabuse them of that notion as you are in the final 

phases before November 24. 

Last thing; just a thought. I am over time, but, hey, I am the last 

guy with questions, so I can easily do this. Something I would like 

you to kind of respond to. We focus our energy, as we often should, 

as we should, on the problematic areas. We ought to focus our energy too, and you should, in states and areas where things are acVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00779 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
772 

tually moving in a positive direction, try to shine a spotlight on 

them, try to encourage others to do the same. 

In the first Arab Spring country, Tunisia, that I recently visited, 

the United States has played an important role and there have 

been important both parliamentary and now upcoming Presidential 

elections. That could be a significant success story of positive movement in the Arab world that I think should be an important area. 

The United States-India relationship—you and I talked about 

this—I think is entering a new phase, for a variety of reasons, 

where there is a huge up-side opportunity on economic cooperation 

and trade, on military cooperation, on cooperation on cyber issues. 

There are a number of instances of economies and countries in 

Latin America. There are some that are going bad. We have had 

questions about Venezuela certainly, but there is also some very 

positive examples. 

Let us not have all of our diplomacy or all of the energy of leaders like you be around the crisis zones where things are going bad. 

One of the ways you help things go better in places where they are 

going bad is to shine the spotlight on where they are going well 

and try to extract the lessons and use them, so lessons from Plan 

Colombia that can be used in Central America or lessons in Tunisia 

that can be used in other nations in northern Africa like Algeria 

as they probably approach a governmental transition within the 

next 5 or 10 years. 

So I would just encourage you in that, and if you have any 

thought about that I would love to hear your response. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Well, I appreciate very much that you just did put 

the spotlight on a number of very positive developments, ones 

where we have been working very hard, sometimes behind the 

scenes, sometimes quietly, supporting, providing assistance, giving 

advice, in just those ways. I think we have seen the United StatesIndia relationship that you just pointed to come a remarkable distance. It started with the end of the Clinton administration. The 

Bush administration did a tremendous job in carrying the relationship forward, and now we have just had the extraordinarily successful visit of Prime Minister Modi here to the United States and 

an agenda that is working across virtually every issue of importance to us with India that we are carrying forward. There again, 

it is something where I think we could work together very, very 

profitably in the months ahead. 

Latin America as well. Extraordinary success stories. We have 

seen countries make fundamentally important decisions about their 

macroeconomic policies that have been to their benefit, improving 

governance, dealing with security challenges with the assistance of 

the United States, including in Colombia, Mexico, now other places. 

There, too, is a lot to work with, to work for, and to work together 

on. 

The long and short of it is I think you are exactly right that we 

should not lose sight of the good news, especially because if we can 

make sure that it actually gets deep-rooted, not only will that consolidate the good thing where it is happening, but, as you just said, 

it can serve as a model, lessons learned, inspiration for other 

places. 

773 

Senator KAINE. With the permission of the ranking member, just 

one other brief point before I hand it back to see if you have an 

additional round. 

On the Latin America point, one of the things I have been struck 

by is, American foreign policy almost always has revolved around 

an east-west axis. We were worried about Europe, worried about 

the Soviet Union, worried about China. Even when we had a policy 

in the Americas, it has often really been a, well, we are worried 

about Europe in the Americas, so we have the Monroe Doctrine; we 

are worried about the Soviet Union in the Americas, so we are engaging in Truman Doctrine proxy activities there. 

The concern in Latin America is often that they are a source of 

attention only upon a crisis. If there is undocumented kids coming 

to the borders in big numbers, we go and we work on that; those 

numbers abate, the attention kind of moves away. 

But the reality of kind of the facts on the ground right now is 

Canada is our number one trade partner and Mexico is our number 

two trade partner. You could see foreign policy going on an eastwest axis, but if you look at our economic activity it is probably 

much more north-south than it is east-west. If you look at who 

comes to this country, the origins of people living here, the languages that are spoken here, our cultural traditions are so oriented 

around the north-south axis. 

I do talk—this committee, we will have meetings with heads of 

state of South American countries. They will tell us about the deep 

engagement of China in trying to do natural resource deals or trying to do things, and they will say that: We feel more cultural affinity with the United States, but we just do not see the level of 

engagement. 

So I would just put that on your shoulders going into this position. Our economy is running north and south. The flow of people 

is running north and south. Our cultural traditions and heritages— 

we are a nation—next year is the 450th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, FL. We have been a Hispanic nation 42 years 

before Jamestown. But we do not make that a primary focus of our 

foreign policy, and I would just encourage you and your colleagues 

at the State Department to take advantage of the opportunities 

that seem to be low-hanging fruit in the hemisphere. 

Mr. BLINKEN. I very much appreciate that, Senator. If I could 

just maybe say a very brief word to address it, because, first, I 

know from my conversations with the Secretary that this is something that he is personally very focused on. We have a very dynamic Assistant Secretary of State who I know, Roberta Jacobson, 

who does an amazing job every day. 

But it is also something that the President and Vice President 

have been intensely focused on. The President has made six trips 

to Latin America as President. Just this year in 2014, because this 

is something I was able to witness, he received in the Oval Office 

the heads of Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Uruguay. He visited Mexico. And the Vice President has been a human 

dynamo on 8 trips to the region, 10 countries, constant phone engagement. 

We have worked, as you know, to advance free trade agreements 

with Colombia, with Panama. We have established, precisely to 

774 

your point, economic dialogues with countries that are emerging in 

a big way—Mexico, Brazil. We have the Caribbean Security Initiative which is vitally important there. And of course there have been 

the responses to the crises as well—Haiti and then the unaccompanied children. 

Then there is a very other important component to this. There 

is a very dynamic exchange component. We have 100,000 strong in 

Latin America and we have 72,000 students from the region studying in the United States today. That is an increase of about 8 percent over the previous year. We have 43,000 Americans studying 

in Latin America, which is also an increase. 

So we think you are exactly right and we want to work on all 

of these different lines of effort to maximize the relationships, 

strengthen them. When you look at countries like Chile, like Peru, 

like Colombia, like Mexico and others, there is an extraordinary 

foundation for progress. And of course, if we are able to get the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership done, that, too, will further deep-root 

that progress. 

Senator KAINE. Senator Menendez is returning. I am going to 

hand it back to him. Mr. Blinken, thank you for your testimony 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Kaine. I appreciate it. 

Senator Coons, when he gets accommodated, will be next, and 

then, depending upon whether any other member up or not, we will 

be closing the hearing. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Menendez. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Blinken, for long and honorable service to this 

Nation, your 6 years as staff director here on the committee and 

your very capable and dedicated service in the Obama administration and to my own home State, Vice President Joe Biden. 

I also want to thank, in passing, Bill Burns as well, who has 

served very well as Deputy Secretary and is an accomplished Foreign Service officer. We thank him for his 33 years of service to our 

country. 

If I might, Mr. Blinken, first an issue of particular interest to 

me, in part because I chair the Africa Subcommittee, in part because of its strategic importance for us, is the concern about failed 

states, about states—and I will just mention two—Somalia and the 

Central African Republic, where in one instance we had for nearly 

20 years a complete collapse of centralized control or authority, and 

as a result real threats to regional and global security, and the 

other where there is an ongoing and significant humanitarian crisis. 

Tell me how you think we might together get ahead of the issue 

of failed states around the world, and what is the proper mix between sort of economic and security and political initiatives to regain governance and to move forward in human rights and to secure and stabilize failed states in the region and the world? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, thank you for your leadership on this, for 

your work on this. I think you have identified one of the principal 

challenges we face, because we see again and again that where we 

775 

face problems one of the things that is at the root of the problem 

is a failure of a state, is the failure of governance, is the failure 

of institutions. 

We have seen the incredible hope generated by, for example, the 

Arab Spring. But then, translating those hopes and aspirations on 

the street, into the institutions that can actually guarantee the 

rights and opportunities that people are clamoring for is a huge 

and indeed generational challenge, because unfortunately this does 

not happen overnight. So what we have tried to do—and you can 

go across the board. We talked about Tunisia a little bit earlier. We 

have now the great challenge in Yemen. 

I think what you pointed to is essential, that in many of these 

places we have to take and we are taking a comprehensive approach to the problem. Often there is a military component because 

there may be a challenge from an insurgency, from a terrorist 

group. We have to help these countries develop the means and the 

capacity to deal with those problems. 

But that is not sufficient. Unless we are able to help them develop the institutions of governance that give their people a sense 

that they can advance their interests through the democratic process, it is not going to work. Unless we can help them create institutions and economies that can actually deliver for people in their 

daily lives and that gives them the means not only to subsist, but 

to move forward, it is not going to work. 

So I think what you alluded to is the need to look at these problems comprehensively to bring all of the different components of 

our government to bear on these problems, and to do it in a coordinated way, because what we do know is that if—and I know that, 

especially after a decade where our country has been engaged in 

two wars, with a large deployment of forces, that some people say, 

well, maybe this is a time to be a little bit less engaged. I think 

the answer is it is not. It is actually a time to be more engaged. 

But the question is how should we be engaged and how can we be 

engaged in a sustainable way that can actually help lift up some 

of the countries that are under challenge? 

I think, for example, that the large-scale indefinite deployment 

of American forces is something that obviously would be a challenge to sustain. Developing the capacity of our partners to work 

on these problems is a more sustainable way to do it. 

Similarly, as we look at the development agenda, we have the development goals that now need to be brought forward beyond 2015 

and to work on those. The Bush administration created an extraordinarily powerful mechanism in the Millennium Challenge Corporation that has done remarkable work, and this is something 

that we have continued. 

So it is a long way of saying that as we think about our engagement we have to address this question of failed states, but we have 

to figure out ways to do it that are sustainable, that we can keep 

going, that we can resource, and that we can bring all of government to bear on. Of course, I should add, the private sector and 

other sectors are absolutely critical. This summer, something that 

you played a leadership role in, the Africa Leaders summit, we 

brought to Washington, as you know, an extraordinary gathering 

of African leaders, and we worked with them to help unleash more 

776 

growth in Africa, also to deal with security challenges, institutional 

challenges. 

A key component of that was bringing the private sector to the 

table and helping to strengthen those relationships. Power Africa 

is a wonderful example of the government and the private sector 

working together to help people in a meaningful way and to help 

economies develop a foundation that can carry them forward and 

actually prevent government failure, failed states, and so forth. 

So there is a broad agenda there. This committee has done extraordinary work on it to date. If I move over to the State Department, that is something that I would welcome working with the 

chairman on, working with you on, and other members. 

Senator COONS. I could not agree more. As you know, last night 

was the Millennium Challenge Corporations 10th anniversary 

event. I have had the opportunity to visit a half dozen states in Africa where they have made a real difference, and I think bringing 

the energy and the resources of the private sector, whether through 

AGOA, through the Partnership for the Future, or through MCC, 

to bear in making progress is critical. 

I also just want to make sure that you are keeping in mind, that 

we all keep in mind, democracy, and civil society. On the continent 

of Africa at least, there are a half-dozen countries where leaders 

are seeking to change the constitution to extend their terms, to 

avoid the accountability of free, fair, and open elections. I think 

that is something we have to balance as well. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Absolutely. 

Senator COONS. You have been here a long time. So although I 

have many questions and I am confident you would answer them, 

let me just ask a last question if I could. Given your almost unique 

role as having served significantly here and now in the Executive 

Office and now going—of the President—and now going to the 

State Department, how can we improve communication, collaboration, and relationships, between this committee, this body, the Senate, and the White House? 

Mr. BLINKEN. I actually think it is in a sense pretty simple, and 

it goes to something that Chairman Menendez talked to me about 

last week and something I feel very strongly about. That is giving 

real meaning to the word ‘‘consultation.’’ I heard the chairman loud 

and clear. I also heard from Ranking Member Corker on this. I 

think we can always do a better job and I am determined to do a 

better job, if confirmed, in making that word mean what it means, 

which is not inform, but actually consult, work together, have a 

dialogue, try and develop these policies together. There will be 

places, obviously, where we disagree, as any executive and legislative do. But it is my conviction, from having spent 6 years here, 

having spent 13 years in the executive, that it sure works better 

when we are working together, and it does not work if we are not 

communicating and communicating in a meaningful way. 

So I heard the chairman on that loud and clear. I am determined 

to do that if I am confirmed. 

Senator COONS. I could not agree more, and whether it is the 

AUMF and the conflict with ISIS, the potential agreement with 

Iran and concerns about our vital ally Israel and our safety and seVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00784 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
777 

curity, the Rebalance to Asia, or the things we talked about in Africa, all of these, we are much more likely to be successful together. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making it possible for me to come 

and question. And I may not be the last. 

Thank you so much for your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. I apologize. 

Thank you. Good to see you. I appreciate your time, and I will 

be brief. I know we have votes going on as well. 

I have two followup questions. I understand you have already 

spoken about the issue of Venezuela. My understanding is, just to 

clarify on sanctions against government officials that are responsible for human rights violations or corruption, the administration’s 

position, it is now willing to cooperate or be helpful in terms of 

sanctions legislation? 

Mr. BLINKEN. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator RUBIO. Can I ask, would the administration consider 

doing some of those things directly? They do have authority to take 

some of those actions. They already have with regards to the visas. 

Is that something that is being contemplated? 

Mr. BLINKEN. That is something we would very much like to 

work on with you. As you know, we took the actions that we took 

this summer, indeed consulting with you on that, in terms of the 

visa restrictions that we did. As we had a brief opportunity to discuss, we have been focused on trying to see if our partners in Latin 

America could actually get results in terms of the opposition’s 

agenda—getting people out of jail, advancing progress on the electoral commission, et cetera. I think, unfortunately, to date the effort has not borne fruit, which is why we think that working with 

you on what you have been proposing is something that we should 

do. 

So certainly, if confirmed, and even if not, in my current capacity, I would welcome having that conversation and working on that 

with you. 

Senator RUBIO. Then on the issue of Colombia briefly. As you are 

well aware, they have been negotiating, the government has been 

negotiating with the FARC over a potential peace agreement. That, 

of course, has been suspended because of the kidnapping of a Colombian general. One of the issues that arose during my recent trip 

there is that there may come a point where as part of those negotiations the FARC is asking that people currently in custody in the 

United States be released early, that their sentences be commuted. 

Can we rule that out now to make sure that it is clearly understood that that is not something the administration would ever 

support doing? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, what I can tell you is this. As you know, 

we are not a party to the negotiations, so we would have no requirement, whatever they negotiate, to send anyone back. We are 

obviously a strong ally of Colombia, as we strongly support the 

process, and as we go forward, if they call on us to play a role— 

and again, because we are not part of the negotiations, there is 

nothing we would be required to do—obviously I would commit, 

and I do here, to consult very closely with you about anything that 

778 

the Colombians may ask for in the future if something actually materializes in terms of a final deal. 

Right now, as you know as well as I do, they are not there. We 

had the very unfortunate kidnapping of the general this week, and 

we are strongly supporting their efforts to try and carry this forward. But this is something, if the Colombians ask things of us, we 

would work with you to see what should be done 

Senator RUBIO. Then my last question is: As you know, the current sanctions that exist toward Cuba have been codified via the 

Helms-Burton legislation and other previous pieces of legislation 

that have passed, that have been enacted in the past. Absent Cuba 

meeting the requirements of that legislation, do you anticipate during the rest of the President’s term that there will be any unilateral change or any change in the United States sanctions or conditions against Cuba absent them meeting those conditions of democracy, human rights, and so forth, the things outlined in that legislation? 

Mr. BLINKEN. Senator, I think on Cuba let me just say a couple 

things if I could. First, I think we share strongly an understanding, 

and one that you have firsthand, of the nature of the regime. It has 

been an imprisoned island all my life, literally. I actually remember my parents talking to me about Cuba, that they had been able 

to visit in the 1950s before it became an imprisoned island. And 

of course, we know exactly what is going on today, the detentions, 

the harassment, the police state. 

I think the question is—and I know we had a brief opportunity 

to discuss this—I think we all believe that change almost by definition will come, has to come, and the question is how do we best 

help the Cuban people prepare for that change. I know there are 

differences of views on the best and most effective way to do that 

in terms of getting them information, getting them resources, et 

cetera. 

But to cut to the chase, obviously anything that might be done 

on Cuba will have to be consistent with the law; and second, anything that in the future might be done on Cuba would be done in 

full consultation, with the real meaning of the word ‘‘consultation’’ 

that I just alluded to, with this committee. 

Senator RUBIO. I guess my point is there has been some chatter—and I understand some of it is just chatter, as happens in this 

town—that somehow in the next couple years, at the end of his 

term the President may seek to make some changes, perhaps even 

unilaterally, toward United States sanctions and policy toward 

Cuba, as some have advocated for. Is that being contemplated absent a real democratic opening? 

Mr. BLINKEN. I think you know that the President has views on 

how to try to help move Cuba in a democratic direction, to help 

support people moving in that direction. If he has an opportunity, 

I am sure that is something he would want to pursue. But it depends on Cuba and the actions that they take. What we have seen, 

as I just alluded to, are actions in exactly the wrong direction—the 

detentions, the harassment. They talk about wanting to improve 

relations. They have, as you and the chairman know so well, Alan 

Gross, an American citizen, who is now in his fifth year of detention. You know, when you say you want to improve relations and 

779 

you are unjustly imprisoning an American, never mind what you 

are doing to your own people, that is usually problematic. 

Senator RUBIO. I guess the only thing that concerns me—and I 

understand that perhaps you need to consult with them further. 

But the only thing that concerns me is I have not heard you say 

point blank that, absent democratic openings, we are not going to 

see actions on the part of this administration to weaken the current embargo and sanctions against Cuba. 

Mr. BLINKEN. At least in my judgment, unless Cuba is able to 

demonstrate that it is taking meaningful steps to move forward, I 

do not see how you move forward in the relationship. 

Senator RUBIO. When you say ‘‘move forward,’’ move forward on 

democratic reforms, not simply economic reform. 

Mr. BLINKEN. Not simply economic reform. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me thank you. Let me just say on this 

last topic, in which I obviously have a fair amount of interest, you 

know, going ahead—and Cuba is the only country in the Western 

Hemisphere that violated U.N. Security Council resolutions and 

sanctions in sending military equipment to North Korea. Yet we 

were relatively silent about that. If any other country would have 

done it, we would have been totally driving at the U.N. A different 

set of circumstances, they received no consequences. 

Cuba does not meet the standards that the Summit of the Americas leaders set forth when it said that ‘‘The maintenance and 

strengthening of the rule of law and strict respect for the democratic system are an essential condition’’—‘‘an essential condition’’—‘‘of our presence at this and future summits.’’ Clearly, Cuba 

does not meet that standard. 

Cuba has an American citizen held hostage who did nothing but 

try to help the Jewish community in Cuba communicate with each 

other. And yet it wants to hold him hostage in return for Cuban 

spies, who were not benign spies—they were spies who were spying 

against our Defense Department, one of which integrated the Defense Department, Belen Ana Montes. 

So I could go down a long list in addition to the human rights, 

which sometimes I think we cavalierly say, yes, there is detentions. 

Not there is detentions. There is arrests in which people are detained for long periods of time, years, simply because that which 

we enjoy in America they try to seek to exercise—free speech, protests. There are individuals, like the Ladies in White, who just 

every week march with a gladiola peacefully to church dressed in 

white to protest peacefully that their sons and husbands are in jail 

for no legal reason, and they are savagely beaten. 

Sometimes we sort of gloss over all of this. This administration 

in its speech, when it started this administration at its inaugural 

speech, talked about opening up the hand to those who are willing 

to take it, and the clenched fist. Well, the administration has unilaterally opened up the hand and done a series of things, including 

more visits, more money flowing to Cuba—not just residents—not 

just families of United States citizens, but anyone can send money 

to Cuba. The regime has received those moneys because they are 

the ones who control the economy in the command and control 

780 

economy on the island; and at the end of the day, the regime has 

not reciprocated one scintilla, but has become more repressive. 

I could go on and on. So I understand Senator Rubio’s concerns, 

because I heard them as well. Talk about the whole question of 

consultation versus notification. This is the epitome of notification, 

but not consultation. And there will be a very significant response 

if what we have is notification and not consultation at the end of 

the day. 

I appreciate your answers before the committee. I have one or 

two that I am not going to delay, that I am going to ask you to 

respond in writing. I am concerned about Turkey, its presence in 

the exclusive economic zone in Cyprus, which I think is a belligerent move, unnecessary, and to the detriment of both Greek and 

Turkish Cypriots, as well as to our negotiations there. But I will 

allow you to respond to that in writing for me. 

This record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow. I would urge you, if you get questions, which undoubtedly you 

will, to answer them as expeditiously as possible so that when we 

return from the Thanksgiving recess there can be a business meeting to consider your nomination before the committee. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER IN SUPPORT OF TONY BLINKEN

Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker, I would like to express my 

support for Mr. Tony Blinken who was recently nominated to be the next Deputy 

Secretary of State. 

Tony is a native of New York City (Yonkers), and after his childhood, Tony 

attended college at Harvard University and successfully graduated Magna cum 

Laude. He then went on to Columbia Law School and got his JD with the goal of 

practicing law. After a short stint in private practice, Tony found his passion for 

foreign affairs writing at the New Republic Magazine and the New York Times. 

After his career in journalism, he served at the State Department from 1993 to 

1994 as the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for European 

Affairs, where he got his first taste of public service. Moving up quickly, he went 

on to work at the National Security Council under the Clinton administration for 

7 years where he directed European Affairs and NATO policy. 

After a year in the think tank world at the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies as a senior fellow, he came to the Senate where many of us worked closely 

with him on foreign affairs issues. He worked directly for this committee as the 

Democratic staff director during then Senator Biden’s tenure as chairman and then 

ranking member. While holding this prestigious position for over 6 years, he organized hearings on Iraq in 2002 which helped spark a national debate before the war 

and played a key role in NATO enlargement and the civil nuclear agreement with 

India. He has traveled all over the world with Senator Biden and leading Republican Senators Lugar, Graham, and Hagel. 

I want my friends and colleagues to know that Mr. Blinken, over the past several 

years in the administration, has acted with a cogency that denotes his extensive 

experience in handling flash points around the globe: Iraq, Russia, and the Middle 

East. As Deputy Secretary of State, no doubt these will be at the top of his portfolio. 

As Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor, he 

developed diplomatic relationships with multiple Iraqi governments in over 25 trips 

to Iraq; secured a deal on oil payments between the Iraqi Government, the Turkish 

Government, and Kurds; and chaired a series of high-level meetings in the region 

with senior leaders from Iraq, Jordan, the UAE, Turkey, and Egypt to help Iraq 

reintegrate with its neighbors. 

781 

On Russia—he was assertive up front, and kept his foot on the gas, pushing at 

each juncture to take steps to counter Russian aggression and their support of the 

rebels in eastern Ukraine. 

And on the Middle East—Tony is a steadfast advocate for Israel’s Iron Dome system. He was one of the first to jump and draft legislation to fund the system. 

As the Deputy Secretary of State, Tony will come into this position with decades 

of foreign policy experience in dealing with the most important regions in the world, 

the ability to build bridges amid disagreement and dissent, and a sharp intellect to 

make sound policy decisions on complex issues. He is a well-known, successful, strategic thinker in the foreign policy arena. I give Tony my full support for his nomination and I urge my colleagues to support him as well. 

RESPONSES OF ANTONY JOHN BLINKEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. European security also means energy security. Europe must diversify its 

supply and invest in its energy infrastructure. Greater regional cooperation, such 

as in the eastern Mediterranean, can help, but Turkey’s provocations in Cyprus’ 

EEZ are creating instability that puts at risk further exploration and the placement 

of projects that would benefit Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike. 

♦ What actions have you taken and what messages have you sent about Turkey’s 

decision to send its ships into Cyprus’ EEZ? 

Answer. I share your concern about recent developments and can assure you that 

the Obama administration remains strongly committed to a just and lasting settlement to reunify the island of Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. If confirmed, I will reinforce our diplomatic efforts to achieve such a settlement. We support Cyprus’ right to develop its resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 

believe that the island’s oil and gas resources should be equitably shared between 

both communities in the context of an overall settlement. Reducing tensions and 

getting the parties back to the negotiating table as soon as possible are critical to 

advancing the peace process. 

The administration remains fully engaged with all stakeholders to reduce tensions 

over the EEZ and in support of United Nations Special Advisor Espen Barth Eide’s 

efforts to move past the current impasse and resume negotiations. The Vice President spoke with President Anastasiades on October 31 and underscored our support 

for the Republic of Cyprus’ sovereignty and right to develop resources in its exclusive economic zone, in keeping with customary international law. He also expressed 

our hope that all states in the region would pursue a mutually beneficial approach 

to developing energy resources. During the Vice President’s November 21–23 visit 

to Turkey, he discussed with Turkish officials how Ankara can play a constructive 

role in defusing tensions and getting the talks back on track. 

I appreciate your continued support of the settlement process. I assure you of the 

administration’s unwavering commitment to resolving the long-standing division of 

the island, which we believe will enhance regional stability and prosperity, as well 

as improve the lives of all Cypriots. 

Question. This summer, President Obama requested $3.7 billion in supplemental 

funding to respond to the refugee crisis that developed on our southern border. Not 

surprisingly, this crisis came after years of U.S. disengagement and sustained cuts 

to our foreign assistance budgets for Central America and the Western Hemisphere 

at large. While both President Obama and Vice President Biden have met repeatedly with Latin American leaders in the wake of this crisis, robust and sustained 

engagement still is needed. 

♦ Will you make the crisis in Central America a priority? And will you commit 

to working to increase foreign assistance budgets for the Western hemisphere, 

a region whose security and economic development have a direct impact on the 

United States and its citizens? 

Answer. The short answer to both questions is ‘‘Yes.’’ 

The administration remains firmly committed to partnership in the Western 

Hemisphere. Our goal is to strengthen democracy, advance prosperity, and ensure 

security in a manner that benefits all citizens. 

The U.S. Government is making new investments in Central America and will 

continue to make the region a priority. Since 2008, $803 million has been appropriated for the Central American Regional Security Initiative. Additional investments, however, will be critical to respond comprehensively to the underlying factors that drive migration, particularly to advance prosperity and good governance. 

782 

Adequate resources for U.S. efforts in Central America will be critical to work collaboratively with partners in the region on shared objectives. 

The administration’s $300 million FY 2014 emergency supplemental reflected a 

request for a downpayment on needs for Central America. We are committed to 

working closely with Congress to secure the resources necessary for Central America. The Department expects that the administration’s FY 2016 foreign assistance 

request to Congress will reflect additional prioritization on Central America. 

Question. I was pleased to see Secretary Clinton and now Secretary Kerry take 

steps to move the State Department toward a stronger emphasis on the economic 

dimension in our diplomacy. And a few years ago the administration laid out a plan 

to reorganize some of our trade and development agencies in the hopes of making 

these institutions better aligned and more effective. This is an area in which I 

believe there is much work still to be done. 

♦ Could you please discuss the current status of the State Department’s progress 

in these areas, and what additional steps you are planning? 

Answer. Secretary Kerry has established a Shared Prosperity Task Force to 

strengthen economic diplomacy as a central tenet of our foreign policy priorities. 

The State Department needs to be on the front lines promoting America’s economic 

interests and our vision of a rules-based, transparent, global economy that serves 

the needs and aspirations of our own citizens and benefits people worldwide. We call 

this economic policy agenda ‘‘Shared Prosperity,’’ to convey that our focus on 

expanding trade and investment opportunities for American business builds the conditions for a more prosperous and secure world. 

The Shared Prosperity Task Force has set up Four Working Groups focused on 

building systems and capacities to succeed in this existential task. 

The Knowledge Platforms Working Group, which our Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation (M/PRI) leads, is working to ensure that all State 

employees have the information they need deliver on our economic agenda and to 

make relevant information more available across multichannel platforms. In the 

21st century, all State personnel deserve current information in real-time, and 

through these platforms we will better capitalize on our opportunities. 

Our Human Capital Working Group, which our Human Resources Bureau (M/ 

DGHR) leads, is revamping Foreign Service Institute training to include ‘‘Shared 

Prosperity’’ modules in its class offerings, from A–100 and other orientation classes 

through ambassadorial training. This working group is leading an effort to expand 

interagency ‘‘detail’’ opportunities for State Officers (beyond USTR) to include the 

Treasury Department, Commerce Department, the Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation, and the Office of Management & Budget. 

Entrepreneurship is an essential element of American business culture, one which 

excites would-be entrepreneurs around the world, and offers opportunities to create 

jobs and more inclusive economic growth. Our Entrepreneurship Working Group is 

currently cataloguing and working to coordinate entrepreneurship initiatives that 

currently exist at the department. 

The Jobs Diplomacy Working Group, which our Bureau of Economic and Business 

Affairs (EB) leads, is coordinating internally and with the interagency to be a more 

effective advocate for U.S. companies. This includes doing more to inform U.S. businesses of commercial opportunities abroad. In 2013, high-level State Department 

advocacy assisted with more than $5.5 billion in foreign government contracts being 

awarded to U.S. companies. 

Additionally, our posts conducted over 80 calls with U.S. businesses through our 

‘‘Direct Line’’ program, which is tailored particularly for smaller U.S. companies 

that often face steep challenges operating in foreign markets. Since its inception in 

2012, nearly 200 embassies and over 5,000 U.S. companies have participated in 

Direct Line calls and webinars. 

Over the past year, the Department also launched the Business Information Database System to alert U.S. businesses to significant international commercial opportunities, populating it with over $240 billion in leads. 

Working with the Department of Commerce, we helped recruit over 1,300 

attendees for the 2013 SelectUSA summit to attract job-creating foreign investment 

to the United States, and we have pursued an active trade policy agenda to expand 

opportunities for U.S. business in overseas markets. For instance, we helped to conclude the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) and 

revive the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA). 

In the fast-growing area of digital commerce, the Department has led successful 

efforts to uphold the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the ability 

of U.S. companies to operate across national boundaries. 

783 

We have made recent progress on market-opening aviation agreements with Mexico, Japan, and Ukraine and have worked to minimize commercial disruptions in 

other transportation markets. 

The State Department and USAID have also helped U.S. business by providing 

critical support to partner countries in transition. For instance, we facilitated loan 

guarantees to key partners including Jordan, Tunisia, and Ukraine and led the multinational campaign that made 2014 the first year of full European Bank for Reconstruction and Development operations in the Middle East/North Africa region, with 

over $1 billion in finance for Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia. 

Finally, the Department has helped pave the way for expanded U.S. economic ties 

with African partners, culminating in a historic U.S.-Africa Leaders summit in 

August 2014. 

Question. Though there are signs of what may be a slow-down of the spread of 

Ebola in Liberia, the number of new cases in Sierra Leone is on the rise. And recent 

news about the confirmation of new infections in Mali was very troubling. The epidemic has already taken a severe human toll, and has had a significant economic 

impact on already fragile economies. Today, the World Bank issued a revised estimate of the short- and medium-term economic impacts, projecting that the region 

could see $3–4 billion in lost GDP. This is a vast improvement over previous estimates; however, given the fragile nature of these economies and the poverty rates, 

this estimate is still worrisome. There are also possible political repercussions in 

Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. 

♦ How concerned should we be about political instability in West Africa as a result of the epidemic’s continued spread? 

♦ If confirmed, what role will you have in planning to mitigate such instability, 

and what steps will you recommend we take to support the governments in 

maintaining stability in affected countries? 

Answer. Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea—the worst-affected countries—remain 

stable at this time. Mitigating the second order impact of the crisis is one pillar of 

our four-part strategy because both economic and/or sectoral decline will both impede the international response and render recovery a much longer process. We are 

responding at the community level, by providing food that we procure locally where 

possible and in order to prevent local market collapse, community care for families 

ravaged by the disease, and assistance, including bed nets, to address other urgent 

health requirements. Given the significant impact of the Ebola epidemic on the 

economies of the affected countries, we are working closely with and support the 

efforts of the World Bank and African Development Bank, and called for and have 

welcomed the International Monetary Fund’s decision to provide debt relief in addition to grants and loans. 

We must remain vigilant—there have been occasional security incidents pertaining to the Ebola outbreak. In Guinea, particularly in the remote Forrestiere 

Region, there have been incidents in which local communities have attacked officials 

and healthcare workers who were conducting outreach activities. Such attacks are 

likely fueled by a combination of fear and mistrust of government officials and outsiders. In Liberia, there have been localized incidents of unrest due to frustration 

over the failure of local authorities to collect bodies of the deceased or respond to 

requests for medical care in a timely manner. In the West Point neighborhood of 

Monrovia in August, the imposition of a quarantine led to violent protest that resulted in one death. While none of these countries have so far experienced widespread violence, protests, or instability, there is the risk that the ongoing crisis will 

fuel growing frustration, especially if the second-order effects on the economy, social 

fabric, and governance systems of these countries are not adequately addressed. If 

confirmed, I will ensure that our Embassies continue to monitor the security situation in West Africa carefully, and I will promote a whole-of-government effort to 

identify and address the potential drivers of instability, in close partnership with 

the governments of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. The administration, in cooperation with our international partners, will continue our effort to stop Ebola at 

its source in West Africa, which is what we need to do to end the global security 

and health threat posed by the epidemic. 

Question. South Sudan.—It has been almost a year since conflict broke out in 

South Sudan. During that time, nearly 2 million people have been displaced, and 

4 million face food shortages. Aid groups are unable to reach significant portions of 

the civilian population due to insecurity, and there are allegations of human rights 

abuses by all parties to the conflict. At a meeting during the U.S.-Africa Leaders’ 

summit in August, I urged President Salva Kiir of South Sudan to work toward a 

political solution to this man-made crisis. The Office of the Special Envoy for Sudan 

784 

and South Sudan has been leading U.S. efforts on pushing peace between various 

factions in South Sudan, and the United States has imposed targeted personal sanctions on some of the key actors in the conflict. Unfortunately, a peace agreement 

remains elusive. 

♦ How effective, in your estimation, have the targeted sanctions been to date? 

♦ If confirmed, will you be recommending expanding the sanctions to other individuals? 

♦ When the administration announced targeted sanctions earlier this year, the 

State Department informed Congress that these measures were part of an effort 

to regionalize, even internationalize, sanctions. Where does that effort stand? 

Does the administration support an arms embargo? 

Answer. The United States has utilized its targeted South Sudan sanctions Executive order to designate four individuals to date, two from the Government of South 

Sudan and two from opposition forces. We will continue to use the authority under 

the Executive order to hold accountable those who commit human rights abuses or 

obstruct the peace process. We have made this intention clear to the international 

community, including to regional governments brokering peace talks, and to the 

leadership of both of the warring parties. Targeted sanctions have been a necessary 

and effective tool to demonstrate the importance that the U.S. Government places 

on resolving this conflict and our commitment to hold accountable those who undermine peace and security in South Sudan. 

Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) regional leadership has requested that increased external international pressure be brought to bear on the 

parties. Our imposition of sanctions was followed by similar actions from the European Union and Canada. The next step is to press ahead with a U.N. Security 

Council resolution establishing a U.N. sanctions regime. This process is currently 

under negotiation at the United Nations. We are working to ensure a robust U.N. 

Security Council sanctions regime which will demonstrate the international community’s resolve in helping end the needless suffering of millions of South Sudanese. 

Going forward, the Council will continuously review the appropriateness of these 

measures in light of the situation on the ground. We are continuing to review additional options to increase this pressure, as appropriate. We have and will continue 

to use all available tools to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and we 

are doing so in the context of a broad international coalition. 

Question. Nigeria.—When I met with President Jonathan during the U.S.-Africa 

Leaders summit in August, we spoke of three key issues: security in the north, national elections in 2015, and the need for widespread inclusive development, particularly in the north. Since our meeting, Boko Haram has continued its rampage. 

Recent media reports claim that 4,000–5,000 refugees a week are crossing into Cameroon due to insecurity. I am deeply concerned about the safety of the Nigerian people as well as the implications for elections in February. 

♦ Please speak to the administration’s elections assistance strategy and how it 

will be impacted by the unrest in the north. Do you believe Nigeria can credibly 

move forward in February if the State of Emergency remains in place in the 

north, and insecurity significantly suppresses participation in the three affected 

northern states? 

♦ What is the U.S. strategy related to ensuring there is an inclusive development 

agenda in northern Nigeria, and what programs and activities should we be 

implementing to prevent and or counter violent extremism in Nigeria? 

Answer. As Nigeria looks ahead to the February 2015 general elections, the 

United States strongly supports a free, transparent, credible, inclusive, and nonviolent electoral process. We have consistently called upon all Nigerians to refrain from 

advocating, fomenting, or condoning violence before, during, or after the elections. 

We have also worked with the Independent National Electoral Commission 

(INEC) as they administer a vote in which Nigerians are free to voice their opinions 

and participate in the electoral process without fear of retribution. We have also emphasized publicly and privately to political party officials, elected leaders, and candidates for office that they have a special responsibility to uphold these democratic 

precepts. 

The United States remains committed to working with Nigeria to strengthen its 

democratic institutions in the years to come. A peaceful election in February 2015 

will constitute a major step in that process. 

The United States is committed to supporting Nigeria as it addresses the violence 

caused by Boko Haram. At the same time, Nigeria must take a comprehensive 

approach to fighting violent extremism that brings both civilian and security tools 

to the fight and protects innocent civilians. 

785 

Helping Nigeria to address this threat is a long-standing effort. Most recently, 

over the past 6 months the United States started sharing some intelligence with 

Nigeria, began training a new army battalion and will consider training additional 

battalions, and held numerous high-level discussions with Nigerian authorities to 

explore additional measures. The United States, along with the United Kingdom 

and France, is working closely with Nigeria and its neighbors to establish a MultiNational Task Force to coordinate regional efforts against Boko Haram. 

Through the recently launched Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) we will provide $40 million in assistance to Nigeria and its neighbors—Niger, Cameroon, 

and Chad—to train personnel in border security, command and control, and other 

best practices to counter violent extremism. The Fund also provides assistance for 

the justice sector, rule of law programs, and stabilization efforts. 

We are working closely with Nigeria and its neighbors to help counter extremism 

through existing programs like the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership. We 

are also partnering with Nigeria through the President’s Security Governance Initiative. Through these programs and initiatives we are helping the Nigerians to 

build up rule of law and to strengthen their security institutions. We will continue 

to seek other ways to assist Nigeria to counter Boko Haram and meet citizen security needs in the region. 

USAID’s programs targeting the Northeast of Nigeria include key elements of the 

U.S. Government’s strategy to counter Boko Haram, and directly address the key, 

underlying drivers of the conflict. Humanitarian operations supported by the Office 

of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and Food for Peace are ramping up to respond to the escalating challenges posed by growing numbers of internally displaced 

persons (IDP). OFDA’s programs address challenges related to health; logistics; protection; livelihoods; capacity-building of Nigerian emergency management institutions; food security; and water, sanitation, and hygiene. USAID’s Office of Food for 

Peace is finalizing a first wave of programming to more directly address the unfolding food security issues arising due to the conflict. At the same time, USAID’s Office 

of Transition Initiatives (OTI) is implementing an activity under its Support Which 

Implements Fast Transition (SWIFT) contract that will assist the Government of 

Borno State to build its capacity to respond to local needs. Complementing these 

emergency-response activities, USAID programming supports the delivery of urgent 

education services to IDPs and conflict-affected communities in the Northeast. As 

progress is made on these fronts, including on-ground security in the region, the 

mission intends to expand its local governance, health systems, and education systems programming into Borno State to help the state government make rapid advancements in its ability to deliver quality services to its citizens. 

Question. President Obama recently made history by announcing a bold, joint climate commitment with China that is sure to reinvigorate international climate 

talks, but some in this body seem to think China needs to do little to meet their 

obligations. China’s pledge on nonfossil energy will require roughly a trillion dollars 

in new clean energy investment or the equivalent of building one nuclear plant a 

week for the next 16 years. 

♦ Do you think such a commitment is meaningless? And on the other hand, is it 

possible for China to attain? 

Answer. The targets that China announced on November 12, 2014, are meaningful, ambitious and, we believe, attainable. China announced two major long-term 

commitments to address climate change: a goal to peak CO2 emissions around 2030 

and to make best efforts to peak early, and an intention to increase the share of 

nonfossil fuels in primary energy consumption from 15 percent in 2020 to around 

20 percent by 2030, with current share estimated at around 10–11 percent. 

China’s first-ever announcement of a peak year for CO2 emissions is a milestone. 

Achieving this peak around 2030 or earlier will require significant additional action 

by China starting today. A range of experts—including the International Energy 

Agency (IEA), the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology (MIT), the Institute for Energy and Economics (Japan), and 

others—has projected that under current policies, China’s CO2 emissions will peak 

around 2040 or even later. A recent MIT study conducted in partnership with China’s Tsinghua University, for example, suggests that peaking Chinese CO2 between 

2025 and 2035 will require aggressive decarbonization policies equivalent to a carbon tax rising to $38/ton in 2030. 

China’s commitment to achieve 20 percent of all energy from nonfossil sources by 

2030 is also significant. We estimate that China will need to install 800–1,000 

gigawatts of additional nuclear and renewable electricity generation capacity by 

2030 to meet their goal. For reference, the entire U.S. generation capacity in 2012 

was a bit less than 1,000 gigawatts. To meet its target, China will need to add 

786 

roughly 1 gigawatt of nonfossil electricity capacity to the grid every week between 

now and 2030. That’s the equivalent of one nuclear power plant, 500 average-sized 

wind turbines, or 200,000 roof-top solar installations every week for the next 15 

years. Achieving these commitments in the context of an economy growing as fast 

as China’s will be challenging, and they will need to start immediately. 

We expect that the targets China has set will be integrated formally into their 

5-year planning process. We will be able to monitor progress through the biennial 

reports China is required to submit to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (UNFCCC) every 2 years detailing action against international commitments. The administration insisted on these transparency provisions during the 

negotiation of the Copenhagen Accord to ensure that all nations could track each 

other’s progress against targets. 

This kind of parallel commitment by China is the type of action long called for 

by congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to complement U.S. measures to 

reduce carbon pollution at home. 

Question. Mr. Blinken, some are criticizing the President’s recent pledge to commit $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. Is this really all that different than President Bush’s $2 billion pledge to the Climate Investment Funds in 2008? 

Answer. A U.S. contribution to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) builds on a history 

of strong U.S. leadership to fund critical efforts to combat climate change around 

the world, including the Bush administration’s pledge of $2 billion in 2008 to the 

Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). The CIFs are a set of World Bank trust funds 

created to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, and were 

designed as a transitional mechanism. The GCF builds on the work of the CIFs. 

The United States has a compelling interest in enabling vulnerable countries to 

build resilience to climate change. More resilient communities are less likely to 

descend into instability or conflict in the aftermath of extreme climate events that 

would need more costly interventions to restore stability and rebuild. Building resilience also helps safeguard our investments in many areas, including food security, 

health, education, and economic growth. In addition, it is in our interest to help 

developing countries grow their economies in a way that minimizes dangerous carbon pollution. 

The GCF will partner with developing countries to reduce their carbon pollution 

and strengthen their resilience. It will leverage private sector investment and help 

spur global markets in clean energy technologies, creating opportunities for entrepreneurs and manufacturers who are leading the way to a low-carbon economy, including those from the United States. 

The U.S. pledge has succeeded in spurring other donors to step up to the plate. 

So far, a range of contributing countries as diverse as Japan, Germany, Canada, 

Panama, Mongolia, Mexico, and Korea has pledged a total of over $9.7 billion to the 

GCF, with more pledges expected soon. 

Question. China Maritime Security.—Although I was pleased by the Confidence 

Building Measures the United States and China agreed to last week when President 

Obama was in China, I remain concerned about Chinese actions and current 

trendlines on a range of security issues in the Asia-Pacific region: On Japan, China 

appears to be trying to use its differences with Japan as a wedge between the 

United States and an important ally, and even with the recent Xi-Abe (She/Ah-bay) 

meeting remains aggressive in its rhetoric and behavior toward the Senkakus. And 

in the South China Sea we continue to see provocative Chinese behavior, and seems 

intent on trying to coerce the nations of the region to force a resolution of these 

issues in a way favorable to PRC interests. 

♦ What role should the United States play on these issues? Given China’s new 

assertiveness, is our carefully calibrated balance between ‘‘cooperation and competition’’ still the right approach? Should we be demonstrating in more robust 

terms our enduring national interests in freedom of navigation, the free flow of 

commerce, and the peaceful resolution of disputes consistent with international 

law? 

Answer. The United States is committed to freedom of navigation, respect for 

international law, unimpeded lawful commerce, and peace and stability in the South 

and East China Seas. The United States has also highlighted publicly and privately, 

most recently by President Obama during his visit to Beijing and at the East Asia 

summit and the U.S.-ASEAN summit in Burma, our growing concern over provocative unilateral activities undertaken by claimants to change the status quo in the 

East and South China Seas, such as ongoing land reclamation efforts in the South 

China Sea. The President stated last April that, while we take no position on the 

787 

issue of ultimate sovereignty over the Senkakus, we oppose unilateral attempts that 

would undermine Japanese administration of the Senkakus. 

The United States supports regional stability and a rules-based system in the 

Asia Pacific through our robust diplomatic, military, and economic presence. We are 

deepening our alliances and security partnerships and have repeatedly made clear 

to all parties that we are fully committed to the defense of our allies. For example, 

we have signed a defense cooperation agreement with the Philippines, and, since the 

end of last year, we have committed additional funding for helping our partners and 

allies increase their maritime awareness and ability to patrol their waters. In particular, we are deepening cooperation with partners like Vietnam on improving maritime domain awareness and security, both through bilateral programs as well as 

in coordination with regional partners like Japan. In addition, we are working to 

support efforts by ASEAN to use regional consultations and institutions to establish 

and enforce rules of the road and a ‘‘freeze’’ or ‘‘moratorium’’ on provocative actions, 

as part of ASEAN’s efforts to establish a Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. 

The United States welcomes the rise of China that is peaceful, prosperous, and 

stable, and plays a responsible role in the world. In the U.S.-China relationship, we 

seek to expand our areas of cooperation and constructively manage our differences. 

I believe this approach serves the best interests of the United States and the region. 

The recently announced military-to-military confidence-building mechanisms 

(CBMs) are a step forward in helping to increase transparency and predictability, 

and to reduce risk of unplanned encounters between our two militaries. 

Question. China Cyber.—Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice issued 

a 31-count indictment against five members of the Chinese PLA for cyber economic 

espionage and other offenses that targeted five U.S. firms and a labor union for 

commercial advantage. This was the first time that the Federal Government has initiated such action against state actors. In the wake of this indictment China has 

withdrawn from the cyber dialogue and there seems to be little progress in seeking 

to engage China in discussing how to develop a responsible approach to cyberspace. 

♦ What kind of dialogue do we currently have with Chinese on Cyber Theft? What 

are the next steps on this dialogue? What actions could we take if we discover 

state-directed theft of corporate or national secrets? Do you think the United 

States should initiate a case against China in the WTO for its cyber theft of 

U.S. trade secrets? Will PLA cyber espionage alter our current approach for influencing Chinese cyber behavior? 

♦ As Deputy Secretary of State, and thus the lead U.S. official in the Strategic 

Security Dialogue at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, how will you raise 

these issues with your Chinese counterparts? 

Answer. Cyber security is one of the administration’s top priorities. The United 

States remains deeply concerned about Chinese Government-sponsored, cyberenabled theft of trade secrets and other sensitive business information for commercial gain. Although China suspended its participation in the Cyber Working Group, 

we continue to underscore with Chinese officials, at the highest levels of our government and through a variety of channels, that China’s cyber-enabled theft of trade 

secrets remains a major irritant in our bilateral relationship. We will again raise 

our concerns with China during the December 3–4 meeting of the U.S.-China Joint 

Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation, which has its own cyber working 

group that is focused on cyber crimes such as online fraud. When we have evidence 

of such theft, the U.S. Government considers a range of diplomatic, economic, and 

law enforcement responses on a case-by-case basis. 

Despite our differences with China over what constitutes acceptable behavior in 

cyberspace, we recognize that this issue does not define the totality of our cyber 

relationship. We remain committed to expanding our cooperation with China on 

cyber matters where we have common ground, and to candidly and constructively 

addressing differences. We use our engagements with China to emphasize U.S. 

cyber policy objectives, including the applicability of international law to state behavior, the importance of norms of responsible state behavior, concerns about cyber 

activities that can lead to instability, the role of transparency in domestic cyber policy, and the importance of practical cooperative measures to prevent crises in cyberspace. 

If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I intend to raise our cyber concerns with the 

Chinese at every opportunity, including at the Strategic Security Dialogue. Regular 

open and frank dialogue is crucial to building trust and developing common rules 

of the road on this important strategic issue. 

Question. Burma.—The three most important issues playing out in Burma today 

are the plight of the Rohingya, the peace process, and the 2015 general election. In 

788 

all three, we see negative developments: the Government of Burma has already 

begun to implement an action plan that would place self-identifying Rohingya in internment camps indefinitely, while humanitarian organizations still do not have 

unhindered access to Rohingya; government cease-fire negotiators have backtracked 

on recent commitments, military officers have taken a front seat at negotiations, 

and the Tatmadaw is reportedly undertaking new campaigns in several border 

states; finally, the ruling party is pushing to change the electoral system to give it 

undue advantage, while one-sided restrictions on candidate eligibility and political 

campaigning remain in place. 

♦ Given all of these negative developments, how should the United States recalibrate our policy to send a clear message to the Government of Burma that we 

do not consider the status quo to be acceptable? 

Answer. Burma’s reform process remains a work in progress. It is essential for 

the United States to remain engaged with the Government of Burma and with the 

people of Burma to help shape and facilitate a successful democratic transition. 

Burma is now entering the 4th year of its transition from more than six decades 

of authoritarian rule. Undoing the legacy of the repressive military regime and 

building an inclusive and resilient democracy will not be easy, fast, or painless. We 

are clear-eyed that there is more to be done to ensure Burma’s reforms stay on 

track. 

President Obama expressed our deep concern about the situation in Rakhine 

State, in particular as it relates to the Rohingya population during his recent visit 

to Burma. In his meeting with Thein Sein just last week, President Obama called 

this issue Burma’s ‘‘most urgent matter,’’ noting the world is watching. The President urged a process in Rakhine State that provides humanitarian access for all 

those in need, particularly the Rohingya; does not hold or settle Rohingya indefinitely in camps; and allows the stateless to become citizens of Burma without having to self-identify as members of a group or nationality to which they do not believe 

they belong. He also emphasized that if the situation in Rakhine State continues 

as is or deteriorates further, it threatens to derail Burma’s overall reform process. 

While we understand that most international NGOs have been able to return to 

Rakhine State, many are at reduced capacity. We have urged the Burmese Government to allow humanitarian agencies, including Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), 

unimpeded access to all people in need of humanitarian assistance. 

The Government of Burma has been working with ethnic armed groups to achieve 

a national cease-fire. The success of the peace process is essential to ensuring the 

success and durability of political and economic reform in Burma. We have encouraged continued dialogue among the government and ethnic armed forces to bring 

to a close more than six decades of conflict. We stand ready to assist the government 

and ethnic groups implement and monitor, once signed, a nationwide cease-fire 

agreement. 

The United States urges all sides to commit to a policy of restraint and dialogue 

as the only path to genuine and lasting peace, stability, and development in Kachin 

State and in Burma as a whole. 

The United States is watching closely the electoral process in Burma. The credibility of Burma’s 2015 elections is of utmost importance to the development of Burma’s democratic institutions and will serve as a critical marker in Burma’s reform 

process. During the President’s visit, Parliament rejected a problematic proposal to 

shift to a new, proportional representation electoral system. 

President Obama strongly encouraged constitutional reform during his trip to 

Burma last week, consistent with previous U.S. Government statements on the 

issue. The government and military have repeatedly stated they would follow the 

‘‘people’s will’’ when considering constitutional amendments and a referendum 

would be one way to accomplish this. By codifying democratic norms into law, 

including through constitutional reform, the Government of Burma can demonstrate 

its commitment to the democratic reform process. 

Constitutional reform should reflect the will of the people of Burma, and permit 

credible, transparent, and inclusive elections that enable the people of the country 

to pick the leader of their choice; address rights of members of ethnic minorities; 

and increase civilian control of the military. 

If confirmed, I would continue to work with Burma to make progress on the 

reform process. 

Question. North Korea.—Secretary Kerry has previously stated that that the 

United States should consider diplomatic engagement with North Korea at the 

‘‘appropriate moment’’ and under appropriate circumstances. Could you share with 

us your sense of what might constitute an appropriate moment and the appropriate 

circumstances? 

789 

Answer. The administration has repeatedly offered Pyongyang an opportunity to 

improve its relationship with the United States, provided North Korea demonstrates 

a willingness to fulfill its denuclearization commitments. Unfortunately, North 

Korea has not shown a genuine interest in constructive engagement with the United 

States. Instead, it continues to mistakenly believe that it can obtain economic assistance and other concessions while pursuing a nuclear program in defiance of its own 

commitments and obligations and the will of the international community. 

North Korea abandoned the six-party talks, has violated its international obligations and commitments, and openly flouts U.N. Security Council resolutions. It is 

the only country this century to test three nuclear devices and threaten the United 

States with a nuclear attack. Therefore, North Korea must demonstrate its seriousness of purpose before we would see value in significant diplomatic engagement. We 

remain open to authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September 

2005 Joint Statement and bring North Korea into compliance with all applicable 

Security Council resolutions. But we are not interested in talks for talks’ sake. The 

onus is on North Korea to take meaningful actions toward verifiable denuclearization and refrain from provocations. We will continue to judge North Korea by its 

actions, not its words. 

As National Security Advisor Rice stated in her November 2013 speech at Georgetown, ‘‘we are prepared for negotiations, provided that they are authentic and credible, get at the entirety of the North’s nuclear program, and result in concrete and 

irreversible steps toward denuclearization. Pyongyang’s attempts to engage in dialogue while keeping critical elements of its weapons program running are unacceptable.’’ I fully share this view. 

Question. U.S. Leadership in International Financial Institutions.—While this is 

ostensibly an issue for the Treasury Department, I am concerned about the potential loss of U.S. leadership in the international financial institutions, such as the 

IMF, World Bank, and the regional development banks, which we helped to establish. We’ve seen time and time again the critical role these institutions play in safeguarding U.S. diplomatic and security interests abroad—most recently promoting 

economic reforms in Ukraine. Despite the fact that the United States championed 

the 2010 IMF quota and governance reforms, we are now the only major IMF member country that has yet to ratify them. I believe that our failure here weakens U.S. 

diplomatic influence and has created a space for countries like China to begin 

crafting new spheres of influence and a new set of institutions that exclude the 

United States. 

♦ I want to flag this for you as a source of real concern to me. Please comment 

on how the failure to move IMF reforms, and to fully support institutions such 

as the Ex-Im Bank, affect our diplomatic influence in the world. 

Answer. I strongly share your concern. The U.S. failure to ratify IMF reform is 

undermining our leadership on global economic issues, which have been a central 

instrument of our influence since World War II. An increasing number of countries 

are now calling for moving forward on the IMF quota and governance reforms 

agreed in 2010 without the United States. 

We are now the only country holding up the approval of the reform that will 

embed large emerging economies in the international economic system we designed. 

Our inaction has helped fuel momentum for regional alternatives. The BRICS 

(Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations’ New Development Bank excludes the United States. In addition, 21 countries have joined the Chinese-led 

Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), despite our oft-stated concerns 

regarding its governance structure and its commitment to adhere to international 

best practices on lending. 

U.S. hesitation on IMF reform diminishes our capacity to influence at the IMF 

and more generally on economic issues. This reduces our capacity to use the IMF 

to support vital national security and economic interests. The IMF provides critical 

support to key partners, including to support Ukraine’s financial security, prevent 

financial crises in the Middle East, and fight Ebola in West Africa. Its financial 

assistance and advice also helps secure foreign economies as markets for U.S. goods 

and investments and sources of investment in the United States. Giving important 

developing economies a greater stake in the IMF will preserve the integrity of the 

existing international financial infrastructure, without increasing U.S. monetary 

commitments or endangering the U.S. veto over important IMF decisions. It is critical that Congress move forward with the authorization of the 2010 IMF reforms. 

With regard to the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) specifically, its work in the areas 

of risk protection, credit, and term financing helps advance our economic diplomacy 

by ensuring that U.S. companies—large and small—have access to the financing 

they need to turn export opportunities into sales. Ex-Im and U.S. development 

790 

finance institutions such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) 

are important tools to help U.S. businesses gain footholds in emerging markets, creating U.S. jobs and growth opportunities both at home and abroad. Supporting these 

institutions not only contributes to U.S. exports and jobs but also helps U.S. products remain competitive internationally, particularly in fast-growing emerging 

markets. 

Question. India.—In September, I met with India’s Prime Minister in New York 

and am glad to see that this important relationship appears to be back on track and 

has such potential for growth. Past Deputy Secretaries have played pivotal roles in 

advancing this critical relationship—coming out of Prime Minister Modi’s visit to 

Washington, what are your priorities with respect to India and how will you seek 

to deepen our engagement with New Delhi? 

Answer. During his visit to Washington, Prime Minister Modi emphasized the priority India accords to its partnership with the United States, a principal partner 

in the realization of India’s rise as a responsible, influential world power. Both leaders committed to a new vision for the relationship, reflected in the mantra ‘‘Chalein 

Saath Saath: Forward Together We Go.’’ We are working with India to bring to fruition our mutual vision that our relationship should benefit not just our two countries, but also emerge as a powerful force of good for peace, stability, and prosperity 

in the world. We look forward to strengthening our ties in ways that increase prosperity and security in both countries through areas of mutual interest including regional security, defense trade, cooperation on climate change, homeland security and 

counterterrorism, economic growth, space exploration, and sustainable development. 

Defense and security cooperation are pillars of the U.S.-India partnership. If 

confirmed, I will work to further strengthen the cooperation between our security 

establishments to help meet the evolving security challenges of the 21st century, including deepening our already strong counterterrorism and homeland security cooperation. I will also work to advance our defense partnership and strengthen our 

economies by promoting expanded opportunities for coproduction and codevelopment 

of defense articles. 

The United States, including our businesses and universities, can play an important role in helping address the challenges India faces and creating opportunities 

that benefit both countries. Investing in India’s youth through our ongoing community college collaboration and Fulbright-Nehru programs for students and administrators will enable India to realize its full potential and further strengthen India’s 

leadership in promoting global economic prosperity and democratic stability. Additionally, the United States seeks to further develop our trade and investment ties 

through initiatives including the November 2014 U.S.-India Technology summit, 

Science and Technology Joint Commission Meeting, meetings under the Commercial 

Dialogue, and the Trade Policy Forum. These dialogues advance market-opening initiatives that foster both bilateral and regional trade and investment linkages, deepening our relationship with New Delhi. 

As Deputy National Security Advisor, I worked closely with the Indian Government, including through my own regular conversations with the Indian Ambassador 

to the United States, to ensure that the visits to Washington by Prime Minister 

Singh in September 2013 and Prime Minister Modi a year later advanced our strategic partnership. I look forward to taking our bilateral relationship to new heights 

if confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State. 

Question. Central Asia.—The countries of Central Asia are experiencing a wave 

of renewed Russian assertiveness and unprecedented levels of Chinese economic 

influence. At the same time, the human rights situation in Central Asia continues 

to deteriorate. 

♦ Given the need to reorient our policy in the region as ISAF draws down from 

Afghanistan, how does the administration plan to leverage our diplomatic, economic, and security resources to promote the development of democratic institutions, human rights, and economic growth in the countries of Central Asia? How 

can the United States better counter the pervasive influence of Russian media 

and propaganda in the region? 

Answer. The United States will continue to advocate to Central Asian governments the need to protect human rights and civil liberties. During my time as Deputy National Security Advisor I met with the Foreign Ministers of Kazakhstan and 

Uzbekistan—two of our important partners in the region—and discussed with them 

the need to improve governance, to protect human rights, and focused on how good 

governance and respect for human rights are the foundation for long-term economic 

prosperity, stability, and security. The administration will promote operating space 

for independent civil society and stress their valuable role in achieving long-term 

791 

stability by serving as a hedge against extremism and popular discontent. The U.S. 

Government will continue to communicate support for the people of the region 

broadly, with particular emphasis on the rights of women, ethnic and religious 

minorities, and members of other vulnerable groups. 

The State Department will combat human rights abuses by supporting human 

rights defenders both through quiet diplomacy and publicly, as appropriate. The 

United States will raise concerns in multilateral fora such as the UNHRC and 

OSCE, and will consistently integrate human rights messaging into private U.S. 

diplomatic engagements. The administration will also continue to support the longterm political liberalization of Central Asian societies through sustained programs 

in rule of law and institutional reform while cultivating relationships with democratically minded actors, both within and outside of governments. Through U.S. 

efforts to promote regional economic connectivity, the United States is also seeking 

opportunities for Central Asian countries to find additional economic linkages and 

markets with international partners, including through membership in the World 

Trade Organization. 

Besides the unwavering support for a democratic, human-rights respecting Central Asia, the most consistent element of U.S. policy and assistance programs in 

Central Asia for the past 20 years has been to support the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the five states. That policy will not change, especially with Russia’s assertion of a so-called right of protection of Russian-speaking 

populations and of an ‘‘exclusive sphere of influence’’ in Central Asia. Countering 

Russian media influence in the region requires a strategy that is sustained and uses 

multiple lines of activity. The administration will continue to support programs 

aimed at strengthening independent media in Central Asia to increase the diversity 

of voices and opinions in the media space. U.S. programs will focus on strengthening 

journalism capacity and quality in Russian and vernacular languages, so that local 

broadcasters can attract more audiences and offer citizens alternative, balanced 

sources of information. The Department of State will also increase people-to-people 

interactions with Central Asian communities through its public diplomacy and 

assistance efforts to bolster opinion leaders who understand U.S. policies and values, and amplify our messaging. 

Question. As the Hungarian Government continues to openly admire authoritarian regimes like Russia and test repressive methods of control over civil society, 

what steps will the administration take to strengthen democracy and discourage 

further backsliding in Hungary? 

Answer. We have raised concerns about the state of Hungary’s democracy, both 

publicly and privately. 

For example, we have criticized legislation passed since 2010 that has had a negative effect on democratic institutions and media freedom in Hungary. Earlier this 

year the United States made several statements at the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe’s Permanent Council and Human Dimension Implementation Meeting citing the Government of Hungary’s intimidation of civil society and 

the media. In addition, we have applied Presidential Proclamation 7750 (as well as 

a similar authority, referred to as the FY 2014 Anti-Kleptocracy Provision) to certain Hungarian officials. Presidential Proclamation 7750 provides authority to suspend entry of certain persons, including current or former government officials, engaged in or benefiting from official corruption. In September, the President cited 

Hungary in his remarks at a Clinton Global Initiative event on civil society, saying 

‘‘From Hungary to Egypt, endless regulations and overt intimidation increasingly 

target civil society.’’ We have taken these steps as a friend and ally of Hungary. 

Many of our concerns are shared by our partners in Europe, by an array of European institutions, as well as by many Hungarians themselves. 

If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will continue this forthright and constructive 

diplomatic dialogue with the Hungarian Government as well as our efforts to support Hungary’s democratic institutions and civil society. 

Question. European security also means energy security. Europe must diversify its 

supply and invest in its energy infrastructure. Greater regional cooperation, such 

as in the Eastern Mediterranean, can help, but Turkey’s provocations in Cyprus’ 

EEZ are creating instability that puts at risk further exploration and the placement 

of projects that would benefit Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike. 

♦ What actions have you taken and what messages have you sent about Turkey’s 

decision to send its ships into Cyprus’ EEZ? What more can and should the 

administration do to encourage Turkish and Greek Cypriots to resume U.N.- 

facilitated peace negotiations? 

792 

Answer. I share your concern about recent developments and can assure you that 

the Obama administration remains strongly committed to a just and lasting settlement to reunify the island of Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. If confirmed, I will reinforce our diplomatic efforts to achieve such a settlement. We support Cyprus’ right to develop its resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 

believe that the island’s oil and gas resources should be equitably shared between 

both communities in the context of an overall settlement. Reducing tensions and 

getting the parties back to the negotiating table as soon as possible are critical to 

advancing the peace process. 

The administration remains fully engaged with all stakeholders to reduce tensions 

over the EEZ and in support of United Nations Special Advisor Espen Barth Eide’s 

efforts to move past the current impasse and resume negotiations. The Vice President spoke with President Anastasiades on October 31 and underscored our support 

for the Republic of Cyprus’ sovereignty and right to develop resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone, in keeping with customary international law. He also expressed 

our hope that all states in the region would pursue a mutually beneficial approach 

to developing energy resources. During the Vice President’s November 21–23 visit 

to Turkey, he discussed with Turkish officials how Ankara can play a constructive 

role in defusing tensions and getting the talks back on track. 

I appreciate your continued support of the settlement process. I assure you of the 

administration’s unwavering commitment to resolving the long-standing division of 

the island, which we believe will enhance regional stability and prosperity, as well 

as improve the lives of all Cypriots. 

Question. A Europe whole, free, and at peace is no longer something we can take 

for granted. The administration acknowledged this when it announced the European 

Reassurance Initiative in June, which will ensure a persistent air, land, and sea 

presence in the region. We must also work with our European allies to ensure they 

recommit to NATO and to collective security. 

♦ Given the difficult economic environment in Europe, how should we work with 

our NATO and European allies to hold member countries accountable to defense 

spending increases in line with agreements made at the NATO Wales summit 

in September? 

Answer. We continue to press our NATO allies at the highest levels to honor the 

Defense Investment Pledge agreed at the NATO Wales summit in September, which 

includes commitments to halt declines in defense spending, as well as aim to spend 

2 percent of gross domestic product on defense within 10 years. Allies also agreed 

that in order to ensure future capabilities, allies should allocate at least 20 percent 

of their defense spending to equipment, procurement, and research and development. NATO Defense Ministers will be reviewing progress against these benchmarks on a regular basis. 

We recognize the financial pressures that our allies face, but cutting defense is 

not the answer, particularly in the context of the current security environment in 

Europe. We will continue urging NATO allies to dedicate the resources necessary 

to ensure NATO’s ability to deter and, if necessary, respond to threats. 

Question. At the NATO Wales summit in September, Secretary Kerry met with 

the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan regarding renewed fighting in July along 

the Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact. Last week’s downing of an Armenian helicopter by Azerbaijan that took the lives of three Armenians reinforces the importance of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and ensuring it does not turn into 

an all-out conflict. 

♦ What is the administration currently doing to support the OSCE Minsk Group 

Talks? Has there been progress in the Minsk Group toward reaching a political 

settlement? What are the chances an all-out conflict will resume? 

Answer. The administration remains firmly committed to a peaceful resolution to 

the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the OSCE Minsk Group format, and fully 

supports the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’ efforts to help the sides reach a lasting 

settlement. The recent meetings of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in 

Sochi, Wales, and Paris were important for revitalizing the most important channel 

of communication between the sides. At all three summits, the Presidents discussed 

key elements of a settlement to the conflict, and at Paris, they agreed to continue 

their dialogue next year under the auspices of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. As a CoChair country, the United States is in constant touch with the sides at the highest 

levels to facilitate a political settlement. 

We are very concerned by the November 12 downing of an Armenian military helicopter along the Line of Contact. The administration continues to urge the sides 

to avoid an escalation of violence and commit themselves to peace. 

793 

Question. By any measure, the human rights situation in Azerbaijan has deteriorated over the last year. Freedom House, in its annual Freedom in the World report, 

determined that freedom declined in 2013, and has stated that the country is in the 

midst of what some would call the most brutal crackdown on civil society in recent 

history, citing arrests and attacks against the media, activists, and government critics, as well as travel bans, the freezing of bank accounts, and public smears to 

silence dissent. According to international NGOs, the Azerbaijani Government currently has over 100 political prisoners. Many in the international community are 

calling for sanctions against Azerbaijan in response to the rapidly deteriorating 

human rights situation. 

♦ Would you support U.S. financial sanctions and travel restrictions against the 

Azerbaijani Government and any officials who have supported, promoted, or 

perpetrated human rights abuses? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will urge the Azerbaijani authorities, consistent with Azerbaijan’s constitutional and international commitments, to ensure freedoms of assembly, association, and expression; to foster an environment conducive to a vibrant and 

peaceful civil society; to respect pluralism; and to strengthen judicial independence 

and due process. I will also urge the Government of Azerbaijan to halt the continuing arrests of peaceful activists, to stop freezing organizations’ and individuals’ 

bank accounts, and to release those who have been incarcerated in connection with 

the exercise of their fundamental freedoms, as previously noted in several U.S. 

statements to the OSCE Permanent Council and at the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting. I would welcome the opportunity to work more closely with the 

Senate on these threats to Azerbaijan’s long-term stability and security. I look forward to working closely with all partners—domestic and international—to advance 

respect for fundamental freedoms for all Azerbaijani citizens and ensure that civil 

society can conduct its work as effectively as possible. 

Question. Reform in the Middle East.—In remarks on November 17 at the 3rd 

Annual Transformation Trends Policy Forum, Secretary Kerry said ‘‘Even as we mobilize forces to defeat ISIL, we must also encourage measures to reform governance 

and create opportunity throughout the MENA region. That will not happen by trying to persuade the local population to turn away from its rich spiritual and cultural 

traditions. Change must develop from inside. But by reaching out where we can, investing in what we can, the United States can help to furnish the leverage that 

builders within the region seek.’’ 

♦ If confirmed, what specific policies, programs, and engagements would you recommend to implement this vision for supporting reform? Does the State Department and the broader interagency have appropriate and sufficient authority and 

funding to move forward in promoting reform? The State Department’s FY15 

budget request did not include funding for the Middle East and North Africa 

Incentive Fund. Why? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would be a strong advocate for the Department’s commitment to a reform agenda that supports greater political and economic opportunity 

for people in the MENA region. Our diplomatic engagement and assistance programs can bolster the leadership and technical capacities for country reform agendas. Where there are effective local champions, political will and a commitment to 

reform, our diplomatic engagement and assistance programs can provide support for 

the realization of these reforms. 

Throughout the region, we will continue to engage civil society, government and 

nongovernment leadership to support reforms aimed at economic growth, democracy, and good governance. In Tunisia we will target our assistance to the development of security and governance institutions and a vibrant economy. Tunisia serves 

as an example to 330 million Arabs that democracy and Islam are compatible and 

that their futures are better served by dialogue and compromise. Our assistance to 

Jordan has supported progress of a home-grown Jordanian political reform program, 

that has resulted in, among other things, internationally praised national and local 

elections, constitutional amendments, and the establishment of a National Integrity 

Commission, an Independent Election Commission, and an Anti-Corruption Commission. Our assistance to Jordan is and will continue to be premised on promoting 

political and economic reform. We will continue to work with countries that have 

made tangible commitments to and progress on reform. Regionwide, we will continue our support for civil society and private sector actors pressing for more inclusive political processes and open economic systems. 

The Department is committed to increasing economic opportunity for citizens in 

the region, particularly youth. Youth unemployment is one of the most critical challenges facing the region and we have been focusing our foreign assistance programVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00801 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
794 

ming to target this complex issue, alongside other donors. We will continue to invest 

in areas that promote development of the private sector as an engine for growth and 

a workforce that responds to evolving economies. In support of these efforts, for FY 2015, the Department requested over $2 billion 

specifically to respond to the ongoing opportunities for reform in the region and to 

respond to the crisis in Syria. These funds would provide humanitarian assistance, 

support to the moderate Syrian opposition, and economic and governance assistance 

to countries in the region based on their needs and reform commitments. The 

administration requested authorities to support reform efforts and respond flexibly 

to the changing situation on the ground. The Department has also requested budget 

amendments to address increasing needs in countries bordering Syria and to 

counter-ISIL. Together, these resource requests reflect a firm commitment to the 

region and the United States strategic interests there. 

Question. Iraq.—Since Iraqi leaders came together to form a new government and 

agree on a new Prime Minister, the United States has used air power to halt ISIL’s 

advance, advised Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Peshmerga forces in order for them 

to retake territory and strategic assets, and has recently announced the deployment 

of 1,500 additional U.S. military advisors to Iraq and requested $1.6 billion to stand 

up a special Iraqi Train and Equip Fund. Yet, the conditions that led to ISIL’s entrenchment in Iraq have not fundamentally shifted: Sunni prisoners still languish 

in Iraqi prisons, the Iraqi Security Forces remain infiltrated by Shia militias who 

seemly commit sectarian acts of violence with impunity, and the Iraqi Parliament 

recently approved a Badr Brigade Member as the new Minister of Interior—this is 

a group trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards! 

♦ How will you recommend that U.S. advice and assistance be used to influence 

responsible Iraqi decisionmaking and encourage Iraq’s implementation of an inclusive, nonsectarian agenda? Is the United States willing to withhold support, 

assistance, and funding for Iraq if these long-standing concerns, which are in 

the interest of all Iraqis’ security and stability, are not addressed? 

Answer. President Obama this summer made clear that U.S. airstrikes and 

kinetic action to halt ISIL’s advancement into Iraq would not be effective absent forward movement in Iraq’s democratic process, aided by the selection of new Prime 

Minister Haider al-Abadi, who has committed, through words and actions, to reform 

the policies of his predecessor and govern in an inclusive manner. U.S. officials, including in my own meetings with the new Abadi government during my visit to Iraq 

last month, have made clear to the that ISIL cannot be defeated by military action 

alone; wholesale political reform and inclusive governance are essential to unifying 

the Iraqi people against the extremist threat and promoting stability in the country. 

Already, we have seen significant progress in efforts at reform. One of Prime Minister Abadi’s first actions in office was to abolish the Office of the Commander in 

Chief, an office that had centralized control of the security command structure 

under former PM Maliki. PM Abadi also successfully completed the formation of his 

government on October 18, securing the confirmation of security ministers, to include a prominent Sunni Minister of Defense, for the first time in 4 years. The completion of Abadi’s government represented the outcome of a political compromise to 

which all major components of Iraq’s polity agreed. The new Minister of Interior, 

Mohammed Ghabban, is a member of the Badr Corps political party, which performed strongly in the recent parliamentary elections. His selection was indicative 

of successful political compromise between differing political blocs to choose a candidate that was both popular among Shia factions and acceptable to Sunni blocs in 

Parliament. Among Minister Ghabban’s first acts in office were visits to Qatar and 

Saudi Arabia to discuss cooperation with those states as well as with Iraq’s other 

predominantly Sunni neighbors. 

Though progress remains an uphill battle, within 5 weeks of completing his government, PM Abadi has taken significant and decisive action to enact political and 

security reforms aimed at uniting the country. On November 12, Abadi continued 

forward momentum by removing 36 high-level military commanders in an 

anticorruption drive and appointed 18 new commanders, including Sunnis, to high 

level positions. 

Through concerted engagement, many Sunni tribes have also joined the government in the fight against ISIL and are entering agreements to be incorporated into 

the ISF. On November 11, the Government of Iraq (GOI) presided over a ceremony 

marking an agreement to arm and compensate over 3,000 Sunni tribesmen, thereby 

formalizing their role in the fight against ISIL and affirming the GOI’s commitment 

to include Sunnis in the process. The Abadi government also is committed to creating a National Guard as a mechanism to engage Sunnis in the defense of their 

own communities, with full support from the state. At the same time we engage to 

795 

support Sunni inclusion in security forces, we have also made clear, privately and 

in public statements, concerns over unregulated Shia militias, the necessity to regulate all armed groups, and the importance of holding individuals accountable for 

human rights abuses. Senior GOI officials and Iraq’s most prominent religious leaders agree and have stressed similar in public statements. 

Significant work, however, remains to be done. In every interaction with senior 

GOI officials, Ambassador Jones, other State Department officials, and I stress the 

priority of finding political solutions to the ISIL problem, emphasizing that a key 

element to the success of defeating ISIL in Iraq is the improvement of the socioeconomic conditions that allowed ISIL to foment. This includes additional political 

reform to address Sunni grievances and additional respect and promotion for human 

rights. Iraq’s inclusive new government has pledged to enact reforms and stamp out 

corruption that has marginalized Iraqis of all ethnicities and religious sects and has 

taken initial steps to deliver on its promises. 

U.S. security assistance, which comprises the preponderance of our support to 

Iraq, is targeted to enable Iraq to better combat terrorist groups, including ISIL. 

This assistance is also important in helping Iraq continue to protect its oil production capabilities, which are vital not only for supporting the Iraqi Government’s 

finances, but also for the health of the global economy. 

U.S. assistance also serves U.S. goals; further limiting or conditioning it would reduce our progress toward those goals and undermine our influence in Iraq. Even 

without the ISIL threat, U.S. security assistance provides an important vehicle for 

cementing the United States enduring partnership with Iraq. Security cooperation 

on critical systems provides a basis for a long-term relationship. 

I assure you your concerns are being heard, and political reform and respect for 

human rights remain policy priorities, which are supported through robust assistance programs. However, conditioning our assistance could hinder progress toward 

our goals in Iraq, reduce our influence, and undermine U.S. national security interests. If confirmed, I would welcome working closely with the committee to make our 

assistance as effective as possible and to advance the reforms necessary to Iraq’s 

progress and stability. 

Question. Syria.—Recent reporting suggests that al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate the 

Nusra Front is coordinating on the ground in Syria with ISIL. While this may not 

be a strategic alliance, the decision by these extremist groups to coordinate even 

tactically on the ground introduces serious complications for the ‘‘ISIL first’’ strategy 

and a threat to the moderate Syrian fighters we are seeking to empower with the 

train and equip program. Further, earlier this month Nusra Front ousted U.S.- 

backed opposition fighters from Idlib province in northern Syria, dealing the moderate opposition a serious blow. 

♦ What are the specific implications of Nusra Front-ISIL cooperation in Syria, and 

how will this affect our strategy to dismantle and defeat ISIL? Further, the 

train and equip program is intended for U.S.-backed fighters to defend their 

communities and fight ISIL. But given recent developments, are there any moderate fighters left in northern Syria for us to train? If reauthorized, the train 

and equip program for moderate Syrian fighters will not deliver effects on the 

ground for the better part of a year. What can we do in the interim to empower 

the moderates in Syria? 

Answer. Defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a complex 

challenge. We are working closely with other members of the anti-ISIL coalition on 

multiple lines of effort. This is a multiyear strategy that will need sustained support. Potential cooperation between Nusra and ISIL does not alter our strategy to 

counter ISIL: as we have said in the past, defeating ISIL will take more than just 

military might; it will require us to address the issues of foreign fighters, terrorist 

financing, supporting moderate partners on the ground to provide basic governance 

and counter extremist ideology. Weakening ISIL in each of these ways will make 

their areas of operation less hospitable for extremists of all stripes, including Nusra. 

We are also increasing our assistance to the moderate opposition in Syria, which 

is fighting both ISIL and Nusra. As we move forward with the Department of 

Defense train and equip program for the moderate opposition, we do not anticipate 

a shortage of moderate recruits. We will tap into an already existing pool of Syrians 

who have repeatedly expressed a desire to receive assistance to help defend their 

communities and facilitate a political solution to the crisis. We will also seek to link 

the military train and equip effort to civilian opposition leadership at both the local 

and national level and to enable these civilian structures to provide basic governance, including rule of law and essential services, to their communities. 

796 

Question. Yemen.—How can U.S. assistance and engagement support the newly 

formed technocratic government in Yemen to move forward with political reconciliation? 

Answer. The United States daily, on-the-ground engagement in Sanaa has been 

critical to keeping the political transition process on track and continuing to counter 

the shared threat from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) despite the current very difficult period. Our continued engagement and assistance programs will 

help enable the government to better provide basic services and support for its population, nearly half of whom live in poverty, and help it to defend itself from internal and external threats. Our current support to Yemen’s health and education 

sector and our support to its military and security services contribute to this goal. 

Coordinating closely with others in the region and among the international community, we are supporting the new government’s efforts to work broadly with all political constituencies as it seeks to successfully implement the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC Initiative), the National Dialogue Conference outcomes, and the Peace and 

National Partnership Agreement. 

We are working with the Yemeni Government and international partners to 

ensure that urgent reforms are completed as part of the political transition. Our 

efforts will better enable support to a strong, capable government that can show all 

of Yemen’s political factions that only through consensus and cooperation will the 

country be able to overcome its challenges. 

Question. What are the implications of the Libyan Supreme Court’s ruling that 

the House of Representatives is unconstitutional? Please describe U.S. policy and 

engagement to date in Libya, and what specific, additional measures would you recommend to encourage movement toward a political solution? 

Answer. Our recognition of the Libyan Government currently headed by Prime 

Minister Abdullah al-Thani remains unchanged as we study the November 6 

Supreme Court decision. Libyans themselves have many questions about the Court’s 

decision. Our priority is to seek a political solution that helps the Libyan people 

build a national government and a national consensus on the path forward. Thus 

we urge Libyan leaders to participate constructively in U.N. Special Representative 

of the Secretary General (SRSG) Bernardino Leon’s work to develop that consensus. 

Those who engage in or provide support for acts that threaten the peace, stability, 

or security of Libya may be designated for sanctions under U.N. Security Council 

Resolution 2174, and those associated with al-Qaeda or its affiliates may be designated for sanctions under U.N. Resolution 2161. 

Ambassador Deborah Jones and her staff are engaging with a full range of Libyans from our Embassy in Valletta, Malta, in coordination with other international 

envoys to build support for SRSG Leon’s effort. Similarly, a wide range of senior 

Washington-based officials are engaging Libyans and other partners to build support for the U.N.’s efforts. 

Question. The administration has invested heavily in building an anti-ISIL coalition that includes not only Western governments but also regional governments 

including many Arab States and Turkey. However, there is tension within the coalition as many regional coalition members as well as Syrian Opposition Coalition 

President Hadi al-Bahra have criticized the administration’s ‘‘Iraq first’’ strategy of 

confronting ISIL to be addressing a symptom of the violence in and around Syria 

rather than the cause, which they consider to be the Assad regime and its unrelenting attack on its own people. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you work to manage this tension within the coalition? 

Answer. Since the President’s September 2014 establishment of the global coalition to counter ISIL, the U.S.-led coalition has grown to more than 60 partners. Coalition partners are working together across multiple mutually reinforcing lines of 

effort including military support, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, countering 

ISIL’s financing and funding, addressing humanitarian crises, and de-legitimizing 

ISIL’s ideology. With a coalition this large and this diverse, of course there will be 

some differences of opinion on strategy, but the threat that ISIL represents—to 

Iraq, to Syria, to the broader region, and to the global community—has galvanized 

coalition focus and solidarity and inspired the coalition to take action to counter 

ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. We will continue to work to balance the different capacities and concerns of our coalition partners as we move forward on our campaign 

against ISIL, including through kinetic strikes in both countries and by building the 

capacity of partners on the ground—the Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga in 

Iraq, and the moderate opposition in Syria. 

In all these efforts, we are working hand in hand and consulting closely with coalition partners, and senior U.S. officials have dedicated significant time and energy 

797 

to building and sustaining the counter-ISIL coalition and will continue to do so. The 

President, Vice President, the Secretary, the National Security Advisor, and I have 

all worked with our coalition counterparts as we advance implementation of our 

strategy. Special Presidential Envoy to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, John 

Allen, and his deputy, Brett McGurk, have been traveling through the region almost 

nonstop for the past few months doing the serious diplomacy that is required to 

keep this coalition strong and united. This will be a complex, long-term campaign, 

and we will continue to work closely with all our global coalition partners to listen 

to their ideas and concerns and to refine our strategy as necessary in our shared 

efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. 

As for the conflict between the regime and the opposition in Syria, Assad has created the conditions that have allowed ISIL and other extremist groups to flourish, 

and it is clear that Syria can never be stable under his leadership. As the President 

has said, Assad lost all legitimacy a long time ago. We continue to call for a negotiated settlement that leads to a political transition and that addresses Syrians’ 

legitimate grievances. Though our efforts in Syria currently are focused on countering ISIL, our support to vetted, moderate elements of the armed opposition will 

enable it to act as a counterweight to ISIL and the regime and ultimately to help 

create the conditions to end the civil war in Syria 

Question. In May Assistant Secretary Roberta Jacobson testified before this committee that the unrestricted trafficking of drugs through Venezuela constituted a 

national security threat to the United States. On top of that, this year, we’ve seen 

the Venezuelan Government use its security forces and judiciary to punish political 

dissent, leading to 43 deaths, more than 50 documented cases of torture, and thousands of unlawful arrests. Additionally, while high profile political prisoners, like 

Leopoldo Lopez, remain in prison, where he is subjected to cruel and degrading 

treatment, not one member of the government has been held accountable for their 

role in systematic human rights violations. Although this committee passed bipartisan legislation requiring enactment of targeted human rights sanctions, administration officials asked us to delay further action. 

♦ Do you believe that congressional action should still be delayed? (FOLLOW–UP) 

Will you advocate for more forceful executive action—including asset freezes 

and visa revocations—against human rights violators in Venezuela? 

Answer. The administration has already taken steps such as imposing visa restrictions on government officials who are believed to be responsible for or complicit 

in human rights abuses. We need to look at all options to find the most effective 

way to encourage the Venezuelan Government to respect democratic principles and 

the human rights of its citizens. The most effective efforts are those taken in conjunction with partners. We will continue to work closely with others in the region 

to support greater political space in Venezuela, and ensure the government lives up 

to the hemisphere’s shared commitment to the promotion of democracy, as articulated in the Inter American Democratic Charter. 

As I noted during my hearing, if confirmed, I would look forward to working with 

Congress to build on the administration’s actions to date and determine what we 

can do to go further, including through legislation. We should not take any options 

off the table. Financial sanctions have proven effective in some situations, and could 

potentially be a useful tool, if targeted toward specific individuals and entities and 

used in concert with diplomatic efforts to advance specific U.S. foreign policy goals. 

We would not oppose moving forward with additional sanctions, and if confirmed, 

I would review our options under existing authorities and work with Congress to 

promote alignment between executive and legislative measures aimed at promoting 

improved human rights conditions in Venezuela. 

Question. Turkish President’s RecepTayyip Erdogan history of both anti-Semitic 

remarks and actions are deeply troubling. For example, his recent statements that 

Israeli actions in Gaza were more barbaric than the atrocities perpetrated by the 

Nazis and accusations of Israel committing genocide in Gaza, were factually wrong 

and deliberately inflammatory. The State Department rightly condemned them. 

President Erdogan must understand that such words and deeds not only hinder the 

cause of peace but also make it difficult for Congress to support further defense 

sales, training missions, or trade promotion with Turkey. 

♦ How will you respond should President Erdogan make further anti-Semitic 

statements? 

Answer. We are deeply concerned by anti-Semitic statements made by Turkish 

leaders and engage directly at all levels to express our disapproval of such statements. As you note in your question, we have publicly and privately condemned 

President Erdogan’s unacceptable remarks claiming Israeli actions in Gaza were 

798 

more barbaric than the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, which were selfevidently wrong, unhelpful, and distracted from efforts to bring an end to the violence. President Obama most recently discussed our concerns over anti-Semitism in 

Turkey with President Erdogan during their September 5 meeting in Wales and the 

Vice President raised these same concerns during his visit to Turkey last week. Our 

Ambassador and Embassy officers also meet regularly with the Jewish community 

to discuss their concerns over security and religious freedom, and to promote interfaith dialogue. If I am confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will not hesitate to 

denounce anti-Semitic statements, from wherever they emanate. We will also continue to engage with Turkish officials and urge them to promote tolerance and avoid 

anti-Semitic rhetoric. 

Question. Tunisia.—Tunisia is the closest thing to a ‘‘success story’’ with regard 

to democratic nation-building to come out of the events of Arab Spring, especially 

after the successful parliamentary elections held there a few weeks ago. It is certainly in the U.S. national interest to support Tunisia’s path to democracy and an 

important example to other peoples in the region still struggling to create inclusive, 

representational governments of their own. 

♦ What are the U.S. political, economic, and security interests in, and goals for, 

Tunisia? How does the U.S. strategy for engagement and assistance align with 

these objectives? What types of U.S. assistance, security and otherwise, have 

been most effective since 2011 in addressing Tunisia’ security challenges and 

promoting economic and political reform, and an active civil society? 

Answer. Tunisia’s transition offers hope for genuine democratic change in North 

Africa and the Middle East. Ensuring Tunisia’s stability through economic, security, 

and governance support is important to U.S. national interest due to its strategic 

location, and as a counterbalance to ISIL’s violent and extremist behavior elsewhere 

in the region. Increased economic engagement, through supporting private sector investment and economic reforms, will be central to supporting the Tunisian Government’s efforts to drive sustained growth and employment and diversify its trade. 

In the security sector, $150 million in U.S. security assistance has helped the 

Tunisian military and other security agencies reorient their focus from one geared 

toward conventional threats to one capable of addressing asymmetric challenges. 

Tunisia is also a partner in the Security Governance Initiative (SGI) announced by 

President Obama at the U.S.-Africa summit in August, which provides a vital avenue to support Tunisian work to strengthen civilian and military security institutions. Overall, the Tunisians have made considerable strides, but need to do more 

and will look to the United States for expertise and support. 

The provision of nearly $1 billion in external financing secured with sovereign 

loan guarantees, including U.S. assistance, has been an important U.S. support 

mechanism for Tunisia. The United States has used these loan guarantees as a 

means to incentivize Tunisia’s reform efforts. Encouraging private sector investment 

is also critical to Tunisia’s long-term stability. Foreign assistance programs are 

geared toward promoting a culture of entrepreneurship and linking youth with private sector employment. Additionally, the U.S. Government is supporting the March 

5, 2015, North Africa (PNB–NAPEO) Investment and Entrepreneurship Conference 

in partnership with the Aspen Institute, which will seek to drive critical private sector investment in Tunisia. 

We also believe that intensifying contact between Americans and Tunisians, especially Tunisia’s increasing youth population, are extremely important and we have 

therefore expanded scholarship and exchange programs with Tunisia. 

U.S. assistance for democratization and governance initiatives, through support to 

the Tunisian elections and political party-building, as well as for increasing the participation of marginalized groups in the political process, contributed to the parliamentary elections that Tunisians and the international community have widely 

seen as credible and legitimate. Staying engaged with Tunisia in building responsive government institutions and promoting the role of civil society will remain critical as Tunisia moves into the next phase of its democratic transition. 

RESPONSES OF ANTONY JOHN BLINKEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. In your testimony you said: ‘‘We liberated the people of Libya from a 

tyrant; now, we must work with the new government to fill a power vacuum and 

address that country’s turmoil.’’ 

♦ Does the U.S. Government still recognize the Tobruk-based government and the 

Libyan House of Representatives to be the sole legitimate governing authorities 

799 

in Libya? If so, what steps will the U.S. Government take to isolate their 

Tripoli-based rivals? If not, what steps will the U.S. Government take to put 

pressure on all sides in Libya’s current political impasse to ensure their commitment to a political solution? 

♦ How does the U.S. Government view the HOR’s endorsement of General Khalifa 

Haftar’s military operations? 

♦ Under what circumstances would the United States Government consider taking military action against terrorist targets in Libya? Under what authority? 

Which groups presently operating in Libya are subject to the 2001 AUMF? 

Answer. Our recognition of the Libyan Government currently headed by Prime 

Minister Abdullah al-Thani remains unchanged as we study the November 6 

Supreme Court decision. Libyans themselves have many questions about the Court’s 

decision. We remain committed to helping the Libyan people achieve national consensus on the path forward, and continue to urge Libyan leaders to engage productively with U.N. Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) Bernardino 

Leon to develop that consensus. Those on both sides of the conflict who engage in 

or provide support for acts that threaten the peace, stability, or security of Libya 

may be designated for sanctions under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2174, and 

those associated with al-Qaeda or its affiliates may be designated for sanctions 

under U.N. Resolution 2161. 

Libyans and the United States share real and serious concerns about terrorist 

activities in Libya. Counterterrorism operations should be overseen by a government 

that draws its authority from a clear and broad popular mandate to have the best 

chance of success. That is why we support SRSG Leon’s effort to create a national 

political consensus before the violence in Libya grows worse. 

We regularly assess terrorist threats to the United States and our interests, in 

Libya and elsewhere. Before conducting any military action, the United States 

would ensure that it had sufficient authorities for the operation. 

Over the past 2 years, the United States has conducted two operations in Libya 

that underscore our Nation’s commitment to protecting our citizens. In October 

2013, U.S. Forces captured Abu Anas al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda figure, indicted for 

his alleged role in al-Qaeda’s conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals and conduct attacks 

against U.S. interests worldwide, including the East Africa Embassy bombings in 

1998. In June 2014, the U.S. military, in cooperation with law enforcement personnel, captured Ahmed Abu Khattalah, indicted for numerous offenses arising from 

his alleged participation in the September 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, 

which led to the deaths of four brave Americans. 

Question. The administration is seeking $165 million in additional ESF and PKO 

funding to support the Syrian opposition as part of its anti-ISIL OCO request for 

FY 2015. How will the proposed uses of these funds differ substantively from previous U.S. support to opposition groups? What has past U.S. support tangibly 

achieved? 

Answer. The $165 million in additional resources for Syria requested in the 

counter-ISIL FY 2015 OCO budget amendment, combined with the President’s FY 

2015 budget request, will ensure that sufficient resources are available to build the 

capacity of moderate partners inside Syria as they seek to counter ISIL, provide 

local security and governance in their communities, and help foster the conditions 

that can lead to a political transition. These additional resources would work in parallel with the Department of Defense efforts to train and equip vetted, moderate 

Syrian opposition fighters, and to ensure that there is an effective, moderate governance structure within which a new military force will operate. 

Current U.S. support to the moderate opposition is positively impacting the lives 

of Syrians on a daily basis. For example: 

• Support to local governance institutions: The United States provides operational 

funding to support more than 25 local councils and civil society organizations 

to enable them to respond to community needs and improve governance in liberated areas. • Training and equipment to enhance the capacity and cohesion of local councils 

and civilian activists: The United States has trained over 1,400 civilian activists 

and councilmembers from over 300 opposition councils and organizations. The 

United States has also trained more than 500 Syrian women running as candidates for local and provincial councils and to play a role in international and 

community-driven peacebuilding efforts. These initiatives help to mobilize and 

build the capacity of citizen groups, enhance information-sharing, provide community services, and strengthen local governance. 

• Supporting Civil Defense: The United States has provided over $12.6 million in 

civil defense equipment for emergency first responders. This includes the proviVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00807 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
800 

sion of 155 trucks and vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks in addition 

to search and rescues kits and supplies to establish emergency shelters. This 

life-saving assistance allows civil defense teams in Aleppo, Idlib, Hama, Deir ezZor and Raqqah to provide emergency response to attacks on civilians. • Technical expertise and immediate repairs to restore water, electricity, and agriculture that benefit more than 100,000 Syrians. Working closely with Syrian 

engineers, relief committees, and local councils, the United States has assisted 

farmers, small businesses, and communities to reinstate economically viable 

activities through repair of equipment, facilities, provision of spare parts and 

alternative technology to improve the agricultural based local economies. • Support for Civil Society: The United States supports hundreds of nascent Syrian civil society organizations working on a broad range of issues in support of 

local governance efforts, including: relief and recovery, education, trauma healing, human rights documentation and promotion, peace-building and reconciliation, and transitional justice. • Support for Independent Media: The United States supports nine FM radio and 

two satellite TV independent media stations. This support enables Syrian journalists to counter regime and violent extremist narratives, laying the foundation for inclusive tolerant debate. • Non-Lethal Support to Moderate Armed Opposition: The United States is supporting vetted elements of the moderate, armed opposition to enhance their 

operational capabilities to better protect the Syrian people. For example, we 

have provided more than 550,000 MREs, more than 4,500 medical kits, vehicles, 

pickup trucks and buses, armored SUVs and ten-ton trucks to help improve 

their logistical capabilities. 

Question. On October 10, you said that the sanctions imposed on Russia could be 

eased; however, as you know, easing the sanctions would allow Russia to create a 

‘‘frozen conflict’’ in eastern Ukraine without cost, and I believe there must be permanent consequences for the annexation of a neighboring country’s territory. 

♦ What do you think should be the conditions for easing sanctions on Russia both 

today and in the future? 

♦ Regardless of the situation in eastern Ukraine, do you believe that most of the 

sanctions should not be lifted as long as Putin continues to illegally occupy 

Crimea? 

Answer. The President has clearly said we will not accept Russia’s occupation and 

illegal annexation of Crimea or any part of Ukraine. We will continue to work with 

our allies and partners to impose costs that respond to Russia’s actions, including 

in Crimea. 

Any decision on a rollback of sanctions would depend on Russia’s actions. We have 

said that sanctions can begin to be rolled back if Russia fulfills its commitments, 

including implementing the Minsk agreements, and works to reach a lasting and 

comprehensive solution to the conflict. Implementing the Minsk agreements would 

require Russia to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in eastern 

Ukraine, including by removing all Russian troops and equipment, returning the 

Ukrainian side of the international border to Kiev’s control with an effective border 

monitoring mechanism, and releasing all hostages. We have been equally clear that 

if Russia continues its unacceptable and destabilizing actions, the costs for Russia 

will continue to rise. 

Question. Can you please describe how the administration’s recently approved 

Central America strategy will help the region secure sustainable economic growth 

and how your strategy relates to the Alliance For Prosperity plan announced by the 

Presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador? 

Answer. Over the course of the past 18 months, the U.S. Government has taken 

a hard look at both our approach and our investments in Central America. We 

determined that a comprehensive focus on security, prosperity, and governance is 

critical to changing the region’s trajectory. This will involve expanding our current 

security programs and adding a new emphasis on prosperity and governance, and 

we are working across the U.S. Government to do so. Our approach is intended to 

encompass the entire Central America region, not just the countries of the Northern 

Triangle, because we believe that the region’s future lies in its economic integration 

to create a single market of 43 million people. The leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras appear to have reached similar conclusions for their subregion, 

as reflected in their own coordinated plan, a historic effort that all three countries 

agreed on. 

On November 14, the Vice President addressed a conference hosted by the InterAmerican Development Bank on ‘‘Investing In Central America,’’ directly chalVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00808 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
801 

lenging the three Presidents to take concrete steps to address problems such as corruption, and pledging that if they can demonstrate such political will, the United 

States will lend its support to help them address the underlying causes of migration 

through U.S. assistance and by rallying international support for the Central American plan. Secretary of Commerce Pritzker reinforced this message when she 

addressed business leaders and the Central American Presidents during the same 

conference, stating that if they would take the necessary actions we could mobilize 

support for private sector investment in the region. 

The U.S. Strategy for Engagement with Central America therefore both aligns 

with and supports the overall objectives of the Alliance for Prosperity plan. However, our effort is broader because we also realize that all seven Central American 

nations must act together for the benefit of the region. 

The U.S. Strategy for Engagement with Central America prioritizes prosperity, 

governance, and security. These objectives are interrelated and interdependent, and 

attention to each objective is necessary for success. Specifically, our prosperity 

agenda fosters integration of a regional market of 43 million people so that local 

businesses can become more competitive and the region can be more attractive to 

international investors. Economic growth should reach everyone, not just the wellconnected few. Our efforts will promote better education and vocational training for 

all citizens, including women and vulnerable ethnic groups, and business environments friendly to entrepreneurs, providing alternatives to the illicit activities that 

contribute to insecurity and undermine effective governance. 

Question. Does the administration currently have a clearly articulated and consistent policy on negotiating 123 Agreements, or is it done on a case-by-case basis? 

♦ What criteria or standards are used to determine the starting and ending point 

for each agreement? 

♦ Are the same criteria and/or standards applied to each new negotiation? If not, 

why not? 

♦ How do U.S. national security concerns, including regional assessments of the 

potential for further nuclear proliferation, affect the administration’s approach 

to negotiating 123 Agreements? 

Answer. We use our 123 Agreement negotiations to achieve a broad range of nonproliferation commitments with our partners, and we employ a variety of bilateral 

and multilateral measures in addition to 123 Agreements to help minimize the 

spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies globally. The administration 

believes that by applying a principled approach to implementing nonproliferation 

commitments in 123 Agreements, we will maximize our ability to achieve the lowest 

number of sensitive fuel cycle facilities worldwide while raising global nonproliferation standards. This principled approach allows for flexibility in structuring the 

legal and political commitments while meeting the requirements of U.S. law and 

maintaining our principled stance on enrichment and reprocessing (ENR). 

Our approach has been effective in convincing states to rely on the international 

market for nuclear fuel services, rather than develop domestic ENR programs. 

Regardless of the region or the state in question, if we are not sufficiently convinced 

that concluding a particular 123 Agreement would meet our policy goals on ENR, 

we will not conclude the agreement. When negotiating agreements, we take into account all relevant factors, including the state’s nonproliferation record, its technical 

capabilities, and any regional proliferation issues. 

Question. Is the administration concerned that the recent nuclear agreement with 

Iran—in which Iran is permitted to retain enrichment capabilities—undermines our 

ability to meet U.S. nonproliferation objectives, including in future 123 Agreement 

negotiations? 

♦ Why should countries, such as United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, be asked to accept a gold standard agreement when the administration has 

capitulated to the enrichment demands of bad actors like Iran? 

♦ What message does an inconsistent standard for negotiating 123 Agreements by 

the United States send globally? 

♦ Does one standard exist for the Middle East and a different standard for the 

Asia-Pacific? 

Answer. The United States has a long-standing policy of preventing the spread 

of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies; any comprehensive deal with 

Iran will not change that underlying policy. The United States employs a range of 

measures, both multilateral and bilateral, to help prevent the spread of ENR technologies around the world. Legally binding commitments added to the peaceful 

nuclear cooperation (123) agreements are not the only means to combat the proVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00809 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
802 

liferation of ENR. In fact, the strong nonproliferation provisions already required in 

our 123 Agreements have helped to restrain the further spread of ENR for decades. 

The key ENR issue when negotiating 123 Agreements is how to prevent states 

that do not already possess these technologies from acquiring them, and limiting 

their spread in those countries that do possess them. For countries without an existing enrichment program, we seek to ensure that states make the choice to rely on 

the international market for nuclear fuel services. 

Our approach has been effective in convincing states to rely on the international 

market for nuclear fuel services, rather than develop domestic ENR programs. Regardless of the region or the state in question, if we are not sufficiently convinced 

that a particular 123 Agreement would meet our policy goals on ENR, we will not 

conclude the agreement. 

In line with the Obama administration’s long-standing policy opposing the spread 

of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies, the Joint Plan of Action halts 

progress on the most worrisome elements of Iran’s nuclear program and rolls it back 

in key respects, including by limiting Iran’s enrichment capacity and diluting or converting Iran’s stockpile of near-20-percent low enriched uranium. 

Iran mastered the fuel cycle and began enriching years ago. We cannot eliminate 

that knowledge. With respect to the ongoing negotiations, any long-term, comprehensive deal acceptable to the United States must effectively cut off the various 

pathways Iran could take to obtain fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Other 

countries are not likely to follow Iran’s path, which involved decades of isolation, 

global sanctions, and, should a comprehensive agreement be reached, would require 

long-term and unprecedented constraints on its program. 

Question. Along the same lines, why does the administration not begin all negotiations at a consistent start point, such as the gold standard? 

Answer. We begin all 123 Agreement negotiations with the same objective of minimizing the spread of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies, and we structure possible legal and political commitments in the agreement to meet the requirements of U.S. law and maintain our principled stance on ENR. We also pursue 

additional mechanisms to support achieving our objectives. These include, for example, legal or political commitments to rely on the international market for nuclear 

fuel services rather than acquiring sensitive nuclear technologies, or to participating 

in bilateral or multilateral nonproliferation activities, such as adherence to the 

Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines, implementation of an IAEA Additional Protocol to a state’s safeguards agreement, and support for the International Atomic 

Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Fuel Bank and other fuel assurance mechanisms. 

Question. Given the recent actions of the Russian Federation, including the 

bomber patrols near U.S. waters and the relentless positioning of nuclear forces, is 

it still this administration’s intention to attempt to negotiate further nuclear force 

reductions with the Russians rather than work to bolster U.S. defenses? 

Answer. The United States remains committed to pursuing a responsible 

approach to nuclear disarmament in keeping with our Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

Treaty (NPT) commitments and supports reductions in all types of nuclear weapons: 

strategic and nonstrategic, deployed and nondeployed. The United States has made 

clear our readiness to discuss further nuclear reductions with the Russian Federation, but progress requires a willing, trustworthy partner and a conducive strategic 

environment. This includes a willingness by Russia to adequately address our concerns about its violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. 

As we go to lower numbers, we are committed to maintaining a safe, secure, and 

effective arsenal that ensures effective deterrence and strategic stability. This includes making needed investments to modernize the aging cold-war-era nuclear 

infrastructure, which is essential to fulfilling the President’s goal of reduced reliance 

on nuclear weapons. 

The administration is pursuing an overhaul of the nuclear weapons enterprise, to 

include development of replacement weapons delivery systems for all elements of 

the triad, life extension programs (LEPs) and updates of all our existing nuclear 

warhead types, and modernization of nuclear weapons production facilities. Following the recently completed Defense Nuclear Enterprise Review, the administration is committed to spending several billion dollars over the next 5 years to sustain 

the enterprise and to ensure personnel serving in the nuclear forces have the resources and support they deserve to conduct their vital deterrence mission. 

In the face of growing North Korean missile capabilities, the administration 

moved in 2013 to strengthen homeland missile defense by announcing plans to deploy 14 additional ground-based interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely, AK, by 2017, a 

803 

nearly 50-percent increase in our homeland missile defense capability. We are also 

continuing to test and improve the GBI, particularly the CE–II kill vehicle. 

In addition, the administration is pressing ahead with all three phases of the 

European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) missile defense system that protects 

our NATO allies and U.S. Forces in Europe. We have deployed a radar in Turkey, 

two Aegis BMD-capable ships to Rota, Spain, with plans for two more in 2015, and 

are currently establishing an Aegis Ashore site in Romania that will be operational 

in 2015. Plans for the deployment of a second Aegis Ashore site in Poland in 2018 

remain on schedule. We are also working with a number of NATO allies, bilaterally 

and in the NATO framework, to encourage them to acquire their own missile 

defense capabilities. 

Question. In pursuing New START, the administration deflected efforts by Russia 

to link strategic offensive and defensive systems as they sought binding restrictions 

on our missile defenses. Does the administration continue to take the position that 

our missile defense systems are absolutely nonnegotiable? How has this position 

affected the Russians’ interest in pursuing a follow-on treaty? What plans is the 

administration making to further shore up our Eastern European partners with 

missile defense technology? 

Answer. The administration has consistently informed Russia that the United 

States will not agree to constrain or limit U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities. 

The United States has made clear our readiness to discuss with the Russian Federation further reductions that cover all types of nuclear weapons. This includes the 

proposal made by President Obama last year in Berlin to reduce deployed strategic 

nuclear weapons further, up to one-third from the level established in the New 

START Treaty. But progress in negotiating such reductions requires a willing, trustworthy partner and a conducive strategic environment. 

Regarding plans the administration has for missile defense cooperation with European partners, the United States is committed to implementing all three phases of 

the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). The United States has already 

deployed a radar to Turkey, two Aegis BMD-capable ships to Rota, Spain with plans 

for two more in 2015, and is currently establishing an Aegis Ashore site in Romania 

to be operational in 2015. Plans for the deployment of a second Aegis Ashore site 

in Poland in 2018 remain on schedule. 

We are also working with a number of NATO allies, bilaterally and in the NATO 

framework, to encourage them to acquire their own missile defense capabilities. 

Acquiring these capabilities would be in addition to their substantial monetary contributions to the NATO command and control system. In the case of Poland we are 

actively supporting Raytheon’s effort to sell its PATRIOT PAC–3 Air and Missile 

Defense system to Poland. 

Question. There are a number of significant concerns with regards to the Russian 

track record of compliance with their current arms control obligations. Why should 

the United States continue to engage in negotiations on yet another arms control 

agreement or stringently implement other agreements while the Russians are less 

than sincere about their compliance with current commitments? 

Answer. The United States remains committed to pursuing a responsible 

approach to nuclear disarmament in keeping with our Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

Treaty (NPT) commitments and supports reductions in all types of nuclear weapons: 

strategic and nonstrategic, deployed and nondeployed. The United States has made 

clear our readiness to discuss further nuclear reductions with the Russian Federation, but progress requires a willing, trustworthy partner and a conducive strategic 

environment. This includes willingness by Russia to adequately in a verifiable manner address our concerns about its violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 

Forces Treaty. 

Current tensions with Russia highlight the importance of the predictability and 

confidence-building provided by arms control treaties and their associated 

verification regimes. This is especially the case with the continued successful implementation of the New START Treaty and the security and predictability provided 

by verifiable mutual limits on strategic nuclear weapons. 

The New START Treaty enhances our national security and strategic stability 

with Russia, and both the United States and Russia are successfully implementing 

the treaty’s inspection regime. As certified in the 2014 New START implementation 

report, Russia is in compliance with the New START Treaty. Similarly, it remains 

in the interest of the United States and our allies to continue implementing treaties 

and agreements that contribute to security and confidence building in the EuroAtlantic region such as the Open Skies Treaty and the Vienna Document. We take 

questions about compliance with arms control treaties very seriously and are conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00811 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
804 

tinuing to monitor Russian compliance with all its arms control obligations. With 

respect to the INF Treaty, we believe the treaty serves the mutual interest of the 

United States, our allies, and Russia. We will continue our diplomatic efforts to urge 

Russia to return to verifiable compliance with the treaty, and we will not cease to 

raise this matter until it is resolved. We will also continue internal planning and 

coordination with allies to take into account the impact of this Russian violation on 

our collective security in the event Russia does not return to compliance and to take 

appropriate steps to address threats to our security. 

RESPONSES OF ANTONY JOHN BLINKEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

Question #1. In March 2012, you said: ‘‘What’s beyond debate is that Iraq today 

is less violent, more democratic and more prosperous—and the United States more 

deeply engaged there—than at any time in recent history.’’ You testified in your 

nomination hearing that, at the time you made this comment, you believed it was 

true. 

♦ With the benefit of hindsight, do you believe the judgments reflected in that 

statement, in full or in part, were incorrect? 

Answer. I stand by my statement. In March 2012, Iraq was less violent, more 

democratic and more prosperous than it had been at any time in its recent history. 

By 2012, violence in Iraq had been in steady and sustained decline for several 

years. The core metric used by the United States Government to measure violence— 

‘‘weekly security incidents’’ (attacks against civilians, the government, and diplomats)—was down from an average of 1,600 a week at the end of 2007 and early 

2008 to 100 a week in 2011–2012. The Shiite militia had stood down; indeed, what 

had been frequent rocket and mortar attacks against the United States Embassy 

went to zero. Al Qaeda in Iraq was in retreat—its main leaders had been killed, 

while suicide bomb attacks had dropped from an average of dozens a month to five 

a month. 

Iraq was increasingly prosperous. Oil production—the lifeblood of Iraq’s economy—was up 50 percent from 2005, to almost 3 million barrels per day, providing 

the revenue that enabled lawmakers to pass a $100 billion budget in February of 

that year. 

Iraq was more democratic. Following the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011, the 

United States maintained an unwavering commitment to the development of Iraq’s 

nascent democratic institutions and continued support for the democratic process, 

including successful national elections. By 2012, politics had supplanted violence as 

the dominant means for the country’s various factions to settle their disputes and 

advance their interests. There were repeated political crises—over the election law, 

the election itself, the de-baathification process, the formation of the government. 

But instead of leading to renewed sectarian violence, Iraqis, until that point, 

resolved each of those differences through the political process, with quiet but continuous support from the United States. 

Iraq’s political leadership and the rise of ISIL in Syria forfeited much of this 

progress. We repeatedly warned the Iraqi Government that while AQI was down, 

it was not out and it was imperative to sustain pressure against them. Despite our 

repeated efforts, the Iraqi Government refused our assistance in the fight against 

AQI/ISIL until 2013, when the group had become entrenched and suicide bomb 

attacks jumped from 5 a month to 50 a month. Starting in early 2013, the Iraqis 

quietly began to accept our help—we established a targeting cell in Baghdad, 

resumed ISR flights, significantly increased the provision of weapons and provided 

technical advice. When Prime Minister Maliki visited the White House in November 

2013, President Obama told him that the biggest threat Iraq faced was ISIL, that 

the United States was willing to provide even more counterterrorism support, but 

that only a comprehensive approach—especially addressing the legitimate grievances of the Sunni community—could be effective. But the Maliki government 

turned increasingly sectarian, playing to its base in the runup to elections in 2014. 

ISIL took advantage of the polarization to lay siege to Fallujah and Ramadi and 

ultimately to take Mosul. 

Yet even in the midst of the growing ISIL crisis, on April 30 of this year, over 

20 million Iraqis went to the polls to cast their ballot in a democratic election, determined to be fair and free by U.N. and EU elections monitors. Voter turnout was 

62.2 percent, outpacing much of the region, despite significant attempts by ISIL to 

scare citizens away from the polls. The Iraqi determination to participate in the 

democratic process, in spite of countless obstacles, affirms the resilience of a more 

democratic Iraq. Following the election, we saw extensive negotiations on governVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00812 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
805 

ment formation, the peaceful transfer of power from former PM Maliki to PM 

Haider al-Abadi, and a Cabinet confirmation process that ensured Sunni, Kurdish, 

Shia, and minority leaders had a seat at the table. While Iraqi determination sealed 

the country’s commitment to democracy, the United States played no small role in 

encouraging the elections to be held on time and supporting technical training and 

development of election monitors, poll workers, and senior officials. 

Question #2. Can you provide any examples of judgments that you and your 

administration colleagues have made in your policy toward Iraq and Syria that you 

now believe were wrong, and what lessons you have learned from those mistakes? 

Answer. Yes. Let me start with some context. By 2012, the Iraqi Security Forces 

were more numerous and better trained and the Iraqi Government more confident 

it could maintain security on its own, supported by a robust U.S. security assistance 

program. As noted in Question #1, violence in Iraq was significantly down, the Shiite militia had stood down and what was then Al Qaeda in Iraq was in retreat. And 

politics seemed to have supplanted violence as the primary means by which different groups advanced their interests. 

Nonetheless, we were deeply concerned that AQI remained a potential threat. 

Throughout 2012, we tried but did not succeed in focusing the Iraqi Government in 

sustaining proactive pressure on AQI. From early 2013, the committee that I chair, 

the Deputies Committee, met more than a dozen times on the question of increasing 

support to Iraq to deal with AQI and then ISIL. The Principals Committee and the 

National Security Council met multiple times on the same issue. Slowly and quietly, 

Iraq began to accept our offers of assistance, as noted above. But by then ISIL had 

developed significant momentum and Iraqi politics had turned increasingly sectarian, despite repeated warnings from the administration that a failure to address 

legitimate Sunni grievances would exacerbate the ISIL threat. 

In retrospect, while we were focused on the emerging ISIL threat, we underestimated the weakness of the Iraqi Security Forces in their ability to respond during 

the June ISIL takeover of the city of Mosul and overestimated our ability to convince the Government of Iraq to heed our advice on political and security considerations, which further undermined the effectiveness of the Iraqi Security Forces. 

This lesson, amplified by our experience in Libya, informed our current approach 

to Iraq. As President Obama has said, we and our European partners underestimated the need in Libya to have an answer for the day after Qadafi, including a 

viable political process and a coherent force to fill the security vacuum, despite 

repeated efforts to secure Libyan support for a robust training program and/or an 

international force to help keep the peace. That’s why President Obama this summer conditioned launching our comprehensive counter-ISIL campaign in Iraq on 

seating a new, inclusive government committed to reform. We knew that U.S. airstrikes and kinetic action to halt ISIL’s advance into Iraq would not be effective or 

sustainable absent forward movement in Iraq’s democratic process, aided by the 

selection of new government and Prime Minister committed, through words and 

actions, to reform the policies of the Maliki administration and govern in an inclusive manner. And we have made clear to the Abadi government that ISIL cannot 

be defeated by military action alone, that wholesale political reform and inclusive 

governance are essential to unifying the Iraqi people against the extremist threat 

and promoting stability in the country. Already, we have seen significant progress 

in that direction. 

Question #3. Are there any circumstances in which you would recommend to the 

President that he order U.S. troops into a combat role in Iraq or Syria? 

Answer. Yes. I can certainly imagine hypothetical circumstances in which our 

military commanders might advise the President to deploy combat troops to fight 

in Iraq and I would second that advice. For example, if our Embassy was in imminent danger of falling to ISIL or the group had acquired a weapon of mass destruction and our military advised that U.S. troops in a combat role were necessary to 

contend with the problem, I would join their recommendation. 

In the current campaign against ISIL, U.S. troops in a combat role are neither 

necessary nor advisable. The Iraqi Security Forces, the Kurdish Peshmerga and 

Sunni tribes already have demonstrated that they can be effective on the ground, 

especially when we provide air power, intelligence, training, equipment, advice and 

assistance. The Iraqi Government has made clear it does not want U.S. troops in 

a combat role in Iraq. The campaign will be more effective and sustainable if Iraqis 

are the ones doing the fighting on the ground to secure their own country. 

Question #4. To what extent has the collapse of Iraqi forces in June 2014 and 

resulting security conditions in Iraq prompted the administration to reevaluate its 

current troop withdrawal plan for Afghanistan? 

806 

Answer. It is important to learn from experience, and to be guided by historical 

lessons. In formulating our policy in Afghanistan, we have looked to lessons learned 

from Iraq and other conflicts. That said, I don’t believe that we can lump Iraq and 

Afghanistan together. These are different countries, with unique histories, political 

and economic realities, and regional dynamics. We have to deal with each country 

with an understanding of what makes it different than others. Getting this balance 

right is of course a challenge, but one we must face. 

The primary lesson of Iraq is the need for political accommodation—it was a failure of the political process that pushed Iraq over the edge and created space for 

ISIL, and that’s what Afghanistan needs to avoid. That is why Secretary Kerry and 

the administration invested so heavily in forging a post-election compromise 

between the two leading candidates to govern together and inclusively. It is a point 

we have been stressing to President Ghani and CEO Abdullah, as we concurrently 

reassure them of our commitment to sustain our sizeable investments in the ANSF, 

consistent with the Tokyo commitments. Fortunately, President Ghani and CEO 

Abdullah have made it clear that they fully share this view and are acting on it, 

including just recently agreeing to a diverse allocation of Cabinet positions. 

Our planning for the U.S. role in Afghanistan is based on our long-standing discussions with the Afghan Government, our NATO allies and other international 

partners. Beyond 2014, the United States will continue two narrow missions in 

Afghanistan. First, the United States and NATO will transition to a noncombat mission of training, advising, and assisting the Afghan National Security Forces 

(ANSF). Second, the United States will continue to maintain a counterterrorism 

capability in Afghanistan to target the remnants of al-Qaeda and disrupt other 

extremists who directly threaten the U.S. homeland, U.S. persons overseas, and 

allies. 

The President’s national security team has been defining the operational and legal 

details required to continue executing those missions in 2015 within the scope of 

the Bilateral Security Agreement we signed in September with the Government of 

Afghanistan. These recommendations were recently passed to the President, who 

approved them. 

Question #5. Do you believe that a conditions-based withdrawal would be more 

effective in securing long-term stability in Afghanistan? 

Answer. The United States has pursued a conditions-based drawdown of our 

forces in Afghanistan, insofar as we have steadily built up and then transferred 

security responsibilities to the Afghan Government over the past 6 years. The conditions we helped to create were increased Afghan capacity. But a timetable also 

helped keep the pressure on the Afghans to assume that responsibility, and not take 

for granted a U.S. presence in perpetuity. It is important that they know in advance 

what responsibilities they must assume and when they must assume them. Ultimately, we cannot do for Afghans what they must do for themselves. 

At the same time, we and our NATO allies agree on the need to continue to support the ANSF, the Afghan Government, and the Afghan people. To that end, the 

United States has committed to a long-term partnership with Afghanistan based on 

our Strategic Partnership Agreement and on the recently signed Bilateral Security 

Agreement. The United States and NATO will transition to a noncombat mission 

of training, advising, and assisting the ANSF. The United States also will continue 

to maintain a counterterrorism capability in Afghanistan to target the remnants of 

al-Qaeda and disrupt other extremists who directly threaten the U.S. homeland, 

U.S. persons overseas, and allies. 

While the U.S. combat mission will end this year, we will continue to support the 

Government of Afghanistan as it pursues a future of peace, greater prosperity, and 

an end to conflict. To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United 

States and coalition forces in Afghanistan, provide direct support to al-Qaeda, or 

pose a strategic threat to Afghan Security Forces, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe and assist the Afghans. 

Question #6. In June, President Obama argued that destroying ISIS in Iraq 

required the removal of then-Prime Minister Maliki and the establishment of an 

inclusive new government. Why does this not equally apply to Assad in Syria? Does 

destroying ISIS in Syria not also require the removal of Assad and the establishment of an inclusive government in Syria? 

Answer. As Secretary Kerry noted recently, the relationship between Assad and 

ISIL is symbiotic; they feed off each other. Assad has done little to combat the ISIL 

threat and has, in fact—through his regime’s brutality toward its own people—been 

a key factor in spurring ISIL’s growth. President Obama has said repeatedly that 

Assad long ago lost all legitimacy and must step aside for Syria to establish an inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00814 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
807 

clusive government. But the President and Secretary also have been clear that there 

is no military solution to the conflict in Syria. Our goal is helping the Syrian people 

reach a negotiated political transition that fulfills Syrians’ aspirations for freedom 

and dignity—a future without Assad or ISIL. 

That’s why we have supported the moderate opposition and are in the process of 

ramping up that aid, together with our partners. The Department of Defense program to train and equip vetted, moderate elements of the Syrian opposition, which 

Congress has authorized, and which Saudi Arabia and Turkey, among others, have 

committed to support, will further enable us to bolster the moderate opposition, and 

put it in a position to defend itself against ISIL and regime forces; stabilize areas 

under its control; and, by shifting the balance on the ground, help create the conditions for a negotiated transition. 

Question #7. Is the administration’s ‘‘ISIS first’’ approach in Syria benefiting the 

Assad regime? If yes, does this not contradict the administration’s stated political 

goal to transition from Assad to an inclusive government? 

Answer. The threat that ISIL represents—to Iraq, to Syria, to the broader region, 

and to the global community—and U.S. leadership have mobilized an international 

coalition of more than 60 countries to take action to degrade and ultimately defeat 

ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Assad has been at war against the moderate opposition 

since long before the ISIL campaign. Our increased support to vetted, moderate elements of the armed opposition in Syria through the Train and Equip Program that 

Congress authorized and other efforts, will enable it to act as a counterweight to 

ISIL and also more effectively defend itself against the regime and ultimately help 

create the conditions to end the civil war in Syria. 

Question #8. What kind of political transition in Syria is the administration discussing that does not remove Assad from power? 

Answer. We are not discussing with any of our international or Syrian partners, 

or the regime itself, any political transition process that envisages Assad remaining 

in power. Our objective remains an inclusive, legitimate government for all Syrians; 

we are supporting those Syrians who share that goal. As President Obama has reiterated, Assad stands in the way of political transition, lacks legitimacy, and needs 

to step down so that Syrians can achieve a democratic, just, and inclusive government. And as Secretary Kerry noted recently, we will work with Syrians who strive 

to empower moderates against the extremes of both Asad and ISIL. 

Question #9. Do you share the concerns that Secretary Hagel has reportedly 

expressed—that we may not be able to succeed against ISIS if there is not a clear 

strategy toward Assad? 

Answer. Our strategy toward Assad is clear. We are strengthening our support 

for the moderate opposition, in part, so that it can advance the conditions for a political transition that ultimately results in Assad’s departure. The goal of such a transition would be an inclusive government capable of serving the interests of all the 

Syrian people. 

Defeating ISIL is a complex challenge that requires a multiyear strategy and sustained support. The United States and coalition partners—Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, 

Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—have conducted more than 450 airstrikes in Syria. We are focused on degrading ISIL, denying it safe haven, and disrupting its ability to project power by taking away its freedom of movement and 

resupply in ungoverned spaces, particularly in eastern Syria. The degradation or 

destruction of ISIL targets in Syria limits the terrorist group’s ability to lead, amass 

forces, and conduct operations. We believe that the moderate opposition must be 

part of the solution to the twin challenges of ISIL and Assad: over time, it can serve 

as the ground force that, together with coalition airstrikes, can counter ISIL; and 

it also can act as a counterweight to the Assad regime and help facilitate a negotiated transition. 

Question #10. Do you believe the United States can maintain public support 

among Syrians for the fight against ISIS without doing more to prevent Assad’s war 

against them? 

Answer. The Syrian people rose up against Assad in 2011 to demand basic human 

rights and freedoms. The administration supports these demands, and has backed 

members of the moderate opposition in pursuing them. It is clear that the moderate 

opposition has the will to fight ISIL and defend the Syrian people against the 

regime; they are doing both of these things now. However, they require our assistance in this struggle. We have provided significant nonlethal assistance to date to 

the political and military opposition, and continue to do so. We will also, through 

the Department of Defense’s Train and Equip Program, provide lethal assistance 

808 

and training to vetted, moderate fighters to defend themselves against ISIL and the 

regime, hold territory, and to empower a subset of fighters to take the fight to ISIL. 

These efforts will better enable the opposition to defend itself against the regime. 

At the same time, no one knows better the brutality and barbarity of ISIL then 

those people living in areas that they currently control. Beheading, slavery, and 

rape are commonplace. Throughout Syria and Iraq, local populations who may have 

initially been supportive of ISIL’s presence as a counter to Assad are now seeing 

this terrorist group for the inhumane butchers that they are. 

Question #11. The President and other administration officials have repeatedly 

condemned the Assad regime’s barbaric use of so-called barrel bombs against civilian populations. And yet the attacks not only continue; they are increasing since 

U.S air strikes in Syria began. Is the administration planning to take any action 

to stop these attacks? If no, how does the administration expect the 5,000 Syrians 

who have been trained and equipped to succeed against ISIS without protecting 

them and their families from Assad’s airstrikes and barrel bombs? 

Answer. This is something we’re working every day with our friends and partners 

in the region. We have provided extensive support to the moderate opposition and 

are working with Congress, the Defense Department, and regional partners to significantly expand that support so that moderate fighters will be in a better position 

to defend populations against ISIL and the regime—including its use of barrel 

bombs—and to create the conditions for a political settlement. 

The United States, through the Department of State and USAID, complement 

those efforts with continuing nonlethal support to moderates, armed and civilian, to 

provide governance, rule of law, and basic services. 

Question #12. I am sure you are aware of the numerous reports of Sunni tribal 

forces who have risen up to fight ISIS, but have been slaughtered by the hundreds, 

in large part because they are not getting the assistance they need to succeed. These 

Sunni tribal elements were integral to our success against Al Qaeda in Iraq during 

the war, as you pointed out in your testimony. They are equally important in the 

fight against ISIS now. 

♦ What programs has the administration put into place to help empower Sunni 

tribes and other Sunnis that want to end Islamic State control over their communities? 

Answer. Support from Sunni tribes in countering ISIL is both critical and necessary. The President has made clear his commitment to supporting greater cooperation between Sunni tribes and the Iraqi Government, and empowering tribal 

fighters and the Iraqi Security Forces to combat their common enemy ISIL. The 

President raised this with former Prime Minister Maliki over a year ago when they 

met in Washington, and the President and Vice President Biden continued to urge 

the Iraqi Government, including in multiple meetings and phone calls with Prime 

Minister Abadi, to make Sunni outreach a priority. I did the same during my most 

recent visit to Iraq in October. 

The United States has encouraged the Iraqi Government to not just cooperate 

with Sunni tribes, but to take concrete steps to integrate tribal fighters into the 

Iraqi Security Forces. This integration would help address some grievances raised 

by Sunni communities, including their desires for local security control and salaries 

and benefits for those fighting to protect them. 

A major component of this integration effort is the development of a National 

Guard. This effort aims to establish a security structure that draws from local 

recruits and allows them to protect their own communities, while being tethered to 

Baghdad through the provision of salaries, weapons, and equipment. This effort is 

also a critical part of security sector reform and seeks to develop a durable security 

arrangement that will help Sunni communities trust the forces protecting them as 

well as empower communities and tribes to provide their own security. We are 

strongly supportive of this initiative and have been working for months to help bolster support for the program among Iraqi leaders. When I visited Iraq in October, 

there was strong consensus support for this effort from all the leaders with whom 

I met, and we continue to work with the Iraqis to refine the program and to move 

forward with the necessary steps, and legislative action in the Council of Representatives, to implement it. 

In the meantime, Sunni tribes face an immediate and constant threat from ISIL. 

The recent massacre of hundreds of members of the Albu Nimr tribe highlights the 

brutality of ISIL’s actions against Sunnis. While the National Guard program is 

developing, we are urging the Iraqi Government and Sunni tribes to move forward 

on a bridging mechanism to begin the integration process as soon as possible so that 

tribal fighters can receive the weapons, equipment, and training they need to 

809 

counter ISIL. Earlier this month, Iraqi Government officials traveled to Al Asad Air 

Base in Anbar province to hold a conference with hundreds of Sunni tribal leaders 

and representatives to discuss this bridging mechanism. In the weeks since, we 

have seen the process of integration begin with Iraqi forces starting to integrate 

hundreds of Sunni fighters, and we will continue to press all sides to continue and 

increase this effort. 

To support our commitment to help build the capacity of Iraqi forces, including 

Sunni forces, the President has authorized the additional deployment of up to 1,500 

military personnel to train, advise, and assist Iraqi forces. This deployment includes 

personnel to Al Asad Air Base to support Iraqi efforts to develop and execute operations to counter ISIL. This U.S. presence in Anbar province will continue to support the integration of Sunni tribal fighters and to facilitate coordination between 

the Iraqi Government and Sunni tribes in their common fight against ISIL. 

Question #13. Do you believe that Putin’s actions in Ukraine constitute an ‘‘invasion’’ of the country? 

Answer. As we have said consistently, Russia is blatantly violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and its actions—including repeated 

armed incursions into Ukraine and its support for the Separatists—have been profoundly destabilizing. There is a fundamental international norm at stake, which is 

that sovereign states must respect the borders and territorial integrity of other sovereign states. This is enshrined in the U.N. Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. 

Russia has acted in a way that violates international law and long-standing norms 

as well as its own commitments to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

That is why the United States has mobilized the international community to impose 

significant costs on Russia for its actions in Ukraine and will not relent until Russia, through its actions, respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

Question #14. Do you believe that the costs that we and our allies are imposing 

on Russia are sufficient to deter further aggression by Putin against Ukraine? 

Answer. A key element of our strategy for dealing with Russia’s continuing violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has been raising the costs on 

Russia for its actions in order to deter further such actions. The United States has 

galvanized support from the EU, G7, and other international partners to impose and 

sustain such costs, including political isolation and economic sanctions. At critical 

moments, that pressure has created space for Ukraine to hold the most successful 

elections in its post-Soviet history and to sign an Association Agreement with the 

European Union, which is what sparked the Maidan movement in the first place. 

Sanctions, and the uncertainty they have created in the market, are having a significant impact, directly and indirectly, on Russia’s already weak economy. The 

Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine and the international response to them have sparked 

significant capital flight, had a chilling effect on foreign investment, driven the 

ruble to its lowest levels ever, sharply constrained the ability of Russian companies 

to float bonds and raise money, fueled inflation and driven growth to zero. Russian 

companies face a looming credit crunch—Russian banks and firms have to repay 

$134 billion in external debt between mid-November and the end of next year, $32 

billion of which comes due this December alone. Both the IMF and Russian Ministry 

of Economy expect capital outflows to reach $100 billion in 2014 and the IMF predicts that outflows will remain elevated in 2015. In October alone, the central 

bank’s reserves declined by over $28 billion as it attempted to cushion the currency’s 

decline in the face of sanctions and lower oil prices; the ruble has lost around a 

quarter of its value since we imposed our first round of targeted sectoral sanctions 

in July. 

Over time, our carefully coordinated and targeted sectorial sanctions will have 

even deeper impacts. For example, Russia is no longer able to acquire the cutting 

edge technology it requires to further develop energy exploration and exploitation. 

President Putin has found that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is the subject of 

every multilateral gathering he attends. There is no doubt in the market of our 

resolve to follow through on our pledges to impose further costs on Russia if it continues its destabilizing actions in eastern Ukraine. If Russian authorities continue 

their aggressive actions and violations of international law, the costs will only continue to rise. 

Question #15. Do you think the lack of lethal military support for Ukraine encourages further Russian aggression? 

Answer. While Russia has continued its destabilizing actions in Ukraine, Putin’s 

aggression has been met by a united front by the United States and our European 

partners. We have imposed serious costs on him, which over time will reveal the 

losing hand he is playing. We have prioritized the unity of this effort with Europe, 

810 

because the impact is that much greater when the United States and Europe act 

together. In the long term, this will be the most effective deterrent to Russian 

aggression. As I indicated in my testimony, we continue to assess the situation and 

look actively, every day, at other forms of assistance, including defensive lethal 

assistance. 

But I don’t think anyone—not the United States, not our closest allies—believe 

there is a military solution in Ukraine. What we are doing is raising the costs of 

the conflict on Russia. That includes sanctions, taken in coordination with our partners, and which are having a significant impact on Russia’s economy. But beyond 

that, we are taking steps to support Ukraine and its ability to determine its own 

future. To ensure that the Ukrainian military is strengthened and modernized, the 

United States is providing over $118 million in security assistance to the Government of Ukraine. This has included body armor, helmets, vehicles and patrol boats, 

night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering equipment, advanced radios, 

demining equipment, countermortar radars, and other items. We are providing 

equipment and training to assist Ukraine in monitoring and securing its borders, 

operating more safely and effectively, and preserving and enforcing its territorial 

integrity. The U.S. EUCOM-led Joint Commission on Bilateral Reform is leading an 

effort to assess and prioritize Ukraine’s needs for all NATO allies and partners, as 

well as the United States, to improve Ukraine’s capacity to provide for its own 

defense, identifying near-term priorities while setting the stage for longer term 

defense cooperation. This effort includes a recently concluded visit by medical and 

security assistance advisory teams. 

We are also taking steps to deter Russia from taking further destabilizing actions 

on its periphery by increasing our support to our partners and allies. The President 

has asked Congress for $1 billion to maintain and expand our European reassurance 

efforts. The European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), which was delivered to the Hill 

on June 26, proposes increases in U.S. military deployments to Europe. We believe 

that an expanded and persistent U.S. air, land, and sea presence in Europe, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, is a necessary and appropriate show of support to our NATO allies and partners who are deeply concerned by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. In addition, ERI will provide funding for more extensive bilateral 

and multilateral exercises and training with allies and partners; improvements to 

infrastructure that will boost responsiveness, especially in Eastern Europe; and enhanced prepositioning of U.S. equipment. A portion of the funding would also help 

build partner capacity in some of the newer NATO allies and with non-NATO partners such as Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. 

Question #16. In your testimony you stated that the administration is looking at 

providing lethal assistance to Ukraine. In these discussions, what circumstances 

would the prompt the administration to change its current opposition and provide 

lethal assistance to Ukraine? 

Answer. I don’t think anyone—not the United States, not our closest allies— 

believe that there is a military solution in Ukraine. What we have to do right now 

is to take the leverage provided by the sanctions the United States led the Europeans to put in place, and actually achieve implementation of the Minsk agreement. 

Russia is hurting. As discussed in detail in answer to Question #14, the pressure 

we’ve exerted through coordinated sanctions is having a significant and growing impact on Russia. We are focused on getting the Minsk process moving, and if it 

doesn’t we have made it very clear to President Putin that the pressure will only 

grow. And as I indicated in my testimony, we continue to assess the situation and 

look actively, every day, at other forms of assistance, including defensive lethal 

assistance. In that regard, one relevant factor would be whether Russia continues 

to blatantly violate its Minsk commitments by providing the Separatists with tanks. 

In the meantime, we are working closely with Ukraine to help them use the tools 

they already have more effectively. The U.S.-Ukraine Joint Commission on Defense 

Reform and Bilateral Cooperation has provided targeted recommendations for 

NATO allies and partners, as well as the United States, on our next steps in security assistance, including in areas such as generating forces, combat lifesaving care, 

logistics, and joint operations, to name a few. We are providing near-term, tangible 

capacity-building assistance while at the same time laying the groundwork for 

longer term reform to build Ukraine’s capacity to provide for its own defense and 

increase its interoperability with NATO and other Western forces. With your support, we plan to use the President’s European Reassurance Initiative to provide 

Ukraine another $45 million in FY 2015 to further support our efforts to build 

Ukraine’s defense capacity, in addition to the over $118 million in training and 

equipment that we have already committed. 

811 

Question #17. The remaining $575.5 million of this year’s military aid to Egypt 

is subject to the Secretary of State certifying that the Egyptian Government ‘‘is taking steps to support a democratic transition.’’ What are the metrics by which the 

administration intends to measure the concrete steps the Egyptian Government 

must take to certify this condition? At this point in time, does the administration 

intend to certify that Egypt is taking these steps? 

Answer. At this time, the Secretary has not made a decision regarding certification with respect to assistance to Egypt. The administration continues to monitor 

the situation in Egypt and encourage the Egyptian Government to ensure that it 

upholds constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of expression, association, 

assembly, and worship for all of its citizens. We continue to have concerns about 

Egypt’s political trajectory, including steps that would effectively alienate or disenfranchise significant segments of the opposition, and we have delivered this message at the highest levels. We will continue to press the government to allow civil 

society to operate freely—including by amending or repealing the Protest Law and 

passing an NGO Law that ensures freedom of association—and to release jailed 

journalists and political activists. We believe that Egypt will be more stable and 

prosperous when all its citizens are allowed to organize in an open, vibrant civil 

society and express their political views free from government interference. 

RESPONSES OF ANTONY JOHN BLINKEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. Should the President use his existing authorities to impose financial 

sanctions on individuals involved in human rights violations in Venezuela? 

Answer. We need to look at all options to find the most effective way to encourage 

the Venezuelan Government to respect democratic principles and the human rights 

of its citizens. The most effective efforts are those taken in conjunction with partners, and we will continue to work closely with others in the region to support 

greater political space in Venezuela, and ensure the Venezuelan Government lives 

up to the hemisphere’s shared commitment to the promotion of democracy, as articulated in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 

With respect to the role of the United States, the administration has already 

taken steps such as imposing visa restrictions on government officials who are 

believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, human rights abuses. If confirmed, 

I would look forward to working with Congress to build on the administration’s 

actions to date and determine what we can do to go further. We should not take 

any options off the table. Financial sanctions have proven effective in some situations, and could potentially be a useful tool, if targeted toward specific individuals 

and entities and used in concert with diplomatic efforts to advance specific U.S. foreign policy goals. 

Question. In your assessment, has the President’s strategy against ISIS proven to 

be effective? 

Answer. The President’s strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL is delivering steady progress. The momentum is shifting in Iraq as the Iraqi Security 

Forces (ISF) increase pressure against ISIL with successful offensive operations. 

While it is still early in the military campaign, coalition airstrikes coordinated with 

ISF ground operations have resulted in several successful engagements, including 

with respect to the Mosul dam, Erbil, Haditha Dam, Rabiya border crossing, and 

more recently Bayji and Zumar. ISIL is suffering significant losses and has been 

forced to change its tactics, hurting ISIL’s morale and challenging their ongoing 

propaganda campaigns that fuel foreign fighter recruitment. Military successes, 

combined with strong leadership by PM Abadi and Defense Minister Obeidi, have 

reinvigorated the ISF. Through concerted engagement, many Sunni tribes have 

joined the fight against ISIL and are entering agreements to be incorporated into 

the ISF, including eventually into a new National Guard. Through our advise and 

assist and training missions, we will strengthen ISF (including Peshmerga) capabilities to build on initial success and to launch additional offensives to retake ISILheld territory. 

In Syria, the United States and coalition partners Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, 

and the United Arab Emirates have conducted more than 400 airstrikes, restricting 

ISIL’s freedom of movement and resupply and ability to project power into Iraq that 

it has enjoyed inside ungoverned spaces in eastern and northern Syria. Strikes in 

Kobani, a location where ISIL is concentrating its fighters and materiel, and parts 

of eastern Syria, particularly Raqqah and Dayr Az-Zour, have degraded ISIL by taking out command and control nodes, finance centers, training camps, and oil refinVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00819 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
812 

eries that produce gas for its vehicles and a critical source of financing. Targeting 

in Syria is evolving beyond fixed facilities and now includes more dynamic targeting 

of a tactical nature, such as vehicles, armored vehicles, and convoys. The destruction 

and degradation of ISIL targets in Syria further limits the terrorist group’s ability 

to lead, control, amass forces, project power, and conduct operations. 

An important part of our strategy in Syria is to continue to build up the moderate 

opposition, including through the Train and Equip Program authorized by Congress. 

An effective partner on the ground can fill the space created by coalition air power 

and ultimately is necessary to deny ISIL safe haven. 

Defeating ISIL cannot be achieved through military action alone, however. President Obama’s strategy to defeat ISIL also involves comprehensive efforts to dismantle ISIL’s financial networks and recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters. Working with the coalition, we have degraded ISIL’s ability to derive income from illicit 

oil sales and have cut off ISIL’s access to international banking networks. Many 

countries have enacted or stepped-up enforcement on legislation that criminalizes 

travel to commit terrorist acts and other activities that support terrorism. We have 

seen some progress in interdicting the transit of foreign fighters to Syria, but there 

must be more action. Long-term, we are working with our partners to delegitimize 

ISIL’s ideology and the draw of violent extremism. 

A key element to the success of defeating ISIL in Iraq is the improvement of socioeconomic conditions that allowed ISIL to foment. Iraq’s inclusive new government 

has pledged to enact reforms and address corruption that has marginalized Iraqis 

of all ethnicities and religious sects and, since the completion of government formation, has taken initial steps to deliver on its promises. For example, the Prime Minister disbanded the controversial ‘‘Office of the Commander in Chief,’’ fired more 

than three dozen generals who were incompetent or pursuing sectarian agendas and 

has reached out to the Sunni tribes and the Kurds. 

We are encouraged by initial successes that have blunted ISIL’s onslaught, but 

we are aware that significant challenges remain and that we will have setbacks. 

However, we are certain of the importance of defeating ISIL and are devoted to our 

mission. As I saw firsthand during my meetings with the new Iraqi leadership in 

Iraq last month, we have a credible partner in the Abadi government. And we have 

a broad and committed international coalition. 

Question. Do you agree that the administration is absolutely obligated by law to 

get congressional approval to lift sanctions as part of a final deal with Iran? 

Answer. Terminating legislatively imposed sanctions would require congressional 

action. However, as we have stated in public testimony and in closed discussions 

on the Hill, in the first instance we would look to suspend sanctions in order to 

ensure that we can quickly snap them back into place should Iran fail to meet its 

commitments. Then, only if and after Iran has upheld its end of the arrangement 

would we look to lift or terminate sanctions. 

Question. In your view, does the lack of American lethal military support for 

Ukraine encourage or deter further Russian aggression? 

Answer. The United States continues to believe that there is no military resolution to the crisis, and our focus is on finding a diplomatic solution. We support the 

Minsk cease-fire and the peace plan, and call on Russia and the separatists Russia 

supports to abide by the agreed measures and seek a peaceful resolution. We have 

provided significant nonlethal security assistance to Ukraine to help address the crisis. We are constantly assessing the situation and have not ruled out any options, 

including defensive lethal assistance, depending on how conditions on the ground 

evolve. 

In response to the crisis, the United States is providing over $118 million in security assistance to the Government of Ukraine. We are providing equipment and 

training to assist Ukraine in monitoring and securing its borders, operating more 

safely and effectively, and preserving and enforcing its territorial integrity. This 

equipment includes night vision goggles, secure communication, protective vests, vehicles and countermortar radar. The U.S. EUCOM-led Joint Commission on Bilateral Reform is leading an effort to assess and prioritize Ukraine’s needs to improve 

its capacity to provide for its own defense, identifying near-term priorities while setting the stage for longer term defense cooperation. This effort includes assessments 

by U.S. medical and security assistance advisory teams that were completed earlier 

this fall. 

Question. What steps is the administration taking to help Moldova preserve its 

territorial integrity and sovereignty? 

Answer. I visited Moldova with Vice President Biden in 2011. Helping our European partners like Moldova maintain and guard against threats to their sovereignty 

813 

and territorial integrity is a priority for the United States. The United States 

actively participates in the 5+2 negotiations, which seek a comprehensive settlement 

to the Transnistrian conflict that guarantees Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial 

integrity. The United States also continues to advocate for the withdrawal of Russian forces from Moldova’s Transnistria region, replacement of the current Russiadominated peacekeeping force with a genuinely multinational presence under an 

international mandate, and full access to the region by the OSCE Mission to 

Moldova, consistent with its existing mandate. 

The United States is helping Moldova create a modern, sustainable military force. 

Our defense officials are in regular contact with Moldova’s Ministry of Defense, 

including visits by high ranking DOD officials over the last year. In FY 2014, the 

United States provided $1.25 million for Foreign Military Financing and $750,000 

for International Military Education and Training (IMET) for Moldova. The United 

States is also working to equip the Moldovan Military with Excess Defense Articles 

(EDA) from U.S. stocks, including a recent delivery of 49 vehicles (HMMVWs, 

trucks, trailers) via EDA. If approved, the European Reassurance Initiative could 

provide an additional $10 million in FMF to Moldova in 2015 to help build 

Moldova’s military capacity and improve interoperability with NATO and other 

Western forces. 

The United States is also helping the Moldovan Government secure its borders 

through a $35 million Defense Threat Reduction Agency Program supporting capacity-building of Moldova’s border guards. 

Question. As you know, the LIBERTAD Act codified into law specific democratic 

benchmarks that the Government of Cuba must meet before the President begins 

to normalize relations. Do you anticipate any efforts to normalize relations with 

Cuba in the next 2 years absence Cuba meeting the democratic standards specified 

in the LIBERTAD Act? 

Answer. The administration remains committed to policies that support the 

Cuban people’s desire to freely determine their future, reduce their dependence on 

the Cuban state, and advance U.S. national interests. We will continue to pursue 

constructive relations between the United States and Cuba, consistent with U.S. law 

and with our national interests. 

The Cuban Government infringes upon universally accepted rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, harasses members of independent civil 

society, and has kept a U.S. citizen detained for nearly 5 years for trying to bring 

Internet access to the Jewish community on the island. As President Obama has 

stated, the administration will continue to think creatively about how to promote 

positive change in Cuba. We look forward to the day when the Cuban people are 

able to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

Question. Do you have any reservations about U.S. programs that help the Cuban 

people communicate freely without government censorship? If confirmed, will you 

fully support such programs? 

Answer. There is no question that if I am confirmed as Deputy Secretary I will 

continue to support efforts to help Cuban citizens communicate more freely with one 

another and with the outside world. 

The Cuban Government continues to unduly limit fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, press, association and peaceful assembly, as well as the 

free flow of information to, from, and within the island. Although the Cuban Government continues to blame the U.S. embargo for lack of Internet on the island, the 

Cuban Government limits access to the Internet to a small number of professionals 

and the party faithful. Cuban restrictions on technologies, monitoring, censorship, 

and control over who has access to the Internet make Cuba among the leastconnected countries in the world. 

The President and his administration remain committed to policies that support 

the Cuban people’s desire to freely determine their future, reduce their dependence 

on the Cuban state, and advance U.S. national interests. As part of our policy, the 

administration has taken steps to improve conditions for Cuban citizens through initiatives aimed at increasing the free flow of information to, from, and among the 

Cuban people. U.S. foreign assistance supports this policy. 

Question. Secretary Kerry has said that the administration would not consider 

exchanging development worker, Alan Gross, for three Cuban spies that remain 

imprisoned in the United States, as there is no equivalency in their cases. Is this 

still the position of the administration? 

Answer. Alan Gross is an international development worker who was sentenced 

to 15 years and has been unjustly imprisoned by Cuban authorities for nearly 5 

814 

years. He deserves to come home to his family. Securing his release remains a top 

priority for the administration. 

Cuban Government interlocutors frequently attempt to compare Mr. Gross’ 

imprisonment to that of the convicted Cuban intelligence agents from the ‘‘Wasp 

Network,’’ three of whom continue to serve sentences in the United States. Mr. 

Gross was a development worker, and there is no comparison. His situation is fundamentally dissimilar to those of the convicted intelligence agents. 

Cuba’s continued imprisonment of Mr. Gross for trying to help Cubans gain access 

to the Internet is indefensible. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will use every 

appropriate diplomatic channel to press for Mr. Gross’ release, both publicly and 

privately. 

Question. As you know, the Summit of the Americas is coming up next year in 

Panama. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta 

Jacobson, has said that ‘‘. . . the summit process is committed to democratic governance and that the governments that are sitting at that table ought to be committed to the summit principles, which include democratic governance.’’ 

♦ Does the Cuban regime meet this standard? In your view, should the President 

attend if Cuban regime officials attend? 

Answer. The United States supports the important commitments—especially with 

respect to democracy and human rights—made at the 2001 Summit of the Americas 

in Quebec by all of the democratic states of our region. At that summit, all participating governments agreed, by consensus, that a ‘‘strict respect for the democratic 

system’’ is an essential condition for participation in the Summit of the Americas 

process. Cuba remains a clear outlier in the region in terms of democratic values 

and respect for human rights. As a hemispheric community, we should work to promote positive change, democratic reforms, and increased respect for human rights 

in Cuba. 

If confirmed, I will consult closely with the Assistant Secretaries for the Western 

Hemisphere and Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, as well as other senior 

Department of State and National Security Council officials, regarding President 

Obama’s attendance. I will engage with summit planners, organizers, and likeminded governments to advocate that the summit include meaningful engagement 

between leaders and members of civil society and that the summit reaffirms our 

region’s commitment to democracy and human rights, as expressed through the 

Inter-American Democratic Charter. 

RESPONSES OF ANTONY JOHN BLINKEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF FLAKE

Question. The President has indicated his willingness to work with Congress on 

a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to combat ISIL in Iraq 

and Syria. While the President continues to maintain that there will be no deployment of ‘‘combat troops’’ as part of this fight, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has testified before Congress that he would not rule 

out recommending the introduction of combat forces to this fight. 

♦ Would you support approval of an AUMF which included a prohibition on the 

deployment of combat forces in the fight against ISIL? 

Answer. As the President has stated, our strategy to work with a coalition of partners ‘‘to degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL’’ includes a number of key elements: 

a systematic campaign of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria; support to forces fighting 

ISIL on the ground; the use of our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks; and the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians who 

have been displaced by this terrorist organization. The President has also made 

clear that this effort does not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign 

soil. 

Although the President has the authority to address the threat from ISIL, he has 

said that we are strongest as a nation when the executive branch and Congress 

work together on matters involving the use of U.S. military force. The administration is therefore engaging with the Congress on a new AUMF. The goal of this 

engagement is to produce an AUMF that specifically addresses the current fight 

against ISIL and, as the President has said, ‘‘reflects what we perceive to be not 

just our strategy over the next 2 or 3 months, but our strategy going forward.’’ 

As I noted during my hearing, the administration will continue to engage with 

the Congress on the elements of an AUMF to ensure that they are appropriately 

tailored, while still preserving the authorities the President needs to execute his 

815 

counter-ISIL strategy and to respond as might be necessary to defend the United 

States. 

Question. How would the continued absence of an AUMF approved by Congress 

affect the coalition the administration has put together to fight ISIL? 

Answer. The President has been clear that he has the authority to address the 

threat from ISIL and to build a strong international coalition in support of that 

effort. The international coalition looks to the United States to continue to provide 

robust leadership in the fight against ISIL, and we are strongest as a nation—and 

as the leader of the coalition—when the executive branch and Congress work 

together on matters involving the use of U.S. military force. We would therefore welcome congressional support for our military efforts to combat ISIL including through 

a new AUMF. As I noted during my hearing, we want to work actively with Congress to develop one. 

RESPONSES OF ANTONY JOHN BLINKEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RAND PAUL

Question. Earlier this year, in spite of laws prohibiting U.S. assistance to the terrorist organization Hamas, the Obama administration quietly worked to help 

Hamas circumvent these clear funding prohibitions and join a U.S.-backed Palestinian unity government. 

♦ Do you believe Hamas is worthy of assistance from U.S. taxpayers? 

♦ Do you believe this U.S.-facilitated arrangement should continue even if Hamas 

maintains its refusal to renounce violence or to recognize Israel? 

Answer. Our position is absolutely clear and unchanged. Hamas remains a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The United States does not and will not 

provide any assistance to Hamas nor maintain any contact with members of Hamas. 

The Palestinian Authority (PA) government is comprised of independent technocrats; no members of Hamas are a part of this government and we assess that 

Hamas does not exert influence over the government. Moreover, the PA government 

has maintained its commitment to the principles of nonviolence and recognition of 

the State of Israel. We have made clear to the PA government that it must continue 

to uphold these principles. 

Assistance to the Palestinian people is an essential part of the U.S. commitment 

to a negotiated two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis, promoting a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It is in the interest of the United States to 

ensure these efforts continue as they help to build a more democratic, stable, prosperous, and secure region. 

The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014 enables continued economic assistance to the PA. Our 

foreign assistance to the PA is provided consistent with this authority. 

Question. At the same time that the Palestinian unity government was formed, 

the State Department indicated that ‘‘we will be judging this government by its 

actions.’’ Since that comment, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel. 

In the wake of the November 18 Jerusalem synagogue attack, a senior Hamas official rejected pleas to condemn the violence by reiterating his desire for intifada 

against Israel. 

♦ How would you then judge the unity government given these kinds of actions 

and statements? 

♦ How do you judge the political legitimacy of Hamas as a participant in that 

unity government? 

Answer. We have closely followed the actions of the Palestinian Authority (PA) 

government of national consensus since its formation in June 2014. The PA government is comprised of independent technocrats; no members of Hamas are a part of 

this government. We assess that Hamas exerts no influence over the PA government. President Abbas’ goal in pursuing reconciliation and in forming the PA government of national consensus is to end the period of Hamas rule in Gaza and 

empower the PA to reassert control there. 

The PA government has demonstrated its commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition of the State of Israel, and acceptance of previous commitments 

and obligations. Throughout this difficult period in recent months, President Abbas 

has directed the PA security services to take all possible measures to prevent terror 

attacks and dismantle terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank. Security cooperation between the Palestinian and Israeli security forces continues. President Abbas 

and other PA officials have consistently condemned violence, including the horrific 

816 

November 18 attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem that resulted in the deaths of 

three American citizens. As I noted during my hearing, the statement by a senior 

Hamas official apparently condoning the attack was ‘‘a reminder of Hamas’ true colors.’’ While we are urging the PA to do more to alleviate tensions on the ground, 

we recognize that President Abbas remains a key partner for peace. 

Hamas has refused to cooperate with the PA consensus government, blocking PA 

ministers from exercising control over their portfolios in Gaza; preventing PA 

employees in Gaza from reintegrating into the civil service; and refusing to disarm 

its military wing and cede control over security and border crossings in Gaza to the 

PA. We condemned Hamas’ deplorable attempts to target Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars this past summer and provided additional missile defense assistance to Israel to help protect millions of Israelis from the threat of rocket fire. 

Indeed, in the midst of the crisis, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States asked 

to see me urgently late at night at the White House. He conveyed a request from 

his government for more Iron Dome interceptors. I brought the request to the President the next morning. Within days, the administration made a formal request of 

Congress for $225 million in additional funding, which was approved. 

(817) 

NOMINATIONS OF PETER McKINLEY; ISOBEL 

COLEMAN; AND RICHARD VERMA 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

Peter Michael McKinley, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 

Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be Representative to the United 

Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of 

Ambassador; and as an Alternate Representative to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during 

her tenure of service as Representative to the United Nations 

for U.N. Management and Reform 

Richard Rahul Verma, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Republic of India 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Shaheen, Murphy, Kaine, Risch, 

Johnson, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator KAINE. This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee is called to order. 

Ranking Member Senator Risch is on his way and will be here 

presently. Senator Johnson, welcome. 

This is an important hearing dealing with three critical nominees. I will make opening statements. If Senator Risch is here, he 

will then make opening statements. If he is not here, we will move 

right to witness introductions and witness statements. 

I know Senator Reid, the majority leader, will be coming at some 

point during the hearing as well because he wants to give some introductory comments about the nominee for the India post, Richard 

Verma. When he arrives, we will offer him the chance to cut in line 

and make his intro comments because I know he will be moving 

on to other priorities. 

But I want to welcome all to this hearing. And it is good to see, 

given the importance of these posts, a full committee room. 

818 

Given what is occurring in the Nation’s current war against ISIL 

in the Middle East, there can be a danger, as we focus on those 

challenges, that we lose focus on the importance of other South 

Asian nations to the United States national interest. Afghanistan 

and India are very, very different nations with very different situations, but they are critical partners for the United States in the 

21st century. This is a region that demands more attention, not 

less, so that we can meet looming challenges, so we can seize new 

opportunities, and we can also take advantage of some significant 

progress that has been obtained through the work that has been 

done by the United States thus far. 

In India, I had the opportunity last month to have an excellent 

visit with Senator King, Angus King, and we had meetings with 

governmental, business, and civil society leaders. There is an extraordinary momentum in the relationship, and it is a wonderful 

time to capitalize on it. 

More than a billion and a half people, the world’s oldest democracy. The United States linking up with the world’s largest democracy is an incredible opportunity. The relationship is unique. It is 

built on a solid foundation from the bottom up, beginning with 

shared affection between the populations of the United States and 

India, people-to-people ties, business and entrepreneurial ties, and 

shared values. 

There is a greater potential, we learned as we visited, for defense 

and counterterrorism cooperation, trade and economic development. 

Senator King and I visited the Mazagon shipyards in Mumbai and 

also spent time at sites in Mumbai that were associated with the 

horrible terrorist attack on India in November 2008, another sad 

reality that both of our countries share both in our past but also 

in our concerns about today and tomorrow. 

We were very excited at Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the 

United States a few months ago which was truly amazing. I do not 

even think Senator Johnson or I could fill Madison Square Garden 

if we went. And Prime Minister Modi’s wonderful reception there 

and throughout his visit was remarkable. And we are excited that 

our President has been invited and is planning to go to India in 

January as a guest of honor for India’s Republic Day, which is the 

first time a United States President is receiving that honor. 

Afghanistan I first visited in 2006 as Governor. My most recent 

visit was also in October. We had a subcommittee hearing here in 

April where we looked at progress in Afghanistan that is often 

overlooked, progress that has been the result of many factors but 

including significant U.S. investments in time, talent, blood, and 

treasure. 

Despite the many challenges—and the challenges continue to 

exist. And we will certainly ask Ambassador McKinley about 

them—Afghanistan has undergone a particularly extraordinary 

transformation. At the turn of the century just 14 years ago, few 

could have imagined that in today’s Afghanistan 3 million Afghan 

girls are enrolled in school. Two-thirds of Afghans have cell phones. 

Over 75 television channels commonly accessed. Female life expectancy has increased by 20 years over the last 13 years, and that is 

20 extra years of life for more than 15 million women. 

819 

The security challenges cannot be underestimated. A recent spike 

in Taliban attacks especially in Kabul and elsewhere in the country 

raise concerns. We will talk about those. I very much support the 

decisions announced recently by the administration to broaden the 

authorities available to the U.S. military forces that remain in Afghanistan beginning in January 2015. I think that was important 

and smart. It certainly resonates with what folks in Afghanistan 

mentioned when we were there. 

At the U.N., the U.S. leadership in the United Nations is more 

critical than ever whether it is our efforts against ISIL, upholding 

Ukraine’s sovereignty, supporting Afghan political transition or 

continuing the very, very difficult challenge of hopefully finding a 

negotiated political settlement in the ongoing civil war in Syria. 

The U.N. plays a very important and critical role in promoting stability across the globe. The U.N. is often incredibly frustrating to 

us on this committee and incredibly frustrating to Americans of all 

political parties because of our belief that they can do more and 

that they should do more. And yet, it is important to remember 

that the U.N. only exists because of the farsighted wisdom of 

American leaders, particularly President Roosevelt who, even after 

the collapse of the League of Nations, knew that international institutions like the United Nations would be needed in the 20th century and beyond. And if the United States had not played a leadership role, we would not have these institutions and the world 

would be poorer as a result. 

The United States is the largest contributor to the U.N., but it 

also means we should strive to do the utmost to make sure that 

every dollar of taxpayer money is spent right and that we appropriately leverage the investment we make to try to promote reforms both in the management and operations of the U.N. but also 

in the seriousness and maturity with which they tackle global problems. 

So these are important posts that you are each being nominated 

for. 

Now let me introduce the nominees. 

Richard Verma serves as senior counselor to the global law firm 

of Steptoe & Johnson, as well as to Albright Stonebridge Group in 

Washington, DC. Mr. Verma has an extensive public service background in the State Department, as a longtime national security 

advisor to Majority Leader Harry Reid, to other private firms, and 

he began his public service career as a first lieutenant and captain 

in the United States Air Force. Mr. Verma, we congratulate you on 

your nomination and welcome you here today. 

Ambassador Michael McKinley assumed his current position as 

U.S. Deputy Ambassador to Afghanistan in September 2013. Previously Ambassador McKinley served as the U.S. Ambassador to 

Colombia and Peru. He was also Deputy Chief of Mission at the 

European Union in Brussels and prior to that has served in numerous posts in countries as far flung as Mozambique, Uganda, Belgium, Bolivia, tours in Washington. He joined the Foreign Service 

in 1982. He has expertise in Latin America, and that is obviously 

why he has been sent to so many countries not in Latin America. 

They did not want him to grow stale with his Latin American expertise. 

820 

Dr. Isobel Coleman was previously the senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. She directed the CFR Civil 

Society Markets and Democracy Program, and her areas of expertise included political economy of the Middle East, democratization, 

civil society, economic development, education reform, and gender 

issues. She is the author and coauthor of numerous books and articles. Prior to joining the CFR, she was the chief executive officer 

of a health care services company that partnered with McKinsey 

and Company in New York. She is a Marshall Scholar and holds 

degrees from Princeton and Oxford and serves on several nonprofit 

boards that are relevant to the proposed appointment to the United 

Nations. 

I would like to ask each of the witnesses to offer opening statements, and we will just start with Ambassador McKinley and move 

right across the table. Let me just see. Senator Risch is not yet 

here. When Senator Risch comes, I will offer him the chance to 

offer some opening comments, but I will have you deliver opening 

statements. Your entire written statements are going to be submitted into the record, so you can summarize if you choose. When 

Senator Reid comes, we will just pause and let him do the introductory comments that he wants to make about Mr. Verma. But welcome to all of you, and Ambassador McKinley, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER MICHAEL MCKINLEY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 

AFGHANISTAN 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 

as President Obama’s nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. I look forward, if confirmed by 

the Senate, to working with you to advance America’s interests 

there. 

I have spent the past year serving as Deputy Ambassador in 

Kabul and have had the honor to work with hundreds of remarkable civilian personnel and with our equally remarkable men and 

women in uniform. They serve as inspiration and a reminder of the 

immense sacrifices our Nation has made these past 13 years in Afghanistan and of our achievements. 

Our national security interest brought us to Afghanistan, and it 

is our national security interests that keep us there. The United 

States combat mission in Afghanistan will conclude at the end of 

this year, but we will maintain counterterrorism capability to prevent an al-Qaeda resurgence. In order to safeguard the progress we 

have made with our Afghan partners, we, along with our NATO allies and partners will continue to train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Security Forces. 

As Secretary Kerry said today at the NATO ministerial, we will 

also consult closely with Afghanistan’s leaders on security issues, 

to include a discussion of possible refinements to our plans regarding the mission’s duration, and work closely with ISAF Commander 

General Campbell as he makes his own assessments. Our shared 

partnership and successes in Afghanistan will help us continue to 

protect vital American interests in a critical region. 

821 

Afghanistan has undergone a major transformation. Millions of 

boys and girls go to school and university. Afghanistan has among 

the freest press in the region. The economy has quadrupled. Millions of refugees returned home. Women are no longer in the shadows. 

This is the context for 2014, a year that we knew would be one 

of transition. I want to talk about where that transition stands. 

Even as the Afghan Security Forces now provide security for the 

majority of Afghan people, Afghans recognize the need for continued international support. On September 30, 1 day after his inauguration, President Ghani and CEO Abdullah witnessed the signing of the bilateral security agreement and the NATO status of 

forces agreement. The Afghan Parliament overwhelmingly ratified 

both. 

The transition is also happening politically. This year saw Afghanistan’s first peaceful democratic transfer of power as Ashraf 

Ghani succeeded Hamid Karzai as President. The election was not 

easy, and we should not have expected it to be. Yet, millions of Afghans defied Taliban threats and voted. With fraud allegations 

threatening to undermine the election, the candidates agreed to an 

unprecedented audit, to abide by its outcome, and to form a unity 

government. The result is a legitimate and inclusive government. 

The new government knows that continued international assistance depends on concrete actions. President Ghani is acting, presenting an austerity budget and reopening the Kabul Bank investigation. He has pledged to address corruption at all levels, to bolster revenue collection, to reform the banking sector, to work with 

donors on a sustainable long-term strategy, and to protect the 

gains women have made as USAID launches its largest-ever gender 

program with Promote. These themes are at the center of the national unity government’s presentation at the London Conference 

which begins tomorrow. 

We owe the U.S. taxpayer the strictest accountability and assurances that the resources we provide will be used to good effect. If 

confirmed, I will work closely with all of our oversight inspection 

offices to address the shortcomings that are identified in our programming and to chart the most transparent way forward. 

The new government is also improving Afghanistan’s relations 

with the international community. Both President Ghani and CEO 

Abdullah are in Brussels today and will attend the London Conference. President Ghani has reached out to neighbors in the Heart 

of Asia meeting in Beijing, at the South Asia summit in Nepal, and 

has visited Pakistan. 

The optimism I express reflects the energy of the government of 

national unity, which took office just over 60 days ago. The terrible 

acts of terrorism by the Taliban in recent days will not slow this 

momentum. Afghans are hopeful for their future and want to take 

control of their destiny. We have a stake in their success not just 

because of our sacrifices or the partnership we built with the Afghan people, but because Afghanistan’s success is in our national 

interest. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador McKinley follows:] 

822 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER MICHAEL MCKINLEY

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the 

next U.S. Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. I am honored to have 

been nominated by the President, and look forward, if confirmed by the Senate, to 

working closely with you to advance America’s interests in Afghanistan. 

I have spent the past year serving as Deputy Ambassador in Kabul, and have had 

the honor to work with hundreds of remarkable civilian personnel from across the 

U.S. Government and with our equally remarkable men and women in uniform. 

They serve as inspiration and a daily reminder of the immense sacrifices our Nation 

has made these past 13 years in Afghanistan, and of the achievements that provide 

a strong foundation for the next phase of our relationship with the Afghan people. 

Our national security interest brought us to Afghanistan 13 years ago, and it is 

our national security interest that keeps us there. It was in Afghanistan that the 

attacks of September 11, 2001, were planned. It was in Afghanistan that al-Qaeda 

had its safest harbor. As the President announced in May, the United States combat 

mission in Afghanistan will conclude at the end of this year, but we will continue 

to maintain a counterterrorism capability there to prevent an al-Qaeda resurgence 

in Afghanistan. And in order to safeguard the progress we have made in building 

with our Afghan partners a stronger, more stable, and more resilient Afghanistan, 

we, along with our NATO allies and other international partners, will continue to 

train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Our shared 

partnership and successes in Afghanistan will help us continue to protect vital 

American interests in a critical region of the globe. 

Thirteen years on, Afghanistan has undergone a major transformation. Millions 

of boys and girls go to school and university. Afghanistan has among the freest 

press and political environments in the region. The economy has quadrupled in size. 

Afghans have participated in four major elections. Millions of refugees have 

returned home. Women are no longer in the shadows but have a place in Afghanistan’s Government and public society. While we continue to help, the Afghan 

National Security Forces (ANSF) have the lead in combat operations and provide 

security for the majority of the Afghans. 

This is the context for 2014, a year that we anticipated would be a critical point 

of transition. And so it has proved to be. After a difficult period when the future 

of the U.S. security relationship with Afghanistan was unclear; when it was unclear 

whether a peaceful political transition could be achieved; and when the economic 

future of Afghanistan appeared to hang in the balance; the transition is happening, 

the Bilateral Security Agreement has been ratified, there is a new government in 

Kabul, and the Afghans can now turn their attention to their economy. 

On the security front, as noted, the ANSF have had the lead role in all combat 

operations since June 2013, and are on track to assume full security responsibility 

at the end of this year. They secured two rounds of elections earlier this year. The 

courage of the ANSF in carrying on the fight in spite of heavy casualties is a tribute 

to their resolve. Now, the ANSF are looking to consolidate the gains of past years, 

improve respect for human rights, and strengthen their capabilities to counter the 

Taliban and be a more effective partner to us in countering terrorism. 

Afghans have recognized and welcomed the need for continued international support. On September 30, one day after his inauguration, President Ashraf Ghani, 

with his former rival and now his Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, 

witnessed the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) and the NATO 

Status of Forces Agreement. The Afghan Parliament voted overwhelmingly to 

endorse ratification of both of these agreements, demonstrating the broad popular 

support for a continued security relationship with the United States and our allies 

and partners. These agreements give us the basis to work with NATO and partner 

nations to train, advise, and assist Afghan forces and to continue our counterterrorism mission. 

The transition is also happening politically. This year saw the first peaceful, 

democratic transition of power in Afghanistan’s history, as Ashraf Ghani succeeded 

Hamid Karzai as President. The election was not easy, and we should not have 

expected it to be. The Taliban made clear their intention to target those who went 

to the polls. Two years ago, the country did not have the necessary legal framework 

for national elections. Millions of new voters needed to be registered; and the logistics and security for the elections took months to plan. 

Afghans overcame these challenges, passing electoral laws, registering nearly 4 

million new voters, more than a third of whom were women, and distributing ballots 

to every province. Afghan political leaders put together strong, multiethnic tickets, 

three of which included women as vice-presidential candidates. They conducted 

823 

nationwide campaigns, organized hundreds of rallies and held many televised debates. And millions of Afghans defied Taliban threats and voted. 

When credible allegations of fraud threatened to undermine these achievements, 

the two leading candidates agreed to an unprecedented audit, to abide by its outcome, and to form a unity government. The result is a legitimate and inclusive 

government of national unity with a solid mandate to pursue reforms to increase 

security, improve governance, strengthen democracy, and build the economy. It is 

important to emphasize that, while the United States and the international community facilitated this effort, the outcome is an Afghan political agreement that reflects 

the will of Afghan voters. 

The transition is also happening in economic terms and developmental terms, as 

investors and ordinary Afghans look to the future with greater confidence and the 

new government outlines important reform objectives. 

At the same time, however, it is clear that continued international assistance 

depends on concrete actions by Afghanistan to address corruption, increase transparency, improve revenue collection, and implement economic policies to lessen its 

dependence on aid. There are real concerns about the short-term fiscal shortfall the 

new government inherited and the need for a more sustainable economic model. 

President Ghani is already implementing an austerity regime, has pledged to reform 

Afghanistan’s budget process, address endemic corruption, bolster revenue collection, reform the banking sector, and work with donors on a sustainable long-term 

strategy to grow the economy and to create employment. These are critical steps 

toward making Afghanistan an increasingly self-reliant, sustainable state. These 

themes are the centerpiece of the national unity government’s presentation at the 

London Conference on Afghanistan which begins tomorrow December 3. 

We owe the U.S. taxpayer the strictest accountability and assurances that the 

resources we provide will be used to achieve our foreign policy goals, strengthening 

and building on what has been achieved. I will, if confirmed, work closely with all 

our oversight inspection offices, including SIGAR, to address real shortcomings that 

are identified in our programming, and to chart the most transparent paths forward 

to success. This includes reviewing our counternarcotics programs as part of the 

broader challenge to develop strong Afghan institutions and implement the rule of 

law. 

As I have noted, there have been many gains in the area of women’s rights. The 

new Afghan Government intends to build on these gains. Three weeks ago, Ambassador Cunningham and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, in partnership with 

President Ghani, committed to the largest-ever USAID gender program in the 

world. The goals are to empower women entering leadership positions, expand 

higher education for girls, and strengthen gender protections. President Ghani has 

also pledged to nominate women to senior positions in the Cabinet and judiciary. 

The optimism I express reflects the energy of the government of national unity, 

which took office less than 60 days ago and is already transforming promises—to 

promote national unity, protect human rights, and tackle corruption—into action. 

President Ghani, with the full support of CEO Abdullah, reopened the Kabul Bank 

investigation, the largest financial scandal in the nation’s history. Money laundering 

regulations have been improved and issued. Reporters penalized for doing their jobs 

have been allowed to return to work. Judges complicit in the release of a drug trafficker have been charged. The government of national unity has also signed and 

effectively lobbied for ratification of the BSA and NATO SOFA and announced 

agreement on a formula and a timeline for appointing Cabinet members. 

The new government acted quickly to improve Afghanistan’s relations with the 

international community. Both President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah are 

in Brussels today for the NATO ministerial and will attend the London Conference 

tomorrow. President Ghani recognizes the importance of regional integration and 

has already reached out to neighbors in the ‘‘Heart of Asia’’ meeting in Beijing, and 

the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) discussions in Nepal. 

Energy investments and trade reforms are at the top of the integration agenda. 

President Ghani also visited Pakistan recently. The two countries are now focused 

on new opportunities to improve security cooperation and cross-border linkages in 

transportation, energy, and trade. 

Ultimately, there will be the need to address a political solution to the conflict 

with the insurgency. President Ghani has taken the step of inviting the Taliban to 

talks. The United States has made clear we support efforts to negotiate an end to 

conflict inside Afghanistan. This, however, must remain an Afghan-owned, Afghanled political process. 

Afghans are hopeful for their future and want to take control of their destiny. At 

the same time, we have a stake in their success. Not just because of our sacrifices, 

or the partnership we built with the Afghan people, but because Afghanistan’s sucVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00831 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
824 

cess will, I repeat, will help protect vital American interests in a critical region of 

the globe. Our challenge is to consolidate and strengthen the gains of the past 13 

years. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the committee. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador McKinley. 

Dr. Coleman. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ISOBEL COLEMAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE 

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT AND REFORM, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR; 

AND AS AN ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS DURING HER TENURE OF SERVICE AS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT AND 

REFORM 

Dr. COLEMAN. Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, and 

other distinguished members, I am truly honored to come before 

you as the President’s nominee to be the U.S. Representative to the 

United Nations for Management and Reform. I am grateful to 

President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Ambassador Power for 

their confidence. 

And I would also like to briefly acknowledge my family members 

who are here: my parents, my father and stepmother; my children, 

my five children; and my niece, Chloe, who are here today. They 

are a tremendous source of pride for me. So I appreciate their support. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to advance 

America’s interests at the United Nations. At its best, the U.N. can 

be a powerful partner of the United States, promoting our values 

and advancing global peace and security at far less cost to American taxpayers than if we act alone. Today, under enormously difficult conditions, U.N. peacekeepers are bolstering fragile states in 

places such as Liberia, Mali, and Haiti. U.N. experts are on the 

front lines of the Ebola crisis, working to halt its spread. Each of 

these critical activities and many others conducted daily by various 

U.N. agencies around the world are tackling global challenges and 

humanitarian crises that no one nation can or should have to address on its own. 

But as we all know, the U.N. can be more effective. As President 

Obama has said, the U.N. is indispensable but also imperfect. Too 

often, there is a significant gap between the promise of the organization and the reality of its shortcomings, such as incidents of sexual exploitation by individual peacekeepers or politically motivated 

resolutions. As the largest contributor to the United Nations, we 

have a significant stake in holding wrongdoers accountable and demanding transparency and effectiveness across the entire organization. In recent years, U.S.-led reform efforts have achieved some 

meaningful results, such as creating a new inspector general for 

peacekeeping missions and streamlined logistics through the Global 

Field Support Strategy. Much-needed rationalization, for example, 

has led to the elimination of nearly 220 redundant positions and 

the freezing of salary and benefits for U.N. staff while the U.N. undergoes a comprehensive review of its compensation practices. 

825 

But let us not lose sight of the fact that the U.N.’s regular budget doubled in size in 10 years. There is clearly room for greater 

budget discipline. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the U.N. 

is deploying its resources in the most efficient and effective way, 

that it is conducting its business in a consistently ethical and 

transparent fashion, and that it is meeting the highest standards 

of conduct and integrity. American taxpayers deserve no less. 

I have spent much of my professional life bringing reform and accountability to a variety of organizations. For nearly a decade, I 

was a management consultant at McKinsey, helping some of the 

biggest multinational corporations streamline complicated business 

and management operations; implement world-class human resource solutions; improve risk management and cut costs. I also 

worked in a pro bono capacity with public institutions such as the 

New York City Department of Education on multiyear efforts to enhance accountability and improve performance. In many of my client situations, I had to work with managers determined to maintain the status quo; legacy systems resistant to modernization; and 

organizations skeptical of change. Achieving success in these efforts 

depended on my listening to good ideas from all quarters and finding ways to bring the naysayers on board. 

As a small business founder and CEO, I developed a deep intolerance for seeing scarce resources wasted or misused through a business-as-usual mindset. Having to make payroll every week instilled 

in me an even stronger appreciation for the value of each and every 

dollar. 

For the past 12 years at the Council on Foreign Relations, I have 

focused my energies on bringing attention to the possibilities of reform in a global context, including economic reform, gender equality, educational reform, and political reform. The constant thread 

connecting all my work has been a relentless focus on improving 

outcomes. The opportunity to represent American interests in management and reform efforts at the United Nations in many ways 

uniquely marries my operational and management experience with 

my deep engagement on global issues. 

If confirmed, I would be honored to join Ambassador Power in 

her determined efforts to make the U.N. more effective, efficient, 

and accountable. Working with others in the administration, in 

Congress, and especially with this committee, I would do my utmost to help the U.N. live up both to its ideals and its potential. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here before you today, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Coleman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ISOBEL COLEMAN

Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, and distinguished members, I am truly 

honored to come before you as the President’s nominee to be the U.S. Representative 

to the United Nations for Management and Reform. I am grateful to President 

Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Ambassador Power for their confidence. I would like 

briefly to acknowledge my family members—my father and stepmother, my husband 

Struan, niece Chloe who lives with us, and my five children—who are here today 

for this hearing. My family is a source of tremendous pride and joy for me and I 

so appreciate their support. 

Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to advance America’s interests 

at the United Nations. At its best, the U.N. can be a powerful partner of the United 

States, promoting our values, and advancing global peace and security at far less 

826 

cost to American taxpayers than if we act alone. Today, under enormously difficult 

conditions, U.N. peacekeepers are bolstering fragile states in places such as Liberia, 

Mali, and Haiti; U.N. experts are on the front lines of the Ebola crisis, working to 

halt its spread; and in Iraq, U.N. agencies are making their biggest push in a decade to provide emergency shelter and essential vaccinations to the nearly 2 million 

Iraqis displaced by the current violence in advance of winter. Each of these critical 

activities, and many others conducted daily by various U.N. agencies around the 

world, are tackling global challenges and humanitarian crises that no one nation 

can, or should have to, address on its own. When the U.N. works effectively, Americans are safer, our interests are promoted and burdens are fairly shared across 

member states. 

But as we all know, the U.N. can be more effective. As President Obama has said, 

the U.N. is ‘‘indispensable’’ but also ‘‘imperfect.’’ Too often, there is a significant gap 

between the promise of the organization, and the reality of its shortcomings, such 

as incidents of sexual exploitation by individual peacekeepers or politically motivated resolutions. As the largest contributor to the United Nations, we have a significant stake in holding wrongdoers accountable and demanding transparency and 

effectiveness across the entire organization. In recent years, U.S.-led reform efforts 

have achieved some meaningful results, such as creating a new inspector general 

for peacekeeping missions and streamlined logistics through the Global Field Support Strategy. Much-needed rationalization, for example, has led to the elimination 

of nearly 220 redundant positions and the freezing of salary and benefits for U.N. 

staff while the U.N. undergoes a comprehensive review of its compensation practices. The result has been the slowing of the long-term growth trend of the regular 

budget. 

But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the U.N.’s regular budget doubled in size 

over 10 years. There is clearly room for greater budget discipline. If confirmed I will 

work to ensure that the U.N. is deploying its resources in the most efficient and 

effective way, that it is conducting its business in a consistently ethical and transparent fashion, and that it is meeting the highest standards of conduct and integrity. American taxpayers deserve no less. 

To ensure that U.S. funds are spent responsibly, improvements are still needed 

in audit transparency, whistleblower protections, and oversight. With over 70 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget going to personnel costs, the U.N. must have an 

effective human resources system that delivers the most capable and dynamic workforce, ensures accountability for performance and results, and also controls growth 

in compensation costs. Procurement and business processes must also meet international best practices. 

I have spent much of my professional life bringing reform and accountability to 

a variety of organizations. For nearly a decade, I was a management consultant at 

McKinsey, helping some of the biggest multinational corporations streamline complicated business operations; implement world-class human resource solutions; 

improve risk management and cut costs. I also worked in a pro bono capacity with 

public institutions such as the New York City Department of Education on 

multiyear efforts to enhance accountability and improve performance. In many of 

my client situations, I had to work with managers determined to maintain the status quo; legacy systems resistant to modernization; and organizations skeptical of 

change. Achieving success in these efforts depended on my listening to good ideas 

from all quarters and finding ways to bring the naysayers on board. 

As a small business founder and CEO, I developed a deep intolerance for seeing 

scarce resources wasted or misused through a ‘‘business-as-usual’’ mind-set. Having 

to make payroll every week instilled in me an even stronger appreciation for the 

value of each and every dollar. 

For the past 12 years at the Council on Foreign Relations, I have focused my 

energies on bringing attention to the possibilities of reform in a global context: 

including economic reform, gender equality, educational reform, and political reform. 

The constant thread connecting all my work has been a relentless focus on improving outcomes. The opportunity to represent American interests in management and 

reform efforts at the United Nations in many ways uniquely marries my operational 

and management experience with my deep engagement on global issues. 

If confirmed, I would be honored to join Ambassador Power in her determined 

efforts to make the U.N. more effective, efficient, and accountable. Working with 

others in the administration, in Congress, and especially in this committee, I would 

do my utmost to help the U.N. live up both to its ideals and its potential. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Dr. Coleman. 

827 

Mr. Verma. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD RAHUL VERMA, OF 

MARYLAND, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA 

Mr. VERMA. Mr. Chairman and Senator Risch, it is a great honor 

to appear before you today. I have worked closely with this committee for many years when I worked in the Senate Leader’s office 

and also when I was at the State Department as the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. If confirmed, I am committed to 

working with this committee closely again in shaping our relationship with India, a country so important that President Obama 

called it the defining relationship for the United States in the 21st 

century. 

Let me thank Senator Reid in advance, who will be here to do 

an introduction of me. I also want to thank President Obama for 

nominating me and Secretary Kerry for offering me the chance to 

be back in the State Department family once again. It is a high 

honor and a privilege I do not take lightly. 

Let me also thank my family and friends that are here today. 

There are 11 members of my family here. I will not introduce all 

of them. But my wife Pinky and my children, Zoe, Lucy, and 

Dylan—I owe them all a special debt of thanks as they have enthusiastically embraced this new adventure and supported me at every 

turn. And to my parents, Dr. Kamal Verma, who is here today, and 

my mother, the late Savitri Verma; they left India, the country 

they loved, some 50 years ago to build a new life here in America, 

overcoming odds and working so hard. I cannot thank them enough 

for their courage, wisdom, and countless sacrifices they made on 

behalf of their children. And my wife’s father, Fred Blackwell, a 

World War II veteran and former chief counsel of the Senate Labor 

Committee, is here as well. 

There is a no question that this a defining and exciting time in 

the United States-India relationship. President Obama will make 

a historic visit to India in January, becoming the first United 

States head of state to attend India’s Republic Day and the only 

sitting U.S. President to visit India twice. His trip will build on 

Prime Minister Modi’s highly successful visit to the United States 

this past September. There is little doubt the relationship has been 

reenergized, with renewed enthusiasm to take our partnership to 

the next level. 

The United States’ strategic partnership with India is rooted in 

our shared democratic values and in our joint vision of a peaceful, 

just, and prosperous world. From expanding trade and defense relationships, to ensuring maritime security and freedom of navigation, from countering terrorist networks, to promoting clean energy 

and sustainable development, the United States and India share a 

wide range of critical national interests. Our partnership is deep. 

It touches nearly every endeavor of human pursuit, and it has produced important gains for each of our countries. 

Two-way trade between our nations has increased fivefold to 

$100 billion. The President and Prime Minister have talked about 

increasing it another fivefold, which would create tens of thousands 

of jobs in both countries. 

828 

On the defense front, the United States has become one of India’s 

largest suppliers of defense items, and active discussions continue 

on identifying projects for coproduction and development, as well as 

renewing our 10-year defense framework agreement. 

Our people-to-people exchanges are flourishing. There are over 

100,000 Indian students studying in the United States, and the Indian diaspora in the United States, now estimated to be over 3 million, continues to make deep and lasting contributions to United 

States society. 

On climate, energy, health, infrastructure, human rights, development, and so much more, the United States and Indian potential 

for collaboration and joint problem-solving is limited only by our 

imagination. 

Beyond our initiatives, we are working hard at increasing regional connectivity. India shares our belief that peace and stability 

are much more likely to be sustained when the countries of the region are tied together in trade, economic agreements, and through 

physical infrastructure. 

Across Asia, United States and Indian interests are converging. 

India has been called the lynchpin of our Asia rebalance. With India’s Look East policies, our two countries can play a critically important role together in bolstering peace and security and promoting a rules-based, liberal, democratic order in the Indo-Pacific 

region. 

And the ripple effects of our partnership need not be limited to 

Asia. As Prime Minister Modi noted, the true power and potential 

in this relationship is that when the oldest and largest democracies 

come together, the world will benefit. 

We will have our differences from time to time. Close friends 

often do, but when we do have differences, it is imperative that we 

maintain a healthy dialogue, as we did recently with the Trade Policy Forum and as we will with the Civil-Nuclear Contact Group. 

We can stand up for our interests while not losing sight of the larger strategic interests that India and the United States share together. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will faithfully discharge 

my most fundamental responsibility and that is to protect the welfare of American citizens in India. This includes providing a safe 

and secure work environment for the U.S. Government employees 

and their families at Embassy New Delhi and our consulates in 

Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai. We value their distinguished service, and I will be their biggest advocate and supporter. 

Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that I am deeply appreciative of all those who have served and worked so hard on cultivating this relationship over the many decades, the diplomats, development experts, security professionals, Members of Congress, 

and so many more, but also the immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, those who took a chance like my parents who worked 

hard, who continue to pursue their dreams, and along the way 

have helped ensure India and the United States have become the 

closest of friends. 

Again, I appreciate the chance to be here today and look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verma follows:] 

829 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. VERMA

Mr. Chairman and Senator Risch, it is a great honor to appear before you today. 

I have worked closely with this committee for many years, when I worked in the 

Senate Leader’s office and at the State Department as the Assistant Secretary for 

Legislative Affairs. If confirmed, I am committed to partnering with you again in 

shaping our relationship to India—a country so important that President Obama 

called it the defining relationship for the United States in the 21st century. 

I would like to thank Senator Reid for his kind introduction, and of course, I 

would like to thank President Obama for nominating me, and Secretary Kerry for 

offering me the chance to again be part of the State Department family. It is a high 

honor and privilege that I don’t take lightly. I’m also delighted to be here with 

Ambassador Mike McKinley, a highly decorated diplomat who represents the best 

of the Foreign Service, and Isobel Coleman, who brings a breadth of foreign policy 

experience to a critical position, Representative of the United States to the United 

Nations for U.N. Management and Reform. 

Let me also thank my family and friends that have helped get me to this place. 

My wife, Pinky, my children Zoe, Lucy, and Dylan, I owe them all a special debt 

of thanks, as they have enthusiastically embraced this new adventure and supported me at every turn. And, to my parents, Dr. Kamal Verma, who is here today, 

and my mother, the late Savitri Verma. They left India—the country they loved— 

50 years ago to build a new life here in America, overcoming odds and working so 

hard. I can’t thank them enough for their courage, wisdom, and countless sacrifices 

they made on behalf of their children. 

For over two decades, I have had the good fortune of working in the national security and foreign policy arenas, with much of that time focused on South Asia. 

Whether in the military, working here on Capitol Hill, the State Department or in 

the private sector, I have seen firsthand how consequential our partnership with 

India can be. 

There is no question that this is a defining and exciting time in the U.S.-India 

relationship. President Obama will make a historic visit to India in January, becoming the first U.S. head of state to attend India’s Republic Day and the only sitting 

U.S. President to visit India twice. His trip will build on Prime Minister Modi’s 

highly successful visit to the United States this past September. There’s little doubt 

the relationship has been reenergized, with renewed enthusiasm to take our partnership to the next level. 

The United States strategic partnership with India is rooted in our shared democratic values and in our joint vision of a peaceful, just, and prosperous world. From 

expanding trade and defense relationships, to ensuring maritime security and freedom of navigation; from countering terrorist networks, to promoting clean energy 

and sustainable development, the United States and India share a wide range of 

critical national interests. Our partnership is deep, it touches nearly every endeavor 

of human pursuit, and it has produced important gains for each of our countries. 

Two-way trade between our nations has increased fivefold since 2001 to nearly 

$100 billion. In their recent meetings, President Obama and PM Modi committed 

to increasing trade another fivefold, which would create tens of thousands of new 

jobs in both the United States and India. 

On the defense front, the United States has become one of India’s largest suppliers of defense items over the last 3 years and active discussions continue on identifying projects for coproduction and development as well as renewing our 10-year 

Defense Framework Agreement. 

Our people-to-people exchanges are flourishing. There are over 100,000 Indian 

students currently studying in the United States. And, the Indian diaspora in the 

United States, now estimated to number over 3 million, continues to make deep and 

lasting contributions to U.S. society. 

On climate, energy, health, infrastructure, human rights, and development and so 

much more—the U.S. and Indian potential for collaboration and joint problem-solving is limited only by our imagination. 

Beyond our initiatives, we are working hard at increasing regional connectivity. 

India shares our belief that peace and stability are much more likely to be sustained 

when the countries of the region are tied together in trade, economic agreements, 

and through physical infrastructure. 

Across Asia, U.S. and Indian interests are converging. India has been called the 

lynchpin of our Asia rebalance. With India’s Look East, and now Act East policies, 

our two countries can play a critically important role together in bolstering peace 

and security and promoting a rules-based, liberal, democratic order in the IndoPacific region. 

830 

The ripple effects of our partnership need not be limited to Asia. As Prime Minister Modi noted, the true power and potential in this relationship is that when the 

oldest and largest democracies come together, the world will benefit. 

We will have our differences from time to time—close friends often do—but when 

we do have differences, it is imperative that we maintain a healthy dialogue. The 

successful Trade Policy Forum held just last week in New Delhi—the first since 

2010—and the recently established Civil-Nuclear Contact Group are examples of our 

collaborative, dialogue-driven approach when pursuing consensus in key areas. We 

can stand up for our interests, while not losing sight of the larger strategic interests 

that India and the United States share together. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will faithfully discharge my most fundamental responsibility: to promote and protect the welfare of American citizens in 

India. This includes providing a safe and secure work environment for the U.S. Government employees and their families at Embassy New Delhi and our consulates in 

Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai. We value their distinguished service, 

and I intend to be their biggest advocate and supporter. 

Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that I am deeply appreciative of all those 

who have worked so hard on cultivating this relationship over many decades—the 

diplomats, development experts, security professionals, Members of Congress, and 

so many other dedicated public servants; but also the immigrants from the Indian 

subcontinent, those who took a chance like my parents, who worked hard, who continue to pursue their dreams, and along the way have helped ensure India and the 

United States become the closest of friends and partners. I will strive to live up to 

the high standards they have set. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the chance to be here today, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Verma. 

We will begin questioning now. We will have a round of 7-minute 

questions. There is some chance that we may get into multiple 

rounds of questions because these are important nominations and 

important posts. 

And the hearing of this committee will remain open until the 

close of business today so that any members attending or not who 

have questions to submit for the record can submit questions by 

the end of the day. And we would encourage your prompt response 

should they do so. 

To Ambassador McKinley, talk a little bit about what you see as 

the reason for the recent up-tick of attacks in Kabul but maybe 

more especially how are the Afghan forces responding to those upticks in Taliban attacks? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Well, there is a cyclical approach to the 

tactics the insurgency employs inside the country, and we have 

been here before. There have been up-ticks in urban violence and 

terrorism targeting civilians at different stages over the last 13 

years. Over the last few weeks but certainly throughout this year, 

there has been emphasis on attacking urban centers. The Taliban 

sought to thwart the elections which took place this year, and they 

are also trying to challenge the relationship that Afghanistan will 

have with the international community going forward. 

The fact of the matter is, as you look at not just this year, but 

the last 2 years of progression in the capabilities of the Afghan Security Forces to deal with security inside their own country, they 

are having successes. At the moment, there is a very serious review 

going on on Kabul’s security involving the police, the security 

forces, and obviously the international partners. But the fact of the 

matter is, as you look at the year as a whole, insurgent activity inside the country looks like it will be at or lower than the levels of 

2013 and in the context of the Afghan Security Forces carrying out 

99 percent of operations inside the country. 

831 

Senator KAINE. Ambassador McKinley, you raised in your opening comments some of the positives that you have seen, that we 

have seen since the formation of the national unity government, 

which was significantly aided by the efforts of Secretary Kerry and 

others in the State Department. The London donor’s conference, 

which starts within a few days—one of the questions I know the 

donors are going to be pressing is the formation of the Cabinet. I 

read the news earlier this week that the President, President 

Ghani, had dismissed the previous Cabinet. Talk about the 

progress toward the formation of a new Cabinet. I gather that that 

has been difficult, and I would love to get kind of a status report. 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Well, the government of national unity 

came about after a prolonged electoral crisis in which there was an 

audit and then discussion between the two candidates on what the 

path forward would be, and a government of national unity duly 

emerged at the end of September. 

Over the past 60 days, President Ghani and CEO Abdullah have 

actually been working well together, meeting several times a week, 

discussing the major policy issues on the table, agreeing to very 

specific measures to put meat on the bones of the reforms that both 

promised when they were candidates. 

In terms of the division of power inside the Cabinet, these discussions have taken longer than some would have wished, but on Sunday President Ghani, CEO Abdullah, and all of their deputies on 

national television and radio announced that they had an agreement on the methodology going forward, picking future Cabinet 

Ministers who would be new to the Cabinet and untainted by the 

past, and have a formula for how they will divide these Cabinet positions between the two groupings inside the government. The anticipation is that the naming of actual ministers will take place 

over the next 2 to 4 weeks. So, again, while it is taking longer than 

some might have desired, the progression is all in the right direction. 

And I would note that on Sunday the two teams, so to speak, appearing together was the first time that had been seen since the 

signing of the BSA and was yet another public and important symbolic exhibition of a national unity government with a sense of purpose going forward. 

Senator KAINE. We have had testimony at this committee and before the Armed Services Committee that corruption may pose a 

more significant existential threat to Afghanistan than terrorism. 

What can the United States best do to engage in accountability and 

governance issues with the new unity government? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. We are very fortunate that the unity 

government, since it has come in, has made fighting corruption a 

priority. When you look at the documentation and the work that 

has gone into preparing for the London Conference, in fact the government’s presentation in London in 2 days—and I am not really 

anticipating. It has already been foreshadowed over the past 

week—will include a very strong component on specific measures 

to address corruption inside the country. In fact, President Ghani 

and CEO Abdullah have signaled that fighting corruption has to 

rank in the top two or three priorities of the new government. 

832 

In terms of specific measures, we are looking at everything from 

the reopening of the Kabul Bank investigation, the biggest financial scandal in the country’s history where $900 million went missing. We are taking a look at reviewing how customs is administered. The President is speaking about replacing hundreds of corrupt officials and revamping the customs and revenue collection 

system around the country. There is going to be an effort to revive 

the strength and efficacy of the judiciary, taking a look at the attorney general’s office, taking a look at how the Supreme Court operates. Procurement is going to be taken out of individual government ministries and centralized so that there is greater transparency and less opportunity for fraud in contracting in this government. There are other measures that the President has proposed, and he will be laying out in greater detail in London in the 

next 2 days. But the fact of the matter is more is being done. More 

has been done in the last 60 days than we have seen in many 

years. 

Senator KAINE. One more question. Then I would like to have 

Majority Leader Reid offer introductory comments about Mr. 

Verma. 

A personal opinion. I had been concerned from my first visit to 

Afghanistan in 2006 that policymakers with a lot of challenges on 

our plate have in the past turned our eyes away from Afghanistan, 

and we have let situations in Iraq take our attention in another direction. When I was in Afghanistan in 2006, the then-Ambassador 

warned that that could happen and he was concerned about it. And 

I think often that has, in fact, happened. Now we have a significant 

challenge in Iraq with the war against ISIL that we have to take 

very seriously. But I do have some concern, as we are tackling that 

threat, that it could cause us to turn our attention away from Afghanistan. 

If you could talk about the fragility of the gains that we have 

achieved and give us an encouragement to maintain our eye on the 

need for continued promotion and acceleration of progress in the 

country. 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. If I can start by saying that in the first 

place, thanks in large part to the support of the members of this 

committee, but our commitment to Afghanistan over a very difficult 

period in the last 2 years have been difficult in terms of our bilateral relationship with the country. We have stayed the course. 

There is a bilateral security agreement on the table which will give 

us an opportunity to continue a strong security relationship going 

forward. There is a significant commitment both in terms of what 

we will do to support the Afghan Security Forces in budgetary 

terms. The commitment we are making in terms of development 

assistance, sustaining the pledges that we made in Tokyo in 2012. 

So the basis for a strong, ongoing relationship with Afghanistan is 

there. 

It depends on the new Afghan Government making good on the 

many commitments to reform it has already announced and frankly 

a transformation of the relationship with the United States going 

into this next stage of our relationship with the country. And we 

do have a strong basis. We are working very differently on political 

issues, on security issues, on developmental issues going forward. 

833 

Notwithstanding, the fragility is there. The poverty rate in the 

country is still 36 percent of the population below the poverty line. 

The Taliban insurgency remains a very serious concern. Afghanistan’s democracy has progressed but still needs consolidation, and 

in fact, one of the objectives of the government of national unity is 

to strengthen governance and democratic reforms in the coming 

years. And given those fragilities, I think the importance of sustaining a positive forward-looking relationship with Afghanistan is 

extraordinarily important, and if I could add, in the context of what 

is happening more widely in the region, the successes we have in 

Afghanistan are important to consolidate, and we now have a government and the basis on which to make good on the gains that 

we have had. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ambassador McKinley. 

As I indicated at the top of the hearing, we will now take time 

for Majority Leader Reid to offer some comments about one of these 

nominees that he knows very well, Mr. Verma. 

Majority Leader Reid. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator REID. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Members 

of the committee, this is really a pleasure for me to come in here 

and to see his lovely wife and his little children who I have not 

seen very much. I cannot imagine how they have grown the way 

they have. And I have a lot of affection for his wife for a lot of reasons, but one, when I was growing up and until after I got out of 

high school, I was known as ‘‘Pinky.’’ Well, that is her name. So 

if that does not create affection, I do not know what would. [Laughter.] 

Ambassador to India, without being too overzealous here, is an 

extremely important post and that is a gross understatement. With 

a population approaching 1.3 billion people, India is the world’s 

largest democracy and indispensable partner to the United States. 

India’s new Prime Minister has committed to strengthen ties between our two nations, as evidenced by his recent trip here to the 

United States just in September. 

Our ties to India transcend global policies. My home State of Nevada and so many other States in this country have a proud and 

thriving Indian American population that promote the values and 

interests of India. We share them clearly with India. 

Rich Verma is somebody that is uniquely suited to be our Ambassador in India. He is an expert on foreign policy, Southeast Asia. 

He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Affairs 

under Secretary Hillary Clinton. He served honorably in the 

United States Air Force. He worked for me as my national security 

advisor for more than 4 years. He is a wonderful, wonderful, caring 

man with a great mind. His ethnic background will be extremely 

helpful to us in India. 

One of my boys, my next-to-youngest boy—his best friend growing up in high school was a Verma whose father was a math professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. So many Vermas, 

a name that I have known for a long, long time. 

834 

Rich is very good at building consensus. He works across party 

lines as well as anyone I have ever seen. His bipartisan approach, 

coupled with his keen understanding of legislation, helped us pass 

the United States-India Civil-Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. 

Frankly, I am not sure it could have been done without him. He 

was an instructor for me. I was so well educated in pushing this 

matter forward. 

Rich is the son of Indian immigrants. He has an understanding 

of India. 

As I have indicated, I have known him for a long, long time. I 

repeat. He has a perfect family. And I say without any hyperbole, 

I say with complete confidence that no better choice could have 

been made, no more highly qualified candidate for this important 

post than Rich Verma. So I hope you will give him and the other 

two nominees before this committee, which I know you will, the utmost consideration as quickly as possible. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Majority Leader Reid. 

Senator REID. And I am glad you do not have any questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KAINE. We will ask you what you really think about him 

later. [Laughter.] 

Ranking Member Risch for questions. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Verma, you certainly come with excellent qualifications when 

it comes to nuclear matters. And we know that one of the priorities 

of the Modi government is to do better as far as providing energy 

to its people. That is particularly true with electrical generation. 

My State is the home of the Idaho National Laboratory, as you 

know. The lab is the lead agency when it comes to dealing with 

India on the nuclear cooperation agreement. As you probably know, 

they hold a conference each year, alternately once in India, once in 

Idaho every other year to work this out. And I can tell you that 

the people at the lab are anxious to continue that. They are experts 

in this area. They do an excellent job. 

Having said all that, we still in the United States are troubled 

by the fact that our people who provide nuclear parts, nuclear 

equipment, nuclear know-how to India are hamstrung because of 

the laws in India that have stymied really the development of nuclear power. With your background, I am sure you know that nuclear power certainly is one of the important answers for the current administration in India. 

Can you give me your thoughts on that a little bit about how you 

would move the ball forward in that regard and try to make a better climate there for American manufacturers, American companies 

who want to do business in this area to actually start some work 

there? 

Mr. VERMA. Senator Risch, thank you for the question. 

I am aware of the work of the Idaho National Lab. I have seen 

the public minutes of their work and together with their Indian 

counterparts, and I know what a critical role they play. 

As Senator Reid said, I was also involved with the passage of the 

Hyde Act. I worked the amendments on the floor. And it was a 

835 

great moment for both countries who came together closely like 

never before. 

I also know that there has been great disappointment in the full 

implementation of the agreement mainly because of the liability 

issues, although there are another couple of issues that need to be 

resolved as well. 

I am encouraged, however, by the fact that President Obama and 

Prime Minister Modi came together and discussed this issue in 

great detail in September. I have no doubt it will come up again. 

But one of the important developments that came up out of their 

meetings was the establishment of a contact group to try to press 

this issue forward and get to a solution. It has to come to a resolution. The Prime Minister himself said he wants to triple the 

amount of nuclear energy used in India. It is not just an American 

company concern. It is a concern of European companies and others, including Indian companies. So I am hopeful that we can resolve the liability issue in a way that will live up to the promise 

of the accord that was reached many years ago here in this body. 

Senator RISCH. Well, I appreciate that. And it has been a long 

time coming. Certainly with your expertise, I have high hopes that 

you are going to be able to move the ball forward and we can actually get something started. There are knotty problems. No question 

about it. But it is good to hear your input on that and also, like 

you, I have seen publicly the statements from the Modi administration where they are going to try to resolve that. And I hope you 

can urge them to do that. 

Mr. McKinley, we all know that probably the two biggest issues 

that the Afghan people are facing are the corruption issue, which 

you have already addressed. And of course, secondly is the Taliban. 

If those two issues were resolved, I think everyone would feel a lot 

better walking away and feel that the result might be better than 

what a lot of us think may be going to happen. 

Tell us a little bit about the negotiations with the Taliban, both 

ours and the Afghans themselves. What can you tell us about that? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Over the last 4 to 5 years, there certainly have been efforts and a declared intention of the Afghan 

Government to try to negotiate with the Taliban. And the conditions which have been set out at various times on that have been 

related to an acceptance of a constitution and a renouncement of 

the links with al-Qaeda and participating peacefully in the political 

process and in the national life. The progress I think, as we all 

know, has been extremely fitful over the years with the Taliban intent on a violent insurgency and still on a violent overthrow of a 

government inside Afghanistan. 

In terms of our own role in this, we do view reconciliation efforts 

as something to be handled by the Afghan Government. At the end 

of the day, if negotiations materialize, it will be an Afghan-to-Afghan process, but we do recognize that a political solution to the 

insurgency at some point would be a very good thing. So in our 

own efforts and dialogue with the government, before with President Karzai’s government and now with President Ghani, we will 

support efforts of the Afghan Government in its outreach to explore 

the possibilities of launching negotiations to bring conflict to an 

end inside Afghanistan. 

836 

Senator RISCH. Well, understanding you cannot predict the future, what is your personal view as to how this plays out? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Across this year—and we have seen the 

very public evidence of the approach the Taliban has taken to this 

year of transition. First, there was the focus on trying to thwart 

the elections, and notwithstanding the threats, we had 7 million 

and 8 million Afghans coming out to vote in each of the two rounds 

of elections that were held. In terms of their stated declarations 

about the continued international presence and what they carried 

out in terms of an offensive through the spring and the summer 

and what we are seeing in terms of terrorism in urban centers 

which target not just international actors but innocent Afghans 

from all walks of life, to include young boys and men at volleyball 

games, there is not much to indicate that there is an interest in 

engaging in talks. That said, insurgencies and conflicts around the 

world have shown over time that the openings come at the most 

unexpected of times and they must be taken when they present 

themselves. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. McKinley. Appreciate your 

thoughts in that regard. 

My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Chairman Menendez. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Senator Kaine. Let me thank 

you and Senator Risch for conducting this hearing toward the end 

of the session with an important panel of nominees that I hope, assuming that all the questions here go well, could ultimately make 

it before a business committee meeting and then before the Senate 

adjourns for this congressional session. These are incredibly important positions. So I want to thank you for holding the hearing. 

Mr. Verma, with reference to India, your tenure there, if confirmed, would come at a pretty critical time in our relationship. 

There is a host of challenges in Asia, as both India and China grow 

in economic influence and military strength. And I would like to 

hear from you what is your strategic vision for the U.S. relationship with India, and how does that strategic vision deal with, for 

example—I have been a strong supporter of the United StatesIndia relationship for years. But their nonalignment movement creates a somewhat insular set of circumstances that concerns me 

about how do we get them to be the larger player that they should 

be in strategic questions that we care about. So why do we not 

start there? 

Mr. VERMA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, the relationship that we seek with India is really anchored in our values 

and our interests, the largest democracy and oldest democracy. And 

I think our impact and our strategic impact can be felt not only in 

South Asia but also now in East Asia as we do have a convergence 

of interests. I think we have to articulate a vision, which you and 

others on this committee have articulated, which is the United 

States and India upholding liberal democratic rules-based order not 

only in South Asia but in East Asia and ensuring maritime cooperation, freedom of navigation so that the kinds of cooperation 

that we engage in—I think we have to think much broader than 

a transactional relationship, think about the strategic partnership 

837 

that we both can have and can achieve. And that is the vision 

statement. We have to operationalize that, and we can 

operationalize that through our defense relationship, through economics and trade, through energy and climate. There are a lot of 

different ways. And the richness of this partnership is really unlimited. 

Now, as you rightly point out, Mr. Chairman, we have had also 

challenges which come from India’s history, a very proud history of 

nonalignment, and sometimes we get frustrated when they do not 

join us in international campaigns or on international efforts more 

publicly. But I would say that the trend line in our partnership is 

very strong and that we have to view it over a period of time and 

that we have to do the hard work that our bureaucracies are doing. 

And the fact that the two leaders of both countries came together 

and articulated a very strong strategic vision statement for both 

countries I think really bodes well for the relationship. And I do 

think the time is now to build upon that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I hope we can get the Prime Minister to 

engage with us in a more robust way than we have seen so far. I 

mean, there is a lot of great expectations. And I had an opportunity 

to meet him when he was in New York. But I hope that this can 

be taken more than the niceties that have appeared. 

There are a lot of substantive questions. One of them that I 

would like to get your commitment on is the question of intellectual 

property rights, and while the Trade Representative is largely in 

charge of this, the messaging that you will send as a U.S. Ambassador is incredibly important. It makes no sense to have trade 

agreements if, at the end of the day, you cannot have them be enforced, and it makes no sense to produce some of the greatest ingenuity in the world if, at the end of the day, other countries with 

impunity will take your ingenuity and use it without recognizing 

the intellectual property rights that created it. 

So with India, we have some challenges in this regard. We have 

a special 301 report from USTR that found India’s IPR protections 

lacking. I think a stronger IPR regime will help India, at the end 

of the day, attract the international investment in technology that 

it wants for economic growth. 

Will you commit to me that if you are confirmed, you will work 

on driving this issue with the Indian Government particularly as 

well with the pharmaceutical industry as one element of the IPR 

industry that I am concerned about? 

Mr. VERMA. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of your leadership on this 

issue, and you will have my commitment to make this a top tier 

issue. There was some encouraging progress out of the Intellectual 

Property Working Group that just met. But you will have my commitment to make this part of the regular engagement with the Indian Government to try to achieve stronger intellectual property 

policy and framework and also stronger enforcement. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. You know, the announcement 

of the Indian commerce minister to look at a new IPR policy is encouraging, but some suggest that that was a prelude to the visit 

so that it would not be pressed. And I just want to make it very 

clear we are going to keep pressing this issue. I am a big supporter 

838 

of the relationship. I think there is enormous potential in it, but 

you have got to live up to your agreements. 

Ambassador McKinley, first of all, thank you for your service. 

I just want to drive on Afghanistan the question of a committee 

report that we issued in October which scrutinized our assistance 

to Afghanistan and called for more accountability for the investments made by the American taxpayer. 

What lessons do you think the United States has learned from 

conditioning a portion of our assistance to Afghanistan, and how 

are these lessons instructive for future plans to condition assistance based on some concrete reforms? We understand we got a new 

partner here. It looks promising, but we have also seen a lot of investments that have headed in a direction that is less than desirable. 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

I have read the report, and I think the report encapsulates the 

challenges but also the achievements we have had to date and 

points the way towards how we must try to do things better. 

The fact of the matter is when we look at the investments we 

have made over the years, there are many positive results we can 

point to, but there are also many examples of cases where we could 

have done better on accountability in terms of project and programmatic management. And we are constantly striving and have 

over the years to improve the management of United States assistance to Afghanistan both because of our responsibility to the U.S. 

taxpayer but also because of the strategic importance of getting it 

right. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time is running out here. 

Do you see us conditioning as one element of trying to get the 

success that we want? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Yes, I do. And what we have seen in 

terms of this incentive fund that was created a couple of years ago 

to try to elicit more proactive engagement in getting things done 

inside Afghan Government ministries is one example of that. 

But going forward, I think we actually have a new opportunity 

now, and if confirmed, I would be looking forward to working that 

opportunity with a new government which is already looking at the 

conditionalities which the international community is putting forward as the basis for sustaining our assistance in the coming 

years, to include working on transparent budgets, cutting back on 

government expenditures that are unnecessary, improving not just 

revenue collection but the transparency of revenue collection, taking a look at what works in terms of priorities in assistance long 

term and what we can get done in the shorter term and in a more 

concrete fashion, something President Ghani is very much focused 

on. So as we look forward to the meeting in London tomorrow and 

Thursday, there will be a lot of discussion on how we can actually 

ensure that the funding we provide the government works in accord with the conditionalities which in other terms are simply the 

objectives that all of us share. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I may, Mr. Chairman. I know the difficulty of 

trying to keep this clock. 

Ms. Coleman, these are important nominees because they are 

country-specific. Your nomination in my view is a very important 

839 

one because as a strong defender of the United Nations, I have to 

tell you it gets harder and harder when we do not have the type 

of reform of an institution which we largely fund at the end of the 

day. And so I would like to hear from you the essence—assuming 

you are confirmed for this job, what are the specific reforms that 

you will look to work on and how do you get through the General 

Assembly part of it, which has been part of our challenge each and 

every time? 

Dr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. 

The U.N. is frustrating. I am the first to admit it, that it is a 

frustrating organization but also an indispensable organization. 

And my ideas on reform would revolve around several different 

areas. One is certainly in the budgeting process. In the Fifth Committee, there are a number of negotiations where I think we can 

count on likeminded countries to support us in achieving a fair and 

rational methodology for determining shares of expenditure for 

countries at the U.N. So pressing the U.S. interests in the Fifth 

Committee will certainly be one of my priorities, and there are a 

number of issues coming up in that arena. 

Another area would be in peacekeeping. This is not only a source 

of significant cost at the U.N. but also of performance issues. And 

I think the time right now is ripe for a review of peacekeeping 

issues. And the good news is that the Secretary General has called 

for a review of peacekeeping, and I think one of my priorities would 

be to really push U.S. interests in seeing the most cost efficient and 

effective processes in place for peacekeeping missions around the 

world. 

And two other things I would like to mention. Of course, a big 

source of cost at the U.N. is people costs. It is personnel, and 70 

percent of the regular budget is personnel compensation and benefits. And so I would like to look at that area too. I think having 

a modern, simple, effective compensation system in place at the 

U.N. is in our interest so that the U.N. can have the best people 

in place to be pushing its interests forward. And the objectives that 

we have really depend on that. 

And lastly would be procurement. Again, another source of potential efficiency improvements could be in the whole procurement 

area. Some work has been done there, but we cannot be satisfied 

with what has been done thus far. We have to keep pushing on the 

reform agenda. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. I hope you have sharp 

elbows. You are going to need them at the U.N. 

Thank you. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses and I appreciate their outstanding records 

of service to our country. 

Mr. Verma, I believe that you are assuming a post at a nation 

that may be the most important relationship between the United 

States and India certainly in the future. And there are challenges, 

but I am very optimistic about the new Prime Minister, many of 

the reforms that are being made. And I know that you will work 

closely with the new government. 

840 

Ambassador McKinley, how would you assess the condition— 

well, let me put it this way. In 2014, General Dunford testified to 

the Senator Armed Services Committee that he does not believe the 

Afghan military will be capable of conducting the kind of operations we are conducting now to put pressure on al-Qaeda and others in the network of extremists threatening security before 2017. 

Last week, we had a meeting with the chief of staff of the Indian 

Army, General Sharif. I asked him. I said if we totally withdraw 

under the schedule that we are withdrawing, can the Afghan Government survive. His answer was no. 

I also am convinced that unless we have a conditions-based withdrawal, that we will see the Iraqi movie again. 

Are you at all concerned about the schedule for withdrawal when 

it is clear that the Taliban attacks have escalated recently? And we 

are in the wintertime and they are already planning to escalate attacks as soon as the fighting season begins again. 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Senator, thank you for the question. 

The answer is we do have to be concerned about security changes 

on the ground inside Afghanistan. And the fact is that looking to 

the future, we are prepared in discussion and consultation with the 

Afghan Government, which is carrying out a thorough security review and a review of threats to the country, and in close consultation with General Campbell on the ground who regularly reviews 

not just what is happening on the ground but also whether adjustments need to be made to the planning that was originally forecast 

for our presence there. The option will be there to take a look as 

we go forward and the security situation and strategic situation inside Afghanistan changes. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am not sure that message has gotten through 

to the Taliban or to Members of Congress. Is the President going 

to announce that we are reviewing the policy and the requirement 

that by 2017 every American literally will be withdrawn? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. The calendar that was announced was a 

decision based on close consultation with our military commands. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is our present plan still—— 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. And the present plan is still the one—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Is that still the plan? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. That is still the plan. 

Senator MCCAIN. In your view, should that be the plan? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. I believe that we should continue to look 

at the situation on the ground and, if necessary, take a look at 

what necessary adjustments need to be made. 

Senator MCCAIN. You see what is disheartening about your 

statement is that I agree with you, but yet, the message has been 

that not only are we going to be out, but we are going to celebrate 

that we are out. And yet, when I talk to General Dunford, I talk 

to other military leaders who have spent a lot of time on the 

ground there, all of them say what the Pakistani chief of the army 

said, that if we do not go to a conditions-based withdrawal, that we 

cannot succeed. And yet, the message has been sent that we have 

this schedule of withdrawal. Would it not be nice if the President 

of the United States said, wait a minute, we are going to gauge our 

withdrawal as to the conditions on the ground rather than what is 

now a declared policy of withdrawal by 2017? 

841 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Secretary Kerry today at the NATO 

ministerial stated clearly that we would be in close consultation 

with the Afghan Government. 

Senator MCCAIN. That is a lot different from we need to have a 

conditions-based withdrawal. That is very different. 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. What he did say was that we were prepared to enter discussions with the Afghan Government on alterations to the timetable if they became necessary on the basis of a 

strategic consultation. 

Senator MCCAIN. What is happening now would not drive that. 

Right now, we are seeing attacks in downtown Kabul. We are seeing foreign facilities inhabited by foreigners being attacked by suicide bombers. We are seeing Helmand in a state of significant disarray if you count the overrunning of a major base that we turned 

over to the Afghans. And that is, frankly, why I am a little disappointed in your statement because they talk about all the political gains and all of the efforts against fraud. Yet, there is no assessment in here of the situation on the ground. 

So maybe you can give us an assessment verbally as to how serious you think this uprising is and the increase in attacks. First of 

all, you agree that attacks have increased, and how much does that 

concern you? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Well, it is a matter of serious concern. 

When you take a look at the context of the combat operations over 

the last 2 years and in fact if you take a look at them over the 

whole period of our engagement inside Afghanistan, we do have to 

be concerned about the ability of the Taliban to continue to carry 

out attacks on the civilian population, on the security forces, on the 

international presence inside the country. 

Over the past 2 years, a change that has come into play is a reflection of a 4 to 5 year investment in taking Afghan Security 

Forces, which in 2009 numbered less than 150,000, did not have 

the capabilities of carrying out operations, did not have a presence 

in all of the provinces inside the country, to what we have today, 

which is a force of 350,000, a presence in 34 provinces, and which 

in the last 2 years has denied the Taliban the ability to take and 

hold territory, has protected two major electoral cycles, and is the 

most respected institution inside the country. That is not to 

say—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Look, I appreciate everything you are saying, 

but again, facts are stubborn things. And the facts are—by the 

way, no one could be more pleased than you and me at the recent 

political environment in Afghanistan. It is wonderful. And I think 

we have got very serious efforts to address many of the problems 

that existed under the Karzai administration. 

But the facts on the ground are that militarily the Taliban is still 

very strong and capable of mounting serious attacks, including inside the capital. And the message that has been sent is we are 

going to be out. And as long as that message is received in that 

way by the Taliban, it is bound to have encouraged them. And that 

is the problem that I see. I think you and I share the same concern. 

I would like to see a statement from the administration that our 

withdrawal will be conditions-based rather than dictated by a certain calendar. And I hope you will maybe urge the President, not 

842 

just the Secretary of State, but the President, who is the Commander in Chief, to make that reality—counter the reality on the 

ground with a policy which is based on conditions-based. Otherwise, Mr. Ambassador, we will see Iraq over again, and that is of 

extreme urgency to me since I do not think many Americans would 

like to see that movie again which, by the way, there was a few 

of us predicted would happen. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Ambassador? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Senator, the challenge of the insurgency 

I think is very real, as you say. The Taliban remain strong and it 

remains a priority, obviously, inside the country to confront, challenge, contain them. What we have seen over the past 2 years is 

a change in the way the Afghan Security Forces operate which give 

a basis for some optimism going forward on how the next fighting 

season will be dealt with. That does not mean the challenge has 

gone away. And, in fact, the intensification of Taliban attacks over 

the past 2 years and the ability of the security forces to contain 

and respond to those challenges is a positive indicator for the future. 

We have also now had a change of government with a President 

who is prepared to enter into a security discussion with the United 

States, something his predecessor was not prepared to do. Constraints that have been in place on the Afghan Security Forces in 

responding to the insurgency have been lifted. In terms of the approach to the future, taking into account very valid points you raise 

about the situation we are in now, there is a national security review underway in close consultation with us, which is looking to 

address the very problems you have highlighted. And in the context 

of what we are seeing of heightened terrorism inside urban centers 

and in particular the capital, there is a very urgent review underway led by the palace with the security ministries to find a more 

effective way to respond to the challenge. This includes also what 

we have seen in Helmand, in Kunduz province in which the 

Taliban have surged but where the government is mobilizing a 

strong response. 

So rather than sort of focusing on it remains a very serious challenge, I also believe we are at the cusp of an opportunity to respond to some of these challenges in a new way. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you and thank you for your service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador McKinley, let me just follow up a little bit on some 

of the issues that Senator McCain has raised because one of the 

questions that I am not sure I have heard an answer to is whether 

we have heard from either President Ghani or CEO Abdullah or 

the ASF about whether they would like to see American forces extended. You mentioned an ongoing dialogue about national security 

that is underway. Is this something that we expect to be discussed 

as part of that dialogue? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Senator, thank you for the question. 

843 

Absolutely, yes, we do. And in fact, in terms of the timing for 

that dialogue, there is an invitation from President Obama to 

President Ghani to visit Washington early in the new year. And in 

addition to the panoply of issues related to the bilateral relationship, we do anticipate security issues and the future of our relationship with Afghanistan to be part of that discussion. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

You mentioned in your statement and when we met last month, 

one of the things we discussed was the potential for agreement between President Ghani and Abdullah on the formation of a new 

Cabinet. And you suggested that they have come to some agreement around what the guidelines for that new cabinet might be. 

How soon do we expect some action on that? And is this something 

that will come up when they are in London tomorrow? Do we expect some assurances, that they will give some assurances in London about how swiftly they will move forward on a new cabinet and 

forming the rest of their government? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. Senator, we do believe we will be given 

assurances. I mentioned earlier that there is disappointment that 

the actual naming of Cabinet Ministers has been somewhat delayed. But in the context of everything else the government of national unity has managed to accomplished in just a little over 2 

months, this is really part of the process. And just 2 days ago in 

the Presidential Palace, President Ghani accompanied by CEO 

Abdullah and by all their deputies made a public announcement to 

the Afghan people on a timetable for naming ministers, and they 

were talking about a 2 to 4 week timetable. And we do know that 

there have been ongoing discussions between both men over the 

disposition of different Cabinet postings, potential nominees, and 

general agreement that the persons selected not only should be the 

best ones for the job but people who have a high degree of integrity 

and credibility inside Afghanistan so the government’s reform program can be carried forward. We, obviously, are going to have to 

wait a little longer, but this presentation 2 days ago I think gave 

us hope that this issue is moving towards resolution. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Verma, I have watched, as have so many people around the 

world, the debate in India since 2012 when there was the gang 

rape of the young woman from New Delhi and she ultimately died 

from the violence. Obviously, there still seems to be a fair amount 

of debate in India about how to address gender-based violence. Can 

you talk about what you can do, if confirmed, to help promote discussions to improve women’s empowerment in India and how to address that kind of sexual violence and what we can do as Americans to support that? 

Mr. VERMA. Senator, thank you for the question. This is a really 

important area, and it is a tragedy unfortunately not limited to 

India. But it was encouraging to see millions of Indians actually 

march against this kind of violence. It was encouraging to hear the 

Prime Minister in one of his opening speeches speak out against 

this kind of violence. And we have to continue to keep it as a top 

issue that we speak out against rhetorically. 

Then at the programmatic level, I think there is a lot we can do 

and that we currently do. So USAID and other agencies of our GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00851 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
844 

ernment in India have a number of programs to promote women’s 

leadership, to promote women’s skills training, entrepreneurship, 

skills development. But on gender-based violence specifically, there 

are a number of programs, for example, a Safe Cities program 

using mobile phone technology to ensure that women are able to 

report instances of violence. I think there is a lot that we can do 

together. I think we have to continue to focus on it. 

In addition, the women’s empowerment dialogue led by Ambassador Cathy Russell is also going to be stood up again, and this will 

be really important for her and her counterparts to continue to 

keep this as a high priority issue. It is an issue that cuts across 

law enforcement, societal issues, economics, training, but we have 

to really stay on top of it with our counterparts in India. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I think all of the women in the 

Senate certainly stand ready to be as supportive as we can. 

Given that we now have new leaders in both India and Pakistan, 

what is the potential that we might see a breakthrough in their relationship? 

Mr. VERMA. I think, Senator, there was promise when the Pakistani Prime Minister came to the inauguration of the Indian Prime 

Minister, his inauguration back earlier in 2014. And just recently 

this past weekend, there was a handshake and some discussion between the two leaders at the SARC summit that led to the signing 

of some agreements on energy and motorways and railcars. And I 

think what we can do is continue to encourage that kind of dialogue. But ultimately it is for the Indians and the Pakistanis to discuss the security issues. I think where we can help is on the regional connectivity issues and on the economic and people-to-people 

issues between the two countries. And so this is something I think 

the three countries have to work at very hard. But again, on the 

security issues themselves, the pace, the character and the scope 

of those discussions between Pakistan and India are ultimately up 

to the two countries. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Coleman, one of the stories that led the news today was the 

fact that the U.N. had run out of food rationing for Syrian refugees. 

I wonder if you have any sense of what might have been done differently and what should be done now to address that since we 

have millions of Syrian refugees who are now facing an even more 

bleak future. 

Dr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, for that question. 

It is really a tragedy that is unfolding in that part of the world. 

The actions of the U.N. there I think underscore the importance of 

the U.N. and the tremendous work that they are doing in Jordan 

and in Iraq dealing with refugees from Syria, internally displaced 

people within Iraq, almost 2 million of them, trying to provide shelter in the advance of winter. I mean, this is a very critical situation. Clearly the urgency is building here, and the U,N, is trying 

to respond to this crisis in real time. You know, this is an ongoing 

issue. It is only getting worse, not better. It is not unique what has 

happened. You can look at the U.N. response to Ebola in West Africa. It has been the same type of crisis management in real time. 

And if confirmed, looking at these situations would be something 

that I would put a lot of priority on to learn from what we did well 

845 

in responding to these crisis situations and what we did not do well 

and what we could do a lot better because one thing we know is 

that they are not going away. There are going to be other crises 

that the U.N. will have to respond to in same critical fashion, and 

certainly we can do things better than we have and that there are 

learnings to be had from the same, you know, logistics, supply 

chain, all of these types of things. We should not reinvent the 

wheel. We should understand what worked, what best practices, 

and how to implement that in future scenarios. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you. My time is up. But I certainly hope that if you are confirmed—and I expect that you will 

be—I certainly hope that all three of you will be confirmed very expeditiously—that you will look at whatever action we can take to 

support the Syrian refugees who clearly are facing a very dire future. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

And I think it is important that we always point out that the 

United States is the largest provider of humanitarian relief to Syrian refugees in the world. I often hear comments at these hearings 

that the United States does not have a Syria policy as if the fact 

that we are the largest provider of humanitarian relief is just by 

accident. It is not by accident. We are doing it because it is an official part of our administration’s policy. It is supported by the Senate and by others. But the Syrian refugee challenge is one that at 

the U.N. the efforts by Russia and China largely to block vigorous 

humanitarian responses in the Security Council is something we 

feel very deeply. 

Now the favorite time of the hearing. Others have asked their 

questions and I get to go on ad nauseam without worrying about 

time limits. So let me jump to Dr. Coleman. 

In 2007, the U.S. mission for the U.N. established this U.N. 

Transparency and Accountability Initiative, which was continued 

by President Obama. Could you talk a little bit about the results 

of that initiative and how it has done in tracking the adoption of 

management reforms by the U.N. funds and programs in the last 

7 years? 

Dr. COLEMAN. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I look at it, the basis of reform is transparency. You know, 

if you do not know what is going on, you cannot fix it. And so having full transparency is critical. And I think the UNTAI measure 

that you have spoken of is a step in the right direction. 

There have been some positive results from that. The requirement of audits and the publishing of audits and those types of 

things have been important. But can we go further? Yes. I think 

now it is a matter of consistent implementation and making sure 

that across the entire organization that they are meeting the highest standards of transparency and following through. So there is 

more work to be done but I think some good progress has already 

been made to date. 

Senator KAINE. The other debate that often occurs here is whether we tie financial support to the U.N. to progress either on strategic goals or particularly to management reforms. What do you 

846 

think about that mechanism for conditioning U.S. taxpayer support 

for the U.N. on improvements in the management area? 

Dr. COLEMAN. Well, as the largest contributor to the U.N., the 

United States has an obligation to make sure that the money is 

spent as efficiently, as effectively as possible. And if confirmed, 

that would be one of my highest priorities, to really ensure value 

for American taxpayers. 

Conditioning our contributions, withholding our contributions is 

not always the most effective way to move forward. When we do 

that, we end up without a seat at the table, and our leadership on 

many of these issues is critically important. Likeminded countries 

who care about efficiency and effectiveness look to us for leadership 

on these issues, and when we condition our contributions, when we 

withhold payment, we lose credibility, our voice is weakened, and 

our leadership is diminished. And so I think that by engaging, we 

have shown some progress and we can continue to show progress 

by using our leverage with a seat at the table to really push for 

further reforms and increased accountability, transparency, and efficiency. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Dr. Coleman. 

Mr. Verma, today by fortune of coincidence, a hearing this morning in Armed Services concerned the nomination of Admiral Harris 

to be the head of PACOM, which includes the Indian subcontinent 

and the United States-India military relationship. And I noticed 

that both he and you used a phrase that I am going to start using 

in talking about the Pacific region. That is no longer the phrase. 

It is the Indo-Pacific region.’’ So for purposes of any rebalancing or 

pivoting to Asia, the notion of the Indo-Pacific region I think actually is a more accurate expression. And I have learned something 

today as a result. 

The United States and India held this trade policy forum last 

week to discuss a variety of economic issues. Talk a little bit about 

kind of the action items that have come out of the forum. And in 

particular, I know there has been significant concern about intellectual property in the WTO process, but there have been some recent 

advances on that that the United States has helped broker. Could 

you talk a little bit about the progress on the trade side? 

Mr. VERMA. Sure. I think in recent weeks there is a good-news 

story on the trade side. Ambassador Froman and his team working 

through the WTO process and with their Indian counterparts were 

able to separate out and have the trade facilitation agreement 

move through the WTO, which was important to many developing 

countries, including India, and able to address India’s food security 

concerns separately through what is called a peace clause in the 

WTO which again was an important breakthrough and it allows us 

now to talk about other issues such as copyright protection and 

patent protection. And we can have robust discussions in these 

areas. 

I think certainly health access and delivery of pharmaceuticals 

has been a contentious issue over the past few years, and if we can 

talk about those issues in a way where we can bring our best practices together with some of the needs of India in delivering pharmaceuticals and delivering health and medicine, those are the 

847 

kinds of discussions I think that can get us past some of the thorny 

issues. 

The fact that we had an intellectual property working group 

meet was I also think very significant. As I said to the chairman 

earlier, this has to remain a top issue because ultimately we want 

to help India attract investment, help India open markets, and that 

is what Prime Minister Modi said when he was here. He is looking 

for renewed investment in India, help economic growth. That will 

come through opening of markets and effective trade policies. That 

is not only good for American businesses but good for Indian consumers and Indian citizens across India. 

As I said in my opening statement, trade with India has increased five times in the last 10 years. We can do much more if 

we can work together on some of these market access issues and 

on some of the trade issues which are vitally important. 

Senator KAINE. When I was in India recently and returned, I had 

a couple of thoughts about areas of cooperation that I would like 

to focus on in the kind of national security space. Both our countries have been victimized by terrorist attacks on our home soil in 

recent years. And it was very moving, more moving than I actually 

thought it would be, to go to the sites associated with the LeT terrorist attack in Mumbai in November 2008. The terrorist attack 

was a huge atrocity. We had scheduled—Senator King and I—to do 

a couple of visits in the midst of a full day of events. And I do not 

know that we really walked in prepared to grapple with the extent 

of the challenge, and it obviously called up a lot of memories of the 

U.S. attacks on 9/11. It would seem that counterterrorism cooperation, because of this shared experience, would really be a significant opportunity in our work. 

And secondly, we are dealing with cyber threats that grow and 

multiply in sort of a geometric way every day. Our cultures and 

educational systems and educational institutions in the United 

States and India produce significant technical expertise, technical 

wizardry that would seem to give us some real opportunity to work 

together on countering cyber threats. I wonder if you can talk a little bit about kind of current status but maybe more especially opportunities in the future for the United States and India to deepen 

counterterrorism cooperation and cooperation dealing with 

cybersecurity attacks. 

Mr. VERMA. Sure. Senator, I think these are both really important areas, and what you described about your visit to Mumbai I 

am sure was especially moving. And when we talk about shared 

values between our two countries, one of those shared values is 

standing against terrorism, having people being able to live peacefully in society, settling disputes peacefully. And we have built a 

very robust set of counterterrorism cooperation measures over the 

years with the Indians, and it is run across multiple agencies, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, the FBI, and 

the Justice Department, the Department of Defense. It is fairly 

widespread. And I think we should look at ways to bolster it and 

we should continue to look at ways to do joint training, joint law 

enforcement cooperation, joint intelligence sharing so that we can 

be sure that citizens of both countries are sharing those values of 

peace and justice. 

848 

And on cyber as well, I think this is a critically important area 

not only on the technical side but working with India to really be 

a role model in cyber cooperation in how cyber is handled in a democracy in Asia. I think this can just send a very powerful message 

not only in South Asia but across Asia. 

Senator KAINE. On the issue of counterterrorism, I want to segue 

into a follow-up on Senator Shaheen who asked you about the 

India-Pakistan relationship. The attack by the terrorist group 

LeT—those individuals are deeply connected with Pakistan. You indicated that the relationship between those two countries is obviously for them to figure out. We can be facilitators. We can be helpful. It is not our primary responsibility. But I know one of the security concerns we would have in this region with two nations that 

have nuclear weapons would be the danger of the escalation of an 

incident. 

Senator King and I were in India and Pakistan at the time of, 

you know, what is kind of an annual almost set of border skirmishes in disputed border areas in the Kashmir. Most observers 

thought that the border skirmishes this year were sort of at their 

most aggressive in about the last 10 years. And I think a huge concern for the United States would be the danger of an escalation. 

If there would be another terrorist attack by LeT, for example, that 

could escalate pretty quickly. And in the absence of kind of regular 

channels of dialogue between the countries—we had hoped that 

that dialogue would have been more regularized beginning with the 

investiture of Prime Minister Modi last summer. Some of your comments suggest that we may be getting on track. In the absence of 

some of these mechanisms of consistent dialogue, I think a significant concern is this escalation effect which you may have seen it 

or maybe this past fall was a little bit of an aberration. 

What do you think you can do in your post to encourage the creation of a more normal dialogue so that the communication does 

not just have to happen in times of emergency where there is an 

escalation danger that could get out of hand? 

Mr. VERMA. Senator, I think one way that we can do this, as I 

said, is through increasing regional connectivity so that the peopleto-people ties actually increase. I think the trade right now between India and Pakistan stands around $3 billion, which is a very 

small sum compared to what it could be. To the extent that greater 

trade, economic infrastructure, energy developments can be made 

through the countries, that will naturally help increase 

connectivity outside of the governments. 

From the government-to-government level, obviously both capitals both in New Delhi and Islamabad, it is important to call for 

dialogue, try to encourage dialogue at every turn. We support the 

healthiest possible relationship between the two countries, and if 

confirmed, Senator, you can be sure that that is something that I 

will work on very closely. 

Senator KAINE. The Modi government is still relatively new. So 

they need time to really probably demonstrate this. But can you 

talk a little bit about under the new government, India’s role in 

Asian kind of regional architecture. There is an organization, the 

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, that I think India has 

not necessarily been a significant participant in in the past, but 

849 

there are some opportunities there. What can you say about the 

Modi government’s attitude toward the regional architecture in the 

area? 

Mr. VERMA. Well, it has been fascinating to watch over the last 

year when Look East has become Act East because it has not just 

been about looking or rhetorical kind of flourishes. It has been 

about actual developments. The prime minister has made, I think, 

at least two trips to East Asia already, successful visits to Australia, to Japan. They have trade and defense relationships with 

Vietnam, with Malaysia, with Indonesia. There is joint training 

that now takes place. The Singapore-India trade relationship is 

huge. So they really are seeing a lot of their future, both economically and from a security perspective, in East Asia. 

And as I had mentioned earlier, Senator, I think that converges 

with our rebalance to Asia as well, and there really, truly is a convergence of interests where we can work together on issues such 

as counterterrorism, such as maritime security, ultimately resolving disputes peacefully but preserving this post-World War II liberal democratic rules-based order that has been so important to the 

global system. 

Senator KAINE. That is a very important point. I feel like in the 

aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have been kind 

of looking for the new model to how to describe global relations. 

And I kind of look at it as a competition now between three leadership models, liberal democracies, authoritarian regimes, and sort of 

sectarian jihad, which is often non-state. And it is so helpful to 

have great examples of the liberal democracies on each of the continents, and India certainly is and even can be more that example 

and the world needs that example. 

India’s relationship with China is a complicated one, just as ours 

is. Economic cooperation but also strategic rivalry. Premier Ji’s 

visit to Prime Minister Modi after he became Prime Minister coincided with the flare-up of border tensions along the India-China 

border, and there was a lot of confusion about exactly why that 

would have been the moment for there to be a flareup of tensions 

when this head of state visit that was so important was being paid. 

What can you say about the current status of that relationship 

from your observations? 

Mr. VERMA. Senator, much like the United States, the India relationship with China has elements of cooperation and elements of 

competition. But Prime Minister Modi himself has said that he 

wants a strong and healthy relationship with China. It is very 

much in our interest to see these two countries have a healthy relationship. There is a dialogue on border issues when they occur. And 

again, the economic issues are important to both countries. And so 

anything that we can do to ensure that the dialogue remains open, 

that trade and connectivity remain strong. There will be disagreements from time to time, but again, to the extent these are resolved peacefully—and thus far, I would say the Prime Minister 

has set out on a very positive footing on an economic basis raising 

security concerns when they come up but in a very positive set of 

outreach to their Chinese neighbors. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Verma. 

850 

Ambassador McKinley, just kind of two last points. I wanted to 

ask you about your perceptions of the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship. That is obviously critically important. As bordering nations, those areas of Afghanistan that border some of the tribal 

areas and others in Pakistan can be very critical in terms of the 

security issues. At least in the initial days of the Ghani/Abdullah 

government, what do you see as the developing relations between 

this new government in Afghanistan and the Government of Pakistan? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. There is a real change in tone and rhetoric but also substance, and both Prime Minister Sharif and President Ghani have outlined areas where they think they can cooperate that include security, a heavy emphasis on restoring consultations on border issues. There is an emphasis on cross-border trade 

which is absolutely essential for Afghanistan. And if I can sort of 

parallel what Rich said about India and Pakistan, obviously the opportunities of opening borders in the subcontinent and Central Asia 

is a very important objective in terms of creating opportunities and 

changing the economic dynamic of the region. And so President 

Ghani, in his visit to Islamabad, made a point of bringing along a 

business private sector contingent, meeting with Pakistani business, and working with Pakistani ministries to identify literally 

dozens of steps that can be taken to change the economic relationship between the two countries. 

So there has also been communication exchanges, visits by security ministers. General Rahil has visited Kabul. And we have a 

very different dynamic at work. 

Now, obviously the challenges are serious. We have a history of 

tensions and misunderstandings, but this is a very promising start 

to addressing some of those longstanding concerns. 

Senator KAINE. Ambassador McKinley, last point. And I want to 

return to the line of questioning that Senator McCain was engaged 

in. His concern about drawdown of personnel or moves based on 

the calendar rather than based on conditions on the ground is a 

concern that is widely felt on this committee and in the Senate. 

But I was heartened to notice, after our visit and after our return 

from Afghanistan, the President made some adjustments to the authorities under which the United States military will operate in 

2015. He did not change the calendar. He did not change the troop 

numbers, but facts on the ground, including some of these activities 

of the Taliban to destabilize Kabul and other parts of the country 

recently led the White House to make a proposed change in some 

of the authorities under which the U.S. military will operate during 

their mission in 2015. 

I viewed that as sort of we have a plan, and it is good to have 

a plan better than no plan. But that plan is going to be determined, whether we just fully follow the plan or make adjustments, 

by facts on the ground. So I viewed it as a hopeful sign when I read 

press accounts that there was a slight shift in direction with respect to military authorities. I know you and others were encouraging that based upon what you were seeing on the ground. 

Do you view it the same way? 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. The President made his decision in May 

on the troop presence and the timetable, and those subsequent 

851 

months were spent both factoring in the changing dynamic inside 

Afghanistan in political terms and security terms but also the legal 

and operational requirements for our presence inside the country. 

And they always envisaged combat enablers in certain situations to 

continue supporting the ANSF, as well as creating the basis for 

force protection for our troops that stay inside the country and also 

to support the counterterrorism objectives that we continue to have 

in the region and our interests in, frankly, continuing to build the 

Afghan Security Force capabilities. 

So the AUMF continues to be 2001, but in terms of, again, of defining how we would operate going forward, that is what was done 

over the months subsequent to the announcement on the timetable 

for the Resolute Support mission. And it is, obviously, going to provide a good and flexible base for us to respond to the challenges 

ahead. 

Senator KAINE. And that process resulted in an outcome that 

was sensitive to the current facts on the ground as are being reported back to the administration from all of the United States 

hands that are there in Afghanistan. 

Ambassador MCKINLEY. That is correct. And if I can perhaps 

state a little more clearly where we are. Secretary Kerry did, today 

at the NATO ministerial, make it clear that we are prepared to 

consult with the Afghan Government on refinements to our mission’s duration. We are consulting, working closely with General 

Campbell on security assessments on the ground and what adjustments, if necessary, over time must be taken to make our mission 

more effective. And it is in consonance with this radical national 

security review being carried out by the Afghans themselves as 

they look to build on the extremely positive transformation of their 

security forces since 2009–10 and what they need to do going forward to deal with a threat that we all agree is serious but I would 

like to put it in the context of a year of offenses in which—I repeat—the Taliban did not retain or gain territory, in which the Afghan Security Forces greatly increased their operational tempo and 

led all combat operations, and in which their capabilities going forward look like they will only be strengthened. 

Senator KAINE. When you think about what would have been the 

Taliban’s motives during calendar year 2014, clearly the destabilization of the first set of civilian elections to peacefully transfer 

power was their top objective. They could not destabilize the first 

round of the Presidential elections. They could not destabilize the 

second round of the Presidential elections. When there was an 

audit and all of the ballots were gathered in one place for a pretty 

extensive review of those ballots, that was a real target for destabilization activities. They could not destabilize that. The defense 

against destabilization was largely carried out by Afghan Security 

Forces nearly completely. So their strongest motive was to destabilize a process that stretched out over a number of months and 

they were not able to do it. That gives us some confidence. 

However, we are all deeply worried, given the American sacrifice 

to achieve the gains that I indicated in my opening statement, 

about any notion that a calendar date would magically suggest that 

we leave or that we are done because that could encourage other 

activities that would lose the gains and hurt the Afghan people. 

852 

And so we are really counting on—and the comments that you 

quote from Secretary Kerry today—we are really counting on this 

administration focusing on continuing gains rather than dates on 

the calendar. It is important to have a plan, but to the extent that 

the plan needs to be adjusted so that we can continue to harvest 

the gains that we have been a part of, we would continue to encourage you and other critical officials in the administration to advocate for that so that the right decisions are made. And I have no 

doubt that that is exactly what you will do, should you be confirmed. 

Thank you all. You each have impressive track records. You each 

are taking on important responsibilities, and you each will also 

serve as leaders of organizations with some spectacular people. Everybody who serves in the Foreign Service in this country, even in 

New York, which to Virginia can seem foreign on occasion—everybody is a dedicated public servant and they are all small A ambassadors for the United States, and you are lucky to work with good 

teams. And I know you view that as one of the real honors of the 

responsibilities that you are being entrusted with. 

With that, the hearing adjourns. If there are questions that other 

members want to submit, they can do so by the close of business 

today, and I would encourage you to respond promptly. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF RICHARD RAHUL VERMA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. I believe that we should be expanding educational ties in all sectors— 

the best and the brightest from both sides should exchange ideas and build on the 

innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that exists in both countries. Rutgers University, for example, has formed strong relationships with Indian educational and research institutions, and has increased the profile of India with business, community, 

and nonprofit organizations in New Jersey. 

♦ How will the United States and India increase areas of collaboration, including 

student and faculty exchange, research cooperation, e-learning, and cooperation 

between community colleges? 

♦ India’s higher education system is increasingly stressed by India’s large and 

growing youth population. In what ways, if any, has the U.S.-India Higher Education Dialogue improved bilateral collaboration in this area? 

Answer. Increasing educational collaboration, including student and faculty 

exchange, research cooperation, e-learning, and cooperation between community colleges, is one of the key focuses of the U.S.-India Higher Education Dialogue. The 

Fulbright-Nehru program has nearly tripled in size since 2009, with approximately 

300 Indian and U.S. students and scholars participating annually. In addition, the 

United States and India launched the $10 million 21st Century Knowledge Initiative in 2012 to support partnerships between higher education institutions in both 

countries. These projects strengthen teaching and research in priority fields such as 

energy, climate change, and public health. In the coming year, the U.S. Government 

plans to work with the Indian Government to bring more American science and 

technology professors and researchers to India. 

India is home to the world’s largest youth population, with more than 50 percent 

of India’s population under 25 years of age, and over two-thirds under age 35. This 

demographic dividend presents a tremendous opportunity for India to become a 

global economic leader, and create new and diverse investment opportunities for the 

world. With U.S. and Indian Government support through the Higher Education 

Dialogue, U.S. community colleges partner with Indian institutions to enhance ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00860 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
853 

nomic opportunity in India through adoption of American community college and 

skills development best practices. 

At last year’s dialogue, the American Association of Community Colleges signed 

an agreement with the All-India Council on Technical Education to assist as India 

expands its community college model, with particular focus on building linkages 

with industry to ensure young Indian graduates can fully participate in the fastchanging workforce. To support the growth of institution-to-institution partnerships, 

the United States supports exchanges of administrators and education officials 

responsible for community colleges and vocational education, including through the 

Fulbright-Nehru International Education Administrators Program this fall and the 

Community College Administrators Program that will launch next year. 

Question. In the early 1990s, approximately 108,000 Lhotshampa, primarily 

Nepali-speaking Hindus, were forced to leave Bhutan. After living in camps in 

Nepal for 20 years, nearly 80,000 Bhutanese refugees have been resettled across the 

United States and constitute one of the largest refugee populations in the country. 

Thousands have resettled and become United States citizens as they strive to 

become ever contributing members of our society and economy. More than 25,000 

still remain in camps. Bhutan has thus far refused to allow any refugees to return. 

♦ Given the United States does not have direct diplomatic ties with Bhutan, what 

can the U.S. Embassy in India do to ensure that resettled Bhutanese Hindus, 

now Americans, as well as those remaining in the camps in Nepal are given 

the ability to return to Bhutan should they choose to do so? 

Answer. Finding a durable solution to the issue of Bhutanese refugees is a major 

U.S. priority. Our Embassy in New Delhi and U.N. missions in Geneva and New 

York regularly engage with the Government of Bhutan—including through visits of 

U.S. Embassy officials to Bhutan and through close ties with Bhutan’s Embassy in 

New Delhi—to advocate for a lasting solution that takes into account the wishes of 

the refugees. The United States consistently urges Bhutan to approve voluntary 

repatriation cases referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) and to work together with Nepal and UNHCR to advance a solution for 

the residual population of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. The U.S. Government is 

proud that more than 90,000 refugees from Bhutan have been resettled in third 

countries, including nearly 80,000 to the United States. 

Question. On September 5, 1986, Pan Am Flight 73 was hijacked in Pakistan by 

terrorists acting under the direction of the Libyan Government. By the time the 

Pakistani military intervened, 20 passengers had died and over 120 had been injured. In 2008, the State Department concluded the U.S.-Libya Claims Settlement 

Agreement, which led to the permanent termination of all pending lawsuits against 

Libya and to the creation of a humanitarian settlement fund administered by the 

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Victims of the Pan Am Lockerbie flight and 

the Berlin LaBelle Disco bombing were compensated regardless of nationality. However, compensation has been denied to Pan Am 73 passengers who were Indian citizens at the time, but have since become naturalized American citizens. These victims have been directed by the U.S. State Department to the Indian Government, 

which has responded that Pan Am 73 was an American Carrier, targeted because 

it belonged to America, and that the duty therefore lies upon the United States 

Government to ensure that everyone on board Pan Am 73 is awarded just compensation. 

♦ What recourse do these naturalized American citizens have in seeking compensation for their injuries? 

Answer. The Department of State strongly condemns all acts of terrorism and 

deeply regrets the losses sustained by the victims of the Pan Am 73 hijacking. 

The Department of State’s requirement that a claimant be a continuous U.S. 

national at the time of the incident—and not after—to be eligible for an award of 

compensation is a well-established principle of international claims practice. International, domestic, and mixed claims arbitral tribunals have applied the rule of 

continuous nationality, and it has been the consistent policy and practice of the 

Department to decline to espouse claims which have not been continuously owned 

by U.S. nationals from the date of injury. The Libya claims settlement involving the 

Pan Am Lockerbie flight and the Berlin LaBelle Disco bombing is no different, and 

the references to claims of U.S. nationals in the Claims Settlement Agreement, and 

other documents implementing the settlement, are necessarily informed by this 

principle. 

Although the United States is not in a position under international law to espouse 

the claims of these victims, nothing in our agreements with Libya regarding compensation for U.S. nationals in the Pan Am Lockerbie flight and the Berlin LaBelle 

854 

Disco bombing would restrict the ability of the Government of India to take up these 

distinct Pan Am 73 claims with Libya or for the Pan Am 73 victims themselves to 

pursue these claims with Libyan authorities. 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What is the impact of your actions? 

Why were your actions significant? 

Answer. I have had the privilege of working on democracy and human rights 

issues for over 20 years. From 1993 to 1994, I was the country director for the 

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) in Bucharest, Romania, where I led NDI’s efforts to help build democratic institutions and improve the 

capacity of civil society groups. Again in 1999, I went on behalf of NDI to West 

Africa to the Republic of Niger for 1 month to train new parliamentarians in an 

effort to rebuild legislative capacity following a military coup. In 2000, NDI sent me 

to Nepal for several weeks to conduct an assessment and training on anticorruption 

efforts in Kathmandu, working with legislators and civil society. I continue to serve 

on the NDI Board of Directors, and provide advice on a wide range of NDI programming in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Asia. 

During my service in the U.S. Air Force, I served on the faculty of the Expanded 

International Military Education and Training program (E–IMET), where we provided extensive training to various countries’ militaries on the role of a military in 

a democracy. Over a 4-year period, I worked with the militaries of Poland, Argentina, and Romania to conduct in-country trainings on human rights, the rule of law, 

and civilian control of the military, in addition to other related topics. 

While working in the Senate Leader’s office, I focused a great deal of attention 

on human rights, antitrafficking, and religious freedom issues around the world, 

traveling widely on staff and congressional delegations to bring attention to these 

issues in Africa, the Middle East and Persian Gulf region, South and Central Asia, 

Eastern Europe, and Latin America. I continued to work on these issues as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, and in that role, I also supported Secretary Clinton’s efforts to promote women’s rights, as a core component of our 

national- security and foreign-policy agenda globally. 

In my private law practice, I have had the good fortune of representing, in a complex political asylum case, a young man from El Salvador who was targeted by Salvadorian gangs because of his sexual orientation. The case was recently successfully 

brought to conclusion, with asylum and temporary permanent residence awarded to 

this brave Salvadorian national. I have also been proud to be a member of the 

Board of Directors of Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for 

Human Rights) for over 3 years, where I have helped advise and speak on matters 

related to the law of war and the Geneva conventions, refugee issues, and other 

humanitarian rights issues. If confirmed, I would continue to make democracy and 

human rights a priority, as it has been for me over the course of my career. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in India? What are the 

most important steps you expect to take—if confirmed—to promote human rights 

and democracy in India? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions? 

Answer. Although India has a long tradition of democratic values and a vibrant 

civil society, we do engage with the Government of India on a number of humanrights concerns, including police and security force abuses and corruption; societal 

violence, including gender-based violence; labor violations; human trafficking; and 

violations of religious freedom. 

The U.S. Government has worked with successive Indian governments, through 

the Strategic Dialogue, the Global Issues Forum, the Women’s Empowerment Dialogue, and other engagements, to emphasize the importance the United States 

places on human-rights issues. If confirmed, I will use these mechanisms, bilateral 

meetings, and quiet consultations to urge the Indian Government to promote tolerance and freedoms for ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, support space for civil 

society to operate, combat corruption, respect fundamental labor rights, and combat 

gender-based violence by promoting equality and rule of law. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? What challenges 

will you face in India in advancing human rights and democracy in general? 

Answer. While no country has a perfect human-rights record, India has a longstanding tradition of pluralism, rule of law, and protection of minority rights. As 

in many countries, uneven enforcement of existing civil-liberty protections, and in 

some areas, uneven protections for civilian populations, can fuel impunity among 

security forces. While India has improved its laws on rape, enforcement remains 

uneven, and as in the United States, sexual violence is still vastly underreported. 

855 

Religious freedom is protected by India’s secular constitution; however, differences 

between state and federal laws can curtail these freedoms. And corruption, lack of 

political will, and lack of capacity can undermine the enforcement of laws protecting 

workers from abusive conditions. If confirmed, I will work with the Government of 

India and courageous members of India’s civil society, such as 2014 International 

Women of Courage Award winner Laxmi and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Kailash 

Satyarthi to promote our human-rights goals. 

If confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for human rights and democracy. It’s important to note that India’s national elections this year—the world’s largest organized human activity—saw more than 550 million citizens, about 8 percent of the 

world’s population, turn out to vote. India’s elections, and peaceful transition of 

power, were a reminder for both our nations that democratic principles are a common thread between our peoples. If confirmed, I intend to build on this common 

foundation of open and inclusive rules-based order to work with India to advance 

our common democratic interests. 

Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in the United States and with local human rights NGOs in 

India? 

Answer. You have my commitment that, if confirmed, I will meet with humanrights and other nongovernmental organizations in the United States and with local 

human rights NGOs in India. 

As Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah 

Sewall emphasized during her recent visit to India, promoting tolerance freedoms 

for ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, supporting space for civil society to operate, fighting gender-based violence, combating corruption, and respecting fundamental labor rights are core U.S. interests and integral elements of our relationship 

with India. Meeting with civil-society organizations, human-rights organizations, 

advocates for women’s rights, and other NGOs is an important component of 

advancing our core human-rights interests. 

RESPONSES OF PETER MICHAEL MCKINLEY TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What steps can President Ghani and CEO Abdullah take over the next 

year to improve women’s rights in Afghanistan? 

Answer. In their campaigns and since taking office, President Ghani and CEO 

Abdullah have repeatedly emphasized their commitment to consolidate and expand 

the gains women have made in Afghanistan since 2001. The Afghan Government’s 

strategy to achieve this goal is based on three pillars: ending discrimination and violence against women and ensuring the equal treatment of women under the law, 

improving educational and economic opportunities for women and girls, and implementing gender-neutral policies and women-friendly employment practices throughout the government. 

The Afghan Government has committed to implement fully the 2009 Law on the 

Elimination of Violence Against Women. This is a critical step to safeguard Afghan 

women’s rights and access to justice, which requires raising greater public awareness among men and women on the law as well as improving implementation of the 

law within the justice sector. 

As outlined in its paper for the December 3–4 London Conference on Afghanistan, 

the Afghan Government plans to develop a National Economic Empowerment Plan 

for Women. This plan would address critical issues such as women’s inheritance and 

property ownership, financial literacy and financial inclusion, and affirmative action 

in government hiring. 

Increasing women’s participation in government will also be key to ensuring 

progress on women’s rights. President Ghani has expressed his intent to nominate 

a qualified woman candidate to Afghanistan’s Supreme Court, a step the U.S. Government and many Afghan women’s groups have applauded. His spokesman has 

also said the new Cabinet will include four women as ministers, up from three currently. It will be critical that the new government include qualified women at all 

levels, from ministers to entry-level civil servants—an important issue we have 

raised with the Afghan Government. Increasing the number of women in the Afghan 

National Security Forces, with assistance from the United States and other members of the international community, will improve women’s security and access to 

justice. 

To facilitate the increased participation of women in government, it will be important for President Ghani to follow through on his plans to make government service 

856 

more women-friendly. These plans include the introduction of a sexual harassment 

policy, the implementation of affirmative action in hiring, and the provision of additional support to women serving in traditionally male fields such as the security 

forces. 

The upcoming Parliamentary and district-level elections will also be an opportunity for the new government to take action early and diligently on ensuring the 

full participation of women as candidates, voters, election workers as well as addressing security issues to support an enabling environment for women to freely 

access polling stations as they did in the 2014 elections. 

Question. The Special Immigrant Visa Program is an important initiative which 

helped to ensure the safety of thousands of locally employed staff in Afghanistan. 

It has also left a void in the Embassy and USAID’s capacity to conduct diplomacy 

and assistance programs and engage with Afghans. 

♦ What are your plans to mitigate this loss of capacity and institutional memory? 

Answer. The SIV program remains a critical tool to helping brave Afghans who 

have helped the U.S. mission over the last 13 years and I appreciate the Congress’ 

strong support for this program. 

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has taken a number of steps to mitigate the resulting 

departure of local staff. These efforts include increasing our recruiting pipeline and 

shifting back office functions to locations outside of Afghanistan when possible. 

Where possible, the Embassy is also looking into relying more heavily on multidonor 

trust funds to implement development assistance. Another mitigation strategy the 

Embassy uses is to assign local staff on Temporary Duty (TDY) from other countries 

to fill critical positions. These staffers often serve more than one tour, function effectively as the institutional memory of the mission, and help build the capacity of 

Afghan staff. This program has been in existence for several years and continues 

to be one of our best options for obtaining talented, experienced local staff. Finally, 

it may be possible to fill a small number of critical need positions with long-term 

(2–3 year) Third Country Nationals (TCNs). 

Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in your career to 

date to promote human rights and democracy? What is the impact of your actions? 

Why were your actions significant? 

Answer. I have worked to support human rights and democracy throughout my 

career. In Mozambique from 1994–97, as Deputy Chief of Mission and later as 

Charge ́ d’Affaires, I worked with the government and the former rebel movement 

to ensure a smooth outcome to contested elections, leading to the first democratic 

government in the country. In both Mozambique and Uganda (1997–2000), I helped 

secure funding for returning refugees and for displaced conflict victims in northern 

Uganda fleeing atrocities by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). In addition, I helped 

draw attention to the plight of boys and girls rescued from the LRA. 

As Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) I was responsible for identifying refugee populations for resettlement in 

the United States, and shepherding the relaunch of the refugee resettlement program in our country after it was closed down in the aftermath of 9/11; tens of thousands of refugees benefited as a result. As the PRM Bureau’s lead point person 

responsible for Africa, I worked to improve conditions in refugee camps in Darfur 

and protection for women in these camps. 

In Colombia and Peru, as Ambassador, I secured funding for the first rape crisis 

center in a conflict zone in Colombia and helped launch the second-ever LGBT 

Chamber of Commerce in Latin America. I personally negotiated labor rights protection clauses in the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia. I publicly highlighted the 

plight of left-wing activists threatened in Colombia, and lobbied successfully for 

additional funding for Afro-Colombian minority communities in both Colombia and 

Peru. 

As mentioned, for much of my career I have been active supporting negotiations 

to end conflict, and save lives. I was proud to be part of the team that negotiated 

Namibia’s independence and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Africa. I also 

worked on peace negotiations in Uganda and Darfur. 

Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Afghanistan? What 

are the most important steps you expect to take—if confirmed—to promote human 

rights and democracy in Afghanistan? What do you hope to accomplish through 

these actions? 

Answer. As our human rights reports make clear, there are many pressing human 

rights concerns inside Afghanistan. Perhaps the most urgent is the need to preserve 

the enormous strides the Afghan people have made in this area over the past 13 

857 

years. Taliban views on human rights are made clear by their record when they controlled Kabul, their more recent pronouncements on issues such as the right of ordinary citizens to vote for their leaders, and the countless civilian casualties that are 

the hallmark of the insurgency they fuel. One of my most important missions, if 

confirmed, will be fostering a partnership with the Afghan Government based on the 

shared values enumerated in our Strategic Partnership Agreement. 

Also of great importance is the protection of the rights of women and girls. That 

is why gender has been a policy and programming priority for U.S. Embassy Kabul, 

and why it will continue to be a priority if I am confirmed. The United States must 

support and hold the Afghan Government accountable for the implementation of its 

strategy to advance women’s rights. This strategy focuses on ending discrimination 

and violence against women and ensuring the equal treatment of women under the 

law, improving educational and economic opportunities for women and girls, and 

implementing gender-neutral policies and women-friendly employment practices 

throughout the government. The new government of national unity has also 

declared its intention to work on gender protection and opportunity, as well as on 

strengthening the capacity of the judiciary to end impunity before the law. 

In a related issue, we are strengthening the funding for Trafficking in Persons 

(TIP) initiatives, and I hope that this will allow for an expansion of shelters for 

women and boys in Afghanistan. 

Given the Taliban threat mentioned above, an important part of our partnership 

with the Afghan Government is our cooperation with the Afghan National Security 

Forces. An essential part of that partnership must be confidence that the Afghan 

Armed Forces have the highest respect for human rights. President Ghani has made 

clear that he shares this view, and that he will not tolerate abuses committed by 

Afghan security forces. Beyond being U.S. law, Leahy vetting is an important and 

concrete reminder of our beliefs, and, if confirmed, I intend to ensure that we implement this process to the fullest extent of the letter and spirit of the law. 

Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to addressing the specific 

human rights issues you have identified in your previous response? 

Answer. We have many programs to promote and protect human rights in 

Afghanistan. However, as our presence in Afghanistan decreases, security restrictions will affect our outreach to some of Afghanistan’s most vulnerable populations. 

To overcome this challenge, we are adopting creative solutions that allow us to continue implementing projects in the field without losing the ability to monitor and 

evaluate our programming. 

Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in the United States and with local human rights NGOs in 

Afghanistan? 

Answer. Yes. Throughout my career I have met with and worked with civil society—independent NGOs, universities, women’s groups, the media, and human rights 

organizations. I have every intention of continuing to do so in Afghanistan, where 

strengthening civil society organizations is absolutely critical to our achieving our 

objectives, and where they need our visible support. 

RESPONSES OF ISOBEL COLEMAN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What steps has the U.S. Government undertaken since 2009 to address 

abuse and misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel participating in 

those operations? What further steps are you pursuing? Please address abuses by 

peacekeepers in UNMISS, MINUSTAH, and MONUSCO and responses taken. 

Answer. The United States has long been a leading advocate for measures to 

eliminate abuse and misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), by 

U.N. peacekeepers. We have been a leading advocate for changes to the system. 

With strong U.S. encouragement, the U.N. has improved its internal oversight process, sped up investigations, improved oversight of field missions, and worked hard 

to obtain and publish better data. All U.N. peacekeepers—whether military, police, 

or civilian, seconded or contracted—must abide by the U.N.’s clear code of conduct. 

The U.N. has focused on increasing good standards and has instituted enhanced 

screening procedures for peacekeepers, due in large part to pressure from the 

United States. For civilians, the U.N. maintains records of any prior misconduct by 

previous employees, and runs background checks on new hires. Screening for military and police personnel—in part because of the volume and frequent turnover— 

is more difficult, and currently consists of certification by the contributing governVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00865 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
858 

ment that the individual has a clean record. Measures are in place to screen all 

categories of peacekeeping personnel with the exception of troops, a deficiency that 

the United States is actively working with other U.N. member states to fix. 

In 2009, with strong U.S. encouragement, the U.N. developed a strategy for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions to provide short- and medium-term support to 

victims of sexual exploitation and abuse and children born to peacekeepers, even if 

the allegations have not been substantiated. Victims seek longer term restitution 

from the alleged perpetrators. The U.N. provides various types of assistance to victims, including counseling, medical treatment, and legal support. 

The Conduct and Discipline Unit (CDU) in the Department of Field Support is 

responsible for overseeing policy and regulations on misconduct. They have a small 

but very dedicated staff. We have been able to help them in a couple of ways. First, 

we worked with Vanderbilt Law School, which funded a four-student team to help 

CDU clear a backlog of cases. The team also developed a field manual on SEA rules 

and procedures. Second, the Bureau of International Organization Affairs is funding 

an entry-level professional position in CDU that is filled by a young American, 

whose job specifically includes updating and energizing the Victim’s Assistance policy. I, as well as CDU, regard keeping this position as a priority. 

The CDU has also made progress in expanding the scope of its program to screen 

peacekeeping personnel before deployment, including the conclusion of an information-sharing agreement with the United Nations Volunteer (UNV) program that 

authorizes CDU to access information about whether prospective U.N. civilian staff 

members who previously served as UNVs were subject to any disciplinary measures. 

Second, there is now an interface between the CDU’s Misconduct Tracking System 

(MTS) and the recruitment systems used by the Police Division and the Office of 

Military Affairs in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). CDU is 

now able to screen individual police officers, military observers, and military liaison 

officers serving in the field. 

U.S. training under the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), which includes 

the Africa Contingency Operations and Assistance (ACOTA), includes instruction on 

conduct and discipline, including SEA prevention, as part of all peacekeeping training. Such instruction is included in both ‘‘train the trainer’’ programs and training 

for individual units that will deploy to peacekeeping operations. Trainers are provided a full set of course material and U.N. documents, but tailor the length and 

specific content of instruction based on the course being offered (for example, infantry, medical, officer, or enlisted), the length of the class, and the individual or unit’s 

previous peacekeeping experience. Topics include the standards of conduct, impact 

on the local population and the mission, human trafficking, vulnerable groups, 

reporting, and scenarios. 

U.S. training for police officers serving with U.N. missions includes both ‘‘train 

the trainer’’ programs for partner countries and training U.S. police officers who are 

deploying to U.N. missions. Both types of training include instruction on SEA regulations and procedures. 

Overall, the number of SEA allegations per year has steadily decreased over the 

last 5 years. This is largely due to the U.N. strengthening its zero tolerance framework through increased and more targeted training, community outreach, and effective leadership. U.N. peacekeeping operations are fostering greater understanding 

of U.N. SEA and TIP policy, procedures, and reporting mechanism within local communities. 

The U.N. Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo (MONUSCO), which has consistently had the highest rates of SEA allegations, is experiencing a decline. This is greatly due to training, assessment visits, 

and outreach efforts both within the mission and with civil society. In addition to 

new SEA preventative measures, MONUSCO has implemented a policy that refers 

local MONUSCO staff who commit SEA to local authorities. 

The U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) has also experienced a 

marked decrease in SEA allegations, which reflects the success of a multidimensional approach to tackling SEA by U.N. peacekeepers, including ‘‘train the trainer’’ 

and other courses, nationwide awareness campaigns, and a robust zero tolerance 

policy. Unfortunately, much of these changes are a result of a series of past public 

SEA allegations against MINUSTAH peacekeepers. For example, in January 2012, 

three members of the Pakistani Formed Police Unit (FPU) serving with MINUSTAH 

were accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old Haitian teenage boy. Following an 

initial investigation by the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Pakistani authorities flew a Pakistani judge to Haiti and conducted an immediate trial. 

All three personnel were convicted, dishonorably discharged, and flown back to 

Pakistan in March that year to serve 1-year prison sentences. 

859 

The U.N. Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), and its predecessor 

the U.N. Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), have consistently been among the missions 

with the highest allegations of SEA. Unfortunately, UNMISS’ Conduct and Discipline Team (CDT) does not currently have the capacity to maintain a presence outside Juba and relies heavily on state offices to handle the case intake. These local 

officials often are untrained in SEA procedures and have other portfolios rather 

than working full-time on conduct and discipline. As a consequence, the local population is often unaware of U.N. SEA policies and reporting procedures. Furthermore, 

the current UNMISS budget does not contain resources to fund awareness campaigns. 

To address these problems, I will push the U.N. to increase their followup to allegations of SEA and other peacekeeper misconduct, particularly with victims and the 

local community, on actions taken against perpetrators. The U.N. does not have the 

authority to prosecute, so any prosecution when appropriate would be conducted by 

a national government (either the host government or relevant troop contributing 

country). However, the U.N. cannot compel member states to report on actions 

taken. 

Additionally, I will also increase efforts with like-minded countries to press troop 

and police contributing countries to take action when personnel are repatriated. 

Finally, I will continue to encourage the U.N. to properly fund and staff the CDU 

and the OIOS, which sends professional investigators, with experience in collecting 

and evaluating evidence. 

Question. In your view, what issues in the broad area of U.N. management and 

reform should have top priority? What reforms will the U.S. mission emphasize during your tenure? 

Answer. The U.S. mission will engage on multiple management and reform priorities during my tenure. 

Reform of the Regular Budget Process: The United States will engage with 

likeminded allies to improve the U.N. regular budget process, which produces budgets of limited strategic value because of ‘‘incremental’’ development (prior budgets 

are used as baselines without any analytical justification). The Department agrees 

with a recent U.N. Board of Auditor’s report (July 2014) suggesting the U.N. should 

better align program planning and strategic goals/work plans and more thoroughly 

link budget information to desired outcomes. Our overall goal, in addition to emphasizing broad reforms in the budget process, is to reduce costs as much as possible 

and seek absorption within the existing budget. 

Another focus of U.N. budget reform during my tenure will be the U.N.’s practice 

of recosting, where the U.N. revises cost estimates to take into account inflation, 

exchange rate losses, increased personnel costs resulting from mandatory salary 

adjustments, and lower-then-planned vacancy rates. A recent U.N. report on the 

recosting process did not go as far as we would have liked, so we will work with 

our likeminded allies and others to continue the momentum for recosting reform, 

establish guidance and mechanisms to alleviate the impact of recosting, and pressure the Secretariat to live within its budget. 

U.N. Staff Compensation (‘‘Common System’’): Earlier this year, the International 

Civil Service Commission implemented a landmark multiyear pay freeze affecting 

30,000 U.N. staff across 24 organizations in the U.N. common system, and it continues work on a new compensational package. The pay freeze will narrow the 

5-year average margin between U.N. staff and U.S. federal civil servants by 2019 

and give U.N. common system organizations interim relief from budget growth 

caused by increases in staff costs. Our primary goal is to preserve the pay freeze 

decision by the ICSC and ensure that the new compensation package is simple, 

modern, and cost effective. 

Human Resource Management: The United States is working with like-minded 

allies to pressure the Secretariat to establish a new performance management system that should allow for the effective measurement of performance, rewarding of 

good performance, and sanctioning for underperformance. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize the paramount focus of the U.N. Charter as favoring the most 

qualified applicant over a more equitable geographic distribution of posts. 

Oversight and Transparency: In 2012, the United States successfully advocated for 

the disclosure of audit reports by the Office of Internal Oversight Services, which 

are available to the public on a trial basis, through December 2014. As evident in 

a recent report by the Independent Audit Advisory Committee, public disclosure of 

internal audit reports had a positive impact on the quality of the reports. Based on 

the overall success of the pilot, I will work with like-minded member states to urge 

the General Assembly to make publication of internal audit reports permanent. 

860 

Procurement: Procurement has become an increasingly prominent issue for the 

U.N. In 2006, the Secretary General proposed a range of procurement-related 

reforms including strengthening internal controls, optimizing U.N. acquisition management to reduce costs, and ensuring staff have sufficient training and skillsets to 

support these efforts. According to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and 

Budgetary Issues and Joint Inspection Unit, the Procurement Division has improved 

its operations since 2006. However, the Office of Internal Oversight Services and 

Board of Auditors note that further improvements are necessary. If confirmed, I will 

engage the Secretariat to ensure progress with adequate training in contract management, well-defined delegations of authority, implementation of a monitoring 

framework, application of best value for money, and reductions in delays delivering 

goods and services. 

Question. Some observers and experts, including U.S. policymakers, have argued 

that OIOS should not rely on funding from the U.N. programs and bodies that it 

audits in order to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest. How does this conflict 

of interest impede their ability to accurately provide oversight and audit the appropriate programs? What steps, if any, is the United States taking to achieve operational independence for OIOS? 

Answer. As the U.N.’s internal watchdog, we believe that OIOS should have all 

the tools it needs to conduct its work as efficiently and effectively as possible. Operational independence and jurisdiction over its budget and personnel decisions are 

essential for OIOS to perform its oversight functions free from influence by the organizations and officials it oversees. OIOS funding comes from three sources—regular 

budget, peacekeeping, and extra-budgetary sources. The United States remains concerned that this funding structure limits OIOS’ flexibility to utilize resources where 

needed, restricting its ability to achieve its organizational goals. 

The United States will continue to strongly support efforts to revitalize OIOS and 

further strengthen its core functions of audit, investigation, and evaluation. We 

worked tirelessly in the General Assembly to establish an Assistant Secretary General position to serve as OIOS deputy to elevate OIOS’ role within the U.N. system. 

The Fifth Committee of the 69th session of the U.N. General Assembly is currently 

reviewing OIOS’ annual report and the resolutions which govern OIOS. The United 

States is engaged with like-minded member states to use this mandate review as 

an opportunity to increase OIOS’ operational and budgetary independence. The 

OIOS is also conducting a review of its funding arrangements, including its impact 

on operational independence. We will work with OIOS and member states to propose improvements to its funding structure and improve its operational independence, and I look forward to consulting with Congress on the results of these discussions, if confirmed. 

Question. The implementation of humanitarian reforms within the United Nations 

since 2005 has focused on strengthening the capacity of response through relief sections; increasing coordination and leadership through the creation of the Humanitarian Coordinator at the country level, and the establishment of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to provide a faster U.N. response to humanitarian 

emergencies. 

♦ Please comment on the implementation of these reforms. What are the 

strengths and weaknesses in the international humanitarian response system? 

What further reforms, if any, are necessary? Please discuss with regard to 

UNMISS and UNMEER. 

Answer. There has been significant progress on U.N.-led humanitarian reforms 

since 2005. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)’s Transformative Agenda 

(ITA) is the most recent iteration of these efforts and has focused on strengthening 

leadership, improving coordination, and enhancing accountability. Today, highly 

qualified and experienced humanitarians are regularly appointed to lead U.N. 

efforts in countries where there are major humanitarian crises. Field coordination 

continues to improve. Most humanitarian organizations engage in and strongly support the ‘‘cluster system,’’ the coordination mechanism in place to provide leadership, coordinate needs assessments and gap analyses, and ensure comprehensive 

engagement by all actors operating under specific humanitarian sectors, including 

water and sanitation, food and nutrition, and health. Efforts to improve accountability to affected populations lag behind other reforms; however, improvements in 

humanitarian leadership and coordination have brought greater predictability to 

international humanitarian response and thus more accountability to the populations served. 

The strengths of the system include resource mobilization, the ability of humanitarian staffers to work in difficult and often insecure environments, improved comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00868 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION\1ST SESSION 
861 

munication and coordination between and among humanitarian actors, greater 

clarity about organizations’ roles and responsibilities, stronger and more effective 

leadership, and improved information management. There are also important efforts 

underway to refine and improve the quality of the Strategic Response Plans, which 

provide overall direction to the response and support important prioritization of 

needs. The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) administered by OCHA has 

been extremely effective in providing rapid funding to U.N. agencies when crises 

emerge. 

More efforts need to be made to include local and national actors in humanitarian 

response. More senior U.N. and other humanitarian officials need to be nominated 

for the Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator pools. Stronger partnerships 

between humanitarian and development actors are required, particularly since most 

humanitarian crises are protracted and last for several years. More countries need 

to contribute to the humanitarian appeals. All actors need to coordinate more closely 

with the U.N.-led response to avoid duplication, waste, and confusion. In terms of 

additional reforms, we will continue to support the full implementation of the ITA 

by all humanitarian actors. 

Currently in South Sudan there is strong coordination between UNMISS and the 

U.N. Humanitarian Country Team (UNHCT). Deputy Special Representative of the 

Secretary General/Resident Coordinator/Humanitarian Coordinator, Toby Lanzer, is 

working closely with both the peacekeeping operation and humanitarian actors to 

ensure strong cooperation and appropriate division of labor. South Sudan remains 

one of the largest humanitarian operations globally, and there are continued efforts 

to improve UNMISS and UNHCT operations in the Protection of Civilians (POC) 

sites in particular. 

UNMEER, established to respond to the unprecedented Ebola outbreak, is the 

first-ever U.N. emergency health mission. UNMEER harnesses the capabilities of a 

number of U.N. bodies, especially WHO, WFP, UNICEF, and UNDP, through a unified operational structure. Its objective is to ensure a rapid and coherent response 

to the crisis. Efforts continue to refine UNMEER to improve field coordination and 

information management and ensure it is able to stop transmission of the virus. 

Many U.N. organizations have seconded staff to UNMEER and are working closely 

with UNMEER leadership to provide all necessary support to improve the effectiveness of the U.N. response. 

RESPONSES OF RICHARD RAHUL VERMA TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. Over the past decade, the United States and India have pursued several 

bilateral strategic and economic initiatives yet there has been little demonstrable 

progress in these potential areas of cooperation. This has led some analysts to suggest that Washington and New Delhi have established unrealistic expectations for 

the bilateral relationship. 

♦ Is it time to recalibrate expectations for the United States-India relationship? 

Answer. We have, and should maintain, high expectations for the vibrant and 

growing partnership between the United States and India. Successive administrations have made the strategic decision that a rising India and a strong bilateral relationship are in the U.S. national interest. President Obama has called our ties 

with India a defining partnership for the 21st century. Our rebalance to the AsiaPacific is premised on the consequential role the region’s 4.3 billion people will play 

in global politics, security, and economics this century. A strong India will play a 

critical role in the coming decades in affirmatively shaping this Asian landscape. 

Our partnership with India will play an increasingly important role in providing 

security, prosperity, and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. All partnerships face 

challenges, but given our shared interests, the U.S. Government is confident that 

our investments in the relationship will yield dividends. 

Question. Prime Minister Modi has articulated an ambitious agenda, including a 

desire to strengthen relations with the United States. If confirmed, how do you 

intend to work with the Modi government to translate this enthusiasm into tangible 

areas of progress in the bilateral relationship? What areas do you believe are most 

ripe for advancing our shared interests? 

Answer. If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to India, I will execute the President’s 

vision for the United States-India strategic partnership as outlined in the Joint 

Statement issued by President Obama and Prime Minister Modi during the Prime 

Minister’s successful visit to Washington this past fall. 

862 

Given our increasingly convergent national security interests in the Indo-Pacific 

region and around the world, I will work with India to promote regional and global 

security. Additionally, solidifying and renewing our 10-year Defense Framework 

Agreement will be one of my highest priorities. Another of my top defense priorities 

will be to conclude codevelopment and coproduction projects under the auspices of 

the Defense Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) between our two governments. 

On the energy and environment front, I will work to promote both American exports 

and India’s energy security and by helping India to diversify its hydrocarbondependent energy needs and by promoting renewable energy sources through our 

Partnership to Advance Clean Energy (PACE) and Promoting Energy Access 

through Clean Energy (PEACE) initiatives. I will also assist U.S. companies to participate in India’s growing nuclear power sector by fully realizing our civil nuclear 

deal. I will dedicate a significant portion of my time to expanding two-way trade 

between our two nations, an effort that will increase employment for U.S. workers. 

To ensure our companies compete on the most level playing field possible, I will take 

every opportunity to convince Indian Government and business leaders that adoption of an intellectual property-rights regime based on international norms is the 

only way for India to attract the level of foreign investment the country needs to 

achieve its ambitious economic development agenda. 

RESPONSES OF ISOBEL COLEMAN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BOB CORKER

Question. The U.N. General Assembly’s Fifth Committee deals with administrative and budgetary aspects of U.N. Peacekeeping. Allegations of serious misconduct 

including sexual, exploitation, and abuse (SEA) continue to compromise the success 

of peacekeeping missions. 

♦ If confirmed, within your responsibilities over management and reforms, what 

initial actions do you intend to take to implement meaningful reforms to reduce 

these occurrences? 

♦ More broadly, what are the long-term challenges facing U.S. and U.N. policymakers as they attempt to reduce instances of SEA in peacekeeping operations? 

♦ Describe and detail your plan for addressing in a substantial and meaningful 

way this chronic problem of peacekeeper abuses? 

Answer. The United States has been a leading proponent for measures to prevent 

misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers, in particular sexual misconduct, for almost a decade, and is a strong supporter of the U.N.’s efforts to fully implement its policy of 

zero tolerance of sexual misconduct. 

The U.N. has made significant progress in strengthening measures against sexual 

exploitation and abuse (SEA) over the past few years, largely due to efforts by the 

administration, which shares your deep concern about this issue. Strengthened 

measures include enhancing its misconduct tracking system, institution of a screening policy for all categories of personnel, and provisions withholding reimbursement 

to troop and police contributing countries on account of contingent personnel repatriated for misconduct, including SEA. If confirmed, I intend to push for a review 

of the recommendations of the 2005 report of the panel headed by Prince Zeid of 

Jordan, which was the basis for the measures currently in place, and I look forward 

to staying in close touch with you and your staff about this critically important 

issue. 

Indeed, the U.N. has robust policies and procedures in place for prevention and 

training, handling allegations received, and investigations (for civilian and police 

personnel). Further progress, however, depends not on the U.N. alone, but also on 

the willingness of troop and police contributing countries to fulfill their obligations 

with regard to misconduct. More progress is needed to ensure that contingent commanders maintain discipline within the units under their command, that troopcontributing countries expeditiously investigate allegations of misconduct by their 

soldiers and inform the U.N. of the results of those investigations, and that both 

troop and police contributing countries take the appropriate disciplinary action 

(including, if relevant, prosecution) against soldiers and/or police found to have 

engaged in misconduct, including SEA. 

To address this problem, I will push the U.N. to increase their followup to allegations of SEA and other peacekeeper misconduct, particularly with victims and the 

local community, on actions taken against perpetrators. The U.N. does not have the 

authority to prosecute, so any prosecution when appropriate would be conducted by 

a national government (either the host government or relevant troop contributing 

country). However, the U.N. cannot compel member states to report on actions 

taken. Additionally, I will also increase efforts with like-minded countries to press 

863 

troop and police contributing countries to take action when personnel are repatriated. 

Additionally, I will continue to encourage the U.N. to properly fund and staff the 

U.N.’s Conduct and Discipline Unit (CDU) in the Department of Field Support and 

the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). The CDU is responsible for 

overseeing policy and regulations on misconduct. They have a small but very dedicated staff. In the case of serious allegations against civilians and police officers, 

OIOS sends professional investigators, with experience in collecting and evaluating 

evidence. Preserving evidence, whether interviews or physical evidence, may also 

pose challenges in post-crisis environments (often poor countries) where contemporary missions are deployed: the situation is chaotic, and the physical facilities and 

technical expertise may not be available. 

Another area on which I intend to engage the U.N. is increasing the number of 

female peacekeepers in the field. In addition to providing role models for the local 

population, the presence of female peacekeepers reportedly decreases the incidents 

of SEA by other peacekeepers. 

Question. This year, the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services found that 

peacekeeping missions have fallen short in upholding their protection of civilian 

mandates. Do you agree with the findings of the report? What reforms do you think 

are needed to ensure that peacekeepers are fully implementing their mandates in 

this respect? 

Answer. I am aware of this report and share your concern, as well as the administration’s support of the report’s release. It provided empirical evidence proving 

something that we all suspected: that there is a disconnect between the intention 

of the U.N. Security Council in mandating peacekeeping operations to protect civilians, and the actions—or lack thereof—of peacekeeping troops on the ground, especially when the use of force is necessary in order to effectively protect civilians. 

Peacekeepers are authorized to use force to protect themselves—and to protect their 

mandate. In missions with protection of civilian mandates, peacekeepers are authorized and expected to use force to protect civilians from violence when necessary. The 

behavior detailed in the report is unacceptable and the U.S. Government is taking 

concrete steps to remedy this situation. 

The administration has underscored its concern about the findings of this report 

to the most senior officials at the United Nations. The U.S. Government is pressing 

the United Nations to develop a comprehensive set of reforms—encompassing 

doctrine, communications, training, monitoring, accountability, coordination and 

political engagement—to more effectively ensure the protection of civilians in peacekeeping. 

The administration recognizes that a key part of the problem is that troops in 

U.N. peacekeeping operations receive political guidance from their capitals not to 

take active measures to protect civilians, out of fear that these actions would compromise the peacekeepers impartiality and would place the troops at greater risk. 

The U.S. Government is therefore also making concerted diplomatic efforts to 

address this challenge. It is engaging troop contributors at a political level to press 

them to change their approach. The U.S. Government is also working with likeminded countries. For example, Rwanda plans to host a high-level conference in 

March on improving the protection of civilians in U.N. peacekeeping Operations. 

Question. The U.S. Ambassador for U.N. Management and Reform is tasked with 

promoting a culture of accountability, integrity and transparency. Protecting legitimate whistleblowers is critical to success in this effort. How effective do you think 

the U.N.’s whistleblower policy has been in serving the organization? What are the 

policy’s strengths, and which specific weaknesses do you believe need to be 

addressed? 

Answer. The administration remains deeply committed to advancing accountability, integrity, and transparency reforms throughout the U.N. system. Since the 

U.N. Ethics Office became operational in January 2006, it has significantly improved whistleblower protections for all U.N. Secretariat officials. In December 

2007, the Secretary General established an ethics framework for the U.N. Secretariat and the U.N. funds and programs (ST/SGB/2007/11), requiring all U.N. funds 

and programs to establish independent ethics offices. The U.N. policy is designed 

to protect U.N. personnel against retaliation and reverse administrative actions 

deemed to be retaliatory. The ethics framework also established the U.N. Ethics 

Panel, to unify ethical standards and provide a mechanism for staff to appeal ethics 

rulings and decisions by their organization. 

Through an ongoing dialogue with the U.N. Ethics Director and other senior U.N. 

officials, I will continue to promote improvements to the culture of accountability 

864 

and protections for whistleblowers at the United Nations. At the urging of the 

United States and other major donors, U.N. member states requested the Secretary 

General to expedite the development of strengthened protections against whistleblower retaliation. To facilitate that process, the U.N. Ethics Office is currently reviewing the effectiveness of the current policy. The U.N. Ethics Office is expected 

to report its findings in 2015. To strengthen the culture of accountability, I will continue to advocate for the Ethics Director to have greater authority in order to make 

binding recommendations. Finally, in addition to providing remedies for victims of 

retaliation, I believe greater action should be taken to hold perpetrators of misconduct accountable. 

Question. The U.N.’s internal justice system was reformed in 2009, and many 

observers agree that the reforms improved the effectiveness of the system. At the 

same time, however, some staff members and their attorneys have argued that the 

reforms did not go far enough. 

♦ What is your opinion of the reforms made, and are you satisfied with them? 

♦ Are there aspects of the justice system that concern you still? How might these 

concerns be addressed? 

Answer. The United States was one of the primary architects of the reform of the 

previous U.N. administration of justice system in 2009. Over the past 5 years, the 

new United Nations Dispute Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal, along with a number 

of other innovative reforms, have made a positive impact on the transparency, fairness, efficiency, and accountability of the United Nations personnel system. 

The administration is particularly pleased that the caseload of the Tribunals 

appears to be stabilizing. We applaud efforts to ensure easy access to the jurisprudence of the Tribunals allowing U.N. staff and management, as well as anyone acting as legal representatives, to inform themselves about the latest developments of 

the jurisprudence, to establish precedent that can guide the assessment of other 

cases, and to better understand relevant rules and regulations as applied by the 

Tribunals. 

Now that the system is established, it is important to turn a critical eye toward 

evaluating its effectiveness. There are a number of issues that need to be monitored 

and addressed. These include ensuring that the Dispute Tribunal and Appeals 

Tribunal do not exercise powers beyond those conferred under their respective statutes and ensuring that recourse to general principles of law and the Charter, by the 

Tribunals, takes place within the context of, and consistent with, statutes and relevant General Assembly resolutions, regulations, rules, and administrative issuances. Of course we respect the independence of the Tribunals, but we also believe 

that these issues must be addressed to prevent judicial overreach. 

This administration strongly supported the General Assembly’s request last year 

for the Secretary General to present a proposal for conducting an interim independent assessment of the formal administration of justice, and the United States 

is currently exploring how the Secretary General can form an independent panel to 

conduct the assessment in a cost-efficient manner. 

Question. Some observers and experts, including U.S. policymakers, have argued 

that the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) should not rely on funding from the U.N. programs and bodies that it audits in order to avoid a real or 

perceived conflict of interest. 

♦ Do you agree with this assessment? Please explain. What steps, if any, is the 

United States taking to achieve operational independence for OIOS? 

Answer. As the U.N.’s internal watchdog, we believe that OIOS should have all 

the tools it needs to conduct its work as efficiently and effectively as possible. Operational independence and jurisdiction over its budget and personnel decisions are 

essential for OIOS to perform its oversight functions free from influence by the organizations and officials it oversees. OIOS funding comes from three sources—regular 

budget, peacekeeping, and extra-budgetary sources. The United States remains concerned that this funding structure limits OIOS’ flexibility to utilize resources where 

needed, restricting its ability to achieve its organizational goals. 

The United States will continue to strongly support efforts to revitalize OIOS and 

further strengthen its core functions of audit, investigation, and evaluation. We 

worked tirelessly in the General Assembly to establish an Assistant Secretary General position to serve as OIOS deputy to elevate OIOS’ role within the U.N. system. 

The Fifth Committee of the 69th session of the U.N. General Assembly is currently 

reviewing OIOS’ annual report and the resolutions which govern OIOS. The United 

States is engaged with like-minded member states to use this mandate review as 

an opportunity to increase OIOS’ operational and budgetary independence. The 

OIOS is also conducting a review of its funding arrangements, including its impact 

865 

on operational independence. We will work with OIOS and member states to propose improvements to its funding structure and improve its operational independence, and I look forward to consulting with Congress on the results of these discussions, if confirmed. 

RESPONSE OF RICHARD RAHUL VERMA TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. As you know, the United States has made gender equality and efforts 

to combat gender-based violence a priority within its foreign policy. In India, rape 

and sexual violence against women have been long-standing challenges that have 

received increased attention in recent months due to high profile attacks on women 

and girls. 

♦ How can the United States utilize the tools and actions outlined in the U.S. 

Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally to better 

respond to gender-based violence in India? 

♦ If confirmed, how will you work to demonstrate the United States continued 

commitment to the basic human rights of Indian women and girls? 

Answer. Given the global nature of the issue, gender equality has been, and 

remains, a top strategic priority for the Obama administration. The administration 

has been encouraged by steps taken by the new government to address genderbased violence and aim to strengthen our cooperation on women’s issues. The 

United States, consistent with the tools outlined in the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and 

Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally, is seeking to renew its Women’s 

Empowerment Dialogue with the new Indian Government, focusing on four key priority areas: national development planning and women’s issues; expanding a 

national framework to address gender-based violence; promoting secondary education in India; and United States-India economic cooperation and women’s economic advancement. Our bilateral Global Issues Forum also provides a platform to 

address human rights and gender-based violence. The Secretary noted during the 

last U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue that gender equality is a priority for the administration. As Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights 

Sarah Sewall underscored during her recent visit to India, advancing these priorities will help prevent gender inequality and find constructive ways to address the 

problem of gender-based violence, while improving protections and rights for women 

and girls and accountability for the perpetrators of such violence. 

The USG has worked with successive Indian governments to address human 

rights issues, sharing our Nation’s experience in forming a more perfect union. If 

confirmed, I will continue this respectful dialogue with the new Indian Government 

and continue to engage with advocates for women’s rights and other civil society 

organizations. 

RESPONSES OF PETER MICHAEL MCKINLEY TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. The nation of Afghanistan has made important progress on women’s 

rights in the last decade. Millions of girls are attending school, women have run for, 

and been elected to, public office, and many more have joined the civil service and 

the Afghan National Army and Police. 

It is important now more than ever that the United States work with the new 

administration of President Ghani to ensure that the rights of women and girls are 

protected and that these important gains are not rolled back. 

♦ If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that the United States continues to 

be a strong advocate for the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan? 

Answer. As Secretary Kerry has said, creating opportunities for women and girls 

is not just the right thing to do, it is a strategic necessity. Societies where women 

are safe and empowered to exercise their rights and move their communities forward are more prosperous and more stable. Nowhere is the pursuit of that vision 

more compelling or critical than in Afghanistan. So let there be no doubt that even 

as the U.S. role in Afghanistan changes during the next few years, we will continue 

to stand with and work closely with Afghan women and girls. We will be vigilant 

and disciplined in our support and in our refusal to accept the erosion of women’s 

rights and freedoms. 

If I am confirmed, gender will continue to be a policy and programming priority 

for U.S. Embassy Kabul. The United States must support and hold the Afghan Government accountable for the implementation of its strategy to advance women’s 

866 

rights. This strategy focuses on: ending discrimination and violence against women 

and ensuring the equal treatment of women under the law, improving educational 

and economic opportunities for women and girls, and implementing gender-neutral 

policies and women-friendly employment practices throughout the government. 

We must also continue to press for the full implementation of the 2009 Law on 

the Elimination of Violence Against Women, increased numbers of women in the 

Afghan National Security Forces, and the implementation of Afghanistan’s National 

Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. 

That is why the United States is investing more in gender programming in 

Afghanistan than it ever has anywhere in the world. USAID’s Promote project, 

which will be worth at least $216 million over the next 5 years, is an investment 

in a new generation of Afghan women leaders. Promote is only one of dozens of U.S. 

Government projects that will invest in Afghan women’s development in the Transformation Decade (2015–24). These projects address, among other concerns, women’s 

educational opportunities, economic empowerment, access to justice, health and 

nutrition, and gender-based violence prevention and victims’ assistance. 

Question. I was deeply disturbed by a recent report from Oxfam International, 

which found that Afghan women have been systematically excluded from the Afghan 

Government’s efforts to start peace talks with the Taliban. 

As you may know, the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and 

Security seeks to ensure that the United States promotes women’s meaningful inclusion and participation in mediation and negotiation processes undertaken in order 

to prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflict. 

♦ If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that Afghan women are fully and 

meaningfully represented in any future peace talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban? 

Answer. It is essential that women play a meaningful role in any future peace 

talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban. This is critical not only 

because of our commitment to Women, Peace, and Security, but because any 

attempt at peace made by excluding more than half the population is no peace at 

all. 

Ensuring women have a voice at all levels—national, provincial and local—at the 

decisionmaking tables and in rebuilding their nation alongside men will help to consolidate security gains. That is why the international community has made clear 

that the necessary outcomes of any process are that the Taliban and other armed 

opposition groups end violence, break ties with al-Qaeda, and accept Afghanistan’s 

constitution, including its protections for women and minorities. As Secretary Kerry 

has said, ‘‘there can’t be an effective peace, and there won’t be, in Afghanistan if 

we can’t hold onto the gains and continue them, continue the progress that is being 

made with respect to women’s participation in Afghan society.’’ 

If confirmed, I will do my best to ensure women play a significant role in determining Afghanistan’s future. I plan to advocate for meaningful representation of 

women in any peace negotiations and the timely implementation of Afghanistan’s 

new National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. 

Æ