[Senate Hearing 113-319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 113-319
 
            NOMINATIONS OF THE 113TH CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION

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

                                HEARINGS



                               BEFORE THE



                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE



                    ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS



                             FIRST SESSION



                               ----------                              

                    MAY 7 THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 2013

                               ----------                              



       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations







[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



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











                                                        S. Hrg. 113-319

            NOMINATIONS OF THE 113TH CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION

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

                                HEARINGS



                               BEFORE THE



                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE



                    ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS



                             FIRST SESSION



                               __________

                    MAY 7 THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 2013

                               __________



       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations










[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


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








                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

88-305 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
  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









                COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS          

                113th CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION          

             ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman        

BARBARA BOXER, California                 BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland              JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania \1\1   MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire             RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware            JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois               JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
TOM UDALL, New Mexico                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut           RAND PAUL, Kentucky
TIM KAINE, Virginia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts \2\

          Daniel E. O'Brien, Democratic Staff Director        
        Lester E. Munson III, Republican Staff Director        

--------
\1\ Senator Casey served on the committee until July 16, 2013.
\2\ Senator 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 24, 2013

The committee's hearing on the nomination of John F. Kerry to be 
  Secretary of State was printed as a separate document. (S. Hrg. 
  113-163)
                                 ------                                
Tuesday, May 7, 2013.............................................     1

Hon. Deborah K. Jones, of New Mexico, to be Ambassador to Libya..     5
Hon. James Knight, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Chad......    10
                                 ------                                
Wednesday, June 19, 2013.........................................    31

Geoffrey R. Pyatt, of California, to be Ambassador to Ukraine....    33
Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to 
  Burkina Faso...................................................    37
                                 ------                                
Thursday, June 20, 2013..........................................    51

Daniel R. Russel, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of State 
  for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.............................    53
                                 ------                                
Thursday, July 11, 2013..........................................    97

Hon. Victoria Nuland, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of 
  State for European Affairs.....................................   102
Douglas Edward Lute, of Indiana, to be U.S. Permanent 
  Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty.....   105
Daniel Brooks Baer, of Colorado, to be U.S. Representative to the 
  Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe............   109
                                 ------                                
Wednesday, July 17, 2013.........................................   157

Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be the U.S. Representative 
  to the United Nations, the U.S. Representative in the Security 
  Council of the United Nations, and to be the U.S. 
  Representative to the sessions of the General Assembly of the 
  United Nations.................................................   162
                                 ------                                
Wednesday, July 17, 2013.........................................   237

Catherine M. Russell, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues..................   239

                            (iii)          

  
Tuesday, July 23, 2013...........................................   253

Hon. Morrell John Berry, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to 
  Australia......................................................   258
Daniel Clune, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to Laos..............   261
Joseph Yun, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to Malaysia..............   264
                                 ------                                
Wednesday, July 24, 2013.........................................   283

Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, of Louisiana, to be Assistant 
  Secretary of State for African Affairs.........................   288
Hon. James F. Entwistle, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the 
  Federal Republic of Nigeria....................................   299
Hon. Patricia Marie Haslach, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to the 
  Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia........................   302
Reuben Earl Brigety, II, of Florida, to be the U.S. 
  Representative to the African Union, with the rank and status 
  of Ambassador..................................................   304
Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 
  Republic of Congo..............................................   306
Patrick Hubert Gaspard, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 
  Republic of South Africa.......................................   308
                                 ------                                
Thursday, July 25, 2013..........................................   337

James Costos, of California, to be Ambassador to Spain...........   344
Denise Campbell Bauer, of California, to be Ambassador to Belgium   347
John Rufus Gifford, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to Denmark   349
John B. Emerson, of California, to be Ambassador to the Federal 
  Republic of Germany............................................   352
Hon. David D. Pearce, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Greece....   355
                                 ------                                
Tuesday, July 30, 2013...........................................   371

Hon. Steve A. Linick, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, 
  Department of State............................................   373
Hon. Matthew Winthrop Barzun, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador to 
  the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.......   383
Hon. Liliana Ayalde, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the 
  Federative Republic of Brazil..................................   386
Hon. David Hale, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic 
  of Lebanon.....................................................   389
Evan Ryan, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for 
  Educational and Cultural Affairs...............................   391
Kirk W.B. Wagar, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 
  Singapore......................................................   412
Daniel A. Sepulveda, of Florida, for the rank of Ambassador 
  during his tenure of service as Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
  State for International Communications and Information Policy 
  in the Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs and 
  U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and 
  Information Policy.............................................   415
Hon. Terence Patrick McCulley, of Washington, to be Ambassador to 
  the Republic of Cote D'Ivoire..................................   418
Hon. James C. Swan, of California, to be Ambassador to the 
  Democratic Republic of the Congo...............................   420
John R. Phillips, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador 
  to the Italian Republic, and to serve concurrently and without 
  additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of San 
  Marino.........................................................   432
Hon. Kenneth Francis Hackett, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to 
  the Holy See...................................................   435
Alexa Lange Wesner, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 
  Austria........................................................   438
                                 ------                                
Thursday, September 12, 2013.....................................   453

Hon. Nisha Desai Biswal, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs...........   456
Thursday, September 19, 2013.....................................   483

Caroline Kennedy, of New York, to be Ambassador to Japan.........   490
Hon. Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of 
  State for Near Eastern Affairs.................................   509
Gregory B. Starr, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State 
  for Diplomatic Security........................................   519
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 (a.m.)...............................   559

Dwight L. Bush, Sr., of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco...........................   562
Mark Bradley Childress, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the 
  United Republic of Tanzania....................................   565
Thomas F. Daughton, of Arizona, to be Ambassador to Namibia......   569
Matthew Harrington, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Lesotho.....   571
Hon. Eunice S. Reddick, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Ambassador to Niger............................................   591
John Hoover, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to Sierra Leone..   594
Michael S. Hoza, of Washington, to be Ambassador to Cameroon.....   596
                                 ------                                
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 (p.m.)...............................   613

Tomasz P. Malinowski, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and 
  Labor..........................................................   616
Keith M. Harper, of Maryland, to be U.S. Representative to the 
  United Nations Human Rights Council............................   621
Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, to be U.S. Permanent 
  Representative to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, 
  and Cultural Organization......................................   623
Pamela K. Hamamoto, of Hawaii, to be U.S. Representative to the 
  Office of the United States and Other International 
  Organizations in Geneva........................................   626
                                 ------                                
Wednesday, September 25, 2013....................................   661
Hon. Philip S. Goldberg, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Ambassador to the Republic of the Philippines..................   667
Hon. Robert O. Blake, Jr., of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the 
  Republic of Indonesia..........................................   669
Karen Clark Stanton, of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the 
  Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.............................   672
Amy Jane Hyatt, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic 
  of Palau.......................................................   675
                                 ------                                
Thursday, September 26, 2013 (a.m.)..............................   691

Hon. Rose Eilene Gottemoeller, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary 
  of State for Arms Control and International Security...........   697
Frank A. Rose, of Massachusetts, to be Assistant Secretary of 
  State for Verification and Compliance..........................   702
Adam M. Scheinman, of Virginia, to be Special Representative of 
  the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of 
  Ambassador.....................................................   707
                                 ------                                
Thursday, September 26, 2013 (p.m.)..............................   747

Timothy Broas, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of 
  the Netherlands................................................   750
Donald Lu, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 
  Albania........................................................   754
Robert A. Sherman, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the 
  Portuguese Republic............................................   757
                                 ------                                
Thursday, October 3, 2013........................................   769

James Brewster Jr., of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the 
  Dominican Republic.............................................   775
Hon. Carlos Roberto Moreno, of California, to be Ambassador to 
  Belize.........................................................   778
Brian A. Nichols, of Rhode Island, to be Ambassador to the 
  Republic of Peru...............................................   781
Thursday, October 31, 2013.......................................   795

Anthony L. Gardner, of New York, to be U.S. Representative to the 
  European Union.................................................   798
Hon. Daniel W. Yohannes, of Colorado, to be U.S. Representative 
  to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development...   802
                                 ------                                
Wednesday, November 6, 2013......................................   819

Hon. Carolyn Hessler Radelet, of Virginia, to be Director of the 
  Peace Corps....................................................   823
Michael G. Carroll, of New York, to be Inspector General, United 
  States Agency for International Development....................   825
                                 ------                                
Thursday, November 7, 2013.......................................   851

The Honorable Heather A. Higginbottom, of the District of 
  Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of State for Management and 
  Resources......................................................   852
Dr. Sarah Sewall, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary State 
  for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.............   870
Richard Stengel, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for 
  Public Diplomacy...............................................   874
                                 ------                                
Tuesday, November 19, 2013.......................................   905

Dana J. Hyde, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer, 
  Millennium Challenge Corporation...............................   907
Mark E. Lopes, of Arizona, to be U.S. Executive Director of the 
  Inter-American Development Bank for a term of three years......   909
                                 ------                                
Wednesday, December 11, 2013.....................................   919

Catherine Ann Novelli, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of 
  State for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment; Alternate 
  Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
  Development; Alternate Governor of the Inter-American 
  Development Bank; Alternate Governor of the European Bank for 
  Reconstruction and Development.................................   922
Hon. Charles Rivkin, of California, to be Assistant Secretary of 
  State for Economic and Business Affairs........................   925
Hon. Tina S. Kaidanow, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Coordinator for Counterterrorism, with the Rank and Status of 
  Ambassador at Large............................................   935
Puneet Talwar, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant 
  Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs..............   939
Hon. Michael A. Hammer, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Ambassador to the Republic of Chile............................   957
Kevin Whitaker, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic Of 
  Colombia.......................................................   960
Bruce Heyman, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to Canada............   962
                                 ------                                
Tuesday, December 17, 2013.......................................  1015

Hon. Helen Meagher La Lime, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Ambassador to the Republic of Angola...........................  1017
Cynthia H. Akuetteh, of the District of Columbia, to be 
  Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic and to be Ambassador to the 
  Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe...................  1020
Larry Edward Andre, Jr., of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the 
  Islamic Republic of Mauritania.................................  1023
Eric T. Schultz, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 
  Zambia.........................................................  1026


                      NOMINATIONS OF JAMES KNIGHT
                         AND DEBORAH KAY JONES

                              ----------                              


                          TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                              ----------                              

Hon. James Knight, of Alabama, to be Ambassador to the Republic 
        of Chad
Hon. Deborah Kay Jones, of New Mexico, to be Ambassador to 
        Libya
                              ----------                              

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez, Udall, Murphy, Corker, Johnson, 
Flake, and McCain.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. Today we are 
pleased to welcome two nominees as Ambassador to Libya and 
Chad, two difficult and important assignments. The Maghreb and 
Sahel regions are of increasing strategic significance for the 
United States, and I look forward to hearing your views on 
these critical and interlinked regions.
    We can never forget Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three 
other American public servants--Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and 
Glen Doherty--who tragically lost their lives in the attack on 
the United States mission in Benghazi last September. We also 
remember Anne Smedinghoff, whose death in Afghanistan just last 
month reminded us once again the danger that every diplomat 
serving abroad faces.
    The attacks on Benghazi raise questions about how we can 
best ensure that those serving in our embassies can do their 
jobs and reach outside the wire and still keep our people safe 
and secure, and I am committed to doing all we can to ensuring 
that Congress does its part in providing the tools our 
embassies need to operate as effectively and safely as possible 
around the world. I look forward to hearing the views of both 
of our nominees on balancing embassy security with the need to 
reach outside of that wire.
    That said, we cannot let the events in Benghazi overshadow 
the slow but positive progress that Libya continues to make in 
fulfilling the promise of the revolution. There is no doubt 
that progress in Libya has been messy, but the political 
process is continuing with the parliamentary elections last 
summer to form the General National Congress. We have seen the 
emergence of an active civil society that remains engaged over 
how to best move the country forward, an important ingredient 
for any democracy.
    There is no doubt that the United States enjoys a certain 
level of popularity in Libya that we saw in the aftermath of 
Ambassador Stevens' death when thousands took to the street 
against the extremists and in support of the United States. The 
critical question is how to harness that goodwill to help the 
Libyan people shape a safe, productive, and inclusive democracy 
that has a healthy relationship with the United States.
    Still, the most vital and difficult question when it comes 
to Libya is one of security. The security situation remains 
precarious. The recent car bomb outside the French Embassy in 
Tripoli, as well as kidnappings and assassination attempts on 
public officials by militia groups that still operate with 
impunity, are a challenge. The central government is unable to 
assert its control outside of Tripoli, and the broader 
challenge of disarming and reintegrating former fighters 
remains. Border security is also an issue of critical concern, 
as drugs and arms trafficking threaten to destabilize the 
region.
    These issues affect not only Libya, but the entire region. 
We have already seen how arms flows coming out of Libya have 
added new weapons to existing conflicts. Borders in the Maghreb 
and Sahel are often amorphous. Old smuggling routes and new 
trafficking paths crisscross the region. Too often, we adhere 
to our own bureaucratic boundaries between the Near East and 
North Africa on the one hand and sub-Saharan Africa on the 
other. This hearing will allow us to cross those artificial 
barriers, take the 30,000-foot view, and hopefully engage in a 
dialogue about both Libya and Chad in a regional context.
    Chad is rife with challenges. It is among the world's 
poorest countries, with the highest maternal mortality rate in 
the world, life expectancy under 50, and literacy rates that 
hover around 30 percent. It is ranked fourth in the most recent 
failed states index, but it has also stood with the French to 
restore stability and security in Mali.
    In December the United Nations Consolidated Appeal said 
Chad was ``on a steady path to sustainable recovery and 
stabilization.'' I hope that is the case. The Sahel is emerging 
as an increasingly significant strategic region, and Chad is an 
important diplomatic posting for the United States.
    So with that background, I welcome our nominees: the 
Honorable Deborah K. Jones of New Mexico, nominated to be 
Ambassador to Libya, and who will be introduced by our good 
friend and colleague, Senator Udall of New Mexico; and 
Ambassador James Knight, who comes to us from serving in 
Benghazi and previously a chief of mission in Benin, and held a 
number of other posts, mostly in Africa, in his over two 
decades with the Foreign Service. We look forward to the 
testimony of our nominees.
    With that, let me turn to Senator Corker for his opening 
statement and then we will turn to Senator Udall to make an 
introduction and we will hear from our nominees.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I, too, welcome our two nominees and their families, and of 
course Senator Udall, who will introduce them. I thank the 
chairman for leading this full committee hearing for 
nominations. I know that typically we have our chair and 
ranking member of the respective regional subcommittees take 
some of the nomination hearings on, given the large number each 
year, but the roles that our nominees are going to play are 
very important and the opportunity to consider them is valuable 
for the full committee.
    I just traveled, not 3 months ago or so, through northern 
Africa to see what is happening with the nodes, if you will, of 
al-Qaeda that have now splintered off, and the effect that it 
is going to have on North Africa as well as the role that it is 
going to play as it relates to world stability. This certainly 
speaks of the importance of your two roles.
    In Chad we have a country that is actually helping and 
working outside of its boundaries, to help us with some of 
these issues, but it is very weak internally and has to deal 
with problems within the country. In Libya we have a situation, 
as we talked about yesterday in my office, in which a country 
that has almost no government. You can feel it when you are 
there on the ground. Much of the country appears under militia 
control, and many recent changes could have a negative effect 
on the transition of the country. So we have a special 
responsibility to maintain strong and positive engagement there 
because of the role that we played in that country.
    So I support the mission of both of you. I thank you for 
coming today. I look forward to your testimony and look forward 
to hopefully very strong and outstanding service in the region. 
So thank you both for being here.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Udall.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Senator Corker and members of the committee. I very much 
appreciate the opportunity to introduce Ambassador Deborah 
Jones.
    Ambassador Jones has served with great distinction over a 
long career in the U.S. State Department. She also is a fellow 
New Mexican and we are proud of her accomplishments. Her family 
has lived in both New Mexico and Arizona since her grandparents 
moved from Mexico's Colonia Dublon. She has lived in Santa Fe, 
NM, since 1991. New Mexico is proud to add her to the long list 
of distinguished ambassadors who have called New Mexico home.
    Ambassador Jones has dedicated her life to public service 
and she has tried to instill those same values in her children. 
Her daughter, Isabel, recently worked as an intern in my office 
and I believe she is here today with us.
    The Chairman. How did she do?
    Senator Udall. And of course, Ambassador Jones will 
introduce the rest of her family, but I thought I should give 
special recognition there to Isabel.
    In 1982 Ambassador Deborah Jones began her career as vice 
consul of the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. While 
her career began in Latin America, she soon began to develop 
her expertise in the Middle East. She is no stranger to tough 
assignments. In the early 1990s she served as the consular 
section chief in Damascus, Syria. She was the desk officer for 
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan from 1995 through 1997. She 
also was Director of the Office of the Arabian Peninsula 
Affairs and Iran, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, and she 
served with distinction in her critical work as chief of 
mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait.
    She speaks Arabic, Spanish, and French. She has an M.S. in 
national security strategy from the National War College and a 
B.A. in history from Brigham Young University.
    Following her service as Ambassador in Kuwait, she has 
worked as a senior adviser for international affairs at the 
U.S. Naval War College and a scholar in residence at the Middle 
East Institute.
    Ambassador Jones will be ready from day one to tackle the 
numerous challenges facing Libya. The Libyan people are still 
struggling to remake their country after years of despotic 
leadership. The Libyan Government has also been under strain to 
rein in militias, as Senator Corker talked about. These groups 
have attempted to use coercion and intimidation to exact 
legislative changes, such as the recently passed political 
isolation law. And a terrorist threat still exists today in 
Libya, a threat which has resulted in attacks on civilians and 
government officials and embassies, including in Benghazi.
    Ambassador Jones will be our first Ambassador since the 
tragic events at Benghazi. As we consider this nomination, it 
is important to remember the work of Chris Stevens and all our 
diplomatic personnel who died while in service to the United 
States. Ambassador Steven and his staff believed strongly that 
the value of freedom embraced by both Libyan and the American 
people would prevail.
    Ambassador Jones, if confirmed, will be taking on the 
important foreign policy task of representing the United States 
in Libya. She will be continuing the important diplomatic work 
begun by Ambassador Stevens. I have every confidence that she 
is up to the task to move us forward in Libya and in North 
Africa, which has emerged as a region of great importance to 
our country, and I am thankful for the time she has already 
spent with me discussing these vital issues.
    A peaceful and democratic Libya is important for regional 
stability. It is important for the interests of the United 
States. It is no secret that the Qadafi regime created lasting 
damage in Libya or that militant groups have attempted to take 
advantage of a government and country that is still in 
transition. Ambassador Jones will need to work with the Libyan 
Government to enhance security and the rule of law, and she 
will have the important work of balancing access with security 
at our embassies and consulates. I know she is going to do that 
well, and through our discussions I know she is mindful of this 
important job. She has a keen understanding of the 
responsibility being given to her by the President if 
confirmed.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to 
introduce Ambassador Jones. The President has wisely chosen an 
individual of great experience, expertise, and commitment, and 
I look forward to supporting such a well-qualified candidate. 
Thank you again.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall. Thank you for all 
those insights.
    Senator Udall. And I will excuse myself here, but I am sure 
that she will do very well without me.
    The Chairman. With that, we are happy to invite Ambassador 
Jones first to give her testimony. Your full statement, both 
for Ambassador Jones and Knight, will be included in the 
record, without objection. And we ask you to summarize it for 
the purposes of being able to have a discussion, and we invite 
you, if you wish, to introduce any of your family members that 
may be here with you. We recognize that service abroad on 
behalf of the country also is a sacrifice of family, and we 
appreciate their willingness to engage in that as well.
    Ambassador Jones.

 STATEMENT OF HON. DEBORAH KAY JONES, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE THE 
                      AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA

    Ambassador Jones. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, Ranking 
Member Corker, who has just walked out, and members of the 
committee, I am grateful and I thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today, and a special thank you to the 
honorable Senator from my home State of New Mexico, Senator Tom 
Udall, for introducing me to this venerable committee.
    I am grateful to the President and the Secretary for their 
confidence and their trust in nominating me to serve as 
Ambassador to Libya.
    Finally, I would like to thank my family for their support 
and their understanding, and especially my lovely daughters, 
Ana and Isabella Olson, who are with me today. Ana and Izzy 
have always been good troopers and great sports as they have 
accompanied their parents overseas or otherwise accepted the 
sacrifices that our commitment to serve has meant for them. 
They have also kept us very honest along the way, I can assure 
you, and I am so proud of them. They are great patriots.
    Two years on, the euphoria that accompanied the uprising of 
the Libyan people and the fall of Colonel Qadafi and his brutal 
dictatorship has been replaced by a sober recognition of the 
enormity and the depth of the challenges facing Libya's leaders 
and its people. As we have witnessed throughout the region, 
democratic transitions are notoriously difficult. Political 
progress is organic, not linear. Uprisings can be ignited and 
fueled by electrons, but we know from our own, often turbulent, 
past that nations are built on the brick and mortar of 
sometimes painful compromise and reconciliation through the 
difficult spadework of political dialogue.
    Libya does enjoy several advantages compared to other Arab 
States or nations like Chad who have recently been affected by 
any kind of dramatic political transition, including a 
relatively small population and significant oil wealth. 
However, we should never estimate the effects that more than 
four decades of Colonel Qadafi's rule had on the country and 
society.
    Qadafi deliberately dismantled the country's institutions, 
blocked the emergence of civil society organizations, and 
quashed any independent thought or initiative. He relied on a 
network of corruption that effectively created a vacuum from 
which Libya's brave new leaders must build democratic 
institutions, consolidate control over militias, some clearly 
hijacked by those whose purposes have nothing to do whatsoever 
with the well-being of the Libyan people, and ensure that all 
Libyans are represented and respected in the new government, 
while dispensing with the country's wealth fairly and 
transparently.
    The good news is, despite these difficult challenges, there 
are courageous and determined Libyans, including many who have 
given up comfortable lives abroad to return to rebuild their 
nation, and they have achieved some notable successes: a 
reconstituted government that pays salaries and provides 
essential goods and services; the July elections, as you 
mentioned, Senator, for the General National Council, which 
were remarkably successful and elevated technocrats over 
idealogues, forming Libya's first democratic institution in 
over four decades; and Libya's oil production, which is 
important to the stability of world oil prices, which has 
reached preconflict levels, relying largely on the efforts of 
Libyan nationals.
    The inherent optimism of Libyan patriots has fueled these 
developments, which we saw on display when thousands of Libyans 
peacefully celebrated the second anniversary of their 
revolution on February 17 this year.
    Having said that, very serious challenges remain, first and 
foremost the need for Libya's central governing authority to 
strengthen its capacity to assert sovereign monopoly over 
security throughout the country and along its vast and porous 
borders. Flows of loose weapons, including MANPADs, from Libyan 
territory into conflict zones throughout the broader region 
must be stanched. The disarming, demobilizing, and integration 
of the revolutionary brigades and militias whose efforts were 
so critical to the defeat of Qadafi's dictatorship is now 
essential for establishing a national, cohesive security 
apparatus with clear lines of command and control, which will 
in turn enable the defeat of volatile and deadly rogue militias 
and prevent a repeat of the tragedy in Benghazi, where 
Ambassador Stevens and three other of our finest public 
servants were senselessly and brutally killed. As the President 
has committed, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, and 
I will work closely with the Libyan Government to see that 
justice is realized.
    Libya must also consolidate its fledgling democratic 
foundations. Ultimately, lasting security and domestic 
stability will emerge from an inclusive constitutional process 
that delineates clear lines of authority, offers protection to 
all Libyans, and a reformed judicial system capable of 
garnering public confidence and administering a comprehensive 
national transitional justice strategy to deal with past 
Qadafi-era abuses and current criminality.
    The strategic patience that accompanies institution-
building, however, must also accommodate the urgent 
requirements to fill a security vacuum that otherwise will be 
exploited by invasive, foreign elements, including al-Qaeda's 
affiliates, whose efforts to establish a safe haven must be 
denied. In short, Libya's national garden requires careful 
tending during this fragile period.
    We have proposed a modest but important package of 
technical and other assistance for Libya during this tenuous 
transitional time and it is fair for the American people to ask 
why, at a time of our own fiscal restraint and given Libya's 
relative wealth. But it remains in our strong national interest 
to fund a limited number of activities of immediate concern to 
Libyan security and larger regional security and to lay the 
proper foundations for Libya's transition to a democratic 
state.
    Libya's leaders have asserted their willingness to pay 
their own way and indeed they are tapping their petroleum 
revenues and assets of the previous regime. As the Libyan 
Government evolves and increases its capacity and gains 
experience, for example, with steps needed to procure and 
contract, the need for United States and other external funding 
will drop away.
    Implementing these programs now, however, gives us the best 
opportunity to support and strengthen a Libyan Government that 
is fragile, but that can be a long-term partner of the United 
States and a stable actor in the region. Among these U.S.-
funded activities are programs aimed at preventing weapons 
proliferation, providing advice on transitional governance 
issues of immediate concern, such as border security, rule of 
law, human rights, and promoting a vibrant civil society. This 
seed money will pay substantial dividends if it is wisely 
husbanded.
    It is in our national interest, both strategic and 
ideological, as well as Libya's, to see it fulfill its 
potential as a stable and prosperous democracy with a fully 
developed and active civil society and the full integration and 
participation of all elements of Libyan society and geographic 
areas, with respect for human rights and international norms.
    Historic rivalries between traditional centers of culture 
and governance can produce a healthy competitive, yet 
conjoined, national dynamism and create synergies of national 
opportunity for Libya. The development of its full national 
capacity and sovereignty will enhance our own security and 
economic well-being through regional security cooperation, the 
steady production of hydrocarbons essential to continued global 
economic growth and trade, and increased opportunities for 
United States businesses to partner in Libya's renewal and 
development. A successful democratic transition in Libya, 
challenges notwithstanding, and they are significant, can be an 
engine for growth supporting the transitions taking place in 
neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.
    There does remain an extraordinary reservoir of good will 
for the United States in Libya, given our support of the 
toppling of Qadafi and our engagement following the restoration 
of diplomatic relations going back to Ambassador Gene Cretz' 
arrival in 2008. I have been very moved and touched by the 
emails I received from private Libyan citizens following the 
White House announcement of my nomination expressing their deep 
sorrow over the heinous, despicable attack on Ambassador 
Stevens and our fallen colleagues and assuring me of their 
hospitality and desire to welcome and cooperate with the new 
United States Ambassador.
    I am well aware of the unique challenges I will face in the 
current environment and if confirmed I am committed to working 
closely with this Congress in carrying on the excellent work of 
both Gene Cretz and Chris Stevens and their teams in forging 
strong ties between our governments and people, students, and 
business communities, and women and minorities, leveraging our 
instruments of national power and all the connections and the 
tools at my disposal in coordination with our allies and like-
minded powers who do share our interest in seeing a stable and 
prosperous Libya.
    Our engagement with Libya originates long before the 2011 
revolution and includes historic cooperation during World War 
II and the cold war, as well as our cooperative efforts in 
developing Libya's oil and gas sector since 1959.
    Last, but not least, I am deeply conscious of the 
responsibility I would have as chief of mission for the safety 
and security of the approximately 4,000 Americans residing in 
Libya and for that of those individuals attached to our mission 
there, as we strive to balance safety considerations with a 
deep desire to engage and do the work of the American people, 
as expressed by Members of this Congress and this 
administration. In this regard, I would like to express my deep 
gratitude to my colleagues in Diplomatic Security and to our 
United States Marine Corps, other Armed Forces members, and 
other U.S. agency colleagues whose heroic efforts make it 
possible for us to continue our daily work there.
    Honorable members of this committee, it has been my 
privilege and great honor to have spent 31 years in the service 
of my country, working with nine administrations, to champion 
America's interests and values and expand the reach of freedom 
through the conduct of diplomacy with nations at war and at 
peace, most in some sort of political transition, some in 
poverty, and others enjoying great wealth. Should you choose to 
confirm me, it will be my honor and my sworn duty to lead our 
mission in Libya as we meet the challenges of establishing and 
consolidating the foundations of a strong, prosperous, and 
democratic Libya, allied with the United States in a mutually 
beneficial relationship.
    Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ambassador Jones follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Deborah K. Jones

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and a special 
thank you to the honorable Senator from my home State of New Mexico, 
Senator Tom Udall, for introducing me to this venerable committee. I am 
grateful to the President and the Secretary for their confidence and 
trust in nominating me to serve as Ambassador to Libya. Finally, I 
would like to thank my family for their support and understanding, and 
especially my lovely daughters, Ana and Isabella Olson, who are with me 
today; Ana and Izzy have always been good troopers and great sports as 
they've accompanied their parents overseas or otherwise accepted the 
sacrifices our commitment to serve has meant for them. They've also 
kept us honest along the way. I am so proud of them.
    Two years on, the euphoria that accompanied the uprising of the 
Libyan people and the fall of Qadhafi and his brutal dictatorship has 
been replaced by a sober recognition of the enormity and depth of the 
challenges facing Libya's leaders and its people.
    As we have witnessed throughout the region, democratic transitions 
are notoriously difficult, and political progress is organic, not 
linear. Uprisings can be ignited and fueled by electrons, but we know 
from our own, often turbulent, history that nations are built on the 
brick and mortar of sometimes painful compromise and reconciliation. 
Libya does enjoy several advantages compared to other Arab States 
recently affected by dramatic political transition, including a 
relatively small population and significant oil wealth. However, we 
should not underestimate the effects that more than four decades of 
Colonel Qadhafi's rule had on the country and society. Colonel Qadhafi 
deliberately dismantled the country's institutions, blocked the 
emergence of civil society organizations, and quashed any independent 
thought or initiative. He relied on a network of corruption that 
effectively created a vacuum from which Libya's brave new leaders must 
build democratic institutions, consolidate control over militias (some 
clearly hijacked by those whose purposes have nothing to do with the 
well-being of the Libyan people), ensure that all Libyans are 
represented and respected in the new government, and dispense with the 
country's wealth fairly and transparently.
    The good news is that, despite these difficult challenges, 
courageous and determined Libyans, including many who've given up 
comfortable lives abroad to return to rebuild their nation, have 
achieved notable successes: a reconstituted government is paying 
salaries and providing essential goods and services to the Libyan 
people; last July's elections for the General National Council were 
remarkably successful and have elevated technocrats over ideologues, 
forming Libya's first democratic institution in over four decades; and 
Libya's oil production--important to the stability of world oil 
prices--has reached preconflict levels, relying largely on the efforts 
of Libyan nationals. The inherent optimism of Libyan patriots has 
fueled these developments, which we saw on display when thousands of 
Libyans peacefully celebrated the second anniversary of their 
revolution on February 17 this year.
    That said, very serious challenges remain, first and foremost the 
need for Libya's central governing authority to strengthen its capacity 
to assert sovereign monopoly over security throughout the country and 
along its vast and porous borders and to consolidate its democratic 
foundations. Flows of loose weapons, including MANPADS, from Libyan 
territory into conflict zones throughout the broader region must be 
staunched. The disarming, demobilizing and integration of the 
revolutionary brigades and militias whose efforts were so critical to 
the defeat of Qadhafi's dictatorship is essential for establishing a 
national, cohesive security apparatus with clear lines of ``command and 
control.'' This will in turn enable the defeat of volatile and deadly 
rogue militias, and prevent a repeat of the tragedy in Benghazi, where 
Ambassador Stevens and three other of our finest public servants were 
senselessly killed; as the President has committed, the perpetrators 
must be brought to justice, and if confirmed, I will work closely with 
the Libyan Government to see that justice realized.
    Ultimately, lasting security and domestic stability will emerge 
from an inclusive constitutional process that delineates clear lines of 
authority and offers protection to all Libyans, and a reformed judicial 
system capable of garnering public confidence and administering a 
comprehensive national transitional justice strategy to deal with past 
Qadhafi-era abuses and current criminality. The strategic patience that 
accompanies institution-building, however, must also accommodate the 
urgent requirements to fill a security vacuum that otherwise will be 
exploited by invasive, foreign elements, including al-Qaeda's 
affiliates, whose efforts to establish a safe haven must be denied. In 
short, Libya's national garden requires careful tending during this 
fragile period.
    We have proposed a modest but important package of technical and 
other assistance for Libya during this tenuous transitional period. It 
is fair for the American people to ask why, at a time of our own fiscal 
restraint and given Libya's relative wealth. It remains in our strong 
interest to fund a limited number of activities of immediate concern to 
Libyan security and larger regional security and to lay the proper 
foundations for Libya's transition to a democratic state. Libya's 
leaders have asserted their willingness to pay their own way, and 
indeed they are tapping their petroleum revenues and assets of the 
previous regime. As the Libyan Government evolves and increases its 
capacity and gains experience, for example, with the steps needed to 
procure and contract, the need for U.S. and other external funding will 
drop away. Implementing these programs now gives us the best 
opportunity to help support and strengthen a Libyan Government that can 
be a long-term partner of the United States and a stable actor in the 
region. Among these U.S.-funded activities are programs aimed at 
preventing weapons proliferation; providing advice on transitional 
governance issues of immediate concern such as border security, rule of 
law, and human rights, and promoting a vibrant civil society. This seed 
money will pay substantial dividends if wisely husbanded.
    It is in our national interest, both strategic and ideological, as 
well as Libya's, to see it fulfill its potential as a stable and 
prosperous democracy, with a fully developed and active civil society 
and the full integration and participation of all elements of Libyan 
society and geographic areas, with respect for human rights and 
international norms. Historic rivalries between traditional centers of 
culture and governance can produce a healthy competitive yet conjoined 
national dynamism and create synergies of national opportunity. Libya's 
development of its full national capacity and sovereignty will enhance 
our own security and economic well-being through regional security 
cooperation, the steady production of hydrocarbons essential to 
continued global economic growth and trade, and increased opportunities 
for U.S. businesses to partner in Libya's renewal and development. A 
successful democratic transition in Libya, challenges notwithstanding, 
can be an engine for growth supporting transitions taking place in 
neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.
    There remains an extraordinary reservoir of good will for the U.S. 
in Libya given our support for the toppling of Qadhafi and our 
engagement following the restoration of diplomatic relations, going 
back to Ambassador Cretz's arrival in 2008. I have been touched by the 
e-mails I received from private Libyan citizens following the White 
House announcement of my nomination, expressing their deep sorrow over 
the heinous attack on Ambassador Stevens and our fallen colleagues and 
assuring me of their hospitality and desire to welcome and cooperate 
with a new U.S. ambassador. I am well aware of the unique challenges I 
will face in the current environment. If confirmed, I am committed to 
working closely with this Congress in carrying on the excellent work of 
both Gene and Chris and their teams in forging strong ties between our 
governments and people, students and business communities, women and 
minorities, leveraging our instruments of national power, and all the 
connections and tools at my disposal, in coordination with our allies 
and like-minded powers, who share our interest in seeing a stable and 
prosperous Libya. American's engagement with Libya originates long 
before the 2011 revolution, and includes, for example, our historic 
cooperation during World War II and the cold war, as well as our 
cooperative efforts in developing their oil and gas sector since 1959.
    Last but not least, I am deeply conscious of the responsibility I 
have as Chief of Mission for the safety and security of the 
approximately 4,000 Americans residing in Libya, and for that of those 
individuals attached to our mission there, as we strive to balance 
safety considerations with a deep desire to engage and do the work of 
the American people, as expressed by Members of this Congress and this 
administration. In this regard, I would like to express my deep 
gratitude to my colleagues in Diplomatic Security, and to our U.S. 
Marine Corps, other armed forces members and other U.S. Government 
agency colleagues whose heroic efforts make it possible for us to 
continue our work there.
    Honorable members of this committee, it has been my privilege and 
great honor to have spent 31 years in the service of my country, 
working with nine administrations, to champion America's interests and 
values and expand the reach of freedom through the conduct of diplomacy 
with nations at war and at peace, most in some sort of political 
transition, some in poverty and others enjoying great wealth. Should 
you choose to confirm me, it will be my honor and my sworn duty to lead 
our mission in Libya as we meet the challenges of establishing and 
consolidating the foundations of a strong, prosperous, and democratic 
Libya allied with the United States in a mutually beneficial 
relationship.
    Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ambassador Knight.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES KNIGHT, OF ALABAMA, TO BE THE 
               AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHAD

    Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, 
Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, I am 
deeply honored to appear today as the President's nominee to be 
the next Ambassador of the United States of America to the 
Republic of Chad. I thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry 
for the confidence and trust they have shown by nominating me 
for this position. If confirmed, I will work with you all to 
best represent the interests and values of the American people 
to the Government and people of Chad at a moment when Chad is 
becoming a stronger partner for the United States and its 
allies in a critical region.
    I am pleased that my wife, Dr. Amelia Bell Knight, has 
joined me today. Amelia has been my closest partner and 
strongest supporter throughout my Foreign Service career.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Chad is a vast 
country, positioned at one of the most important crossroads of 
Africa. For many centuries the peoples and cultures of sub-
Saharan Africa and the Middle East have shared Chad's richly 
diverse environment. These differing traditions have bequeathed 
to Chad a unique culture, but one which has faced great tension 
and turbulence since its independence in 1960.
    Chad has been regularly plagued by civil war and has 
suffered periodic struggles with Libya, Sudan, and other 
neighboring countries. Today Chad is emerging from this legacy 
of internal turmoil and regional conflict. Its rapprochement 
with Sudan in 2010 has supported Chad's internal stability and 
the stability of the region as a whole. Chad now plays a 
positive role in the region, contributing to regional mediation 
and peacekeeping efforts.
    Notably, Chad has been a key partner in the international 
community's efforts to halt extremism in Mali, participating in 
and sustaining heavy casualties in the international military 
intervention in Mali. Chad intends to maintain troops there as 
a key member of an eventual United States peacekeeping 
operation. In addition, Chad's leadership in the Economic 
Community of Central African States, the Community of Saharan 
and Sahelian States, and the Central African Forest Commission 
advances the hope that we all share for the future of a more 
prosperous and stable Sahel and Central Africa.
    However, ongoing instability and conflict in bordering 
countries, such as we are now seeing in Chad's southern 
neighbor, the Central African Republic, threatens the progress 
Chad has recently enjoyed. Chadian President Deby has led 
regional negotiations to achieve a broad-based and transparent 
transition government in the Central African Republic and Chad 
has contributed troops to the Central African Multinational 
Force Peacekeeping Mission there.
    Chad currently hosts some 375,000 refugees from Sudan and 
the Central African Republic and new arrivals continue to cross 
the border due to ongoing conflict. The Government of Chad 
maintains a cooperative relationship with the humanitarian 
community, thereby ensuring life-saving assistance is provided 
to affected populations.
    Chad is also subject to the growing regional threat of 
wildlife trafficking, whereby increasingly armed poachers cross 
Central African borders to attack a threatened elephant 
population. This tragedy also impacts the economic livelihoods 
of local communities, as well as security and the rule of law.
    In addition to regional threats, Chad faces great domestic 
challenges. International investment in Chad is severely 
constrained by its geographical isolation, limited 
infrastructure, lack of appropriately skilled workers, high 
import duties, and widespread corruption. In particular, the 
Government of Chad must improve its management of its petroleum 
resources. Chad's oil reserves are in decline, adding urgency 
to its need to overcome its persistent underdevelopment. While 
the Government of Chad has expressed its commitment to 
strengthening human rights protections, its capacity to 
implement that commitment must grow.
    The people of Chad suffer from great poverty, illiteracy, 
disease, and high infant mortality. Its history of 
authoritarian government, punctuated by coups and civil war, 
complicate the consolidation of democracy, the building of 
Chad's capacity for good governance, and the fulfillment of 
Chad's economic potential.
    Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, as you 
know, I have worked in the Sahel and elsewhere to address these 
kinds of issues for many years. In Iraq, in my current 
assignment, I have had responsibility for refugees, development 
assistance, and police reform. In Benin, as a master I 
successfully oversaw the completion of the country's Millennium 
Challenge Corporation compact, which addressed challenges 
similar to those confronting Chad today. In Angola, I helped 
Africa's second-largest oil producer and its partners improve 
management of its petroleum resources and revenue. Before 
entering the Foreign Service, I worked as a development 
specialist in Niger in an area similar to northern Chad in many 
ways.
    If confirmed, I look forward to energetically addressing 
the strategic goals of the United States in a wider and fuller 
partnership with the government and people of Chad. In 
particular, if confirmed I will support the Government of 
Chad's efforts to counter the growing threats to regional 
security and to maintain and widen its regional engagements. If 
confirmed, I will encourage and support the Government of 
Chad's pursuit of democratic reform, its capacity and will to 
implement better governance, and its respect for human rights. 
I will support and assist the Government of Chad and the 
international community to assure sound use of humanitarian 
assistance and improved capacity in the area of disaster 
management.
    If confirmed, my highest priorities as the Ambassador of 
the United States will be to ensure the safety and welfare of 
all Americans in Chad and the advancement of United States 
interests.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, please accept my 
thanks for this opportunity to appear before you today. I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ambassador Knight follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. James Knight

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, 
I am deeply honored to appear today as the President's nominee to be 
the next Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of 
Chad. I thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the confidence 
and trust they have shown by nominating me for this position. If 
confirmed, I will work with you all to best represent the interests and 
values of the American people to the government and people of Chad, at 
a moment when Chad is becoming a stronger partner for the United States 
and its allies in a critical region.
    I am pleased that my wife, Dr. Amelia Bell Knight, has joined me 
today. Amelia has been my closest partner and strongest supporter 
throughout my Foreign Service career.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Chad is a vast country 
positioned at one of the most important crossroads of Africa. For many 
centuries the peoples and cultures of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle 
East have shared Chad's richly diverse environment. These differing 
traditions have bequeathed to Chad a unique culture, but one which has 
faced great tension and turbulence since its independence in 1960. Chad 
has been regularly plagued by civil war, and has suffered periodic 
struggles with Libya, Sudan, and other neighboring countries.
    Today Chad is emerging from this legacy of internal turmoil and 
regional conflict. Its rapprochement with Sudan in 2010 has supported 
Chad's internal stability and the stability of the region as a whole. 
Chad now plays a positive role in the region, contributing to regional 
mediation and peacekeeping efforts. Notably, Chad has been a key 
partner in the international community's efforts to halt extremism in 
Mali, participating in--and sustaining casualties in--the international 
military intervention in Mali. Chad intends to maintain troops there as 
a key member of an eventual United Nations peacekeeping operation. In 
addition, Chad's leadership in the Economic Community of Central 
African States (ECCAS), the Central African Forest Commission 
(COMIFAC), and the Community of Sahelian States (CEN-SAD) advances the 
hope we all share for the future of a more prosperous and stable Sahel 
and central Africa.
    However, ongoing instability and conflict in bordering countries, 
such as we are now seeing in Chad's southern neighbor, the Central 
African Republic (CAR), threatens the progress Chad has recently 
enjoyed. Chadian President Deby has led regional negotiations to 
achieve a broad-based and transparent transition government in the CAR, 
and Chad has contributed troops to the regional FOMAC peacekeeping 
mission there. Chad currently hosts some 373,000 refugees from Sudan 
and the Central African Republic, and new arrivals continue to cross 
the border due to ongoing conflict. The Government of Chad maintains a 
cooperative relationship with the humanitarian community ensuring 
lifesaving assistance is provided to affected populations. Chad is also 
subject to the growing regional threat of wildlife trafficking, whereby 
increasingly armed poachers cross central African borders to kill a 
threatened elephant population, which in and of itself is a tragedy 
that also impacts the economic livelihoods of local communities as well 
as security and rule of law.
    In addition to regional threats, Chad faces great domestic 
challenges. International investment in Chad is severely constrained by 
its geographic isolation, limited infrastructure, lack of appropriately 
skilled workers, high import duties, and widespread corruption. In 
particular, the Government of Chad must improve its management of its 
petroleum resources. Chad's oil reserves are in decline, adding urgency 
to its need to overcome its persistent underdevelopment. While the 
Government of Chad has expressed its commitment to strengthening human 
rights protections, its capacity to implement that commitment must 
grow. The people of Chad suffer from great poverty, illiteracy, 
disease, and high infant mortality. Its history of authoritarian 
government, punctuated by coups and civil war, complicate the 
consolidation of democracy, the building of Chad's capacity for good 
governance, and the fulfillment of Chad's economic potential.
    Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, as you know I 
have worked in the Sahel and elsewhere to address these kinds of issues 
over many years. In Iraq, in my current assignment, I have had 
responsibility for refugees, development assistance, and police reform. 
In Benin, as Ambassador, I successfully oversaw the completion of the 
country's Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact, which addressed 
challenges similar to those confronting Chad today. In Angola, I helped 
Africa's second-largest oil exporter and its partners improve 
management of its petroleum resources and revenue. Before entering the 
Foreign Service, I worked as a development specialist in Niger, in an 
area similar to northern Chad in many ways. If confirmed, I look 
forward to energetically addressing the strategic goals of the United 
States in a wider and fuller partnership with the government and people 
of Chad. In particular, I will support the Government of Chad's efforts 
to counter the growing threats to regional security and to maintain and 
widen its regional engagement. I will encourage and support the 
Government of Chad's pursuit of democratic reform, its capacity and 
will to implement better governance, and its respect for human rights. 
I will support and assist the Government of Chad and the international 
community to assure sound use of humanitarian assistance and improved 
capacity in the area of disaster management. If confirmed, my highest 
priorities as the Ambassador of the United States will be to ensure the 
safety and welfare of all Americans in Chad and the advancement of U.S. 
interests.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, please accept my thanks 
for this opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your 
questions.

    The Chairman. Well, thank you both for your testimonies.
    Let me begin with Ambassador Jones. It seems that the 
Defense Minister of Libya announced his resignation this 
morning, and the situation in Libya appears to have hit a 
challenging point. Over the weekend, gunmen intimidated the 
Parliament into passing a political isolation law to ban anyone 
who served in Qadafi's government, including many of the 
professional technocrats in Libya that will be needed to 
succeed in the future. It sets a dangerous precedent as these 
militias continue to lay siege to Libyan ministries.
    What do the events of the last few days portend for Libya's 
future, and how do we help secure a democracy if it is being 
held hostage by armed militias outside of Parliaments? And what 
impact do we think the political isolation law will have on 
Libya's democratic development?
    Ambassador Jones. I think, Senator, you are reading my mind 
this morning as I listened to the news over the last several 
days. It is definitely a challenge. But I believe again, if 
confirmed, one of the reasons I believe we need to get an 
ambassador out there is to provide the support to the 
government that will help it to enhance its control over these 
militias.
    The Libyan people deserve far better than this. They 
struggled bravely to throw off 40 years of intimidation, not--I 
do not believe in exchange for another government of 
intimidation or intimidation by armed groups or militias. So 
again, working on the three--you have addressed in your comment 
there the three stools--the three legs of the stool that are 
going to be critical to Libya's development, which is again: 
security, strengthening Libya's security through supporting its 
government, and training of a professional military and 
security regime, which we have already started to do in many 
ways, disarming the militias, of course, but also engaging with 
them on governance and getting them--to work with them, to look 
at the impact of these kinds of laws, this isolation law, and 
the impact that would have on their unity in the future as a 
government; and civil society, which is the critical part of 
Libya. The role that civil society has played, the role of 
women already has been significant. The Libyan people 
themselves are going to have to make their voices heard and we 
will help them with that in ensuring that we do not go back to 
a situation of intimidation.
    But again, it is one of the reasons I feel an urgency to 
get on the ground, to have an Ambassador there who can actually 
guide our efforts on this side of the ocean, as well as guiding 
and helping the Libyans to achieve some of the objectives that 
they want to strengthen that security and to disarm the 
militias.
    The Chairman. You mentioned civil society as part of the 
equation. How do you intend, in the security environment that 
you will be in, to reach out to civil society inside of Libya 
as part of fostering a greater, more pluralistic participation 
by its society?
    Ambassador Jones. Well, that is a good question. That is 
where I am going to have to look at the balance every single 
day of this. You know, an ambassador does not wake up without 
considering security. That just goes part and parcel with the 
job. You know, when I was the Ambassador in Kuwait, even though 
it was a completely different or a very different situation, I 
did not wake up one morning without thinking what possibly 
could happen to us that day. In fact, in Kuwait of all places, 
that was the place where I cancelled the Marine Ball the day of 
the ball. Now, you have to know what that means in Kuwait, 
because of course the invasion of Iraq--the liberation of 
Kuwait was the largest Marine deployment since World War II. So 
it is a big event for us there.
    But a combination of factors, with intelligence and some 
other anomalies, led me the day of the ball, on a Friday, to 
cancel the ball and to wake up, to rouse the Emir's brother in 
fact, who was the head of their security who protected the 
Embassy, and ask him to swap out all of his guards.
    I take this very seriously, our security. That said, that 
said, I think there are a number of ways that we can connect. 
We have a package--the situation is changing all the time. It 
is very unstable. We all know that. It is something we look at 
every day. We are working close--we have a package, though, for 
travel that allows us to get out, not as much as we might like. 
But there are also, fortunately, other ways of connecting with 
people, whether it is through media, through Skype, through 
WhatsUp, through all kinds of connections within Libya, to have 
us be able to talk even while we might not be as physically 
present the way we might like in other environments.
    But again, sir, until I get out on the ground and see what 
that is, first thing I do with every mission and I have done in 
the past is to do a terrain walk with my security officer. I 
did it in Kuwait, I did it in Istanbul when I was principal 
officer. I expect to do that in Tripoli as well. I will get out 
and we will walk the walk. We will see what we can do. We will 
talk about how we can extend--talk about meeting people in 
other locations. People can travel out, too. We can take 
advantage of trips outside of Libya. We can take advantage of 
other locations inside.
    I am just going to have to be creative, and we will look at 
that as we go, sir.
    The Chairman. To both of you: Chad and Libya share a porous 
border and a rough neighborhood by any definition. What do you 
see as some of the key regional challenges, and how could 
chiefs of mission such as yourselves work together to improve 
U.S. ability to respond and help shape development in the 
region?
    Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is clear 
that us being here together today, myself and Ambassador Jones, 
speaks to the importance of a shared approach to regional 
threats in the area that we will both be--in which we will both 
be working if confirmed.
    The importance of this, of coordination, is I think 
absolutely key because, as you know, there has been a historic 
division in the State Department between the Maghreb in the 
northern part of Africa and the rest. That is now being 
addressed specifically by the creation of a Sahel-Maghreb 
working group at the Secretary's level in the State Department. 
I think that is a good first step in this direction.
    It is clear that we are also going to have to maintain 
personal communication and personal coordination of our efforts 
to address the threats as they emerge along our shared border. 
Again, it is also important to recognize that it is not simply 
along the Libyan-Chadian border where the threats arise, but 
there is a regional dimension to this which extends from 
Senegal all the way to the other side of Sudan.
    If confirmed, I look forward to working with all my 
colleagues in this effort to address the continuing and 
continuingly worrisome threats of terrorism in this area.
    Ambassador Jones. Senator, I would also--I would second 
everything that Jim has said. I would also say that the problem 
has gone even beyond the Sahel. We know that the flow of 
weapons from Libya is going, reaching as far as Syria and other 
places of interest to us, in Gaza, that matter in a very 
challenging security environment.
    I think more than ever we recognize that working with these 
countries is not a bilateral issue; it is a global issue. I 
intend to not only draw on my colleagues around all of our 
resources at State, Defense Department, but also with other 
countries who have assets and interests in the region who are 
like-minded, who can support our efforts to disarm, which we 
have already been working on with the Libyans, to dismantle 
MANPADs, to locate and destroy chemical weapons stores and a 
lot of the material and the things that have been left over 
from, first of all, Qadafi's collection of weapons over the 
years, of ordnance and other things, but also of the results of 
their own civil war, of their own uprisings there.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Corker.
    Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you both for your testimony and again, for the 
families, for being here.
    I guess, Ambassador Jones, that the first question I would 
ask is: What have you done to cause people to send you to 
Libya? [Laughter.] I know that we talked a little bit about 
that yesterday in my office.
    My serious question is about security. And while we talked 
a little bit about the safety issue and I know by my own travel 
through there in October, right after the unfortunate events in 
Benghazi--you stated the importance of security. Just for the 
record, if you would just one more time emphasize that, I would 
appreciate it.
    Ambassador Jones. That is security in Libya and how we 
will----
    Senator Corker. For your personnel at the Embassy.
    Ambassador Jones. For my personnel? Absolutely, sir. Let me 
say that I think our daughters are asking what they did to us 
to have--their dad is in Islamabad and I am going out to 
Tripoli. I think they are wondering what they did to cause 
that. But it is really just to pay for their college, sir. 
[Laughter.]
    What I would say, though, on security--and again this is 
something that is--well, as we know, it is deadly serious for 
us, how do we manage security in the building and without. I 
would like to say that over the course of my career--and even 
though I know my first assignment no one mentions because it 
sounds cushy. It was Buenos Aires. It happened also to be 
during the Falklands-Malvinas war and right after our--recently 
after our Embassy in Tripoli--``Tripoli''; our Embassy in 
Teheran had been overrun, which changed the nature of 
diplomatic practice and made people worry. If we were not safe 
any more under the Vienna Convention in our embassies, how were 
we going to make this work?
    I have throughout my career and certainly in later years 
and certainly as Ambassador and principal officer always had a 
direct connection and picked up the phone with Washington, 
worked very closely with security at post, worked very closely 
with DS and with other agencies at post who have access to 
intelligence and other assets. It is the role of the 
Ambassador. The Ambassador is the principal security officer at 
post and it is the Ambassador who has to decide whether to 
allow people to travel here or there, whether to ask for 
additional assets, whether to insist on additional assets. And 
if you do not get the answers you need, you pick up the phone 
and you speak to the people who are responsible for that, sir.
    That is what I intend to do. That is what I have always 
done. There are many ways to approach that and to continue to 
press that.
    We do know that in the past, yes, we had----
    Senator Corker. I got it, I got it. Thank you.
    We were involved in Libya and certainly have a 
responsibility there because of that involvement. But it would 
appear to me--and I think I would love to hear your comments--
that we have underestimated the challenges there. I have met 
with government officials there and it is really not a 
government. I mean, when you look at the responsibilities that 
they have and you look at the militias throughout the country, 
it is almost remarkable that the country's functioning.
    Do you think we have underestimated the challenges there?
    Ambassador Jones. Senator, until I get out on the ground--
if there is one thing I have learned----
    Senator Corker. Based on the briefings that you have had?
    Ambassador Jones. Based on briefings, I do not know that we 
underestimated. I think there has been frustration. I certainly 
know that we have had a setback in these last 8, 9 months 
without having an ambassador on the ground. It has really set 
us back in our efforts to support the government there.
    You know, beyond that, could I say, did we underestimate? I 
think that again progress after these kinds of transitions, it 
is unpredictable, it is organic, it is not linear, it is not 
formulaic. I think we just have to double our efforts because 
what I do know is that if we are not there making the effort we 
most certainly will lose out. We have never won a battle we 
have not shown up for.
    Senator Corker. So I know again that you want to get on the 
ground. You want to see how things are, and they are changing 
daily. So your briefings a few weeks ago regarding Libya today 
would be very different, I think. But based on what you know 
today, what is it--typically, when an ambassador comes in in 
the beginning, where you really lay the groundwork for what you 
are going to do. Over the first 6 months you are there, what 
are your goals?
    Ambassador Jones. Obviously, I think principal goal is to 
address the security vacuum, to address the capacity vacuum of 
the government in terms of its security. Again, how you 
approach that comes from a different--a number of different 
areas, arenas. It is not purely training and military training 
or security training or intelligence, although all of those 
things are hugely important.
    But I think what we have also seen in the aftermath of 
Benghazi was the importance of civil society as well and the 
importance of the Libyan people themselves making their voices 
heard and getting involved in supporting and holding to what 
they have fought so hard to gain, which is this democratic 
transition. I think they have more skin in this game than 
anyone else and they know that.
    Senator Corker. What happens in that transition if we end 
up, especially with the law that passed on Sunday and some of 
the resignations that are taking place and others that are 
being pursued--what happens to our relationship if we end up 
with militiamen basically in these Cabinet posts?
    Ambassador Jones. Sir----
    Senator Corker. Or I might say when we end up with 
militiamen in the Cabinet posts.
    Ambassador Jones. Well, I am not going to accept that 
premise quite yet, Senator. But I will say that we have to be 
prepared to engage with anyone who is committed to a democratic 
transition in Libya through peaceful means.
    Senator Corker. What if it becomes an Islamic state?
    Ambassador Jones. Again, I think we have to be--you know, 
people talked about the Muslim Brotherhood there. We have to be 
looking at many layers there, whether cutting off support for 
extremist groups, for extremist ideologies, however that 
support, whatever form that support may take. We also at the 
same time need to be engaging with those groups who have again 
eschewed violence, who are committed to a democratic Libya that 
is representative.
    Until I get on the ground, until I can do more there, I 
just am not prepared to rule it out--to rule anything in or 
rule anything out at this stage. I am not saying it is simple. 
It is not.
    Senator Corker. As you are in the briefings that you are 
having--and I know you have played an important role at the 
State Department recently--how do you think the issues that we 
are dealing with in Libya right now--where we were involved, 
but not overly involved. We have ended up being where we are in 
Libya today because of that. And we have Syria, which is 
developing and has some similar characteristics, not all.
    How do you think that our experiences in Libya are shaping 
our responses as it relates to Syria?
    Ambassador Jones. I would not be in a position to--I have 
not been involved with the policymaking in Syria. I think 
clearly there are many challenges out there. I think all of 
these challenges are indicative of the transitions. People want 
change. I think if there is one lesson we have learned, it is 
that authoritarian and autocratic governments do not develop 
civil society that can sustain itself in the immediate 
aftermath of change, and that is where we need to be prepared 
to aid and strengthen and step in and support.
    If anything, it gets back--I was reading the other day--I 
tell people there are three books I am recommending to people 
before I go to Libya. One is--I am giving them a pitch; I am 
not getting royalties--is Gordon Woods, but he is a Brown 
author, ``The American Revolution.'' The second is Machiavelli, 
``The Prince''; and the third is ``The Federalist Papers,'' to 
look at how the idea of sovereignty emerges from the people and 
how people in these places also need to understand that they 
are not yielding authority; they are creating their authority 
as a nation when they allow--when they vote, when they 
participate, and when that is part of their--that is a 
manifestation, that national strength is a manifestation of 
national will, of the people's will, and that is the lesson the 
Libyans and the Syrians and others have to learn and have to 
work with. It has taken us a progressive long while as well.
    Senator Corker. Thank you.
    Ambassador Jones. Thank you.
    Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I can stop or keep going, 
since no one else is here. Why don't you go ahead and then I 
will go again.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Senator Corker. OK. I might move on to Chad for a second. 
Thank you very much for your testimony.
    What do you see most recently in Mali--I know that Chad has 
certainly played a role there. What do you see the threat to 
Chad being relative to Mali?
    Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Senator. My sense is that--
and I think this is a widely shared view--is that the 
Government of Chad sees the regional threats very clearly. The 
opportunities that it now enjoys are because since 2010 there 
has been a possibility of greater domestic stability in Chad 
because the regional threats have subsided.
    Because of that, the threat that was posed by the 
terrorists and insurgents in Mali were perceived as existential 
threats to the Government of Chad as well and they eagerly 
pursued the opportunity to address those threats before they 
became more immediately looming over the government and people 
of Chad.
    Again, they have done a superb job there. They have been 
the strongest contingent both in terms of numbers and in terms 
of proactive engagement with the insurgents and terrorists of 
any of the African forces. They have worked very closely and 
effectively with the French.
    Again, this engagement began with their own strongly driven 
desire to participate in this at the earliest possible 
opportunity. For that reason, as I am sure you know, they self-
deployed rather than await for the international community to 
provide that kind of support.
    Senator Corker. How fragile do you see the Government of 
Chad being? How fragile?
    Ambassador Knight. I do not consider it to be fragile so 
much as it lacks the capacity it needs to be effective. As you 
now, the President has been in power since the 1990s. He just 
recently won a fourth term. The government and people of Chad 
appear to be comfortable with the way the government is 
emerging toward a more democratic and inclusive approach. 
Again, what one sees essentially since the rapprochement with 
Sudan in 2010, a progressively greater interest in acquiring 
the capacity to govern, acquiring the capacity to support the 
urgently required economic development of Chad, and the wider 
pursuit of human rights and the respect for democracy across 
the board, both in terms of what it does directly as a 
government, how civil society is taking a broader role, and 
again its openness toward international efforts to help it 
achieve that state.
    Senator Corker. I get the sense there is some question 
about the interagency coordination that is been taking place in 
Chad. Do you have any comments regarding that, and the lack 
thereof?
    Ambassador Knight. No, sir. I have not heard about 
significant problems that have in fact impeded any U.S. 
Government policies or objectives there within Chad itself. The 
larger issue as I understand it and considered to be the most 
urgent is the regional effort to make sure that all our efforts 
across agencies are coordinated, harmonized, and mutually 
beneficial in terms of their pursuit.
    My best guess is that the kinds of issues that you may be 
referring to are momentary and addressed relatively effectively 
by Ambassador Boulware and his team in N'Djamena.
    Senator Corker. It is noteworthy that both of you are 
actually going to be involved in the countries that you are in, 
but obviously regionally both of you are going to be very 
important in your positions.
    One last question and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
courtesy. There is not a USAID--there is no USAID mission in 
Chad at this time. Do you see that changing? Is it important 
that it change? any comments there?
    Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Senator. There is in fact a 
USAID representative, a democracy and governance officer paid 
by USAID who is there full-time and is a member of the embassy 
staff. He has done a universally well-regarded job in terms of 
pursuing the ongoing USAID efforts there.
    There has not been a USAID mission in Chad since the 
nineties. There has been only this low-level representation. 
That decision ultimately resides with USAID and it is a choice 
made, not only in terms of their goals and objectives, but also 
with the funding that is available. My personal view--and again 
I stress, this is my personal view--is that Chad right now 
offers the optimal opportunity for what a USAID mission could 
provide. It would help shape and empower the Government of Chad 
to pursue its goals of better governance. It can help support 
the capacity engagement which is necessary to assure that its 
economic development proceeds as appropriately as possible and 
as quickly as possible, diversify its capacity to participate 
in the world economy, and fundamentally improve the management 
of its oil resources, which remain the pillar of its economy.
    Senator Corker. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you both for your desire to serve in this way.
    The Chairman. Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I welcome the witnesses. Ambassador Knight, congratulations 
on your many years of service. Ambassador Jones, I thank you 
for yours as well. We had a good meeting in my office.
    Ambassador Jones, a quick glance of the headlines on Libya 
from the past several days, obviously a stark reminder that 
Libya's transition to democracy remains rough and incomplete. I 
note two headlines from this morning: Reuters, ``Libya Defense 
Minister Quits Over Siege of Ministries by Gunmen''; and the 
Wall Street Journal, ``Libyans Anticipate Purge After Ban of 
Ex-Qadafi Officials.''
    Despite the challenges and despite what is happening, I 
continue to believe we cannot give in to the temptation that 
our support for the democratic aspirations of people in Libya 
and elsewhere in the broader Middle East is naive or mistaken. 
I do not think we can resign ourselves to the false belief that 
the Arab Spring is doomed to be defined by the dark fanaticism 
of terrorists. I continue to believe there was and remains a 
desire for democracy and freedom that has inspired millions of 
people to peaceful action, and Libya's example should remind us 
once again that even the worst dictators can be overthrown and 
swept into the ash heap of history where they belong.
    I am deeply concerned by the Libyan Parliament's vote on 
Sunday to adopt a political isolation law and the ongoing siege 
of government ministries. The passage of the law exposes on the 
one hand the government's inability to deal with the armed 
groups, as well as the overall weaknesses of Libya's central 
government.
    In your assessment, what impact will the political 
isolation law have on Libya's transition and the integrity of 
Prime Minister Zaidan's Cabinet?
    Ambassador Jones. Thank you, Senator. I share your views 
that the Libyan people are owed the best we can give them to 
help them succeed in their democratic transition.
    I also would like to mention, subsequent, Senator Corker, 
to your question, I am hearing from our operations center that 
it looks like the Libyan Prime Minister may have convinced the 
Defense Minister not to resign. Let us hope that that holds 
true.
    So again, it is an uncertain situation. I believe that the 
isolation law is something that I certainly would hope to 
address if confirmed, to get out with members and get them to 
rethink the application of that law, how it is defined, how 
they define many of the conditions. I think that we all know 
from our own experience with legislation and dealing with that 
as Americans that sometimes much lies in how we apply it and 
execute the law, and I am hoping to get out there and be 
confirmed and have some influence in that, to let them look at 
the future of their country instead of the immediate desire for 
revenge. They need to look further than that, and I think the 
Libyan people know that.
    And I do believe with you, sir, that the majority of the 
Libyan people have fought too hard and want too badly to 
succeed in a government that is not one of intimidation. They 
have had that for 40 years. They need a government of 
representation, sir.
    Senator McCain. And you would agree that the Libyan people 
are largely very appreciative of the United States assistance 
in the overthrow of Qadafi? It is not an environment where 
there is anti-Americanism. In fact, there is strong pro-
Americanism.
    Ambassador Jones. Absolutely, sir. Prior to your arrival I 
mentioned in my statement that I had in fact received a number 
of e-mails from private Libyans once the White House announced 
my candidacy, welcoming me to Libya and offering their hope for 
the relationship to continue strongly.
    We have lost a lot of time, sir. We need to get going on 
this.
    Senator McCain. Well, that is what I was going to mention 
next. After Qadafi was overthrown, the light footprint was 
enacted. We, many of us, argued strenuously for the kinds of 
assistance, whether it be in border security, whether it be 
treatment of the wounded, whether it be helping organize the 
military.
    I think it is pretty clear in the objective view of most 
observers that we have done very little. For example, they had 
30,000 wounded. I think we treated three in a Boston hospital. 
There still is the issue of sovereign immunity, which seems to 
have hung up our ability to send people there to train their 
military. Part of it is the Libyans' fault. One heck of a lot 
of it is our fault.
    I would expect that--and I have talked to Secretary Kerry 
about this problem. You are going to have to start unsticking 
things, but you are going to have to get the support of the 
administration, which so far has not been there. So if you are 
going to succeed in Libya, Ambassador, then you are going to 
have to speak truth to power, and truth to power is that we are 
not giving Libya assistance for a whole variety of reasons, not 
all ours, that will assist them in becoming a functioning 
democracy.
    You are not going to be able to go to eastern Libya any 
time soon because it is no longer--not just because of what 
happened in Benghazi, but it is no longer in control of the 
government. The situation in many ways, as evidenced by 
yesterday's vote, continues to deteriorate, and it cries out 
for American assistance, which, which is not the case in some 
other countries in the Maghreb, would be more than welcome.
    So I wish you luck. There are a lot of us who want to see 
you succeed, but most important, we want the people of Libya to 
be able to realize an opportunity that they sacrificed a great 
deal of blood in trying to achieve.
    You know the list of concerns that we have. You know the 
areas where we should be cooperating, and I would hope that you 
would strenuously advise the State Department and the President 
of the United States as to how we can salvage what is, 
unfortunately, a deteriorating situation in Libya.
    Ambassador Jones. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your 
support.
    Senator McCain. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    One last thing, Ambassador. You and I spoke and I just want 
to make sure for the record--I am continuingly interested on 
behalf of the families of Pan Am 103 to pursue whomever, 
whatever were involved in that bombing, which resulted in loss 
of many lives of Americans, including many from my home State 
of New Jersey. I assume that I have your commitment upon your 
confirmation to pursue that line with the Libyan Government.
    Ambassador Jones. Absolutely, Senator. That I have to say--
in my time, in one of my previous assignments, I had the honor 
and the painful opportunity to speak to some of the parents who 
had lost family members, children. I am a parent. I cannot 
begin to imagine that kind of tragedy. And I can assure you 
that I will work to continue to press the government to support 
us. In fact, there has been some effort. I think that there has 
been some progress on it. I would not say--``progress'' may be 
too far to go, and of course the FBI would have more of the 
details of that. But we do continue to press them, and I shall. 
I give you my word that I will continue to press to bring that 
to resolution, to bring justice to that.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, could I make one additional 
item that I forgot to mention when it was my turn?
    The Chairman. Go ahead, Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. There is a small graveyard in Tripoli, as 
you know. It supposedly, allegedly, contained the bodies of the 
American sailors who were unsuccessful in an attempted raid 
during our attempts to bring the Barbary pirates under control. 
There are remaining family members and others who are 
interested in the identification and an effort to repatriate 
those bodies. It is not a big item in the grand scheme of 
things, but I think we probably should do what we can to give 
those brave Americans who perished so long ago a place to rest 
that is fitting with their sacrifice. You are aware of it?
    Ambassador Jones. Actually, that is the first I was aware 
of that. I think small things can be very important, leading to 
bigger things, and I appreciate that.
    I was telling Senator Corker that in the reading of history 
of the first time we had a siege in Benghazi in 1967 it was 
actually a crew of the Army from Tennessee, the Reserves who 
came and saved the day. So a lot of connections here. We will 
follow up on that.
    Senator McCain. And I am sure you remember part of the 
Marine Corps Hymn has to do with ``the shores of Tripoli.''
    Ambassador Jones. Yes. Sir, we love the Marines. 
Absolutely, we love the Marines in the State Department, and I 
remind people of that all the time.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you both for your testimony. I am 
convinced of one thing: You cannot direct American assistance 
without an ambassador at the location. That would be an 
exercise, I believe, in futility. So we need an American 
Ambassador at both of these locations, and I believe that it is 
imperative to have these nominations move forward. It is not in 
the interests of the United States not to have an ambassador at 
these locations. National interest and the ultimate outcome of 
Libya's future can be helped or we can allow it to be shaped by 
a course of events in which the United States is absent. Our 
best way in which we pursue the national interest and the 
national security of the United States is to have an ambassador 
at both of these posts.
    Therefore, the record will stay open until the close of 
business tomorrow. I urge the nominees, as well as the State 
Department, to answer any questions posed by committee members 
ASAP so that we can put these nominations on the next business 
meeting.
    With that and the thanks of the committee, this hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


       Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record


          Responses of James Knight to Questions Submitted by 
                        Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. Chad is a country of increasing strategic significance 
for the United States but the most recent State Department Report on 
Human Rights described significant human rights problems, especially 
``security force abuse, including torture and rape; harsh and life-
threatening prison conditions; and discrimination and violence against 
women and children.''

   If confirmed as Ambassador, how would you seek to balance 
        these sometimes strained goals between promoting human rights 
        and working with partners in counterterrorism and other 
        regional stabilization efforts?

    Answer. While Chad is a key partner and leader on regional security 
issues and the United States continues to engage with Chad to address 
regional instability, we also continue to maintain pressure on the 
Chadian Government to address its human rights record. Improving human 
rights conditions in Chad is one of the mission's primary goals--a goal 
I embrace and, if confirmed, I will work toward. Furthermore, I will 
continue our high-level engagement with President Deby and other high-
ranking Chadian Government officials on improving and creating the 
legal and administrative mechanisms necessary to address existing human 
rights abuse cases and prevent future abuses. This includes 
professionalizing the military and making it more responsive to civil 
society concerns. I understand that the Chadian Government (GoC) has 
improved its efforts to address prison conditions following on a GoC 
ministeria-level mission to assess prison conditions. The GoC has also 
allowed international NGOs access to its prisons to assess conditions. 
If confirmed, I will encourage continued actions by the government to 
improve prison conditions.
    If confirmed, I will also work with both the Government of Chad, as 
well as a range of civil society partners, to give profile to gender-
based violence and to improve the position of women in Chadian society. 
I understand this is an area that the GoC leadership recognizes needs 
improvement. Current U.S. Government efforts in this area include a 
small democracy and human rights fund (DHRF) grant to a Muslim women's 
group for a grassroots sensitization campaign on gender-based violence 
to public diplomacy efforts of video conferences on the subject with 
Chadian opinion leaders. If confirmed, I will continue to maintain the 
proactive role of the United States on the range of human rights 
challenges present in Chad.

    Question. Management of the post is absolutely central to the 
duties of a chief of mission. Embassies are about the people who staff 
them. N'Djamena is not an easy place to serve, and the U.S. Embassy has 
in the past struggled with high turnover and other pressures there.

   Drawing on your experience in Baghdad, Benin, and your 
        earlier posts, what do you see as the primary management 
        challenges in a post like Chad?

    Answer. You correctly note that staffing our Embassy in Chad has 
been a major management challenge. Currently, Embassy N'Djamena is 
fairly well staffed with qualified generalists and specialists. If 
confirmed, I will make it a priority to mentor and assist the 
professional development and cultivation of those officers so we can 
retain them. This will prepare our officers to share their positive 
experiences in Chad with other Foreign Service officers who may be 
contemplating a future assignment to Embassy N'Djamena, thus putting us 
in a position to maintain an appropriate staffing profile and increase 
our ability to achieve U.S. Government goals and objectives now and in 
the future.
    My experience in the Foreign Service has also shown me that the 
building of a new embassy compound can also present management 
challenges. Currently, there are plans for a new Embassy compound in 
N'Djamena, with a project completion and move-in date scheduled for 
2016. If confirmed, this will be my third opportunity to negotiate 
favorable terms for the United States in the building of an embassy. I 
oversaw the move into the a new Embassy compound in Luanda, Angola, and 
was able to negotiate an earlier start date, on the basis of urgent 
security concerns, on the building of our compound in Cotonou, Benin.
                                 ______
                                 

       Responses of Deborah Kay Jones to Questions Submitted by 
                        Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. The tragedy surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens 
and three other U.S. mission personnel has renewed our attention on 
diplomatic security. At the same time, we recognize that being confined 
to the Embassy compound severely hampers efforts by our diplomats to 
reach out to broader Libyan society and gauge the pulse of the nation.

   How can the United States balance its role in ensuring 
        diplomatic security with robust engagement, with both the 
        Libyan Government and its burgeoning civil society?

    Answer. Diplomacy, by its nature, must be practiced in dangerous 
places because our interests suffer and our security is threatened when 
we are absent. Transitions to democracy are notoriously difficult 
endeavors. It is in our interest to engage with the Libyan Government 
and Libyan civil society as they seek to usher in a peaceful transition 
to full democracy. That being said, the safety and security of our 
personnel overseas are our highest priority. This is a sentiment that I 
share, that I have taken with me as Ambassador to Kuwait and Consul 
General in Istanbul, and that I would take to Libya. I will work 
closely with U.S. security officials to ensure our security posture in 
Libya meets the threat.

    Question. What is the state of our diplomatic presence currently in 
Libya? What kind of capacity does our Embassy have and what personnel 
or security challenges will you face in trying to fulfill the 
responsibilities of your post?

    Answer. (SBU) The current security situation in Libya is poor. On 
May 9, the Department ordered the departure of nonemergency personnel 
from Libya. However, the existing U.S. security platform is capable of 
providing substantial deterrence. Our remaining personnel are able to 
carry out their duties, meet local interlocutors, and advance our 
policy goals, protected by a robust security presence. The security 
team includes Diplomatic Security (DS) special agents, a DS Mobile 
Security Deployments team, U.S. Embassy-hired local national guard 
force and close protection unit, and a Marine Security Force unit. 
Additionally, the perimeter security has been bolstered by Libyan 
police and military forces. The physical and technical security posture 
has also been steadily improved with additional properties obtained for 
greater setback, wall heights increased, razor wire added, a technical 
security upgrade project to supplant existing CCTV cameras, the 
emergency warning notification system, and security screening 
equipment.

    Question. What will you do to ensure the protection of your 
personnel, and how have your previous deployments prepared you for this 
high risk post? Have you received any new training to prepare you for 
this assignment should you be confirmed?

    Answer. As I noted during my hearing, the Ambassador is the senior 
security officer at post, drawing on the best advice and intelligence 
from the people on the country team, to include intelligence officers, 
political analysts, military advisers and security professionals. By 
its nature diplomacy is a risky business: we must be deployed to 
accomplish our mission. It is a matter of weighing that risk against 
mission priorities and objectives, particularly in the fluid security 
environments in which we find ourselves.
    I have spent much of my 31-year career at high-threat posts in a 
volatile region of the world. Focusing on security is second nature to 
me. In preparation for Libya, should I be confirmed, I have taken the 
Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)-administered Foreign 
Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) Course. The DS FACT course provides 
participants with the knowledge and skills to better prepare them for 
living and working in critical and high-threat environments overseas. 
The course instructs participants in the practical skills necessary to 
recognize, avoid, and respond to potential terrorist threat situations.

    Question. The security situation in Libya remains precarious, with 
militia groups continuing to operate with autonomy and impunity. This 
also raises serious concerns about Libya's porous borders and arms 
trafficking. The central government in Tripoli has thus far been unable 
to exert control and restore peace and security throughout the country.

   How is the United States currently engaging the Libyan 
        Government on efforts to disarm and reintegrate former rebel 
        fighters and to secure the country's borders?

    Answer. To support Government of Libya's demobilization, 
demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programming, the United 
States--in coordination with the United Nations Special Mission to 
Libya (UNSMIL)--has assisted the Libyan Government in provision of 
urgent medical treatment to severely wounded rebels in 2011-2012 and is 
currently working with the Ministry of Health to improve capacity in 
three Libyan health clinics in order that Libya can provide better in-
country treatment to former rebels with long-term injuries and the 
general population. We are also supporting civil society organizations' 
efforts to advance transitional justice, reconciliation and conflict 
resolution through community dialogue and activities, particularly in 
areas most affected by the 2011 civil conflict and with large 
populations of former rebels. Our weapons abatement program with the 
Government of Libya supports incorporates former rebels into the work 
of inventorying and security national weapons depots. We are providing 
technical assistance to the government-established Warrior Affairs 
Committee (WAC) which leads the national DDR effort. We are working 
with the WAC to convene train-the-trainer workshops that teach former 
brigade commanders conflict resolution skills and nonviolent 
communication skills for their use as they continue to operate as 
civilian community leaders. We plan to expand our community-based 
programming with civil society and the WAC this summer to build on our 
partnerships' successes.
    Improving the Government of Libya's capacity to address its serious 
border security challenges is a priority for the Libya, the United 
States, and the international community. In coordination with UNSMIL, 
we are providing technical and tactical training to GOL border security 
personnel from the Ministries of Defense and Interior and the Customs 
Authority who are responsible for border management and security. We 
plan to expand our support in the sector given Libya was designated in 
September as eligible to receive funds through the Global Security 
Contingency Fund (GSCF). Our plan is to use GSCF to bolster Libya's 
border security capacities to secure its vast desert land borders in 
the south through an interministerial approach. Programming is to 
incorporate Libya's southern neighbors of Chad, Niger, and Algeria.

    Question. What more should the United States be doing to address 
this issue, which has significant implications for Libyan, regional, 
and U.S. security?

    Answer. In recent months, as the weakness in Libya's border 
security management became increasingly apparent, the Libyan Government 
has increasingly made border security a priority and during a February 
meeting with senior officials from Libya's key international partners 
called on the international community to assist with this transnational 
challenge. The United States and Libya's other international partners 
endorsed this request and since has been working with UNSMIL and others 
to encourage increased support. For our part, we are expanding our 
support through use of up to $20 million in Global Security Contingency 
Funds (GSCF). This program will complement the EU mission to improve 
border security in Libya. The EU is establishing a 60-person mission in 
Tripoli with funds for an initial 3-year operation. The mission should 
be fully staffed by end of 2012. We remain responsive to any requests 
from the Libyan Government for increased U.S. security sector support, 
and are willing to explore all options available to provide targeted, 
technical assistance to Libya and its neighbors in a region of 
strategic significance for U.S. national security interests.

    Question. Libya has the advantage of significant oil reserves and 
thus financial resources. But given the government's limited capacity, 
challenges remain about ensuring transparency in how the money is spent 
and making sure the revenue reaches the Libyan people through 
investments in infrastructure and social services.

   What role do you envision for the United States in this 
        regard?
   What are some targeted assistance programs you would like to 
        accomplish as Ambassador vis-a-vis building Libya's 
        infrastructure?

    Answer. Managing Libya's oil sector and the significant revenues it 
generates transparently and responsibly will help the Libyan Government 
demonstrate a clear break from the past, and build confidence in the 
government among Libyan citizens. Transparency in both the collection 
and use of revenues are critical components of sound oil sector 
governance. Other tools are also needed, including a robust technical 
understanding of the sector itself, methods of monetization, sound laws 
and regulations in line with international best practices, 
environmental and social protections, and engagement with affected 
communities. The Department regularly raises these issues in ongoing 
dialogues with the Government of Libya. We have also encouraged the 
Government of Libya to join both the Open Government Partnership and 
the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, two efforts which 
could help shed light on the revenues accrued by the Libyan Government 
and how they are being spent.

    Question. As you know 270 people, including 189 Americans, died 
when Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a bombing perpetrated by 
the Qadhafi government. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of carrying 
out this crime, but his coconspirators have yet to be brought to 
justice.

   What is being done to press Libyan authorities for help 
        gathering more information about the Pan Am 103 bombing, 
        particularly information about who--other than al-Megrahi--was 
        involved in the planning and carrying out of the event?

    Answer. The investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing remains open. 
We are committed to assisting law enforcement efforts in obtaining and 
evaluating any new information relating to it. As this is an ongoing 
investigative matter, I refer you to the Department of Justice for any 
further details.

    Question. In your new role what can you personally do to pursue 
this objective?

    Answer. The State Department remains committed to pursuing justice 
on behalf of the victims of the Pan Am 103 attack that took the lives 
of 189 Americans and many others. As Ambassador to Libya, if confirmed, 
I will work closely with the Department of Justice and the Libyan 
Government to bring to justice the perpetrators of this horrific attack 
and give the families of the victims closure.
                                 ______
                                 

        Response of Deborah Kay Jones to Question Submitted by 
                           Senator Bob Corker

    Question. As it relates to the chemical weapons located in Libya, 
what are the steps that have been taken to date by the USG with regard 
to that threat? What is the interagency coordination that is taking 
place to address any remaining issues in eliminating any threat?

    Answer. The State Department has worked closely with the Libyan 
Government to provide approximately $1 million of assistance to help 
secure its chemical weapons (CW) stockpile through the Nonproliferation 
and Disarmament Fund (NDF). This critical security assistance 
facilitated the return of Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical 
Weapons (OPCW) officials and allowed Libya to complete the destruction 
of its bulk mustard agent earlier in May 2013. The United States 
continues to work closely with Libyan authorities on this important 
issue, and the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction 
(CTR) program has offered the Libyan Government additional equipment 
and technical safety and security assistance to destroy the CW 
munitions previously hidden by the Qadhafi regime.
                                 ______
                                 

           Response of James Knight to Question Submitted by 
                      Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.

    Question. The Leahy amendment requires the U.S. Department of State 
to vet military and law enforcement individuals and units for evidence 
of human rights violations before the United States can provide 
security assistance. This law is vitally important for ensuring that we 
are upholding American values in the provision of security assistance 
and that we are not overlooking human rights violations.

   Beyond simply implementing the law, what will you do as 
        Ambassador to ensure that your Embassy staff is affirmatively 
        seeking to identify security force units responsible for human 
        rights violations and not simply waiting to receive 
        information?
   Further, what steps will you take to offer assistance your 
        host governments to help identify and prosecute members of 
        security forces who commit human rights violations?

    Answer. The embassy staff is currently working with local and 
international NGOs and the Government of Chad to identify human rights 
violators and to ensure that only units and individuals with clean 
human rights records receive training and assistance. When a unit or an 
individual proposed to receive assistance is determined to be 
ineligible because of credible information of a gross human rights 
violation, the embassy will inform the host government and offer 
assistance in bringing violators to justice. We may have to develop 
alternative assistance plans if credible information of gross human 
rights violations is found.
                                 ______
                                 

       Responses of Deborah Kay Jones to Questions Submitted by 
                      Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.

    Question. I am deeply troubled, as are many of my constituents, 
that the perpetrators of the devastating attack on our facility in 
Benghazi have not been brought to justice. More than 8 months after the 
attacks, what progress has the U.S. Government made in identifying and 
bringing to justice those parties responsible for murdering U.S. 
personnel in Benghazi? How would you assess cooperation with Libyan 
officials?

    Answer. Bringing the perpetrators of the Benghazi attacks to 
justice is a top priority for the United States, and it would be a 
major focus for me in Tripoli. If confirmed as Ambassador, I would 
engage with Libyan authorities at the highest levels and encourage 
swift progress on this investigation.
    I refer you to the FBI for any details about the current status of 
their investigation into the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi. 
President Obama discussed the importance of Libya's cooperation with 
the ongoing investigation during the Libyan Prime Minister's visit to 
Washington in March 2013, and I am committed to ensuring that the 
Libyan Government continues its support and cooperation with the FBI.

    Question. The situation in Libya continues to be quite volatile, 
with armed groups using heavy weaponry to intimidate public officials 
and paralyze various ministries. As I'm sure you know, a critical part 
of Libya's reform requires comprehensive security and justice sector 
reform that includes demobilizing militias, building an effective 
internal security force, and addressing the continued mistreatment and 
detention without due process of individuals who remain in detention 
facilities outside of state controlled facilities.

   What role do you envision for the United States in this 
        process?

    Answer. Comprehensive security and justice reform is required for 
Libya to successfully transition to a democracy. Libyans recognize this 
and with scant experience in democracy, they also understand that they 
cannot meet this challenge without outside expertise and support. At 
the recent Paris Ministerial on Libya in February, Libyan Foreign 
Minister Abdulaziz--with full endorsement of the United States, its 
other key partners--pledged that his government would make security and 
justice reform its highest priorities and called upon the international 
community to support them. If confirmed, my role will be to continue to 
uphold our commitment made in Paris while urging Libya and other 
partners to do the same. More specifically, if confirmed I will ensure 
the United States continues to carry out the technical training it is 
providing to the Ministry of Interior to strengthen its administrative 
capacity and tactical skills and to improve its understanding and 
respect for internationally accepted human rights practices. I will 
also maintain our programming that supports the Ministry of Justice's 
efforts to carry out detention reform through improved policy and 
management training as well as through tactical and human rights 
training of judicial police. I also look forward to continuing our 
efforts to expand our bilateral military relationship through regular 
dialogue and exchanges and via targeted tactical and professional 
training courses.
    Beyond our current assistance, if confirmed as Ambassador I will 
consider new opportunities where the United States is best positioned 
to support Libya in strengthening rule of law and security. I will 
continue the current practice of limiting our assistance to that which 
advances U.S. national interests, is requested by the Libyan Government 
and is coordinated with the United Nations Special Mission to Libya 
(UNSMIL). I will not only pursue U.S. assistance options but also 
encourage U.S. private and public institutions to assist Libya through 
entering in public--private partnerships. I will also explore with my 
country team and the interagency possible ways to develop cost-sharing 
arrangements with the Libyan Government for provision of additional 
support.

    Question. The Leahy amendment requires the U.S. Department of State 
to vet military and law enforcement individuals and units for evidence 
of human rights violations before the United States can provide 
security assistance. This law is vitally important for ensuring that we 
are upholding American values in the provision of security assistance 
and that we are not overlooking human rights violations.

   Beyond simply implementing the law, what will you do as 
        Ambassador to ensure that your Embassy staff is affirmatively 
        seeking to identify security force units responsible for human 
        rights violations and not simply waiting to receive 
        information?
   Further, what steps will you take to offer assistance your 
        host governments to help identify and prosecute members of 
        security forces who commit human rights violations?

    Answer. The Embassy staff, although currently limited in size, is 
already working with local and international NGOs, and the Libyan 
Government to identify human rights violators and to ensure that only 
units and individuals with clean human rights records receive training 
and assistance. When candidates for training or assistance are 
determined to be ineligible because of credible information reporting 
gross human rights violations, the Embassy will inform the host 
government and offer assistance in bringing violators to justice. We 
also consistently advocate the need for Libya to develop rights-
respecting security forces, and are exploring ways to help the Libyan 
Government integrate human rights into their doctrine, training, and 
accountability mechanisms.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of James Knight to Questions Submitted by 
                      Senator Christopher A. Coons

    Question. I am pleased that you indicate in your testimony that 
Chad will maintain troops in Mali as part of the planned U.N. mission. 
How many do they plan to contribute and how can the United States best 
support the capacity and professionalization of Chadian troops?

    Answer. The Government of Chad has indicated that it is willing to 
contribute troops to the newly established United Nations 
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) if 
asked. However, it has begun a gradual reduction in its forces in Mali 
in rough parallel with France's reduction in forces. The United States 
trained and equipped the Chadian Special Anti-Terrorism Group (SATG) 
unit that deployed to, and participated in, the African-led 
International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) combat operations with 
the French against Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and 
associated terrorist elements in northern Mali. Additionally, we 
provide training through the International Military Education and 
Training (IMET) and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) funded programs on 
counterterrorism through the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership 
(TSCTP).

    Question. Chad is an unfortunate example of a country that has not 
used its oil reserves to improve the lives of the Chadian people, and 
has a history of authoritarian rule and human rights abuses. As we 
rightly recognize Chad's strategic importance, if confirmed, how will 
you help advance democratic rule and ensure that U.S. support for 
Chad's security is not perceived as tacit acceptance of poor 
governance?

    Answer. While Chad has been a key partner and leader on regional 
security issues, we continue to press the Chadian Government to open 
political space for political parties and civil society and to improve 
governance and transparency, which will contribute to Chad's 
development. The United States, working with international partners, 
has helped the Chadian Government, ruling party, and political 
opposition reach agreement on procedures and institutions that will 
eventually increase democratic choices for the Chadian people, 
including an electoral roadmap. Our foreign assistance, while limited, 
supports democratic institution-building, political party and civil 
society development, conflict-resolution, interethnic dialogue, and 
training in rule of law. We are also working with the GoC as it 
participates in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 
(EITI), as it works toward compliance with all of the initiative's 
requirements. In addition to providing timely information on the 
payments GoC receives from its oil sector, thus adding transparency to 
this issue, the EITI process creates a policy space for GoC, civil 
society, and industry representatives to further discuss resource 
transparency. If confirmed, I will continue these efforts to ensure 
that our focus remains on helping Chad to build democratic, transparent 
institutions that can represent and serve its citizens.

    Question. Chad's oil revenues are declining. If confirmed, how will 
you support economic diversification in Chad and opportunities for the 
U.S. private sector?

    Answer. Economic development is a priority of our engagement with 
Chad. We are working to expand Chad's economic development in several 
key sectors, such as health, education, and agriculture through broader 
use of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and by hosting 
private sector development roundtable discussions to highlight the role 
that the private sector could play in Chad's economic development. If 
confirmed, I would like to expand these types of activities, which 
build on Chad's own economic reform agenda. If confirmed, my team and I 
will work with the Chadian Government to improve its investment climate 
in order to attract U.S. private sector investors.
                                 ______
                                 

       Responses of Deborah Kay Jones to Questions Submitted by 
                           Senator Rand Paul

    Question. You mentioned in your testimony that weapons from Libya 
are finding their way into Syria. How has the State Department been 
able to track these arms flows and assess the numbers and types of 
weapons entering Syria?

    Answer. The State Department remains concerned about weapons 
proliferation from Libya to neighboring countries. We refer you to the 
intelligence community for details on how the U.S. Government tracks 
the flow of weapons throughout the region.
    Since the revolution, the United States, in coordination with the 
U.N. Special Mission in Libya, has provided the Government of Libya 
with approximately $40 million in targeted technical assistance to 
develop the capacities needed to secure Qadhafi-era weapons stockpiles 
and improve border security management along Libya's long, porous 
borders.

    Question. To date, not one person that participated in the attack 
on the consulate in Benghazi has been captured. If confirmed, what will 
you do to help bring the perpetrators to justice?

    Answer. I refer you to the FBI for any details about the current 
status of their investigation into the attacks on our facilities in 
Benghazi.
    President Obama spoke with Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan during 
his visit to Washington in March about the importance of Libya's 
cooperation with the ongoing investigation. During his time in 
Washington, the Prime Minister publicly affirmed that Libya is 
committed to bringing those responsible for the attack before a court, 
and that Libya is ``keen on reaching the truth and to see that justice 
is achieved.''
    I am committed to ensuring that the Libyan Government continues its 
support and cooperation with the FBI investigation, understanding that 
Libya's limited investigative capacity presents serious challenges. I 
have spoken personally with FBI Director Mueller about this 
investigation, and we will work closely to bring the perpetrators to 
justice, if I am confirmed.
    Apprehending the perpetrators of the attacks on our facilities in 
Benghazi, which took the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three other 
colleagues, is a top priority for the United States. It will be a major 
focus for me should I be confirmed as Ambassador. We need an American 
Ambassador in Tripoli to engage with the Libyan authorities and make 
swift progress on this investigation.

    Question. Do you think it is appropriate to provide Libya, which 
has substantial national funds, with foreign aid while the murderers 
responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other 
Americans remain at large?

    Answer. It is in our national interest to support Libya as it works 
to develop a democratic state after 42 years of dictatorship. Libya's 
success in this endeavor will advance our own interests in terms of 
security, energy, rule of law, and human rights--issues which are 
important to the Libyans and to regional stability as well.
    As Libya has substantial natural resources but lacks the capacity 
and the expertise to meet the immense challenges of its transition, we 
are limiting our support to issues of immediate concern to the United 
States. Our targeted assistance to the Government of Libya is therefore 
primarily focused on collection and destruction of munitions including 
antiaircraft missiles, destruction of chemical weapons, and technical 
training for security and rule of law personnel. We are also 
contributing to our shared goal with Libya of creating an effective 
civil society. Our programming in this sector is providing support for 
electoral processes, transitional justice, constitution drafting, 
empowerment of marginalized groups including women and minorities, 
strengthening national unity, and good governance.
    We believe investing modestly in Libya's future will positively 
influence Libya's democratic transition, promote stability, and pay 
dividends for a lasting relationship with a country where the majority 
of people are committed to building a democracy and favorably inclined 
to the United States.


     NOMINATIONS OF GEOFFREY R. PYATT AND TULINABO SALAMA MUSHINGI

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2013

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                              ----------                              

Geoffrey R. Pyatt, of California, to be Ambassador to Ukraine
Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to 
        Burkina Faso
                              ----------                              

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 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. I call this nomination meeting to order.
    Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider 
two nominations: Geoffrey Pyatt, to be Ambassador to the 
Ukraine, and Dr. Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, to be the Ambassador 
to Burkina Faso.
    Before we begin, let me remind members that the deadline 
for submission of questions for the record is noon on Friday.
    First, let me begin by welcoming our two nominees, as well 
as your families. We are glad that you are both joined by your 
families, and we know that you will introduce them in your 
opening remarks.
    I will give some brief remarks and then turn it over to 
Senator Johnson for his. I will introduce our two witnesses--I 
will likely do that together--and then allow you to give 
opening statements, followed by questions.
    Let me congratulate you both on your nominations. If 
confirmed, you are going to be called upon to implement the 
policies of the United States and to serve to advance the 
interests of our great country. The challenges that you both 
face are unique.
    In Ukraine, we have a country that is teetering on a 
tightrope, dependent, in many ways, still on Russia, its much 
larger neighbor, but desirous of a closer relationship with 
Europe and the West. The United States is committed to helping 
Ukraine become a modern, prosperous democracy.
    Ukraine is important, for many reasons. It is the second-
largest country in Europe, rich in natural resources, with a 
strategic location on the border of Russia and the European 
Union, and coastline, of course, on the Black Sea.
    In 1996, Ukraine completed the removal of the Soviet-era 
nuclear arsenal from its territory, a brave decision that made 
the Ukraine an example for many other nations to follow. More 
recently, Ukraine has made strides in developing its own energy 
resources and attracting foreign investment, an endeavor that 
will make it, hopefully, easier to achieve an association 
agreement with the European Union and accompanying reforms to 
come.
    Our new Ambassador will be arriving in-country at a time of 
great importance, second perhaps only to 1991 as a potential 
inflection point in modern Ukrainian history. This November, 
the European Union will convene the Eastern Partnership summit, 
where we hope that Ukraine will sign an association agreement 
to set Ukraine firmly on the path of joining the European 
Union.
    But, in order to proceed with Ukraine's political 
association and economic integration with the European Union, 
they must continue making progress on the overall reform 
agenda, including clear signals that the era of selective 
political prosecutions is over. The challenges are significant, 
but not insurmountable. Our mutual interests demand that we 
must continue to strengthen our ties with Ukraine, and work 
with them as they chart a new path to a modern, democratic 
future, in partnership with Europe.
    Another nation that is very important to the United States, 
and where we also must help move forward modern democratic 
reforms is Burkina Faso. Like the Ukraine, the United States 
has worked closely with Burkina Faso in the areas of security 
cooperation and economic development. The President there has 
played an important and constructive role recently as a 
regional peacemaker, an example that we hope other leaders in 
the region will follow. He was instrumental in negotiating a 
cease-fire agreement between the Malian Government and the 
Tuareg rebels, signed just yesterday, following talks at the 
Presidential palace in the country's capital. At the same time, 
though, we follow continuing reports of human rights abuses in 
country that we know our next Ambassador will have to address, 
as well.
    Going forward, we hope the President and the ruling party 
will expand the space for political opposition and undertake 
the reforms necessary to ensure the long-term stability of 
Burkina Faso.
    We are both very interested in your perspectives today. We 
are glad that you are here.
    And I will turn it over now to Senator Johnson for his 
opening remarks.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Pyatt and Dr. Mushingi, welcome. We also want to 
welcome your families.
    And I just want to say, I truly appreciate your willingness 
to serve this Nation. As Senator Murphy was stating, it is just 
an incredibly important responsibility. You do represent us in 
these two very important countries. I have been to Ukraine. We 
had a very interesting hearing last week about the pressure of 
Russia, both in terms of their own civil rights, their own 
civil society, but also the pressure they are putting on that 
belt of democracy around it. And, of course, Burkina Faso is 
becoming an important country, from the standpoint of our 
effort against global terrorism as al-Qaeda is spreading around 
northern Africa.
    So, these are two very important countries, and I truly do 
appreciate your willingness to serve this Nation, and I am 
looking forward to your testimony. So, welcome.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
    Let me now introduce our two guests. I will introduce you 
both at this time. I will start with Mr. Pyatt and then Dr. 
Mushingi can give testimony.
    First, let me recognize Geoffrey Pyatt, of California, the 
nominee for Ambassador to Ukraine. Mr. Pyatt is a career member 
of the Senior Foreign Service. He is currently the Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and 
Central Asian Affairs, where he has served admirably. He was 
previously the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Mission to 
the International Atomic Energy Agency, and international 
organizations in Vienna, the Deputy Chief of Mission at the 
U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, and Economic Officer at the U.S. 
consulate in Hong Kong. He received his B.A. from the 
University of California at Irvine. His crowning achievement, 
however, was undoubtedly receiving his master's degree in New 
Haven, CT, from Yale University. [Laughter.]
    Shameless. [Laughter.]
    Dr. Mushingi is our nominee to be Ambassador to Burkina 
Faso. Dr. Mushingi is a career member of the Senior Foreign 
Service, as well, currently serving as Deputy Executive 
Secretary and Executive Director of the Executive Office of the 
Secretary of State. There is no title in the Federal Government 
that has the word ``executive'' in it more than yours. 
[Laughter.]
    From 2009 to 2011, he was Deputy Chief of Mission at the 
U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia. He previously served in Tanzania, 
Morocco, Mozambique, and Washington, DC. He began his career as 
a cultural and language trainer for the Peace Corps. He 
received his B.A. and M.A. from the Institut Superieur--oh, 
boy, you have got a long title, here--well, let us just say he 
received it in the Republic of Congo, and he received an M.A. 
from Howard University, and a Ph.D. from Georgetown University.
    We welcome both of you today, appreciate your patience in 
getting to today's hearing, and look forward to your testimony.
    Mr. Pyatt, we will begin with you.

        STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY R. PYATT, OF CALIFORNIA, 
                  TO BE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE

    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator Murphy. And certainly, I look 
back on my time in New Haven as a highlight of my education, so 
thank you for the reference, there.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honor 
to appear before you as President Obama's nominee to be the 
next United States Ambassador to Ukraine. I am grateful to the 
President, Secretary Kerry, and former Secretary Clinton for 
the confidence they have placed in me through this nomination. 
And, if confirmed, I will look forward to working closely with 
the members of the Foreign Relations Committee and its staff.
    With the Chairman's permission, I would like to begin by 
introducing my wife, Mary, with whom I have shared a 23-year 
Foreign Service career that has taken us and our children much 
further than either of us could have imagined, with Mary 
serving as a teacher at each of our overseas assignments.
    If confirmed, I will continue to build our strategic 
partnership with Ukraine and realize the potential we see in 
this relationship. The U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic 
Partnership, signed by Secretary Rice, and the commission that 
Vice President Biden established to implement this charter, set 
high expectations for our bilateral ties. If confirmed, my 
highest goal will be to sustain the effort to advance Ukraine 
on the path toward a modern European democracy.
    One area of notable achievement in our bilateral 
relationship is cooperation on nonproliferation, and, in 
particular, the removal of all highly enriched uranium from 
Ukraine, as jointly pledged by President Yanukovych and 
President Obama at the 2010 Nuclear Security summit. Ukraine's 
leadership on this issue stands as an example for countries 
around the world. Indeed, Ukraine's decision to remove all of 
its nuclear weapons and join the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon 
state, was one of the major accomplishments for European peace 
in the past 20 years.
    In recent years, Ukraine has become a valuable contributor 
to U.N. peacekeeping. Ukraine also participates in NATO 
operations, including troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The 
United States strategic goals for Ukraine have remained broadly 
consistent throughout more than 21 years of independence. We 
support Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial 
integrity.
    In keeping with the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, 
the United States promotes democracy, a market economy, and 
rule of law in order to encourage the development of a strong, 
prosperous, and European state. If confirmed, I will encourage 
the Ukrainian Government to act now to take advantage of the 
historic opportunity to pursue European integration and to meet 
the EU's conditions for signature of the European Union/Ukraine 
association agreement.
    In the past 3 years, the United States has expressed 
increasing concern about the political situation in Ukraine, 
especially regarding the selective prosecutions of opposition 
leaders. If confirmed, I will encourage Ukrainians to set high 
standards for themselves on human rights and rule of law, 
recognizing that democratic principles are in Ukraine's own 
interests and fundamental to United States policy.
    I will also support Ukrainian aspirations for free and fair 
elections that meet the bar they set for themselves in 2010, 
especially looking forward to the 2015 Presidential elections.
    This year, as Chairman in Office of the OSCE, Ukraine has 
the opportunity to demonstrate its international leadership and 
set an example for other countries. We have been encouraged by 
the role that Ukraine has played so far in its OSCE 
chairmanship, and, if confirmed, I will look forward to working 
closely with Ukraine to sustain this success.
    Ukraine's economic prosperity depends on financial 
stability, promoting reforms, and attracting foreign direct 
investment, especially in the energy sector, which is an area 
of growing United States/Ukraine cooperation. United States 
companies are ready to invest in unlocking Ukraine's gas 
resources and helping the country to achieve its goal of 
increased energy independence. But, our trade and investment 
relationships should be bigger, and the business climate in 
Ukraine has been weakened by corruption and questions about the 
fairness of the courts. If confirmed, I will make it a priority 
to advocate on behalf of United States companies and to work 
with Ukrainians to advance the rule of law, the protection of 
intellectual property rights and investor rights.
    Ukraine is a young democracy, with its first generation of 
citizens born into an independent country just now reaching 
adulthood. If confirmed, I will use our public diplomacy tools 
to continue engagement with this emerging generation as they 
play an increasing role in society, government, and business. I 
would also look forward to working closely with the vibrant 
Ukrainian diaspora in the United States.
    Ukraine and its people face critical choices in the months 
and years ahead. If confirmed, I will do all I can to support 
the men and women of the U.S. mission as they work with 
Ukrainians to further United States interests and advance 
Ukraine's future as an independent and prosperous European 
democracy.
    I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor of 
appearing today, and I would be happy to address your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pyatt follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Geoffrey R. Pyatt

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, it is a 
great honor to appear before you as President Obama's nominee to be the 
next United States Ambassador to Ukraine. I am grateful to the 
President, Secretary Kerry, and former Secretary Clinton for the 
confidence they have placed in me through this nomination, and if 
confirmed I will look forward to working closely with the Congress and 
members of the Foreign Relations Committee and its staff.
    With the chairman's permission I would like to begin by introducing 
my wife Mary, with whom I have shared a 23-year Foreign Service career 
that has taken us and our children much further than either of us could 
have imagined. As a teacher at each of our overseas posts, Mary has 
done much to build good will and to demonstrate why the idea of America 
remains so powerfully attractive around the world.
    If confirmed, I will continue to build our strategic partnership 
with Ukraine and will work to realize the potential we see in this 
relationship with bipartisan support. The U.S.--Ukraine Charter on 
Strategic Partnership signed by Secretary Rice, and the commission that 
Vice President Biden established to implement this charter, set high 
expectations for our bilateral ties. And if confirmed, my highest goal 
will be to sustain the effort to advance Ukraine on the path toward a 
modern European democracy.
    One area of notable achievement in our bilateral relationship is 
cooperation on nonproliferation, in particular, the removal of all 
highly enriched uranium from Ukraine, as jointly pledged by President 
Obama and President Yanukovych at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit. 
Ukraine's leadership on this issue stands as an example for countries 
around the world. Indeed, Ukraine's decision to remove all of its 
nuclear weapons and join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a 
nonnuclear weapon state was one of the major accomplishments for 
European peace in the last 20 years.
    I have a particular commitment to these issues of nuclear 
nonproliferation from my time as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. 
Mission to International Organizations and the International Atomic 
Energy Agency in Vienna, and if confirmed I will continue to encourage 
Ukraine's contributions as a global partner on nuclear security, 
nonproliferation, and disarmament.
    The United States strategic goals for Ukraine have remained broadly 
consistent throughout more than 21 years of independence. We support 
Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, along 
with its desire to pursue its own political and economic interests. In 
keeping with the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, the United States 
promotes democracy, a market economy, and rule of law in order to 
encourage the development of a strong, prosperous, and European state. 
If confirmed, I will encourage the Ukrainian Government to act now to 
take advantage of this historic opportunity to pursue Ukraine's hopes 
for European integration and to meet the EU's conditions for signature 
of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.
    In the past 3 years, the United States has expressed increasing 
concern about the political situation in Ukraine, especially regarding 
the selective prosecutions of opposition leaders. If confirmed, I will 
encourage Ukrainians to set high standards for themselves on human 
rights and rule of law, recognizing that democratic principles are in 
Ukraine's own interest, and central to U.S. policy. I will also support 
Ukrainian aspirations for free and fair elections that meet the bar 
they set for themselves in 2010, especially looking ahead to the 2015 
Presidential election.
    The U.S. commitment to supporting Ukraine is demonstrated by the 
size of our assistance program--approximately $104 million last year, 
despite reduced budgets globally. Ukraine also hosts the largest Peace 
Corps program in the world. Our assistance promotes long-term progress 
in democracy and human rights, in economic development, health and 
energy independence, and in military and nonproliferation cooperation.
    In recent years, Ukraine has become a valuable contributor to 
international peacekeeping. It currently has over 500 peacekeepers 
deployed across seven different U.N. peacekeeping operations. Ukraine 
is the largest contributor of military helicopters to U.N. missions. 
Ukraine also participates in NATO operations, including troops in 
Afghanistan and troops deployed to the NATO mission in Kosovo, and will 
soon contribute a ship to NATO's antipiracy mission off of the coast of 
Somalia.
    This year, as chairman in office of the Organization for Security 
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Ukraine has the opportunity to 
demonstrate its international leadership and to set an example for 
other countries. My current assignment as Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary has given me the opportunity to work closely with the OSCE to 
advance U.S. interests in Central Asia. In this regard, we have been 
encouraged by the role that Ukraine has played so far in its OSCE 
chairmanship, and if confirmed I will look forward to working closely 
with Ukraine to sustain this success.
    Ukraine's economic prosperity depends on financial stability, 
promoting reforms and attracting foreign direct investment, especially 
in the energy sector, which is an area of growing U.S.-Ukraine 
cooperation. On energy security, U.S. companies are ready to invest in 
unlocking Ukraine's gas resources, and helping the country to achieve 
its goal of increased energy independence. But our trade and investment 
relationship should be bigger than it is, and the business climate in 
Ukraine has been weakened by corruption, a lack of transparency, and 
questions about the fairness of the courts. If confirmed, I will make 
it a priority to advocate on behalf of U.S. companies and to work with 
Ukrainians both in and out of government to advance rule of law, the 
protection of intellectual property rights, and investor rights.
    Ukraine has a highly educated population, an active civil society, 
and tremendous natural resources. And Ukraine is a young democracy, 
with its first generation of citizens born into an independent country 
just now reaching adulthood. If confirmed, I will use all our public 
diplomacy tools to continue our engagement with this emerging 
generation as they play an increasingly important role in society, 
government, and business. I also would look forward to working closely 
with the vibrant Ukrainian diaspora community in the United States.
    Through a diverse and challenging diplomatic career I've learned 
that there is no greater honor--nor greater responsibility--than 
representing the United States abroad. I have also learned the 
importance of clarity on American principles, and that modesty in the 
pursuit of U.S. goals can be appropriate, especially when it comes to 
countries that are still defining their place in the world.
    Ukraine and its people face critical choices in the months and 
years ahead. If confirmed, I will do all I can to support the men and 
women of the U.S. mission as they work with Ukrainians to further U.S. 
interests and advance Ukraine's future as an independent and prosperous 
European democracy.
    I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor of appearing 
today and would be happy to address your questions.

    Senator Murphy. OK.
    Dr. Mushingi.

   STATEMENT OF TULINABO SALAMA MUSHINGI, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE 
                   AMBASSADOR TO BURKINA FASO

    Dr. Mushingi. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear 
before you as the nominee for United States Ambassador to 
Burkina Faso.
    With your permission, let me introduce my wife, Rebecca.
    I very much appreciate the confidence and trust the 
President and Secretary of State have shown in nominating me 
for this position. I am equally grateful to receive this 
distinguished committee's consideration.
    I believe that my work and travels across Africa have 
provided me with the experience needed to foster strong ties 
between our two countries. If confirmed, it would be a 
privilege to return to Africa to lead the efforts of our strong 
interagency team, which is committed to our country's 
increasing engagement in the Sahel region of West Africa.
    Our strong bilateral relationship with Burkina Faso aims to 
build a shared and mutually beneficial commitment to, one, 
strengthening democratic institutions; two, fostering inclusive 
economic development; and three, promoting regional stability.
    Burkina Faso faces serious economic challenges and a 
regional humanitarian emergency. The United States has provided 
humanitarian assistance for at-risk populations in Burkina 
Faso, including more than 50,000 Malian refugees.
    A 5-year Millennium Challenge Corporation compact will help 
to reduce poverty through investments in roads, improved 
agricultural productivity, and primary education. Current USAID 
assistance is boosting food security, improving governance, and 
widening access to basic health care services. Our strong Peace 
Corps program is working in education, a community economic 
development, and community health programs.
    Burkina Faso has been a valued partner in promoting 
regional security and combating terrorism. It has deployed 
troops to peacekeeping efforts in Darfur and Mali. Burkina Faso 
is also an active member of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism 
Partnership.
    To date, the Burkinabe have played a positive role in 
mediating conflicts in Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, Guinea, and, most 
recently, in Mali. If confirmed, I will work to maximize the 
effectiveness of our security cooperation with Burkina Faso. I 
will, above all, strive to protect American citizens and 
interests, advance U.S. national security in the Sahel region, 
increase mutual understanding, reflect American values, and 
deliver results for the American people and Burkinabe.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before 
you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may 
have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Mushingi follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Tulinabo Mushingi

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the 
committee, I am honored to appear before you as the nominee for United 
States Ambassador to Burkina Faso. I very much appreciate the 
confidence and trust the President and Secretary of State have shown in 
nominating me for this position. I am equally grateful to receive this 
distinguished committee's consideration.
    I believe that my work and travels across Africa have provided me 
with the experience needed to foster strong ties between the United 
States and Burkina Faso. If confirmed, it will be a privilege to return 
to Africa to lead the efforts of our robust interagency team, which is 
committed to the growing partnership between the United States and 
Burkina Faso, and our country's increasing engagement in the Sahel 
region of West Africa.
    Our strong bilateral relationship with Burkina Faso aims to build a 
shared and mutually beneficial commitment to strengthening democratic 
institutions, fostering inclusive economic development and promoting 
regional stability. Working in partnership, the leadership of our 
Embassy and the Burkinabe government have successfully advanced some 
political and economic reforms in Burkina Faso that will serve our 
peoples well. If confirmed, I will continue this work to deepen our 
bilateral partnership through programs and policies that support 
multiparty democracy, sustainable development to address chronic food 
insecurity, good governance, and regional security.
    In December 2012, Burkina Faso successfully held parliamentary and 
local elections, which were judged free and fair by the international 
community. We will build upon this momentum to further strengthen 
democratic institutions, including promoting transparent and 
accountable governance, respect for human rights, and adherence to 
constitutional rule.
    Burkina Faso faces serious economic challenges. A serious drought 
in 2011 resulted in a regional humanitarian emergency, which further 
exacerbated high levels of poverty, malnutrition, and food insecurity. 
Since then, the United States has provided humanitarian assistance for 
vulnerable populations in Burkina Faso, including 50,000 Malian 
refugees the Burkinabe government is hosting in the north of the 
country. We will continue to support Burkina Faso's efforts to address 
long-term development challenges. A 5-year, $481million Millennium 
Challenge Corporation Compact, which is on track to successfully 
conclude in 2014, will help to reduce poverty through investments in 
roads, improved agricultural productivity, land use rights, and primary 
education. Current USAID assistance is boosting food security, 
supporting economic growth, improving governance, and widening access 
to basic health care services. Our strong Peace Corps program has on 
average 150 volunteers working in education, community economic 
development, and community health programs.
    Economic diversification and improvements to infrastructure and 
education will be critical to generating the sustainable growth Burkina 
Faso needs to tackle high poverty rates. The Burkinabe government has 
taken steps to combat corruption and improve the investment climate, 
including land tenure policy reforms supported under the MCC compact. 
If confirmed, I will continue to support progress on economic reforms 
and promote bilateral trade. I will also continue to work to leverage 
our assistance programs with those of other donors and the private 
sector to support Burkina Faso's continued transition to a market 
economy.
    Burkina Faso has been a valued partner in promoting regional 
security and combating terrorism. It has deployed over 660 troops to 
the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) and has 
recently pledged to increase its commitment to 850 troops when the 
mission transitions under a U.N. mandate. Burkina Faso will also soon 
deploy its fifth battalion of peacekeepers to the U.N. mission in 
Darfur, all trained by the U.S. Government through the Africa 
Contingency Operations Training & Assistance (ACOTA) program. Burkina 
Faso is also an active member of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism 
Partnership (TSCTP) and a dedicated ally in efforts to combat violent 
extremism. To date, the Burkinabe have played a positive role in 
mediating conflicts in Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, Guinea, and most recently 
in Mali.
    If confirmed, I will work to maximize the effectiveness of our 
security cooperation with Burkina Faso. I will above all endeavour to 
protect American citizens and interests, advance U.S. national security 
in the Sahel region, increase mutual understanding, reflect American 
values in interactions with the government and people of Burkina Faso 
and deliver results for the American people.
    Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I would be 
pleased to answer any questions you may have.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, to both of our witnesses.
    I will begin with questions and then turn it over to 
Senator Johnson.
    To Mr. Pyatt, let us explore the fulcrum point that we are 
going to be at, this November, when the Eastern Partnership 
summit is convened in Vilnius. And, as I said in my opening 
remarks, at least I hope that there will be an association 
agreement extended to the Ukraine.
    It has been made fairly clear to the Ukrainians that there 
are a number of steps that have to happen in between now and 
then. One of them may be a very specific step, that if 
Tymoshenko is not released, there may not be an association 
agreement extended. There was a series of releases of political 
prisoners earlier this year, which I think was an encouraging 
sign in the right direction, but, as I and many other people 
made clear to the Ukrainians, certainly not enough.
    Can you just delve a little bit deeper into this question. 
You are going to--you know, assuming that we can move your 
confirmation forward as quickly as possible, you are going to 
have a short amount of time, clearly building on a fairly 
impressive legacy of the outcoming Ambassador, to try to 
convince the Ukrainians to make these choices. Some say that 
there is no way that Yanukovych will release Tymoshenko, that 
the threat to his political base is too great, and that even 
the association agreement is not enough.
    I am interested in both your take, as you have gotten ready 
for this assignment, on the levers that are at play here, 
especially for the new Ambassador, to try to get the Ukrainians 
to make more progress, specifically with respect to Tymoshenko.
    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
    Senator Murphy. And just turn----
    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator, for the question, which is a 
critical one and goes to the focal point of United States 
policy in Ukraine today. I would offer a couple of quick 
thoughts in response.
    First and foremost, I think it is useful to remember that 
the desirability of Ukraine's European future is one of the few 
issues on which there is broad political consensus in Ukraine 
today. Against the background of a very divided political 
environment, there is consensus between the government, the 
opposition, and, importantly, Ukraine's leading business 
organizations and business houses, that Ukraine has enormous 
benefits that will accrue to it from the signature of the 
association agreement, and, in particular, the deep and 
comprehensive free trade agreement.
    I have been impressed that that Ukraine aspiration has been 
reiterated so forcefully by President Yanukovych, by Foreign 
Minister Kozhara, when he was here in Washington last month, 
and by a variety of other senior officials in the course of our 
bilateral consultations.
    As you note, there are some conditions that are attached to 
that signature in November; most importantly, the end to 
selective prosecutions of political opponents, and, in 
particular, Mrs. Tymoshenko.
    If confirmed, my intention would be to partner as closely 
as possible with our European partners, who are forcefully 
engaged on these issues. We have pursued a policy of direct 
engagement, as Under Secretary Sherman labeled it when she 
visited Kiev, in March. And I think that that approach of 
direct engagement has shown some progress, including, 
significantly, the pardon and release, in March, of former 
Interior Minister Lutsenko. I thought Senator Cardin got it 
exactly right in his statement on that decision. It was an 
important and hopeful step forward, but it was only one step.
    Looking to the next couple of months and weeks, Ukraine 
needs to make a decision about how to approach that key 
condition along with the other conditions that the European 
Union has established. The United States will stand with Europe 
and stand with Ukraine as they proceed down that road. And 
certainly, if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed, it will be 
my highest priority, in my first weeks at the mission, to work 
with colleagues and to mobilize the diplomatic effort that 
Ambassador Tefft has been actively pursuing with his European 
counterpart to encourage President Yanukovych to walk through 
the door that the European Union is holding open and to seize 
the important opportunities that the association agreement 
represents, and the prospect that that holds for substantially 
lifting Ukraine's economic situation over time, riding on the 
back of the economic opportunities that the association 
agreement would bring along with it.
    Senator Murphy. One of the arrows in our quiver is the help 
that we can give the Ukrainians with respect to energy 
independence. And, in my second round of questions, I will have 
some questions for you, Dr. Mushingi. But, let me use my 
remaining time to explore that issue with you.
    Clearly, there is another decision that they are going to 
have to make about the sale of their pipeline infrastructure to 
the Russians, in exchange for a new agreement on sales of 
energy resources coming in. This is potentially an asset worth 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion. And if they get 
this deal wrong, it has pretty important fiscal implications 
for the Ukrainians and very important security consequences, 
from an energy perspective, for the entire region.
    How do we help the Ukrainians get the best deal, moving 
forward, with the Russians? And then, from the larger 
perspective, what can we do to try to move them toward energy 
independence? I know we are doing a lot right now with respect 
to helping them develop some shale resources, but there is much 
more, I am sure, that we can do.
    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator. Critical question. I have 
been involved with a lot of countries, where energy politics 
are important, but I have never seen a place where they are as 
central as they are in Ukraine, as your question, itself, 
reflected.
    I think, as we look ahead, Ukraine has a tremendous 
opportunity. You alluded to the shale gas revolution and the 
fact that you have two major U.S. international oil companies--
Exxon Mobil and Chevron--both of whom are very close to 
production-sharing agreements with Ukraine. Ukraine has already 
concluded such an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell. I have 
talked to experts who have indicated that they believe that, 
within 6 or 7 years, Ukraine could achieve 50-percent energy 
independence, just based on the adoption of the correct 
policies. There are policy choices that Ukraine has to make 
which will be requirements for securing the sort of large 
investment in transfer of technology that our companies would 
be prepared to be engaged with. We are also working with 
Ukraine through our Strategic Partnership Commission. We have a 
working group on Energy, led by Ambassador Carlos Pascual, that 
has been actively engaged on some of the other policy decisions 
that Ukraine needs to make to unlock its potential role as an 
energy hub for all of Europe.
    The energy politics of the region are changing 
dramatically; in part, as a result of the shale gas revolution 
in the United States. Ukraine has begun reverse imports from 
Western Europe, of gas. It has enormous potential to serve as a 
leveler for pricing and gas allocation across Europe, if it 
makes the right policy choices.
    The question of the pipeline, that you alluded to, is 
particularly sensitive, because it goes to one of the things 
which makes Ukraine's future role so possible, which is its 
participation in the European energy community. And I will look 
forward to working with our companies and supporting them, if 
confirmed, in order to make clear that everybody has a clear 
understanding of the implications for American investment that 
would be carried by a decision to sell off some or all of 
Ukraine's pipeline resources.
    Senator Murphy. I will continue on that on the second 
round, but, at this point, turn it over to Senator Johnson for 
questions.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may be picking 
it up right off the bat.
    Senator Murphy. Yes. Go ahead.
    Senator Johnson. What are those policy choices? You 
mentioned ownership of the pipelines. But, are there other 
policy choices that Ukraine has to move forward with?
    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator. I think--well, the most 
important one is the future of the association agreement. And I 
think one of the reasons that the Vilnius summit, that the 
chairman alluded to, is so important is because that will put 
Ukraine on a stairway toward closer relations with Europe, and 
it will bring with it a series of disciplines, in terms of 
policies, in terms of regulatory frameworks, that will have the 
effect of cementing what we all hope for, which is Ukraine's 
future as a democratic, rule-of-law society.
    I am inclined to look at the Vilnius summit as less an 
endpoint than a way station, because even if what we all seek 
is achieved, and Ukraine and the European Union signs the 
association agreement, there will then have to be a process of 
ratification in Europe, there will be a process of 
implementation, including on issues important to Ukraine, such 
as visa-free travel. All of those will provide leverage for 
Europe and for the United States, working with our European 
partners, to continue encouraging Ukraine in the direction we 
seek.
    I want to underline, as Vice President Biden said very 
eloquently when he was in Kiev, 4 years ago, the United States 
stands with the people of Ukraine. Our hope for Ukraine's 
future as a democratic European state is mirrored in every poll 
I have seen of Ukrainian public attitudes, but there are some 
challenging political decisions that have to be made on 
everything from pipelines, as the chairman alluded to, 
questions of energy pricing and gas pricing, which are part of 
the negotiations with the IMF, questions of how to structure 
the 2015 elections, and then, most crucially of all, the 
question of how to deal with the political opposition, which is 
embedded in the challenge of the concern that many have 
expressed, including the U.S. Government at the senior-most 
levels, about the phenomenon of selective prosecutions.
    Senator Johnson. In your opening comments--I am not sure I 
am using it as the exact quote, but you made it seem like it 
was universally accepted, that desire to move closer to Europe. 
But, at the same time, the--I am seeing a drift more toward 
Russia. What type of pressure is Russia being brought to bear--
for example, not to join the association?
    Mr. Pyatt. Yes, a critical question. And I think I would 
answer it two ways, Senator.
    First, if I can quote Vice President Biden again, he made 
very clear that we reject any notions of spheres of influence. 
And, of course, it is appropriate for Ukraine to have a deep 
and significant relationship with its large Russian neighbor. 
It is Ukraine's largest trading partner. But, we see Ukraine, 
over the long term, as being part of Europe. And that is a view 
which comes, not just from the Ukrainian people and the public 
opinion surveys that I have looked at, but we hear it from the 
highest levels of the Ukrainian Government, including President 
Yanukovych, Foreign Minister Kozhara, Prime Minister Azarov. 
And that is what we want to leverage off of. We want to work 
with Ukraine to achieve the future that the Ukrainians 
themselves have said they seek.
    Russia, as you alluded to, has had this active conversation 
with Ukraine; in particular, regarding the question of the 
Eurasian Economic Union. It is an issue that I have watched 
carefully, because the Eurasian Economic Union is also active 
in the region of Central Asia, that I am presently responsible 
for.
    It is interesting to me. One large Central Asian country 
that I have worked with closely is Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is a 
member of the Eurasian Customs Union, but it has found that, 
since its membership, if you look at the data from the World 
Bank and others, the main benefits from that membership have 
accrued to Russia. Russia's exports to Kazakhstan have gone up. 
Kazakhstan's exports to Russia have been flat, largely owing to 
nontariff barriers and other obstacles. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan 
has found that it has to navigate around very high external 
tariffs that are imposed by the Customs Union.
    I take it as a hopeful sign that President Yanukovych has 
chosen not to pursue membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, 
but is pursuing something short of observership, which is 
appropriate and which our European partners have said is 
completely nonthreatening to what we all seek, which is 
Ukraine's membership in the deep and comprehensive free trade 
agreement with Europe.
    So, I think there is a debate on these issues. It is 
appropriate that there should be a debate on these issues in 
Ukraine. That is what we would hope for in a democratic 
society. But, what is interesting to me is, as I alluded to in 
my earlier response to the chairman, what is interesting is, 
across the board, every major political party and the major 
business and social and community groups have all said the same 
thing, which is, Ukraine's future lies in closer relations with 
Europe. And that is something that the United States should 
applaud.
    Senator Johnson. OK. Well, we will come back to Ukraine 
later. We will bring Dr. Mushingi into the conversation, here.
    Doctor, you had mentioned, in your opening statement, that 
one of your responsibilities is to protect Americans and 
Americans' interests in Burkina Faso. Can you tell me how many 
Americans are there and what those interests are that need to 
be protected?
    Dr. Mushingi. Thank you, Senator. For now, we have about 
1,000 American citizens in the Burkina Faso. That includes the 
official Americans working for the U.S. Government, but also 
private citizens.
    As far as interests, this is one of those new economies, as 
we look around the world, and there's little known about it. 
But, we believe that--we have our top priority of strengthening 
economic growth, that we have an opening there, where the 
prosperity of the country will be attractive to some Americans, 
as well. And, for now, it is slow moving. But, we have at least 
5 to 10 American businesses involved in Burkina Faso.
    Senator Johnson. In what areas are there--I know there is 
gold. It is primarily an agricultural society, but is it--I 
mean, are there some real investment opportunities?
    Dr. Mushingi. Yes, sir. The big one, as you said, is--the 
big one is agriculture. And, for now, cotton is the big, big 
leading export for Burkina Faso. But, gold comes second to 
that. But, as I said, this is an emerging economy, and 
therefore, everything that we can think about is open. 
Transportation, that is one area.
    But, back to agriculture, where our policies--but also the 
policies of the country are in sync with what we want to do, it 
is really a wide, wide-open market--the agricultural equipment, 
if we can sell some agricultural equipment there. Our biggest 
program, which is the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the 
bulk of that money is going into improving agricultural 
productivity. And everything from equipment to seeds to 
transportation, just for the whole chain, is open.
    Senator Johnson. OK. Thank you, Doctor.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator.
    We will now do a second round of questions, and I will 
continue with you, Dr. Mushingi.
    Talk to us about the Malian refugee issue inside Burkina 
Faso today. About 50,000, as I understand, refugees are there 
today. Talk to you about the security concerns within the 
country, relevant to that large a population, what kind of 
conditions they are living in, and what role the United States 
has to play in trying to secure those camps and then trying to 
either bring those folks back home or integrate them into 
society, if they're going to stay.
    Dr. Mushingi. Yes, thank you, Senator.
    Yes, as I said, we have about--there are about--close to 
50,000 Malian refugees in--within the borders of Burkina Faso, 
most of them in the north. And we are providing humanitarian 
assistance for those refugees, working with the Burkinabe 
Government. But, again, what we are trying to do is to maximize 
our aid, meaning--working with all the other partners, the 
civil society, the Burkinabe Government, but also other donors, 
such as France, in addressing the issue. This is one of those 
issues that transcends one country, and everybody has to work 
together.
    We are working with the Burkinabe Government in training--
on the security side--in training their local police to patrol 
the borders. That is to see who is coming in and who is not 
coming in. Once they are in the camp, our Bureau for Population 
and Migration and Refugees at State Department has already 
provided enough--have--has provided funding to work--to 
increase the basic health services within the camps--water, 
sanitation, and food--but also working with the Malians and the 
Burkinabe to register the Malian refugees who are in the 
country. And this, of course, as you alluded to, the agreement 
that was signed yesterday has--there is a provision for how--to 
see how these Malians can also continue to participate in the 
affairs of the country. And here we are talking about leading 
up to the elections.
    Senator Murphy. This is your first assignment in this 
particular country, but, of course, you have been actively 
engaged in watching and analyzing the region for your entire 
life. Talk to me specifically about President Compaore. 
Difficult to sort of figure out which direction he is heading 
in. He has, at times, been blamed as a destabilizing factor in 
the region, but, with respect to this new agreement, clearly he 
has, now, a renewed interest in bringing people together.
    I know that you have yet to take up this assignment, but 
give a little window into President Compaore and whether he is 
sincerely committed, in the long run, to trying to be a 
peacemaker or whether we are still living with some of his 
reputation, in the past, as someone that caused, sometimes, 
more troubles than he solved.
    Dr. Mushingi. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for your question.
    President Compaore, for the last decade or so, has been a 
valued partner of the United States, but also has been engaged 
in helping us, especially with the regional issues. Regional 
stability in that region involves all the actors in the region, 
and President Compaore has taken a lead in that aspect, and we 
are grateful for his lead.
    Going from our President's speech when he visited Africa a 
few years ago, the idea is for the Africans to take the lead in 
their affairs. We are there as partners and providing the help 
we can, and--but, they have to take the lead. And, on the West 
Africa side, in the grouping, the ECOWAS grouping, the economic 
grouping of West African nations, President Compaore has proven 
to be a leader, especially in mediating many of these 
conflicts.
    To his success, we know that Cote d'Ivoire--he helped with 
Cote d'Ivoire; and, so far, peace seems to be holding. He 
helped in Guinea Bissau--in Guinea. He helped in Togo, leading 
to the democratic elections. And now he is taking this strong 
lead in Mali, and we are grateful for that, as well.
    Senator Murphy. As are we.
    Mr. Pyatt, one additional question. Can--it is a simple 
one--can Ukraine achieve an association agreement with 
Tymoshenko still in jail? Is that the--there are--is that a 
bottom-line necessity in order to achieve an association 
agreement?
    Mr. Pyatt. Senator, I hope you will excuse me if I refrain 
from trying to predict, at this point, 6 months out, where we 
might be. I can say, Europe has been very clear about its 
conditions. The 27, soon to be 28, will have to reach a 
decision if we get to November and Mrs. Tymoshenko is still in 
detention.
    What I can say is that, if I am confirmed, I will work as 
hard as I can, as closely as I can, with my European partners 
to make sure that the Ukrainian Government reaches the correct 
decision. And I say this, having listened very, very carefully 
to Senator Durbin's floor statement yesterday. And I think the 
one thing that came through to me in his very welcome 
intervention was the idea that this is not about an individual, 
it is about a principle. And the principle is how a democratic 
government deals with a political opposition when leaders are 
out of power. And I think--I--again, I am reluctant to 
speculate on where things will turn out. I know that the 
European Union Ambassador in Kiev has said some hopeful things 
recently about his aspirations, that there may be a compromise 
that can be reached. And again, the handling of former Interior 
Minister Lutsenko shows that there is a road that the Ukrainian 
Government can follow involving a pardon, involving the release 
of political opponents.
    So, I know that is not a complete answer to your question, 
but I think it is probably about the best I can offer at this 
point. And again, if I am confirmed, you have my assurance that 
this will be at the very top of my list as I begin to find my 
feet with the Embassy team in Kiev.
    Senator Murphy. I did not expect you to give a complete 
answer. But, Senator Durbin wanted to be here today. I am one 
of the cosponsors of his resolution calling for the release of 
Mrs. Tymoshenko. I appreciate the work that you will do on 
this.
    Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Mushingi, a quick followup on the Mali refugee problem. 
How many refugees are there, currently?
    Dr. Mushingi. The last number I was briefed on was about 
50,000 Malian refugees.
    Senator Johnson. You were talking about registering. Is the 
thought that they will be repatriated to Mali at some point in 
time, or are they going to be assimilated into the culture?
    Dr. Mushingi. The thought is, first and foremost, for us--
as you know very well the region and what is going on in that 
region--first and foremost, to know, at least to have an idea 
of, who is within the camp, and how to deal with the people who 
are in the camp. The next level is to work with the Malian 
Government. This agreement is an agreement that is leading to 
eventual elections in their country. To work with the Malians 
to see how those refugees can participate in the elections in 
their country. And, third, what any country that receives 
refugees hopes for, that refugees will be able to go back----
    Senator Johnson. Return.
    Dr. Mushingi [continuing]. To their own country.
    Senator Johnson. OK.
    Dr. Mushingi. But, as you know, it is a long process.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you.
    Mr. Pyatt, let us talk a little bit about the rule of law 
in Ukraine. Is that really what we are talking about, with 
political prosecutions? And is that shaking the confidence from 
the standpoint of U.S. investors--I guess I am glad to hear 
Royal Dutch Shell is concluding agreement; is that a hangup 
for, potentially, American companies, when they see, on the one 
side, the type of law they have, when it comes to the political 
situation?
    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator. I am reminded of something 
Secretary of State Colin Powell used to say when he would talk 
to us about investment, that money is a coward. And, I think, 
from that perspective, it is very important that Ukraine 
provides an environment for investment for business that is 
transparent, that provides the assurance of fair adjudication 
of disputes.
    The large energy investments that are on the horizon, in 
particular, I think can be real bellwethers in this regard, 
because these are very large American companies, which bring 
state-of-the-art technology, but also bring American business 
practices, in the best sense of the word, in terms of the 
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, in terms of their preparedness 
to commit to long-term partnerships, but to commit to a long-
term partnership based on honesty, based on the rule of law.
    The United States, as a policy matter, our assistance 
programs have done a lot of good work in this area. Ukraine 
recently passed a new criminal procedure code that reflected a 
lot of work by the USAID mission in Ukraine. I know that the 
mission has been also engaged on the question of a new 
prosecutorial code. There is work to be done.
    When I have been engaged with some of the Central Asian 
governments, I sometimes remind myself, these are countries 
that have only experienced 21, going on 22, years of 
independence. They are still figuring out a lot of the rules of 
the road. And I ask myself, you know, Where was the United 
States, 22 years after 1776?
    But, there are opportunities that Ukraine has at this 
moment, and certainly we are prepared to work comprehensively--
and I think our business community is, as well--if the 
conditions are right. But, as I said in my prepared statement, 
as I have looked at our economic and commercial relationship, 
it is much smaller than it should be. This is a country of 46 
million people, with four EU member states on its border. I 
would like to see a much larger trade and investment 
relationship. But, that will only come if the conditions are 
right.
    Senator Johnson. Obviously, Russia's using its oil and gas 
exports as pressure. Are we going to be equally as prepared to 
utilize investment and foreign aid, basically, to create 
those--you know, the positive pressure for Ukraine to do the 
right thing? Is that your intention?
    Mr. Pyatt. Critically important question, and, I think, 
especially in areas like energy. Again, if those experts I have 
talked to are correct and Ukraine achieves 50-percent energy 
independence on the basis of new investment in shale gas, on 
the basis of assistance that USAID is providing on energy 
efficiency, on the basis of other nonconventional sources, that 
has the potential to change the energy politics of the region 
in a positive way that reinforces what has been United States 
policy for more than two decades, at this point, which is 
United States support for the territorial integrity and 
independence of a democratic and European Ukraine.
    Senator Johnson. Can you just speak a little bit in terms 
of political corruption, whether it is the wheat program, wheat 
exports, and your thoughts on what we can do, in terms of 
bringing pressure to bear to minimize that problem?
    Mr. Pyatt. Again, Senator, critical issue. I am glad you 
raise it. I know the mission has been engaged, for instance, on 
the question of the extractive industry's transparency 
initiative. The Ukrainian Government has adopted a roadmap. It 
is pursuing membership in that initiative, which would have the 
effect of building confidence in the business environment and 
establishing rules of the road, which would benefit, not just 
foreign investors, European or American, or, for that matter, 
Russian, companies, but also Ukrainian investors and Ukrainian 
companies.
    And, I think, again, this is part--as I look at it, and 
having spent much of my career working in countries that are in 
transition, which are developing their democratic cultures, 
this is part of that building process. And it has certainly 
been my experience that economic and commercial modernization 
and political modernization go hand in hand. There is a great 
deal that Ukrainians can be proud of, in terms of what they 
have accomplished since independence in political development. 
The 2010 Presidential elections absolutely met international 
standards, in terms of a free and fair electoral process. You 
have a flourishing civil society. You have got an active press. 
And you have a vibrant political opposition. But, that is a 
foundation on which Ukraine ought to build more.
    As Secretary Clinton said in one of her comments not so 
long ago, Ukraine deserves better. And if I am confirmed, I 
want to work with the Ukrainian people, and especially the 
emerging new generation of younger Ukrainians, to achieve that 
more hopeful future.
    Senator Johnson. If I can risk going over a little bit, I 
am almost reluctant to ask this question, but, in terms of 
political prosecutions--not necessarily always a black-and-
white issue. And without speaking to any one particular case, I 
mean, how muddied is the water there? How many are pure--I 
mean, to what extent is it pure political prosecution versus 
there sometimes are not all angels? Do you know what I am 
trying to get at?
    Mr. Pyatt. I think I know exactly what you are getting at, 
Senator. I think I would answer it this way. I, of course, have 
not looked over any of the prosecutorial dossiers on this. I do 
not have the factual background on the specific cases. But, I 
do know, as--in fact, as Senator Durbin, who, of course, has 
the legal expertise and has looked at these issues, said, just 
yesterday, when a former Prime Minister is imprisoned on the 
basis of a political--of a legal judgment against a decision 
she reached while in office, that raises questions about rule 
of law, and it raises the specter of the allegation of 
politically motivated prosecutions.
    So, that is, I think--let me leave it at that. Thank you.
    Senator Johnson. OK. Well, I appreciate that.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    Let me just ask one last question to you, Dr. Mushingi. I 
wanted to ask a broader question, given your lifetime's work on 
United States/African relations. We spend a lot of time here 
talking about the investment that China is making in the 
African economy; in particular, their interest in natural 
resources. We, thankfully, have a renewed interest in our 
relationship with African nations, but largely because of the 
tumult in northern Africa and a growing recognition of the 
security challenges that are presented to the United States in 
Africa. We do not talk enough here, I think, about the work 
that we can do with foreign aid and economic development 
assistance to try to keep up with the interest that China is 
showing.
    Can you just speak for a second as to what, given your 
broad experience in the region tells you, should be United 
States policy with respect to economic investment in Africa? In 
particular, standing next to a pretty impressive buying spree 
from the Chinese over the last several decades.
    Dr. Mushingi. Thank you very much, Senator, for your 
question.
    I have dealt with that issue, the presence of the Chinese 
and other people in many of those countries. My last posting, 
which was Ethiopia, where I was Deputy Chief of Mission, we had 
to grapple with that issue, and deal with it. In fact, I had a 
chance to brief Senator Durbin when he came around to visit us. 
And one question was about the Chinese presence.
    On Burkina Faso, one thing that I can say for sure is that 
we have the will of the people. They want to work with us. And 
we believe that investment in promoting economic growth and 
strengthening the rule of law are insurance against violent 
extremism, regional conflicts, but, more importantly, poverty.
    Now, if confirmed, one of my priorities will be working 
with the Burkinabe Government to have a level of playing field 
so that everybody involved in the country, whether they are 
Chinese, French, Americans--that we can compete for the same 
opportunities, starting from the same level.
    The Chinese interests in many of those countries or--is--
can be, also, a--an opportunity for us that we can see where 
the--those companies are, and what they are doing. But, working 
with the local government, my priority, if confirmed, will be 
to ask and make sure that the American companies, as well, 
can--American companies can compete as well as those other 
companies from the other countries.
    Senator Murphy. Well, thank you.
    Thank you to both of our witnesses. I think this has been a 
very good hearing. My only disappointment is that we did not 
spend more time talking about the very important Burkina Faso/
Ukraine bilateral relationship. [Laughter.]
    But, maybe we will save that for next time.
    We have given members until Friday to submit questions. If 
there are additional questions, we hope that you will return 
answers to us with as much speed as possible. We are hopeful 
that we will be able to bring your nomination before this 
committee in the very near future, perhaps before our next 
recess.
    And again, thank you both for appearing here before us. 
Assuming your successful confirmation, we look forward to 
working with you.
    And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


       Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record


         Responses of Geoffrey Pyatt to Questions Submitted by 
                        Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. Last year, Ukraine removed the last batch of highly 
enriched uranium (HEU) from two of its remaining nuclear sites, 
bringing it closer in line with the commitments made by President 
Yanukovych and President Obama at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit. 
This past May, Ukraine demonstrated its own long-term commitment to 
nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation when it opened a rocket engine 
airframes disposal facility to house the destruction of RS-22 (SS-24) 
missiles.

   How is the United States prepared to assist Ukraine as it 
        enters the final stage of fulfillment of its international 
        commitments stipulated under the Strategic Arms Reduction 
        Treaty?

    Answer. We consider Ukraine a key strategic partner on issues of 
nonproliferation, arms control, and nuclear security. Since becoming a 
non-nuclear-weapon state in 1996, Ukraine has continued to play a 
leading role in global efforts to reduce the threat of WMD, including 
by removing all highly enriched uranium from Ukraine in 2012.
    Ukraine is financing the operation of a full-scale water washout 
facility to remove the propellant from Ukraine's remaining legacy SS-24 
solid rocket motors. Through the Department of State's Nonproliferation 
and Disarmament Fund (NDF) and the Department of Defense's Cooperative 
Threat Reduction program, the United States assists with this project 
through three primary efforts:

   Construction of an empty motor case elimination facility to 
        facilitate the safe, ecologically sound incineration of 
        residual propellant and empty motor cases.
   Provision of a fixed-fee payment for the empty motor cases 
        once Ukraine has removed the propellant.
   Support for the safe storage of the remaining solid rocket 
        motors.

    The United States is proud to work with and support Ukraine on 
these projects.

    Question. The Tymoshenko prosecution and imprisonment has been a 
disaster for Ukraine and has hurt the country's reputation. The release 
of Lutsenko was a positive step, but how many other political prisoners 
do we know about in Ukraine? What sorts of conditions are they being 
held in and what are the prospects for their release?

    Answer. The Department has engaged at the highest levels, including 
directly with President Yanukovych, to express concern about the 
politically motivated prosecution of opposition leaders, including 
former Prime Minister Tymoshenko.
    As far as the Department is aware, Mrs. Tymoshenko is the last 
high-profile political figure still in detention as a result of a 
politically motivated prosecution. She currently faces criminal charges 
in three other cases and is under investigation for her alleged 
involvement in the 1996 murder of Yevhen Shcherban. Former Interior 
Minister Yuriy Lutsenko was released in April 2013, following a 
Presidential pardon. Former Deputy Minister of Defense Valeriy 
Ivashchenko was released on probation, but following Denmark's decision 
to grant him asylum, the Prosecutor General's Office has proposed to 
reinstate his original 5-year prison sentence.
    The Department's 2012 Human Rights Report noted that prison and 
detention center conditions in Ukraine remained poor, did not meet 
international standards, and at times posed a serious threat to the 
health of prisoners. In the case of Mrs. Tymoshenko, she was 
transferred from prison to a hospital in April 2012.

    Question. The administration recently identified Ukraine as a 
``Priority Foreign Country'' (PFC) for its lax IP practices, and has 
now launched a section 301 investigation. This was the first time since 
2005 that USTR had designated any country a ``Priority Foreign 
Country.'' To quote USTR's 2013 Special 301 report, ``The PFC 
designation is reserved by statute for countries with the most 
egregious IPR-related acts, policies, and practices with the greatest 
adverse impact on relevant U.S. products, and that are not entering 
into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in 
negotiations to provide adequate and effective IPR protection.''
    In its 2013 report, USTR specifically cited the rampant use of 
pirated software by the Ukrainian Government itself as one of the 
reasons for its PFC designation. Overall, estimates are that only 16 
percent of the software utilized in the country is legitimate. Ukraine 
is certainly not the only country with a poor regime for protecting IP, 
but the Ukraine Government has demonstrated a lack of responsiveness in 
addressing these issues. The U.S. Government has been pressing the 
Ukrainians on this issue for a long time, including signing an IPR 
Action Plan with the Ukrainian Government in 2010.

   Unfortunately, we have seen little progress in implementing 
        this Action Plan. What do you plan to do once you have arrived 
        in Kiev to ensure that this issue gets the attention it needs 
        from the Ukrainian Government?

    Answer. As you note, Ukraine was designated a Priority Foreign 
Country for failing to provide adequate and effective protection of 
intellectual property rights (IPR). Following this designation, 
Ukrainian Government officials announced their intent to cooperate 
fully with the United States to develop and implement a plan to push 
forward IPR protections.
    If confirmed, I will make it a priority to advocate on behalf of 
U.S. companies and to work with Ukrainians, both in and out of 
government, to advance the protection of intellectual property rights. 
Working with Deputy Prime Minister Gryshchenko, I intend to hold the 
Government to its commitments to legalize the software on its 
computers, crack down on Internet piracy sites and pass legislation to 
protect copyright.
    I will also seek to partner with Ukrainian business associations, 
industry, and other diplomatic missions to mobilize our shared 
interests in strengthening the Government's IPR protection effort. I 
also intend to continue the Embassy's efforts to raise awareness about 
how IPR protection benefits Ukraine's economy.
                                 ______
                                 

          Response of Geoffrey Pyatt to Question Submitted by 
                      Senator Christopher A. Coons

    Question. This year, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) 
designated Ukraine a ``Priority Foreign Country'' (PFC) due to the 
Eastern European nation's disregard for the protection of U.S. 
intellectual property, particularly copyrighted works. This marks the 
first new PFC designation in 8 years. Ukraine's piracy rate for 
software alone is over 80 percent, and USTR noted the widespread use of 
pirated software by the Ukrainian Government as one of the reasons for 
the designation. The United States has pushed the Ukrainian Government 
to crack down on piracy for many years, including the signing of an IPR 
Action Plan in 2010. But Ukraine has failed to implement the bulk of 
the Action Plan, and little progress has been made.

   In your new role, how will you help to ensure that the 
        Ukrainian Government more directly addresses American concerns 
        over intellectual property right protections?

    Answer. As you note, Ukraine was designated a Priority Foreign 
Country for failing to provide adequate and effective protection of 
intellectual property rights (IPR). Following this designation, 
Ukrainian Government officials announced their intent to cooperate 
fully with the United States to develop and implement a plan to push 
forward IPR protections.
    If confirmed, I will make it a priority to advocate on behalf of 
U.S. companies and to work with Ukrainians both in and out of 
government to advance the protection of intellectual property rights. 
Working with Deputy Prime Minister Gryshchenko, I intend to hold the 
Government to its commitments to legalize the software on its 
computers, crack down on Internet piracy sites, and pass legislation to 
protect copyright.
    I will also seek to partner with Ukrainian business associations, 
industry, and other diplomatic missions to mobilize our shared 
interests in strengthening the Government's IPR protection effort.
    I also intend to continue the Embassy's efforts to raise awareness 
about how IPR protection benefits Ukraine's economy.


                     NOMINATION OF DANIEL R. RUSSEL

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2013

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                              ----------                              

Daniel R. Russel, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of 
        State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
                              ----------                              

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:24 p.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. 
Cardin, presiding.
    Present: Senators Cardin and Murphy.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. The Committee on Foreign Relations will 
come to order.
    I want to thank Chairman Menendez for allowing me to chair 
today's hearing in which we will consider Mr. Daniel R. Russel 
of New York to be Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian 
and Pacific Affairs.
    Today I am pleased to welcome Mr. Russel, the nominee for 
the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific 
Affairs to our committee. I had a chance to be with Mr. Russel 
before my recent trip to Asia, and I want to thank him 
personally for the briefing that I received. And I know that he 
is well qualified to be the Assistant Secretary.
    I first want to thank Mr. Russel for your willingness to 
continue to serve the public. I know that your family is here, 
and we want to thank your family as well because we know public 
service is a family sacrifice and we thank the members of your 
family for being willing to put up with your desire to serve 
your country.
    Mr. Russel is a career diplomat since 1985; he was a major 
architect of the administration's rebalance to Asia policy as a 
member of the White House National Security staff since 2009.
    As chair of the Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific 
Affairs, I have been holding a series of hearings examining the 
rebalance to Asia policy. So I welcome the opportunity to 
discuss Mr. Russel's plans for the rebalance. Asia is 
tremendously important for America's economic growth. Yet, it 
faces serious challenges from nuclear proliferation to cyber 
attacks to climate change. I look forward to hearing from Mr. 
Russel as to how he will tackle these challenges in his new 
position.
    America's economic and national security interests are 
inextricably tied to East Asia's strength, stability, and 
security. The rebalance is a statement of our intent to more 
fully invest in the region, to support our allies and partners, 
and to contribute to the economic prosperity and stability of 
the region. I look forward to hearing what Mr. Russel's 
priorities will be for the rebalance in the coming years.
    As we rebalance to Asia, we must emphasize how critical the 
universal values of human rights and good governance are for 
security and prosperity. I held my first hearing on what the 
rebalance policy means for democracy, good governance, and 
human rights to illustrate this point. These values should be 
integral to every element of our rebalance policy.
    For instance, in my second hearing on security cooperation, 
we made it clear that our military engagement should support 
human rights, civilian control of the military, humanitarian 
assistance, and disaster relief. On economics, the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, the centerpiece of our regional economic 
engagement, can move forward only if progress is made on labor 
rights and basic human freedoms. Good governance also 
recognizes the strains we put on our environment that threaten 
food, water, and energy security.
    I welcome Mr. Russel's thoughts on how to undertake the 
rebalance not only through military and economic strategies, 
but by expanding human rights and good governance.
    I can see opportunities for progress on many fronts. Closer 
engagement with our allies and partners and active partnership 
with multilateral organizations such as ASEAN are key to a 
successful rebalance. ASEAN and China are working toward a 
binding code of conduct to resolve the South China Sea 
conflicts, which is encouraging.
    Myanmar's emerging democracy is also a bright spot. I have 
met with Myanmar's President and speaker and am impressed by 
their commitment to continue democratic progress. Cautious 
engagement has worked. I want to see it continued and reforms 
to succeed on all fronts, especially human rights.
    There have been signs of movement on North Korea as 
recently as today with some reports. I welcome Mr. Russel's 
views on how we should proceed for security on the Korean 
Peninsula. During my visit to the Republic of Korea, I 
encouraged the Republic of Korea's President Park to pursue her 
vision of a Helsinki-like process to realize her goal of a 
Northeast Asia confidence-building dialogue and to continue her 
humanitarian approach to help starving North Koreans. I welcome 
your ideas, Mr. Russel, as to how to engage that separated 
families of two nations to move toward reconciliation, 
including through closer cooperation with China.
    And that brings me to China and the stumbling block to our 
relations, human rights. During my visit to Beijing, I learned 
how extensively the government suppresses human rights. It is 
still not healthy to disagree with the government or you can 
end up in labor camps without trials for years. We must 
continue to have an honest, constructive dialogue with China on 
human rights, cyber security, and intellectual property. We 
want them to stop stealing our ideas and come up with their own 
to become an innovative society that is a true partner.
    We can partner with China in many areas, such as military-
to-military relations and climate change. I was encouraged by 
President Obama's informal meeting with President Xi, which 
symbolized the kind of relationship building necessary to 
increase mutual trust. And with their agreement to reduce 
hydrofluorocarbons, climate change is a promising area for 
cooperation.
    We must get our relations with China right in order to 
contribute to peace and stability in the region as two great 
Pacific powers.
    As you can see, Mr. Russel, you have a full plate ahead of 
you, and you will not be bored in your new position.
    And we look forward to your testimony. And with that, I 
will turn to Mr. Russel and just acknowledge that your full 
statement will be made part of our record. You may proceed as 
you wish and then we will engage in questions.

  STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. RUSSEL, OF NEW YORK, TO BE ASSISTANT 
     SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS

    Mr. Russel. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
this hearing today, and thank you very much for your comments 
and thank you also for the leadership that you have shown since 
taking over the chairmanship of this committee on the Asia-
Pacific account.
    With your permission, I would like to begin by 
introducing----
    Senator Cardin. Please do.
    Mr. Russel [continuing]. My wife Keiko, my wife of 31 
years, who has stood by me and sacrificed so much for me and 
for my career, but also for my country. I would also like to 
introduce my two sons, Byron and Kevin. They, like their sister 
Emily, who is mercifully gainfully employed and therefore could 
not join us today, are what is called ``Foreign Service 
brats.'' They have grown up bouncing around the world, changing 
countries, changing schools, changing houses, changing 
languages every 3 years, and that has represented a great 
sacrifice, as has their waiting for me late into the night and 
missing me on weekends. So it is something that I am very 
grateful to them for.
    I appreciate your comments about families in the Foreign 
Service, Mr. Chairman. I think that my own family exemplifies a 
truth about the entire Foreign Service which is that the spouse 
and the children are really the unsung heroes. And I cannot 
thank them enough.
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Murphy, I am really honored to appear 
before the committee today and grateful to President Obama and 
to Secretary Kerry for their confidence in nominating me for 
the responsibility of serving as Assistant Secretary of State 
for East Asia and the Pacific, which is a region vital to our 
national interests.
    As a career member of the Foreign Service, I have devoted 
28 years to serving America's interests abroad, largely in 
Asia. In 1985, my first assignment was to serve as the staff 
aid to the U.S. Ambassador to Japan who, at the time, was the 
former Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield, and he took me 
under his wing. He and his wife became mentors to me and to my 
wife. He became a lifelong friend, and to this day, he remains 
my hero, my role model, and my inspiration. His life 
exemplified honor, honesty, hard work, loyalty, modesty, 
respect for others. It is from him that I acquired a deep 
respect for this institution, and there is hardly a day that 
goes by where I do not think of him and miss him.
    My public service also taught me the value of the State 
Department's greatest asset, which is the wonderful and 
talented and dedicated men and women who serve in Washington 
and who serve abroad. In my career, I have been entrusted with 
assignments that carried responsibility for management, for 
security, and for the welfare of American citizens, and if 
confirmed, I pledge to maintain high ethical and managerial 
standards. I will insist on the best possible security for our 
personnel, rigorous safeguarding of our national security 
information, clear and straightforward communications, 
including with this committee and with your staff.
    Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, President Obama has made a 
strategic commitment to rebalance our policy toward the Asia-
Pacific region because America's prosperity and security are 
inextricably linked to that region. I have had the privilege of 
serving as the President's special assistant for Asia, and I 
know that his objective in the region is to create and ensure a 
stable security environment and advance a regional order rooted 
in economic openness, a peaceful resolution of disputes, and 
respect for universal rights and freedoms. Secretary Kerry has 
affirmed his strong commitment to this strategy, and if 
confirmed, I will vigorously pursue this approach, which is 
yielding important benefits to the American people and to the 
region.
    I firmly believe that America's treaty alliances underpin 
our strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region and are a 
unique attribute of American strength.
    More broadly, I believe the United States has a strong 
interest in inclusive and transparent regional institutions, as 
you alluded to, where countries work together to confront 
common challenges. We want these institutions to help ensure a 
stable, rules-based environment for economic growth, to promote 
respect for international law, and to encourage the resolution 
of disputes.
    I also recognize the importance of opening markets, of 
leveling the playing field, and deepening America's economic 
ties to Asia, and if confirmed, I will work closely with 
Congress and other stakeholders to promote U.S. exports and job 
creation, to advocate for U.S. firms, and to foster economic 
integration, and work to advance the administration's 
initiatives on energy, on the environment, and on climate 
change.
    Similarly, with respect to China, as you mentioned, Mr. 
Chairman, if confirmed, I will work to encourage China to 
resolve key bilateral issues, to cooperate on regional 
challenges, such as North Korea and maritime security, and to 
play a constructive and responsible role in addressing global 
challenges. I will seek to impress on the Chinese Government 
that protecting universal human rights is in China's own 
interest, and I will press China to take steps to stop this 
cyber theft of American companies' intellectual property.
    If confirmed, I will implement President Obama's policy of 
promoting a rules-based system in the Asia-Pacific, respectful 
of universal values, human rights, good governance, and 
democracy.
    Mr. Chairman, you mentioned North Korea's situation. North 
Korea presents, through its nuclear and ballistic missile 
programs, a serious threat to the United States, to our allies, 
and to the global nonproliferation regime. If confirmed, I 
would actively pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the 
Korean Peninsula and work to block North Korea's efforts to 
proliferate or to blackmail its neighbors. I am also concerned 
about the well-being of the North Korean people, including 
those who have fled tyranny there.
    In addition, the United States has a profound interest in 
the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes in the South 
and the East China Seas. It is essential that we uphold freedom 
of navigation and commerce, and if confirmed, I will support 
the U.S. policy of opposing coercion or the threat or the use 
of force, of reinforcing stability and adherence to 
international law, rules, and norms, and of preventing 
escalation or conflict.
    I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, by reiterating my 
commitment to do everything in my power to advance American 
security, to advance American interests. And I am firmly 
committed to good coordination with the legislative branch, and 
if confirmed, I look forward to close cooperation with you and 
your colleagues and your staff.
    So I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before 
the committee and for your consideration. I look forward to 
hearing your views and answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Russel follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Daniel R. Russel

    Chairman Cardin, Senator Rubio, and distinguished members of the 
committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President 
Obama's nominee to be the next Assistant Secretary of State for East 
Asian and Pacific Affairs. I am deeply grateful to President Obama and 
to Secretary Kerry for placing their confidence in me with this 
nomination to serve the United States of America in the capacity of 
Assistant Secretary for a region that is so vital to our national 
interests.
    I would like to take this opportunity to thank and introduce to the 
committee my wife of 31 years, Keiko, who has stood by me and 
sacrificed so much for me and for this country over the years. I would 
also like to introduce my sons Byron and Kevin who, like their sister 
Emily (who is gainfully employed and could not attend today), grew up 
as ``Foreign Service Brats'' moving from country to country, school to 
school. They, too, have made many sacrifices for me and tolerated my 
long hours at work and frequent travel. My family exemplifies a truth 
about the Foreign Service--the spouse and the children are the unsung 
heroes--and I can't thank them enough.
    Mr. Chairman, this nomination is deeply meaningful to me because, 
as a career member of the Foreign Service, I have devoted 28 years of 
service to promoting America's interests abroad, largely in East Asia. 
After traveling to Asia as a 22-year-old and studying martial arts in 
Japan for 3 years, I returned home to New York and used my Japanese 
language ability in a multinational company. Over time, I recognized 
that whereas businesses throughout Asia were intensely interested in 
learning about the United States, back home too few Americans gave much 
thought to foreign affairs or to the necessity of defending our 
interests overseas. This concern motivated me to pursue a career of 
public service, and in 1985 I left the private sector, and proudly 
accepted an appointment as a United States Foreign Service officer. It 
is a decision I have never regretted. As my first assignment, I was 
posted to our Embassy in Tokyo, where I had the honor to work as the 
staff aide to former Senate majority leader and Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee chairman, Ambassador Mike Mansfield. Mike Mansfield 
took me under his wing, served as my mentor, and to this day is my role 
model and inspiration. His life exemplified honor, honesty, hard work, 
loyalty, modesty and respect for others. As a former Senator he taught 
me the importance of teamwork between the executive and legislative 
branches. And as an ambassador who represented the United States under 
both President Carter and President Reagan, he taught me the value of 
bipartisan cooperation.
    I have worked for other exceptional American diplomats and been 
given extraordinary opportunities to contribute to important foreign 
policy priorities. As Political Advisor for Asia under Ambassador Tom 
Pickering at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992, 
I traveled widely in Asia and to the Pacific Island nations, I 
participated in the Cambodia peace talks, played a small role in the 
restart of our relations with Vietnam, and coordinated our successful 
efforts to bring the Republic of Korea into the United Nations as a 
full member state. As Political Unit Chief at our Embassy in Seoul, 
Republic of Korea, I participated in nuclear negotiations with North 
Korea and helped to negotiate the 1994 Agreed Framework. In later 
positions in the State Department, including as Chief of Staff to the 
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and during my service at 
the National Security Council over the past 4\1/2\ years, I have been 
granted the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of America's 
foreign policy and to work on some of the most pressing challenges 
facing our country. I very much hope for the opportunity to continue 
that work as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the 
Pacific.
    Mr. Chairman, almost three decades of government service have 
taught me to value the State Department's greatest asset--its talented 
and dedicated employees. The women and men of the State Department 
represent the best this country has to offer, and I am humbled to be 
considered for this position of leadership. If confirmed, I will take 
every opportunity to promote their role and skills, while relying 
heavily on their expertise, enthusiasm, and deep sense of loyalty to 
the United States. I care deeply about the State Department and will do 
my utmost to strengthen it as an institution. This includes pursuing 
resource requests for operations commensurate with the Department's 
mission and national interests and for foreign assistance funding that 
represents sound investments by the American people to promote our 
prosperity and security, as well as our values as a democratic nation.
    Over the years I have been entrusted with responsibility for 
managing two of our embassies in Europe--in Cyprus and in The Hague--as 
Deputy Chief and Mission and Charge d'Affaires. Those positions, as 
well as my service as Principal Officer in Osaka, one of our largest 
consulates in Asia, carried significant responsibility for management, 
security, and the welfare of American citizens. I have always placed a 
high premium on management excellence. If confirmed, I will emphasize 
proper and responsive management within the Bureau and at our posts 
abroad. I pledge to maintain high ethical standards, careful 
stewardship of resources, the best possible security for our personnel, 
rigorous safeguarding of information relating to national security, and 
clear and straightforward communications, including with this committee 
and its members.
    Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary time of opportunities and 
challenges for East Asian and Pacific countries and for the United 
States. With the recognition that America's future prosperity and 
security are very much intertwined with the Asia-Pacific region, 
President Obama made a strategic commitment to rebalance our interests 
and investments in Asia. The President set out a clear, overarching 
objective for the United States in the region to sustain a stable 
security environment and advance a regional order rooted in economic 
openness, peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for universal 
rights and freedoms. As underscored by Secretary Kerry during his trip 
to the region in April, the State Department remains committed to this 
U.S. strategic objective by building an increasingly active and 
enduring presence in the region. As Senior Director for Asian Affairs 
on the National Security Staff, I have worked to promote the United 
States increased focus on the Asia-Pacific in line with the President's 
strategic priorities and the national interest. I wholeheartedly 
believe that as a Pacific country with profound interests in the 
region, America should engage deeply throughout the region and provide 
inspiration, security, and leadership. If confirmed, I will sustain a 
``whole-of-government approach'' ensuring that the efforts of the State 
Department are closely coordinated with USAID, the Defense Department, 
and other agencies. I will work with Congress, the business community, 
and nongovernmental organizations to build on and shape the important 
partnerships that promote our prosperity and security.
    Over the past 4 years, our robust engagement with the Asia-Pacific 
through governments, institutions, and people-to-people programs has 
yielded positive returns politically, socially, economically, and 
militarily. I intend to sustain this focus and continue the 
Department's efforts to strengthen and modernize our alliances, enhance 
our partnerships with regional powers, support regional multilateral 
institutions, boost trade and investment, advance democracy and the 
respect for human rights, and strengthen ties between Americans and the 
people of the region. Mr. Chairman, I will touch briefly on some of 
these aspects.
    First, I firmly believe our treaty alliances with Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand remain the 
bedrock for our strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. These enduring 
relationships represent a unique asset for the United States and an 
important multiplier of our influence in the region. Our alliances are 
grounded in history, shared values, and our common commitment to 
democracy, free markets, rule of law, and human rights. They provide 
the foundation for close cooperation that ensures regional stability 
and reassures our friends and regional partners of U.S. commitment to 
the Asia-Pacific region. I believe that our ties with our East Asian 
and Pacific allies are stronger than ever. If confirmed, I will work 
closely with colleagues at the Defense Department to ensure that our 
alliances are maintained and modernized in a way that promotes 
operational needs and our shared strategic goals, including new 
cooperative efforts in cyber security, space, counterpiracy, and 
counterterrorism.
    Second, Mr. Chairman, beyond our bilateral relationships, I believe 
the United States has a strong interest in the further development of 
an inclusive and transparent regional architecture of multilateral 
institutions. The Asia-Pacific region is increasingly seized with the 
need to develop rules-based frameworks for dialogue and cooperation 
that will help maintain stability, resolve disputes through diplomacy, 
and ensure that countries can rise peacefully. If confirmed, I will 
work to strengthen regional structures, such as the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum and the East Asia summit, so 
that these bodies effectively ensure countries work together to 
confront common challenges, provide a stable environment for economic 
growth, and act with respect for international law and rules.
    Many of these forums are built on the underlying platform of the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. For decades, ASEAN 
has embodied a framework for regional cooperation based on mutual 
respect and the renunciation of force. Not only does ASEAN provide a 
platform on which to build a regional architecture, but the countries 
of Southeast Asia are becoming increasingly important as their 
economic, political, and social dynamism grows. The increased U.S. 
focus on ASEAN in recent years mirrors our enhanced engagement with 
Southeast Asia as a whole, representing a ``rebalance within the 
rebalance.'' Southeast Asia's strategic geography, population of over 
600 million, economic growth, and its rapidly expanding middle class 
underscore its significance. If confirmed, I will ensure that we 
continue to bolster our ties with Southeast Asia, including with 
emerging centers of influence, such as Indonesia, where we are 
strengthening our relationship through the Comprehensive Partnership. 
This engagement includes strengthening efforts like the Lower Mekong 
Initiative, which supports narrowing the development gap in Southeast 
Asia, and regional mechanisms to improve human rights and the rule of 
law.
    The United States has historic ties to the Pacific Island nations, 
our neighbors on our farthest, westernmost maritime boundaries and home 
to vast marine resources. As such, the Pacific Islands have an 
important role to play in our rebalance, and if confirmed, I will help 
to deepen and institutionalize our ties with these partner nations and 
with regional bodies such as the Pacific Islands Forum and the 
Secretariat of the Pacific Community. This includes working with the 
committee and others in Congress to implement the Palau Compact Review.
    Third, Mr. Chairman, millions of U.S. jobs are tied to exports to 
the Asia-Pacific region, and that should increase through sustained 
U.S. economic statecraft with the growing economies of the region. 
Having seen the benefits of such high-quality agreements such as the 
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and our free trade agreements with 
Australia and Singapore, I recognize the importance of trade 
liberalization and deepening our economic relations with the Asia-
Pacific.
    If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress, USTR, U.S. 
stakeholders, and partner countries to advance an agenda that promotes 
U.S. exports and job creation, advocates for U.S. firms, fosters 
regional economic integration, and lays the foundation for robust, 
sustained growth at home and throughout the Asia-Pacific.
    We are now committed to an even more ambitious project in the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations. If confirmed, I 
will work in support of the successful conclusion this year of the TPP 
negotiations to develop a next-generation regional trade and investment 
agreement, which also promotes internationally recognized labor rights, 
environmental protection, and transparency.
    In an effort to sustain momentum for achieving free, fair, open, 
and transparent trade throughout the region, if confirmed, I will 
ensure continued strong U.S. leadership in the 21-member Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, a key organization for addressing 
practical issues affecting U.S. consumers and businesses and 
establishing policies and standards that facilitate trade and 
investment in the region. Additionally, I will continue to advance 
Presidential initiatives on Expanded Economic Engagement with ASEAN and 
the U.S.-Asia-Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership, and examine new 
opportunities to work with the region on environmental protection and 
climate change issues.
    Fourth, Mr. Chairman, over the last 4 years the Obama 
administration has placed great importance on the U.S.-China 
relationship and has made substantial progress in building a 
relationship that can address the challenges of the 21st century. As 
President Obama has made very clear, including at his recent summit in 
California with President Xi, the United States welcomes a stable, 
prosperous, and successful China that takes responsibility on the 
global stage commensurate with its stature. If confirmed, I will 
continue to build on the progress that has been made and further 
encourage China to take a constructive role in addressing global 
challenges.
    Two themes have guided the U.S. approach to China. First is the 
recognition that the U.S.-China relationship will continue to have 
elements of both cooperation and competition. To prevent the emergence 
of old-style strategic rivalry, we must continue to reject the premise 
that a rising power and an established power are somehow destined for 
conflict. Instead, the United States and China must focus on fostering 
new patterns of practical cooperation on issues that matter to both 
countries. Second, the administration has stressed the importance of 
sustained and substantive dialogue across the range of issues in the 
relationship, including stronger U.S.-China military-to-military ties. 
Only by pursuing a whole-of-government approach in our dialogues can 
the United States and China create consensus around rules and norms 
while we remain committed to our values and interests. If confirmed, I 
will continue to impress upon the Chinese Government that protecting 
human rights is not only about China's adherence to international norms 
governing the protection of universal values, but it is also 
intrinsically in China's interest. This is because greater respect for 
fundamental freedoms will ultimately strengthen the U.S.-China 
bilateral relationship and contribute to China's continued peace, 
prosperity, and stability. On cyber-enabled theft, the U.S. has made 
clear that we need China to recognize the urgency and scope of this 
problem and the risk it poses--to international trade, to the 
reputation of Chinese industry, and to our overall relations. Beijing 
should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to these 
activities. Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive 
discussion on acceptable norms of behavior in cyber space within the 
recently announced U.S.-China cyber security working group.
    Regarding our friendship with Taiwan, the United States remains 
firmly committed to our one China policy based on the three U.S.-PRC 
Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. Under our one China 
policy, the United States maintains close unofficial relations with 
Taiwan, which is a thriving democracy and an important trading partner. 
Our friendship and robust commercial, cultural, and people-to-people 
exchanges with Taiwan have never been stronger.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will continue to promote and 
support a rules-based system respectful of universal values, human 
rights, and democracy in the Asia-Pacific. It is not a coincidence that 
virtually every country that threatens peace is a place where human 
rights are in peril. It is also not a coincidence that many of our 
closest allies are countries that embrace pluralism, tolerance, equal 
rights and equal opportunities. In short, there is a strong link 
between standing up for human dignity abroad and the national interests 
of the United States. As such, I will ensure our diplomats continue to 
monitor and promote the respect for human rights in bilateral and 
multilateral settings, and support the region's own efforts to foster 
vibrant, democratic civil societies.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to make note of the historic reforms in Burma 
over the past few years. Burma, a country impoverished by decades of 
authoritarian military rule and self-imposed isolation, is undergoing 
an unprecedented political transition marked by a rapid expansion of 
civil liberties and human rights. These reforms have allowed us to open 
a new chapter in bilateral relations and expand our channels for 
assistance. We recognize that much more remains to be done. To ensure 
that this extraordinary transformation succeeds, I will push for 
continued reform, including advancing democracy and respect for human 
rights of all citizens, protection of ethnic and religious minorities, 
increased efforts toward national reconciliation, advancing economic 
development, and cooperation on nonproliferation. Burma remains 
important to U.S. interests as a demonstration of the benefits that can 
accrue to a nation that pursues a progressive path to change.
    Having served extensively overseas, I believe passionately in the 
power of people-to-people ties and in the importance of our public 
diplomacy initiatives. Our public diplomacy programs introduce foreign 
audiences to the diversity of American culture and society, showcase 
the role that civil society plays in the United States, and create the 
long-term foundation for understanding and collaboration. If confirmed, 
I will fully support expanding innovative educational and cultural 
endeavors. We will also continue to increase our bilateral dialogues 
and create multilateral dialogues on educational and cultural issues 
such as the U.S.-China Consultation on People-to-People Exchange. I 
will give priority to conveying American ideals through social media 
platforms in tech-savvy East Asia to connect us with young and diverse 
audiences.
    Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will strongly encourage building 
greater interparliamentary connections, and toward that end I encourage 
Members of Congress and congressional staff to travel to the region and 
engage with the region's leaders and people. I will pledge the warm 
welcome and full support of our Embassies.
    The Asia Pacific security landscape continues to evolve, and I am 
committed to ensuring that we are responsive to longstanding challenges 
as well as changing demands. North Korea's illicit nuclear and 
ballistic missile programs, proliferation activities, and flagrant 
violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions constitute a serious 
threat to the United States and its allies, the region, and the global 
nonproliferation regime. The United States remains steadfast in its 
commitment to the defense of our allies, and to maintaining peace and 
security in the region. If confirmed, I will work with absolute 
determination to pursue the full and verifiable denuclearization of the 
Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and to block North Korea's 
efforts to engage in proliferation and blackmail of its neighbors. We 
remain deeply concerned about the well-being and human rights of the 
North Korean people and join the international community in urging the 
DPRK to cooperate with the U.N. Commission of Inquiry regarding the 
widespread violations of human rights in the DPRK.
    Territorial and maritime disputes have resurfaced as key challenges 
to peace and stability. Although the United States is not a party to 
the underlying sovereignty disputes, we have a profound interest in 
seeing that these disputes are managed and resolved peacefully and in 
accordance with international law and that freedom of navigation and 
commerce are upheld. If confirmed, I will fully support a U.S. 
diplomatic and security role that reinforces stability and discourages 
escalation of tensions.
    Cyber space also poses unique and compelling challenges to our 
prosperity and security and that of the region. If confirmed, I will 
work hard to safeguard the intellectual property of our highly 
innovative companies and institutions from cyber theft and malicious 
cyber actors, as well as protect our critical infrastructure. We will 
work actively with both interagency and foreign counterparts to step up 
our efforts on this front, which includes sustaining our engagement 
with China.
    Mr. Chairman, let me close by reiterating my fundamental 
commitment, if confirmed, to do all in my power to ensure that the 
United States shapes trends in this dynamic region in ways that benefit 
both our own interests and those of the region as a whole. I strongly 
believe that close coordination between the executive and the 
legislative branches will be crucial to this endeavor, and, if 
confirmed, I look forward to close cooperation with you, Mr. Chairman, 
and your colleagues.
    Thank you, again, for this opportunity to appear before you. I am 
happy to respond to any questions you may have.

    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much for your 
testimony. You have already answered one of my questions about 
your cooperation with this committee and Congress I think three 
or four times during your opening statement. You reinforced 
your willingness to work closely with our committee, and you 
have already demonstrated that in your other capacities. So I 
thank you for that.
    I am going to let Senator Murphy inquire first.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome. Congratulations on this step forward. We hope 
to be able to move your nomination forward expeditiously.
    I wanted to explore the interplay of our rebalance to Asia, 
both with respect to what is happening at the State Department 
through diplomatic channels, but also how that works together 
with our military rebalance. And I wanted to ask you to talk 
about this in the context of the maritime territorial disputes 
in the region. They greatly worry me. I know we have, in part, 
dedicated more military resources and more ships to the region 
to make it clear that we are going to continue our historic 
commitment to maintaining open seas, but I also know that we 
have been encouraging for some of the regional forums to be 
used as a dispute settlement mechanism with great resistance 
from China.
    And so I would love to hear your thoughts about the path 
forward and how the United States interplays with some of these 
maritime disputes but also how you see the interplay between 
the tools that we have on the diplomatic side and tools that we 
have on the military side specifically with respect to this 
question.
    Mr. Russel. Thank you very much, Senator, for that 
question. I think the juxtaposition of the two issues that you 
identify, which is the coordination of roles and resources 
between the security and diplomatic tracks and the challenge in 
the maritime space, is really a central challenge that faces 
the United States at the moment and in the years to come.
    The essence of the President's rebalancing strategy has 
been to create a stable environment in a region that is 
critical to America's future prosperity and interests that is 
built on an existing investment by the United States in 
security arrangements that have allowed for the development 
and, frankly, the prosperity that the region has seen, but also 
to help overlay that with a structure and system of rules and 
norms that are respectful of and consistent with international 
law. Nowhere is it more evident or more important to us and to 
our friends and partners for the approach to territorial and 
sovereignty disputes in the Asia-Pacific region to be addressed 
in a peaceful and diplomatic manner in ways that are consistent 
with international law.
    The United States is itself not a claimant. We have no 
interest in the territory itself, but we have a profound 
interest in the conduct of the claimants and other parties, 
including and particularly that of China. We firmly oppose 
coercion whether it is military coercion or economic coercion 
and the threat and the use of force.
    As a key element of rebalancing, as you alluded to, the 
President has made clear to his military establishment that 
security in the Asia-Pacific region is a strategic priority for 
the United States, and I know that my colleagues in the 
Pentagon have planned and operated on the basis of that 
strategic guidance.
    At the same time, the President has also made clear that 
there is an important role for the State Department on the 
diplomatic side in helping to build up the relationships 
between the United States and our allies. The rebalancing 
strategy has begun with modernizing our alliances. We have 
invested heavily in the development of the institutions in the 
region that are built around ASEAN, the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations. And that, most importantly, includes 
the decision by President Obama to begin participating 
personally in the annual East Asia summit, which we see 
emerging as the premier forum for leaders to discuss security 
and political strategic issues, something that frankly they 
cannot do in any other forum because the only other major 
regional institution, APEC, is an economic cooperation 
organization. And I think that the President feels that we have 
made some headway on that front.
    Senator Murphy. But talk to me about China's interest in--
if China wants to become a true superpower standing next to the 
United States, then they have to accept that they need to play 
by international norms and that they have to be a player in 
some of these regional dispute settlement forums. And thus far, 
we have not seen a lot of interest in them to do that.
    Tell me about what pressure the Chinese feel to join in on 
some of these efforts and what we can do to try to encourage 
them to get there rather that continuing to sort of be a 
diplomatic rogue.
    Mr. Russel. Senator, the issue of China's engagement with 
ASEAN and with the other claimant countries diplomatically, as 
well as China's particular behavior on the seas, whether it is 
in Scarborough Shoal or the Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratlys 
and the Paracels in the South China Sea as well as in the East 
China Sea, is an issue that the President and top officials, 
including Secretary Kerry, have in fact raised very directly 
and very consistently with the Chinese, as well as in the fora 
with the ASEAN, such as the East Asia summit, where China is 
very much present and accounted for. We have had this 
discussion directly in bilateral and in multilateral fora with 
the Chinese.
    And I think the Chinese similarly are in no doubt that 
America stands by our allies and that the existence of the 
Philippines, a treaty ally, as a competing claimant, our 
relationship with Japan, with whom China has a sovereignty 
dispute over the Senkakus in the East China Sea--these are 
issues that the Chinese understand directly implicate United 
States interests and will have an effect on the prospects for a 
United States-China relationship.
    So I believe, Senator, that we have delivered this message 
consistently and clearly. I think we have reinforced the 
confidence of our partners and allies and given a constructive 
boost to ASEAN's effort to begin negotiations directly with 
China on a code of conduct. I think we have supported other 
diplomatic and recourse to international law on the part of 
some of the claimants, and if confirmed, Senator, I certainly 
will do everything in my power to try to lower the temperature, 
push claimants including China into a diplomatic track, and 
continue to warn them that the region in which China will 
flourish is a region of law, a region of order, and a region of 
respect for neighbors, not one in which there is space for 
coercion and bullying.
    Senator Murphy. I think the administration has been very 
clear on this point. I certainly did not mean to suggest that 
it has not been.
    I am certainly very pleased at your nomination and look 
forward to working with you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cardin. Let me follow up on the maritime security 
issues because I think Senator Murphy is right on target here. 
As you point out, we have treaty responsibilities with several 
of the countries that are involved in maritime disputes. There 
are also the shipping lanes that are important for commerce. 
When I was in Northeast Asia, the East China Sea disputes were 
mentioned by just about every public official I met with as 
being a major area of concern. Of course, in the South China 
Sea, there are very, very serious issues that have already in 
some cases mushroomed into violence and could become more 
widespread.
    Recently Vietnam and China agreed on a hotline to deal with 
fishing incidents. One could look at that as a very positive 
sign. After all, they now have a way of communicating if 
something develops, trying to cool it down rather than 
escalating it. But it is also of concern as to whether China is 
trying to circumvent ASEAN and other international forums where 
these issues need to be developed, particularly with a code of 
conduct.
    What is your prognosis on how we can cool down the maritime 
issues and get the parties directly negotiating rather than 
seeing the loss of life and violence?
    Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I begin, let me say that I think that your visit to 
Northeast Asia was very productive, and I thank you for taking 
the time to go there. And I will put in a plug. If confirmed, I 
am a great believer in the tremendous value of congressional 
delegations, and I can promise you that the East Asia-Pacific 
Bureau and posts will roll out the red carpet and open their 
doors not only to you, Senator, but any Member of Congress or 
any staff member who is willing to take the time to go because 
I think it is very important.
    With respect to the claimants to the disputed territories 
in the South China Sea, it is our view that there should be a 
consensual, inclusive, collaborative process among the 
claimants, that it is unacceptable for any party, including 
China, to demand that only bilateral negotiations are possible 
or allowable. By the same token, we, not being a claimant, are 
entirely comfortable with bilateral discussions and 
negotiations being part of the mechanisms for addressing both 
some of these disputes and the question of how to appropriately 
share and manage the maritime resources, which are really a 
treasure that belong to the people.
    Specifically, we think that the negotiations among the 
claimants should not only be friendly and diplomatic but should 
be undertaken on the basis of international law. And we have 
called on the claimants to clarify their claims in ways that 
are consistent with the Law of the Sea, specifically to base 
them on recognized land features. We, at the same time, think 
that a broader diplomatic process that gets at not the question 
of who owns what and whose border begins and ends where, but 
the issue of how nations behave in the South China Sea, in the 
common area, and particularly in areas of dispute is critically 
important and is urgent. And we have given ASEAN our full 
backing in their efforts to go beyond the declaration of 
conduct that they had agreed to in 2002, which is somewhat 
theoretical, to a practical code of conduct.
    Now, China and ASEAN have held informal discussions. I 
understand that there are plans for meetings later in the 
summer at the ministerial level. Secretary Kerry will travel to 
Brunei at the end of this month to attend the ASEAN regional 
forum. And these are places where there is both an opportunity 
for China to make progress with ASEAN, but also in the case of 
the ASEAN regional forum and then in October the East Asia 
summit where President Obama will attend, an opportunity for 
senior U.S. officials to speak out clearly and constructively 
to urge not only adherence to the principles that I have 
mentioned but also to try to galvanize the kind of diplomatic 
process that will address both the need for responsible conduct 
and the desirability of actual negotiations.
    Senator Cardin. And I think the United States has been very 
clear about our commitments on the maritime issues. I do not 
think we could leave any doubt because it is a matter of major 
security concerns to our partners in Asia.
    When President Park was here, she mentioned developing a 
security dialogue organization for Northeast Asia. When I was 
in the Republic of Korea and also, by the way, in Japan and 
China, I talked about a regional security dialogue. And it was 
favorably thought about by all the parties.
    One of the things that I think surprises most Americans is 
that we usually think of the Republic of Korea and Japan as 
being our two strongest allies in that region, and the 
relationship between those two countries could certainly use 
some improvement. They certainly have areas that still remain 
unresolved. A regional dialogue organization may help resolve 
some of these issues. And of course, dealing with China, 
dealing with North Korea--and they would also want to see the 
participation of Russia and the United States. I think there is 
a lot of promise to that type of organization to be patterned 
sort of after the Helsinki process.
    Do you have a view as to whether a separate organization in 
Northeast Asia could be helpful?
    Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I am very familiar both with the Helsinki Commission 
and also with your role as the cochair here. I served for 6 
years in Europe, and I saw firsthand the progress that the 
Helsinki Commission was able to galvanize and to drive on the 
European side. And I think that you are asking a question that 
is worth seriously looking into. And if confirmed, it is 
something that I would like to continue to discuss and to 
probe.
    I also noticed and I saw, in fact, Mr. Chairman, in your 
remarks on the Senate floor earlier this month, your reference 
to this, that there are real analogies between the Helsinki 
process and the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative 
that President Park Geun Hye has put forward. I think it is 
worth looking and thinking at quite carefully. There are 
parallels.
    There are likely to be some differences in Asia, and one 
outstanding question would be whether there is a role for the 
Helsinki Commission itself to help and to cooperate in the 
region or whether there should be a regional institution 
developed along those lines.
    An associated question would be the balance between 
engaging on some of the softer issues that help build 
confidence, that help build trust. As I have heard President 
Park speak about her initiative, she has tended to favor that 
approach, starting more softly, so to speak. I know that the 
key six parties in Northeast Asia have come together repeatedly 
both in the six-party talks itself and in other subformats over 
the years in an effort to deal directly with security.
    I think at its heart, the security challenge that faces all 
of us in the East Asia and Pacific region is manifested most 
vividly in the threat from North Korea.
    Senator Cardin. Of course, we have the six-party talks 
dealing with North Korea, and there have been some encouraging 
signs just very recently that there may be a desire for North 
Korea to engage in discussions under the framework of complying 
with their agreements on a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.
    The interesting part about a Helsinki-type process as it 
relates to North Korea is that we are all focused on their 
nuclear ambition and their military prowess. But as we heard 
over and over again from President Park and other South 
Koreans, that in order to have a stable Korean Peninsula, it is 
not just getting rid of the nukes. It is also dealing with the 
human rights conditions of the people that are living up in the 
North and economic opportunities for the people who are living 
in the North. So it is really a more comprehensive approach. 
And what the South Koreans seem to want is for North Korea to 
comply with their commitments for a nuclear-free peninsula but 
then to engage on ways in which there could be cooperation for 
the economic development and the basic respect for the rights 
by the government of the people of North Korea.
    Mr. Russel. I agree, Mr. Chairman. And in fact, at the risk 
of quoting you back to yourself, I remember watching your 
speech at CSIS earlier this spring, and you used a formula that 
really made an impression on me. You said governments need to 
understand that they will never achieve economic security or 
political security without respect for good governance and 
human rights. I think that is a critically important principle 
that applies, I am sure, globally but certainly in the East 
Asia region and nowhere more so than to North Korea.
    President Obama has said very clearly that North Korea can 
never achieve the security, the respect, or the economic 
prosperity that it says it wants through its pursuit of nuclear 
weapons and missiles.
    I think, Mr. Chairman, that the two issues you have 
identified, North Korea's egregious pattern of human rights 
abuses and its failure to feed its own people and its headlong 
pursuit of nuclear and nuclear missile capability that is 
highly destabilizing and threatening to the region--these are 
in a way two sides of the same coin. North Korea is choosing 
not to feed its people. North Korea is prioritizing, frankly 
useless--pursuit of a useless military capability against an 
imaginary threat at the expense of the kind of growth and 
economic development that it claims to want and that its people 
deserve.
    I am deeply concerned about the plight of the North Korean 
people, as well as those who have managed to escape from 
tyranny, and I am particularly concerned about North Korea's 
continuing efforts to proliferate and to further develop 
nuclear and missile capabilities that we find so threatening. I 
have dealt directly with the North Koreans and the North Korean 
issue for more than 20 years in my position in the National 
Security Council. I have traveled to North Korea. I know these 
guys. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will make the effort to 
accelerate the achievement of denuclearization, not just the 
theory, to actually help bring about a halt, a rollback, and an 
elimination of North Korea's nuclear program a top priority, 
and I believe in that effort, we stand a much greater chance of 
being able to address the human rights problems in that 
country.
    Senator Cardin. And a country that could help us achieve 
change in North Korea is China. I was very impressed by my 
meetings with the Chinese as to how sincere I believe they are 
in trying to have a change in direction in North Korea as it 
relates to nuclear weapons, as well as opening up their economy 
as China has opened up its economy.
    You cannot help but notice tremendous change in China. You 
see entrepreneurs on the streets. You see more freedom than has 
been enjoyed in past generations, and you see a country that is 
clearly moving in a more aggressive way economically.
    Having said that, as I said in my opening statement, the 
one-party, Communist-ruled country violates the basic human 
rights of its citizens. It is not good to disagree with the 
government too loudly in China. They still have these 
reeducation labor camps where you could be detained for an 
extended period of time because you disagree with the 
government. I was absolutely so disappointed talking to 
religious leaders as to how the government stops just about any 
organized religion from being able to carry out its normal 
assemblies. And then most of the people in the country are 
locked into where they are born. They do not have a chance to 
really benefit from the economic advancements of the country. 
You have the ``have and have-nots.''
    So I guess my question to you is we need to develop a 
stronger relationship with China. We need their help on many 
issues, including North Korea, including the environment, 
including the fact that they are a member of the permanent 
council of the United Nations Security Council.
    So how do we handle China, recognizing its strategic 
importance to the United States, but also our concern for basic 
good governance and human rights?
    Mr. Russel. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Clearly, China is a hugely important and hugely 
consequential country and relationship for the United States. 
Before I turn to China, let me say that I entirely agree that 
China has an important role to play in our efforts to deal with 
North Korea.
    I believe also, Mr. Chairman, that Burma does as well. I 
think that the model, the example of Burma, an authoritarian 
leadership that made an affirmative decision to pursue a 
peaceful path to democracy and economic reform, stands as a 
tremendous role model for what North Korea should and can do. 
And I think that the strong support from the United States and 
from the rest of the international community in backing Burma's 
reform efforts answers the question that the North Koreans ask, 
which is how can we trust that if we make the right decision 
and take this path that you actually will support us.
    With respect to China, Mr. Chairman--and again, thank you 
for expressing your views in advance of the meeting that 
President Obama and President Xi had at Sunnylands. I know that 
reached the President, and he appreciated it, as well as your 
other comments, including today.
    The President has invested, since the day he took office, 
in attempting to build a balanced relationship with China. He 
has made clear that our interest is in seeing the peaceful rise 
of a China that is stable, that is prosperous, and that rises 
in a way that is consistent with and reinforcing of the 
international and the regional rules and norms that are 
important to all of us.
    So there is a lot of balance required in the Asia-Pacific 
more broadly but within the United States-China relationship 
specifically. There is a need for balance between the 
cooperative elements of our relationship and the competitive 
aspects of our relationship. And if confirmed, Mr. Chairman, 
one of my challenges will be to try to ensure that we are 
cooperating more, cooperating in a way that returns benefits to 
the American people and that in our competition, that we are 
sure that the competition is a healthy one.
    We are looking for a model of practical cooperation with 
China that delivers benefits to both people and to the region 
in areas like climate change. And as you alluded to, President 
Xi and President Obama reached an important agreement on the 
hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and the Montreal Protocol, which will 
pay dividends down the road. And as you alluded to, North Korea 
is the other area where I think our positive cooperation is not 
only possible but essential, and both President Obama and 
President Xi committed to deepening both our dialogue and our 
cooperation in the effort to denuclearize North Korea.
    Human rights is not a stand-alone issue, either in the 
region or in the United States-China relationship. It is 
something that we raise always at every level in virtually 
every meeting for several reasons, both of which you alluded 
to. First, these are universal values, not boutique American 
preferences. Second, although they are universal, they are 
deeply embedded in the DNA of Americans. This is who we are. 
These are our values. But third, as you pointed out, the 
economic prosperity, the creativity, the ability for China to 
continue to satisfy the demands of its citizens requires good 
governance. It requires a willingness to build and abide by 
rules and law. It requires a judiciary. It requires a thriving 
and a vigorous civil society, and it requires a respect for 
human rights.
    We talk directly to the Chinese in various fora about the 
general principle. As I said in my statement, I genuinely 
believe that it is in China's interest to demonstrate their 
respect for human rights that is enshrined in its own 
constitution. We also raise individual cases. We raise problems 
such as the inability of the New York Times or Bloomberg to 
maintain Web sites that Chinese citizens can access. And we do 
this wanting a stable China. We do this respecting China's 
choices, but we do it in a conviction that not only are these 
universal principles, but that they are central to the 
prospects for a successful and enduring U.S.-China cooperative 
partnership.
    Senator Cardin. Well, you can add to the New York Times and 
Bloomberg that our U.S. consulate office was also blocked in 
China. So the cyber issues are real, and the access to the 
Internet, as well as cyber threats that we know we are moving 
forward on.
    There was just reported today that in Singapore there is a 
haze over the entire area because of forest fires in Indonesia. 
And when I was in Beijing, I never saw the sun, and that was 
not because of clouds. There is a huge environmental challenge 
in Asia today.
    The good news for dealing with it is that it is so visible; 
it is a problem that the government officials have to deal with 
because the public sees it every day. And it gives us a chance 
to really make progress. As you pointed out, President Xi and 
President Obama did make significant progress during their 
meeting in California. There appears to be a real opportunity 
for countries that were not as engaged a couple years ago in 
international leadership, that they could very well provide the 
type of impetus necessary to move forward globally on climate 
change initiatives.
    How do you see your role in regards to promoting that type 
of leadership?
    Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I could not agree with you more that this is a principle 
concern and a priority not only for the United States, but for 
all the countries in the region. As you alluded to, the problem 
is forcing itself onto the top of the agenda of leaders who 
might prefer to turn a blind eye to them.
    If I am confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue a 
number of the initiatives that are already underway that I 
think are extremely important in helping to address the 
challenge of climate and environmental degradation as 
partnerships, not just as rhetorical talking points.
    One of them is an initiative that President Obama launched 
last year at the East Asia summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, the 
Comprehensive Energy Partnership, in tandem with President 
Yudhoyono of Indonesia and the Sultan of Brunei. This is an 
effort to promote renewable energy, green growth, low-emission 
energy sources, as well as to facilitate rural electrification 
that will be critical to the responsible growth of the 
Southeast Asian region.
    Another is the Lower Mekong Initiative, which is a 
collective of the five major Mekong Southeast Asian nations 
with the United States and along with some other partners, 
where they are working to preserve forests, to preserve access 
to water and the riparian challenges given the many borders and 
the importance of water to the livelihood and to the ecological 
system there.
    Another, Mr. Chairman, is the Extraction Industry 
Transparency Initiative. I am very proud that I have been able 
to help in a small way, including in cooperation with our USAID 
mission in Burma, with an effort to bring the Burmese up to the 
standards that would allow them to accede to this EITI because 
Burma, like its poor neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, along with 
Vietnam and Thailand, have phenomenal environmental resources 
to protect.
    There is also, Mr. Chairman, in the South China Sea, as we 
discussed, a treasure trove of undersea and maritime wealth in 
the form of fish and coral, as well as hydrocarbons. 
Responsible management of those resources is a priority not 
only for the owners but for the people and for the region.
    So on those issues, as well as on other environmental 
challenges like wildlife where there is a nexus between 
poaching of elephants in Africa, including by terrorist-related 
groups, and consumption of ivory in East Asia, if confirmed, 
this is an area where I think that the State Department, the 
Bureau, and I can make a difference. And I would like to work 
closely with the relevant posts with our ambassadors and our 
missions to promote coordination, communication, and 
partnerships to try to make some real and measurable progress 
on this issue.
    Senator Cardin. I want to mention one other area in regards 
to China that has recently come to light, and that is, China 
was downgraded in the State Department's Trafficking in Persons 
Report from a Tier 2 Watch List to the lowest rung, Tier 3, 
after 2 years on the Watch List. So this is moving in the wrong 
direction, and trafficking is one of our highest priorities.
    Will you commit to making this a top priority, if 
confirmed, and work with the Chinese? This is an area where I 
think most countries really want to do the right thing. So it 
seems to me there is a way that we should be able to help China 
in dealing with this modern day type of slavery.
    Mr. Russel. Mr. Chairman, the short answer is yes. This is 
an issue that is important in its own right. It is important 
for moral reasons. It is important for development reasons 
regionwide but also in China.
    I am aware of the fact that yesterday the trafficking in 
persons report was unveiled by Secretary Kerry and that I think 
as part of the automaticity in the Tier 2 Watch List system, 
that China was downgraded. My understanding is that there has 
been progress in certain areas by China with regard to the 
development of an action plan, that in the past year, there 
have been some favorable signs with regard to extradition or 
prosecution. But there is no question that the problem of 
trafficking in China and in some of China's neighbors is a very 
serious one, one in which the United States can be helpful and 
one in which, if confirmed, I would make best efforts to 
support.
    Senator Cardin. The administration's top priority economic 
initiative is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That includes a 
variety of nations in our hemisphere and in the Asian region. 
It was mentioned a couple times in my visit to China they are 
not exactly sure what the TPP means as far as China is 
concerned. There is some concern that it is being used to try 
to contain China.
    Could you just briefly review with the committee the 
priority placed on TPP and why?
    Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
    The President has directed many of my colleagues, including 
the recently confirmed U.S. Trade Representative, Mike Froman, 
to spare no effort to work toward the completion of 
negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership by the end of 
this year. The President believes that this is a high-quality, 
high-benefit trade arrangement that has immense economic as 
well as strategic value. And I know that our negotiators are 
hard at work on this. And if confirmed, I would like to 
contribute and participate in the effort to try to bring it to 
closure.
    The TPP, as it is called, is not an exclusive arrangement. 
It is an inclusive arrangement. We foresee in the first 
instance that ultimately 11 members will accede, that if in 
fact Japan does join TPP, it will represent 40 percent of the 
world's GDP among its membership.
    What I mean, Mr. Chairman, by saying it is not an exclusive 
economic and trade agreement is not only that the door is not 
closed eventually to additional countries joining it. Although 
our strategy is first things first. This is an ambitious 
undertaking and we want to do it and we want to do it right and 
in a timely manner. But I mean not exclusive in the sense that 
it is perfectly consistent with the important work that we are 
doing elsewhere and through APEC or, for that matter, the other 
trade discussions that are occurring on bilateral or 
multilateral bases.
    What we are looking for, though, Mr. Chairman, is a trade 
arrangement that will lower barriers to trade, that will 
increase access by American companies and exporters to foreign 
markets, that will support good labor practices and standards, 
that will have good environmental standards to it. We would 
like TPP to be the highest quality, most inclusive and 
transparent trade arrangement ever, and in doing so, we think 
we will engineer an outcome that will pay huge dividends to 
American companies, to American citizens, to promote jobs, and 
lend a real boost to the entire region.
    Senator Cardin. When we are talking trade, we always have a 
country's attention, and we have made tremendous progress with 
Vietnam. Yet, Vietnam still has significant improvements that 
need to be made on labor, on human rights, good governance, et 
cetera. We have the opportunity to make those advancements as 
we have their attention at the bargaining table. So I would 
hope that you in your new position would remind our negotiators 
that we will be expecting progress made on each of these 
fronts.
    And it is not just the countries in transition. We also 
have problems with some of our close allies. Japan just 
recently joined the International Treaty on Child Abduction, 
but there are a lot of pending cases and their law, as I 
understand it, does not deal with already existing cases of 
child abduction. So will you help us and help the Embassy try 
to close and deal with as many of those open cases as we can to 
try to end this chapter in our relationship with Japan on child 
abductions?
    Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, with respect to Vietnam, I could not agree with you 
more. I think that the political security and economic 
relationship that we have with Vietnam is an important one, and 
certainly we are in the midst of negotiations with Vietnam over 
the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, issues. But human rights is 
a hugely important dimension of our relationship and, frankly, 
a problem area. We are not satisfied and, in fact, unhappy 
about some degree of backsliding in Vietnam on human rights. 
And we believe that the TPP is one vehicle among many that we 
can use to help to address issues of labor, issues of the 
environment, promote economic and political reforms and respect 
for intellectual property. And if confirmed, that is something 
I will work on.
    You alluded, Mr. Chairman, to the issue of Japan's belated 
accession to the Hague Convention on Parental Child Abduction. 
This is an issue that I have followed extremely closely, and I 
can attest that it is an issue that President Obama has raised 
directly with his Japanese counterpart. If confirmed, at the 
State Department this is an issue that I too will work on. The 
story has not ended for the parents of children who were taken 
back to Japan who will not be covered under the provisions of 
the treaty that Japan has just acceded to.
    I am a parent, as you see. I am deeply, deeply sympathetic 
to the plight of these families. I know that the State 
Department has an important role in looking after the welfare 
of America's most vulnerable citizens, its children. And I know 
that the State Department is committed to working to ensure 
their welfare and to try to facilitate access by parents to 
children who are overseas, including in Japan. And it is a long 
way of saying, Mr. Chairman, yes, I will do what I can, should 
I be confirmed, in a new position to be supportive of them in 
this effort.
    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you for that response. These 
are difficult issues, and we appreciate you making them a 
priority.
    I just want to observe that in my visits to Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, and China, I raised the Iranian sanction 
compliance in all those countries. The countries under your 
portfolio play a critical role in enforcing sanctions against 
Iran to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapons state. And 
I know that President Obama has made that a top priority. And I 
just wanted you to know that we should use every opportunity we 
can, particularly with countries that we have very close 
relationships with, for example, the Republic of Korea. If they 
do not want to see a nuclear power on their peninsula, they 
could use less Iranian oil. They are doing a good job, but they 
could do a better job. So I think that needs to be something 
that we focus on; reducing the amount of oil purchased in Asia.
    I know you agree on that, but I just thought I would put it 
into the record.
    Mr. Russel. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cardin. One last question. We have talked a lot 
about the rebalance. If you had to just quickly summarize what 
you would hope you would see during the next 3 years as far as 
what the rebalance would mean as far as U.S. relationships and 
participation in Asia, what would you like to see accomplished 
in the next 3 years?
    Mr. Russel. Thank you for the opportunity to address that 
question, Mr. Chairman, which is really close to my heart. I 
certainly am committed to sustaining the rebalance and to 
moving it to the next level, so to speak.
    I would say that the three areas that I would propose to 
focus on with regard to rebalance, if confirmed, would be, 
first and foremost, the diversification of rebalance. The 
security element and the security underpinning of our Asia-
Pacific strategy in our rebalance is hugely important. It will 
not go away. It must not go away. We must strengthen that. But 
there is more to America than hard power, and in fact, it is 
the economic agenda, the energy agenda, the education agenda, 
the values agenda, the people-to-people connection, the public 
diplomacy that I think, in the long run, will have the most 
significant and enduring impact in this young, thriving, and 
dynamic region.
    I think also, Mr. Chairman, second, that I would pursue 
what I would call a rebalance within the rebalance. I think 
that our relationships in Northeast Asia are very mature and 
well developed. Of course, they will take a great deal of our 
attention, but I think that the Southeast Asia and Pacific 
areas are ripe for intensification of American engagement and 
involvement. I think the return on investment for the United 
States and the U.S. taxpayer in our programs, both 
operationally and in terms of foreign assistance, in Southeast 
Asia is absolutely huge. It is a region with a GDP in the order 
of $2.2-plus billion, 600 million--trillion dollars--600 
million people within a few years, at least half of whom will 
meet the World Bank definition of middle class, a large 
proportion and growing proportion of which are young, under 30. 
This is an area where the United States can make great friends 
and great strides, including through educational and other 
forms of exchange. Already the educational exchange programs 
that we have bring huge benefits. I am told that the students 
who come to the United States from the Asia-Pacific region, 
including to your State and my residence State of Maryland, 
bring a value in the order of $9 billion a year to the U.S. 
economy.
    The third area, speaking of money, Mr. Chairman, is on 
resources sustainability and outreach. Typically the East Asia-
Pacific Bureau within the State Department has been the least 
best funded of the regional bureaus. Now, by dint of hard 
effort by a number of people under the direction of the 
President, and in an era of fiscal austerity, we have seen in 
the fiscal year 2014 budget a 7-percent increase. I think that 
is important, and I pledge, Mr. Chairman, that I will fight for 
the right tools and the resources to allow the wonderful men 
and women working in the area and in the East Asian and Pacific 
Bureau to do their job and to earn the benefits for the 
American people that are there for us.
    Senator Cardin. I really do appreciate that answer. I agree 
with you. I think people-to-people ties are a critical part of 
our success in Asia, as well as business-to-business and 
military-to-military ties. I think a better understanding among 
our partners will be critically important, particularly as we 
develop stronger ties.
    Your answers were complete. I thank you very much. And as I 
said in the beginning, you have been incredibly generous of 
your talent in serving our country, and we very much appreciate 
that and your willingness to continue to serve. The post that 
you have been nominated to is one of the most important posts 
in this country and will, I am sure, keep you very much engaged 
in some long hours and some restless nights. And we thank you 
for your willingness to continue to serve your country.
    With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


       Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record


        Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by 
                        Senator Robert Mendendez

    Question. What is your understanding of the ``new model'' or ``new 
type'' of U.S.-China relations that President Obama and President Xi 
discussed at their recent summit at Sunnylands? What are the 
constituent elements of this ``new model'' relationship? Can it lead to 
more productive interaction, or is it largely an attempt by China to 
gain concessions or deferential treatment from the United States?

    Answer. Developing deeper ties between the United States and China 
is in the national interest of the United States and is important to 
safeguarding U.S. interests in the region and around the world. Earlier 
this month in California, President Obama and President Xi agreed to 
continue exploring ways to strengthen our overall political, economic, 
cultural, and military ties to develop a ``new type'' relations that 
are marked by practical cooperation, not strategic rivalry.
    There are few diplomatic, economic, or security challenges that can 
be addressed without China at the table and without a broad, 
productive, and constructive relationship between our countries. If 
confirmed, I will use the diplomatic tools at my disposal to advance 
the U.S.-China relationship and our cooperation on issues of importance 
to the American people at the same time as I work to strengthen our 
alliances and relations with countries throughout the region.

    Question. Recently, the United States and China worked together to 
make a public pledge about the phase-out of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). 
What work is being done to work with China to phase out other short-
lived climate pollutants such as soot and methane? What more could be 
done to foster cooperation with China to reduce these short-lived 
climate pollutants?

    Answer. On June 8, the United States and China announced an 
agreement to work together to use the expertise and institutions of the 
Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The administration is encouraged by China's 
efforts to address environmental issues and looks forward to working 
together with China's new leadership in bilateral and multilateral 
fora, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the Ten-
Year Framework for Energy and Environment Cooperation, and the Major 
Economies Forum. The upcoming S&ED in July provides opportunities for 
bilateral discussions on environmental issues, including climate 
pollutants.

    Question. The United States, China, Japan, and many other countries 
in the region are deeply committed to developing and further 
commercializing renewable energy technologies. How can we work 
cooperatively with these nations to provide greater access to renewable 
energy in the developing world?

    Answer. At last year's East Asia summit meeting, President Obama 
announced the formation of the U.S.-Asia-Pacific Comprehensive Energy 
Partnership (U.S.-ACEP) to address energy issues across the entire 
Asia-Pacific region. The Partnership is designed to bring cleaner and 
more reliable sources of energy, as well as greater access, to the 
people of the Asia-Pacific region. The Department of State, Department 
of Energy, and other U.S. agencies are leading training and capacity-
building efforts to address technical and policy constraints in order 
to promote U.S. energy investments and exports in the region. The 
United States has identified up to $6 billion in U.S. export financing 
and investment credits for the Partnership, led by the Export-Import 
Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to support 
sustainable power and energy infrastructure projects over 4 years.
    The Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. 
Trade and Development Agency are supporting capacity-building programs 
through APEC and ASEAN as well as with our bilateral partners in the 
priority areas of markets and interconnectivity, natural gas, renewable 
and clean energy, and sustainable development. Successful 
implementation of these projects will improve the region's ability to 
be able to provide energy for its citizens and drive U.S. exports.
    In 2012, the United States began work to establish a new energy 
security pillar within the Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI). The United 
States and its LMI partners are negotiating the final language of the 
pillar plan of action, which will be finalized at the LMI ministerial 
meeting July 1, and proposes work in regional power market development, 
power interconnection, energy efficiency and conservation, transparency 
and good governance, and energy research and development. Once the plan 
of action is approved, the United States will begin real, tangible 
projects that will create opportunities for U.S. businesses.
    Bilaterally, the United States and China have worked together under 
the bilateral Ten-Year Framework (TYF) since its launch in 2008 to 
facilitate the exchange of information and best practices to foster 
innovation and develop solutions to the pressing environment and energy 
challenges both countries face. Agencies in each country implement the 
TYF, which consists of seven action plans, including electricity and 
energy efficiency. Specific to clean energy, the U.S.-China Clean 
Energy Research Center (CERC) facilitates joint research and 
development on clean energy technology by teams of scientists and 
engineers from the United States and China. It is a flagship initiative 
with broad participation from universities, research institutions, and 
industry.
    The United States cooperates closely with Japan on a range of 
energy issues, including the development of clean and renewable energy 
sources, energy security, and the peaceful and safe use of nuclear 
energy. In 2011, U.S. agencies, including the Department of Energy, 
Department of State, Department of Commerce, and our national 
laboratories, established the U.S.-Japan Clean Energy Policy Dialogue, 
a forum for regular exchange among U.S. and Japanese experts. Through 
the Tohoku Green Communities Alliance, the United States and Japan have 
also collaborated to develop and deploy clean energy technologies in 
areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake.
    If confirmed, I will continue the State Department's work on these 
endeavors.

    Question. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances of 
1982 have contributed to the peace and stability of Asia-Pacific region 
for the past three decades. With the military balance gradually 
shifting in China's favor, what are your plans to implement the 
security commitment the United States has for Taiwan under this 
framework? As Taiwan is likely to retire some of its older fighter 
aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe that sales of 
advanced aircraft are an important, next step in this commitment?

    Answer. 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 
sufficient self-defense. If confirmed, I will continue to support steps 
the administration has taken to fulfill its commitments to Taiwan.
    With U.S. assistance, Taiwan is currently undergoing an extensive 
modernization of its F-16 A/B fleet, and we are aware of Taiwan's 
desire to replace older F-5, and perhaps Mirage 2000-5 fighters, with 
additional F-16 aircraft. No decision has been made about possible 
future sales of military aircraft to Taiwan.
    If confirmed, I will continue to support U.S. policy to meet our 
commitments to Taiwan and assist Taiwan's maintenance of a sufficient 
self-defense capability. Doing so increases stability both across the 
Taiwan Strait and within the region.

    Question. As you know, no Cabinet-level official has visited Taiwan 
in 13 years. During the 1990s, officials of Cabinet-rank visited Taipei 
virtually every 2 years of that decade. Given the fact that Taiwan is a 
partner of 23 million people, who contribute greatly to the global 
economy, and enjoy a healthy democracy, aren't visits from U.S. Cabinet 
officials overdue? Can we expect such visits to resume in the near 
future?

    Answer. As an important economic and security partner of the United 
States, Taiwan has hosted many senior Obama administration officials in 
recent years. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman visited Taiwan 
in December 2011 to promote greater cooperation on energy issues. Under 
Secretary of Commerce Francisco Sanchez visited Taiwan in November 2012 
to celebrate Taiwan's designation into the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. 
Most recently, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis 
traveled to Taiwan in March of this year to participate in Trade and 
Investment Framework Agreement meetings. In addition, in September 
2012, on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 
Leaders' Meeting, Secretary Clinton met with Taiwan's APEC 
representative Lien Chan. If confirmed, I will continue to promote such 
senior-level engagement by U.S. government officials and will encourage 
the travel of senior administration officials to Taiwan.

    Question. The administration is on the record as having stated that 
``the United States is a strong, consistent supporter of Taiwan's 
meaningful participation in international organizations.'' 
Additionally, the administration is on the record as having stated that 
``Taiwan should be able to participate in organizations where it cannot 
be a member, such as the World Health Organization, the International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and other important international 
bodies whose activities have a direct impact on the people of Taiwan.'' 
As you know, my bill, S. 579, recently passed by the Senate, would 
direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to obtain observer 
status for Taiwan at the triennial ICAO Assembly, the next meeting of 
which will take place this fall in Montreal.

   What specific steps has the administration taken--or is 
        undertaking--to make Taiwan's participation a reality in time 
        for this fall's meetings?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will continue U.S. policy to support Taiwan 
membership in international organizations where statehood is not a 
requirement and encourage Taiwan's meaningful participation, as 
appropriate, in organizations where its membership is not possible.
    U.S. goals for supporting Taiwan's participation include: enabling 
the people on Taiwan to comply with international regulations and 
safety guidelines, addressing transborder health issues, facilitating 
international travel, giving and receiving appropriate international 
assistance and advice, and assisting in regional capacity-building.
    I support Taiwan's goal to cooperate with the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO). If confirmed, I will continue the State 
Department's work with the international community to promote Taiwan's 
meaningful participation in ICAO.
    If confirmed, I will also ensure the State Department continues to 
instruct U.S. missions to encourage the U.N., its agencies, and other 
international organizations to increase Taiwan participation in 
technical or expert meetings.

    Question. While the breadth of the relationship between the United 
States and China is impressive, I remain concerned regarding the 
Chinese Government's apparent lack of respect for universal human 
rights. Several recent cases, including that of Liu Xia, Gao Zhisheng, 
the treatment of the family of Chen Guangcheng, and the treatment of 
Falun Gong adherents, speak to both specific cases but also larger 
structural challenges.

   What is your thinking about how the United States can 
        effectively increase attention and make clear to China's 
        leaders that human rights cannot be pushed aside by security 
        and economic concerns, but must be addressed through genuine 
        change and support for the rule of law?

    Answer. I believe the promotion of human rights is a crucial 
element of American diplomacy. If confirmed, I will work to promote 
universal values, such as transparency, rule of law, human rights, and 
good governance. Promoting the protection of human rights in countries 
around the world, including in China, is central to who we are as a 
nation. If confirmed, I will ensure that human rights will remain a 
central part of U.S.-China relations.
    The U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue is an important channel to 
discuss our key human rights concerns. If confirmed, I would strongly 
support the Dialogue and raise our human rights concerns directly with 
Chinese counterparts. I strongly believe respect for the rule of law 
and protection of universal human rights are critical to China's long-
term prosperity and stability. If confirmed, I would raise cases of 
concern directly with the Chinese authorities, including the cases of 
Liu Xia, Gao Zhisheng, and the family of Chen Guangcheng, as well as 
issues of religious freedom and the treatment of Tibetans and Uighurs.

    Question. What are your plans, if confirmed, for further developing 
dialogue between the United States and China on cyber security issues, 
and to address China's theft of U.S. intellectual property through 
cyber espionage, specifically?

    Answer. Cyber security is one of the administration's top 
priorities. Cyber-enabled theft, emanating from China, of intellectual 
property, trade secrets and confidential business information is of 
paramount concern and has been discussed with China at senior levels, 
including by the President. If confirmed, I plan to ensure that the 
State Department continues to engage the Chinese on the cyber-enabled 
theft of U.S. intellectual property, including in fora such as the U.S-
China Cyber Working Group, which Secretary Kerry announced in April.
    If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department takes an 
active role in the development of the working group as a venue in which 
the U.S. Government can address U.S. concerns and have a constructive 
dialogue with China on cyber issues. The United States and China are 
among the world's largest cyber actors, and it is vital that our 
countries continue a sustained, meaningful dialogue and work together 
to develop an understanding of acceptable behavior in cyber space.

    Question. The Asia-Pacific region has made considerable progress in 
recent years in developing functional problem solving architecture, 
including the EAS as well as through a deepening and thickening of 
ASEAN, ARF, and the ADMM, among other institutions.

   If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, what is your vision for 
        how the United States can work to effectively further continued 
        development of Asian architecture and institutions?
   What are your views on if and how the United States can 
        support ASEAN centrality and unity through these efforts?

    Answer. The United States firmly believes that regional 
institutions such as ASEAN, the East Asia summit (EAS), ASEAN Regional 
Forum (ARF), ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting (ADMM), and Expanded ASEAN 
Maritime Forum (EAMF) have a leading role to play in shaping the future 
prosperity and stability of the Asia-Pacific. As the only ASEAN-driven 
institution that includes all key regional players and meets at the 
Leaders level, the administration supports the EAS as the region's 
premier forum for addressing political and strategic issues. As 
President Obama made clear at last year's EAS, these institutions are 
most effective when they produce concrete results for the people of the 
region. The United States is already helping the region manage three 
pressing challenges for the region: maritime security, disaster relief, 
and the linked challenges of protecting the environment and energy 
security. The United States is working with our regional partners to 
develop the Rapid Disaster Response Agreement concept, which would 
expedite the delivery of supplies, services, and personnel in the event 
of a natural disaster. The United States is also investing over $60 
million annually to support programs across the Asia-Pacific that 
combat climate change, as well as promoting a sustainable energy future 
through the U.S. Asia-Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership 
(USACEP). We are supporting ASEAN's economic integration and trade 
liberalization efforts through the U.S.-ASEAN Expanded Economic 
Engagement (E3) initiative. We are also sponsoring joint capacity-
building between ASEAN and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 
forum on topics such as food security and business ethics.
    If confirmed, I will continue to expand U.S. efforts in support of 
regional institutions that manage these and other pressing challenges.

    Question. What are your priorities for regional partner capacity-
building, including in areas such as maritime domain awareness as well 
as new and nontraditional security issues such as global climate 
change?

    Answer. The Department of State is actively engaged in capacity-
building and the sharing and dissemination of information to meet 
traditional security challenges, such as terrorism and transnational 
crime, and nontraditional security issues, such as food insecurity, 
pandemic disease, and global climate change. The administration seeks 
an Asia-Pacific region in which countries are equipped with military 
and law enforcement capabilities that are aligned with U.S interests 
and that enable them to adequately defend themselves from external 
threats, address territorial disputes peacefully, and deter provocation 
from a diverse array of state and nonstate actors. Our strategy 
emphasizes that countries adopt internationally recognized, U.S.-
aligned best practices, standards and norms, particularly in the areas 
of maritime security, counterterrorism and law enforcement. If 
confirmed, I will support State Department's continued engagement on 
this strategy.
    Maritime security capacity-building measures that support these 
goals include working with maritime police from Thailand, Cambodia, 
Vietnam, and Malaysia in the Gulf of Thailand to establish mutual 
objectives, common coordination mechanisms, operating procedures, and 
maritime domain awareness. The United States also support robust land-
based and maritime police training programs in Indonesia and the 
Philippines, as well as an International Law Enforcement Academy in 
Bangkok which fosters transnational cooperation and multilateral 
training on countering wildlife trafficking and corruption.
    Counterterrorism capacity-building is another example where the 
United States works with Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines, and 
Indonesia to strengthen their abilities to detect, deter, and respond 
to terrorist actions. The United States also works across the region to 
improve law enforcement's capabilities to investigate and prosecute 
complex transnational threats such as organized crime, terrorism, 
wildlife trafficking, trafficking in persons and illicit drugs.
    The countries of the Asia-Pacific region also contend with a range 
of nontraditional security issues, such food security and health, which 
threaten regional stability and security. To respond to these emerging 
threats, the administration supports efforts to deepen partnerships and 
private sector engagement in regional agriculture to encourage and 
increase investments in regional agricultural development. We also 
support programs to develop strong democratic institutions that provide 
the framework for improved health outcomes, greater food security, and 
stronger livelihoods overall. We are tackling global climate change 
through reinforced disaster risk reduction efforts to mitigate its 
impact through integrated natural resource management, including 
biodiversity conservation, which provides climate cobenefits.
    Addressing climate change at home and abroad is a priority for 
President Obama and for Secretary Kerry. The innovative programs the 
United States is making substantial progress in forging low-emission 
development pathways and strengthening resilience to climate change 
impacts, including through reinforced disaster risk reduction efforts 
and integrated natural resource management, including biodiversity 
conservation.
    A key administration priority is achieving and maintaining a 
geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically 
sustainable military force posture to meet challenges such as 
territorial and maritime disputes, threats to freedom of navigation, 
and the heightened impact of natural disasters. We are pursuing this 
priority by deepening our ability to train and operate together with 
militaries in the region and improving our ability to respond 
collectively to a wide range of contingencies in the region.
    If confirmed, I will continue U.S. efforts to support capacity-
building measures that enhance both traditional and nontraditional 
security priorities as discussed above.

    Question. As you know, over the last 4 years, the administration 
and members of the U.S. Congress have made the issue of international 
child abductions to Japan a priority. Yet to date, there has not been 
even one single criminally kidnapped child returned to their lawful 
home here in the United States, with the assistance of the Japanese 
Government.

   Should you be confirmed, what specific action can you take 
        to create a more balanced level of reciprocity on this issue? 
        Would you be willing to press forward on criminal extraditions? 
        Can you promise an action plan for remedying these cases, if 
        confirmed in this job?

    Answer. I am grateful to the U.S. Congress for its consistent 
engagement on this issue. The administration welcomed the recent 
Japanese Diet ratification of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 
of International Child Abduction, as well as the subsequent action to 
ratify and implement the Convention. Once fully implemented, this will 
give parents a civil legal mechanism for resolving abduction cases. If 
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the treaty serves as the legal 
framework within which we can address these issues.
    Specifically, I will encourage the Japanese Government to use the 
Hague Convention to make necessary changes to domestic custody laws to 
help parents with existing cases to attain better access to their 
children.
    The administration is committed to resolving all outstanding cases. 
The Department of State regularly updates ``left behind parents'' 
through a Japan-specific 
e-mail distribution list, global open houses, and in-person meetings, 
informing parents of media reports and public statements by government 
officials on abduction issues.
    The Japanese Government has established a legal hotline to provide 
information about the Japanese legal system for ``left-behind 
parents,'' and it has set up a mediation program to assist efforts to 
arrive at an agreement between the estranged parents regarding access 
to their children. If confirmed, I will take steps to expand on these 
efforts.
    One of the State Department's highest priorities is the welfare of 
U.S. citizens overseas, particularly children, who are our most 
vulnerable citizens. If confirmed, I will fully support efforts to 
resolve these difficult cases.

    Question. Maritime and territorial disputes in the East and South 
China Seas continue to cause friction and uncertainty in the Pacific. 
How, and if, these disputes are managed will serve as an important 
litmus test for the emergence of a peaceful, cooperative, and rules-
based order in Asia. Given the enduring U.S. interest and commitment to 
the maritime domains of the Asia-Pacific, what are your views on the 
most effective policy tools available to the United States to assure 
the development of guidelines for the peaceful settlement of disputes 
through diplomatic and collaborative mechanisms, including the ASEAN-
China Code of Conduct; to makes clear our view that any disputed claims 
must be fairly arbitrated under international law, without coercion--
and that the United States will stand by our treaty commitments?

    Answer. The United States has a national interest in the 
maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law, 
lawful unimpeded commerce and freedom of navigation in the South China 
Sea and East China Sea. If confirmed, I will support these principles.
    I believe that the nations of the region should work 
collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve the various disputes 
without coercion, intimidation, threats, or the use of force.
    With respect to the South China Sea, the United States does not 
take a position on competing sovereignty claims over land features. 
However, the administration will continue to voice strong support for 
both ASEAN and China to make meaningful progress toward finalizing a 
comprehensive Code of Conduct to establish rules of the road and clear 
procedures for addressing disagreements.
    The administration has clearly expressed support for the use of 
diplomatic and other peaceful means to manage and resolve disagreements 
in the South China Sea, including the use of arbitration or other legal 
mechanisms, and that, in a rules-based system, states should be able to 
seek peaceful means of dispute resolution without fear of coercion or 
retaliation.
    Through the ASEAN Regional Forum and other related forums, the 
United States will continue to advance norms of safe maritime behavior 
as well. Ensuring operational safety at sea for all vessels and the 
free, safe flow of commerce is vital for the entire international 
community.
    Our alliance commitments are the cornerstone of our strategic 
rebalance. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue our efforts to 
work with allies and partners around the region to ensure peace and 
stability on the seas.

    Question. Senior administration officials have indicated in recent 
weeks that the United States would be willing to engage in discussions 
with North Korea, but that the administration is not interested in 
discussions for the sake of discussions, and that for these discussions 
to happen North Korea needs to take concrete steps to demonstrate they 
are serious in meeting their commitments to denuclearization.

   What concrete measures does North Korea have to undertake to 
        demonstrate their seriousness and commitment to 
        denuclearization and to make it ``worthwhile'' for the United 
        States to consider reengaging in the six-party or other 
        diplomatic process? What is the level of coordination with the 
        Republic of Korea and Japan as we consider how, when and if the 
        United States engages with North Korea?

    Answer. North Korea committed on numerous occasions, including in 
the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, to 
abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. The 
United States and the international community must continue to hold 
North Korea to those commitments and to its international obligations 
under all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. To be authentic 
and credible, North Korea must demonstrate it is prepared to halt and 
ultimately abandon all of its nuclear weapons and programs. This means 
taking steps to come into compliance with its international obligations 
under U.N. Security Council resolutions and its own commitments.
    The United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (ROK) have 
regular consultations to exchange views on a wide range of issues 
related to North Korea. If confirmed I would remain committed to 
maintaining close bilateral and trilateral coordination with the ROK 
and Japan, and continue to coordinate closely with its other allies and 
partners to press North Korea to choose a path leading to peaceful 
denuclearization.

    Question. Can you comment on why the United States has chosen not 
to participate in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership 
(RCEP)? What is your vision of how the Trans-Pacific Partnership and 
RCEP fit together in an open and inclusive regional economic and trade 
architecture?

    Answer. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a key element of 
President Obama's agenda for deepening U.S. economic engagement in the 
Asia Pacific. TPP is designed to address the concerns that our trade 
and investment stakeholders--businesses, workers, other groups--see as 
impeding regional trade and investment in the 21st century. TPP will 
make the regulatory systems of TPP countries more transparent and 
compatible, so companies can operate more seamlessly in TPP markets. 
The TPP will also include strong protections for workers, the 
environment, intellectual property, and innovation.
    Research shows that an ambitious agreement like TPP will generate 
significantly higher benefits than a less ambitious agreement that 
excludes sensitive products and issues. The rapid expansion of TPP 
membership since the negotiation's launch suggests the broad appeal of 
this high standard approach within the region. The TPP will be a living 
agreement and can serve as a platform for broader, high-standard 
regional integration and an eventual Free Trade Area of the Asia 
Pacific.
    We recognize there are a number of different initiatives for 
liberalizing trade in the region and advancing regional economic 
integration, including the recently launched Regional Comprehensive 
Economic Partnership (RCEP) involving members of the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its six Free Trade Agreement (FTA) 
partners. We don't view initiatives such as the TPP and RCEP as 
mutually exclusive. However, we believe the high-standard approach 
embodied by the TPP is the most effective way to open new markets and 
deepen regional economic integration.

    Question. The Tibetan people continue to face challenges to their 
traditions, religion and culture through environmental destruction, the 
influx of domestic immigrants, and other causes. This seems likely to 
increase as Beijing develops infrastructure links to and within the 
Tibetan plateau.

   What can the administration do to advance protections for 
        Tibetans in their homeland? Do you believe the Chinese 
        Government has engaged in its discussions with representatives 
        of the Dalai Lama in a good-faith manner?

    Answer. I am concerned about the deteriorating human rights 
situation in Tibetan areas and, if confirmed, will raise U.S. concerns 
with Chinese officials. This includes our concerns over the 
increasingly severe government controls on Tibetan Buddhist religious 
practice, and the government policies that undermine the preservation 
of Tibetan language and that target Tibetan youth and intellectual and 
cultural leaders. If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department 
continues to encourage the Chinese Government to engage with the Dalai 
Lama or his representatives, without preconditions, as the best means 
to address Tibetan concerns and relieve tensions. I will also 
consistently raise concerns about Tibetan self-immolations and continue 
to urge the Chinese Government to address the underlying problems in 
Tibetan areas and reexamine existing, counterproductive policies that 
exacerbate rather than resolve existing tensions. I will also continue 
to press the Chinese Government to allow journalists, diplomats and 
other observers unrestricted access to China's Tibetan areas.

    Question. China has recently been named a Tier 3 nation under the 
State Department's International Trafficking in Persons Report. Will 
the administration place sanctions on China as provided for in the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act?

    Answer. I am concerned about human trafficking in China and, if 
confirmed, I will carefully review all our efforts to combat 
trafficking in persons in the region to ensure that we are taking all 
appropriate steps to address this issue. The Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act (TVPA), as amended, authorizes restrictions on 
assistance for countries ranked Tier 3 in the Trafficking in Persons 
Report, but the President may waive some or all restrictions if he 
determines that the affected assistance ``would promote the purposes of 
[the TVPA] or is otherwise in the national interest of the United 
States.''

    Question. Cambodia will hold national elections on July 28, and the 
government there shows no sign of having this vote measure up to basic 
standards of legitimacy. Assuming nothing changes before then, will the 
administration adopt a ``business as usual'' approach to the Hun Sen 
regime that has run the country since 1985, or will there be 
significant changes in our engagement and efforts to achieve democracy 
in that country?

    Answer. The United States has consistently and frankly raised our 
concerns about human rights and democracy at all levels in the 
Government of Cambodia. The United States has also emphasized that the 
lack of progress on these issues would be an impediment to deeper 
relations between our two countries. The upcoming Cambodian national 
elections will be a critical test of the government's commitment to 
strengthening the nation's democracy. The United States has urged the 
Cambodian Government to consider seriously the recommendations by the 
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Cambodia. We are monitoring 
the situation closely and will reassess as appropriate our assistance 
and/or engagement with the Government of Cambodia in light of how the 
election is conducted. If confirmed, I will continue to promote 
improvements in human rights and a credible, free, and fair electoral 
process that allows for the full and unfettered participation of all 
political parties and their leaders and the Cambodian people.

    Question. The United States has committed to engage Vietnam in an 
annual Political, Security, and Defense Dialogue, and in recent years 
both sides have steadily increased the breadth of bilateral defense 
cooperation. Concurrently, Vietnam has increased its crackdown of 
freedom of expression, convicting 46 bloggers and pro-democracy 
activists so far this year.

   Why is the administration warming relations with a country 
        that has so reprehensible human rights record? Why is the 
        administration not adopting a ``whole of government approach'' 
        to furthering human rights concerns in Vietnam?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that advocating for respect for 
human rights continues to factor into our policy with Vietnam. The 
administration has conveyed to the Vietnamese leadership that the 
American people will not support a significant upgrading of our 
bilateral ties without demonstrable progress in human rights. Greater 
respect for human rights, including labor rights, will help ensure 
Vietnam's future economic, social, and political development, which is 
consistent with our forward-looking vision for the bilateral 
relationship.
    The administration has made clear to Vietnam's defense and civilian 
leaders that for the United States to consider lifting the remaining 
restrictions on defense equipment exports, including on lethal weapons, 
there would need to be demonstrable, sustained improvement in the human 
rights situation.
    In the April 2013 U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, the U.S. 
delegation raised the full range of our concerns about Vietnam's 
deteriorating human rights record and pressed for the release of 
political prisoners, including bloggers imprisoned for expressing their 
views online. The United States has also raised human rights concerns 
with the Vietnamese Government within the context of our overall 
defense relationship during the Political, Security, and Defense 
Dialogue, as well as through our normal diplomatic engagement.

    Question. Can you please describe efforts to advance the political 
transition in Burma? How are you ensuring that the economic and 
political benefits of liberalization are not disproportionately 
benefiting retired generals and their cronies? Do you believe that 
Burma's 2015 Presidential election would be legitimate if Aung San Suu 
Kyi is not able to take part?

    Answer. The United States recognizes the important ongoing reform 
efforts underway by President Thein Sein, his government, Parliament, 
and key stakeholders among civil society to build a modern, peaceful, 
and democratic country. Building on a long legacy of support for the 
democratic aspirations of the Burmese people, the United States is 
providing assistance to strengthen and accelerate the political, 
economic, and social transition; promote and strengthen respect for 
human rights; deliver the benefits of reform to the country's people; 
and support the development of a stable society that reflects the 
diversity of all its people. If confirmed, I will continue to support 
these efforts.
    The United States support for the reform efforts by the Government 
of Burma and for the people of Burma in numerous ways:

     The U.S. Government is assisting in improving electoral 
            administration to ensure free, fair, and credible elections 
            in 2015 and is promoting voter education, strengthening 
            Parliament, supporting political party development, and 
            promoting legal reform.
     U.S. assistance aims to address the root causes of long-
            running conflicts and ethnic tensions as well as provide 
            substantial humanitarian assistance to conflict-affected 
            and vulnerable populations in border areas, the interior of 
            the country, and in the region.
     The United States encourages U.S. businesses to bring 
            responsible investment to Burma to extend the benefits of 
            economic reform to all of the country's people. The United 
            States is supporting civil society and promoting programs 
            to combat corruption and hold businesses accountable for 
            respecting human rights in their operations, including 
            labor rights.
     The United States recently announced a partnership with the 
            Government of Burma to strengthen transparency and good 
            governance in Burma's extractive industries sector. This 
            initiative will provide technical assistance in support of 
            the implementation of international best practices in oil 
            and gas management and oversight, financial accountability, 
            and safety and environmental stewardship.
     The American Center in Rangoon, which has the highest 
            attendance of any American Center in the world, trains 
            political, civil society and labor activists in democratic 
            systems, and civic engagement.

    The United States has carefully calibrated the easing of our 
sanctions in an effort to ensure that the benefits of economic 
engagement with the United States do not flow to bad actors. For 
example, the 2012 easing of the ban on new investment was structured to 
ensure that new investment with the Burmese military or with military-
owned companies remains off limits for U.S. persons. Similarly, because 
of our continuing concerns about the military's human rights record, 
financial services transactions with the military for the provision of 
security services also remain off limits for U.S. persons.
    To ensure U.S. companies undertake due diligence, the United States 
is requiring U.S. persons with more than $500,000 of new investment in 
Burma to report on a range of policies and procedures with respect to 
their investments in Burma, including human rights, labor rights, land 
rights, community consultations and stakeholder engagement, 
environmental stewardship, anticorruption, arrangements with security 
service providers, risk and impact assessment and mitigation, payments 
to the government, any investments with the Myanmar Oil and Gas 
Enterprise (MOGE), and contact with the military or nonstate armed 
groups. The information collected will be used as a basis to conduct 
informed consultations with U.S. businesses to encourage and assist 
them to develop robust policies and procedures to address a range of 
impacts resulting from their investments and operations in Burma. The 
United States seeks to empower civil society to take an active role in 
monitoring investment in Burma and to work with companies to promote 
investments that will enhance broad-based development and reinforce 
political and economic reform.
    The Department of the Treasury maintains a Specially Designated 
Nationals list, which includes individual and company designations of 
``bad actors,'' including those who engage in practices that violate 
human rights or who seek to slow or hinder reform progress. U.S. 
persons are prohibited from transacting business with these individuals 
and entities. This list, which is regularly reviewed and updated, is 
another tool to help marginalize those who obstruct Burma's reform 
efforts. Many of the estimated 100 individuals and entities on the SDN 
list are economically significant ``cronies.'' If confirmed, I will 
support these efforts to ensure that the people of Burma, not the 
``cronies,'' benefit from economic engagement with the United States.
    The United States is actively supporting Burma's efforts to achieve 
free and fair elections. Article 59 of Burma's constitution currently 
disqualifies opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from becoming President 
since her sons and late husband are foreign nationals; many have 
commented that this provision of the constitution appears specifically 
designed to block Aung San Suu Kyi from becoming President. The former 
military junta drafted the constitution of 2008, which reserves 25 
percent of the seats in Parliament for uniformed military. The State 
Department has publicly and privately noted its concerns about these 
provisions and believes that reform of the 2008 constitution is 
essential to establishing a true democracy.
    The Burmese Parliament, of which Aung San Suu Kyi is a member, has 
convened a constitutional review committee. That review may consider 
amendments that could potentially strengthen reform and democracy. If 
confirmed, I will continue to offer United States support and advocacy 
to help Burma successfully complete its democratic transition.

    Question. The political changes in Burma also appear to have 
exacerbated some longstanding religious and ethnic disputes. Can you 
comment on the role of different branches of the Burmese Government in 
religious violence, including in Rakhine State, and in ethnic conflict, 
particularly with the Kachin minority. Does the Burmese Government have 
the ability and will to quell these clashes? What can the United States 
do to facilitate this?

    Answer. Under President Thein Sein, the Burmese Government has 
entered into preliminary cease-fire agreements with 10 of 11 major 
armed ethnic groups. The Burmese Government engaged in constructive 
talks May 28-30 in Myitkyina, Kachin State with the remaining group 
that has not yet signed a cease-fire, the Kachin Independence 
Organization (KIO). These talks resulted in a seven-point joint 
agreement, which includes commitments to hold a political dialogue, 
undertake efforts to cease hostilities, and assist internally displaced 
persons. In addition, on June 20, the Burmese Government signed an 
eight-point agreement with the Karenni National Progressive Party in 
Kayah State, committing to a nationwide cease-fire accord. I am 
encouraged by the progress from those recent talks and look forward to 
continued progress in building trust and delivering lasting peace. As a 
fundamental matter, I support dialogue as the best and only way to 
address the root causes of longstanding conflict and to ultimately 
achieve lasting peace, justice, reconciliation, and equitable 
development throughout the country, including Kachin State.
    I remain deeply concerned about the safety and well-being of 
internally displaced persons and other civilians in need in Kachin 
State and other conflict-affected areas. I am encouraged that on June 
14, the government allowed a U.N.-led convoy aimed at providing 
humanitarian relief to access displaced persons in Kachin-controlled 
areas. This was the first time in nearly a year that the U.N. has been 
allowed to deliver food and household supplies to areas beyond 
government control, though local NGOs have been able to provide some 
assistance to these populations. If confirmed, I will continue to urge 
that all sides ensure unhindered humanitarian access to enable those in 
need to receive adequate food, shelter, and other urgent assistance.
    I understand that the Burmese Parliament is also closely monitoring 
the peace process, and I encourage the Parliament to support efforts to 
ensure a sustainable peace. The Speaker of Burma's lower House of 
Parliament, Thura Shwe Mann, visited Kachin State in February and met 
with internally displaced persons. I welcome the constructive efforts 
of all branches of the Burmese Government to work toward peace and 
reconciliation.
    I am highly concerned about anti-Muslim violence, including in 
Rakhine State. Comments and actions by local authorities, including the 
``NASAKA'' border force, have at times raised tensions and been deeply 
troubling. The Burmese Government must hold all perpetrators of 
violence accountable regardless of race, religion, or citizenship 
status. Senior Department officials, including Ambassador Derek 
Mitchell, have consistently raised U.S. concerns with officials at all 
levels of the Burmese Government about sectarian violence and the 
urgent need to end impunity by ensuring equitable accountability for 
those responsible.
    I believe that the Burmese Government's commitment to work toward a 
peaceful and prosperous future for the entire country is sincere. I 
welcome President Thein Sein's public appeals for tolerance, religious 
freedom, and diversity. I encourage him and other national and local 
officials to actively promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence among 
all of Burma's people. If confirmed, I will continue to work with our 
interagency partners, Congress, and the international community to help 
support Burma's peaceful transition to democracy.

    Question. On December 15, 2012, Lao civic activist Sombath Somphone 
was abducted at a police checkpoint in Vientiane. Since that time Human 
Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Members of Parliament within the 
region, and also this Congress have urged for an immediate, transparent 
investigation into his disappearance and whereabouts. The Department 
has also been engaged with Lao authorities to push for a resolution to 
this case.

   Can you provide an update on the investigation and whether 
        the Lao authorities are fully committed to finding Mr. Sombath. 
        In addition, have we offered any investigative assistance to 
        the Lao authorities?

    Answer. I am deeply concerned over the abduction of Sombath 
Somphone and Lao authorities' failure to share any meaningful details 
from their investigation into his disappearance. The Lao Government's 
June 7 press statement on Mr. Sombath added nothing of substance about 
his case. To date, Lao authorities have not offered members of Mr. 
Sombath's family or representatives from the international community an 
opportunity to review the government's surveillance camera footage that 
reportedly shows his abduction. The Department of State has repeatedly 
offered technical assistance to aid in the investigation, but the 
Government of Laos has not accepted our offer.
    The refusal on the part of the Government of Laos to share 
meaningful details of its investigation into Sombath's case calls into 
question the Lao Government's commitment to uphold human rights and the 
rule of law and to engage responsibly with the international community.

    Question. How do you plan to further develop and implement the 
Department's approach to ``economic statecraft'' in the Asia-Pacific 
region, including: promoting and supporting U.S. businesses abroad to 
expand exports; attracting foreign direct investment to the United 
States; establishing a level playing field for U.S. firms everywhere 
through regional and global trade agreements and institutions; 
preserving global monetary and financial stability; economic assistance 
to developing countries, opening markets, improving governance, 
increasing consumption of high-quality U.S. products, services, and 
know-how?

    Answer. Through its economic statecraft initiative, the Department 
has prioritized moving economics to the center of our overall foreign 
policy agenda. Nowhere has this focus been more evident than in the 
Asia-Pacific. The United States is working hard with our partners in 
the region to spur closer economic integration, to increase trade and 
investment, and to advance our major goal of greater shared prosperity. 
This approach reflects an understanding that the prosperity of the 
United States is inextricably linked to the prosperity and growth of 
the very dynamic Asia-Pacific. Our bilateral and multilateral economic 
and commercial relations have comprised a central pillar of our overall 
effort to rebalance our policies in the direction of Asia.
    The United States has established its economic leadership in the 
region by accomplishing ambitious, trade-oriented goals, including: the 
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, launching and maintaining strong 
momentum behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), expanding economic 
engagement with ASEAN, and building on the success of our 2011 host 
year of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.
    If confirmed, I will work to enhance the Department's already 
substantial contributions to key U.S. regional economic/commercial 
initiatives as well as to encourage the continued efforts of our 
missions in the region to assist U.S. companies in the field, and to 
promote inward investment into the United States.
    If confirmed, I will work in concert with the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative and the Department's Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs to bring the TPP trade negotiations to a successful 
conclusion this year. The Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs 
(EAP) will also continue to advance economic statecraft objectives 
through support of regional economic initiatives, such as the 
President's Enhanced Economic Engagement (E3) initiative, which aims to 
expand trade and investment ties with ASEAN members and help those not 
in TPP to prepare for future membership in high-standard trade 
agreements. As part of the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy 
Partnership (U.S.-ACEP), the EAP Bureau will continue to work with the 
Department's Bureau of Energy Resources and interagency colleagues, 
including the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) and the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), to encourage private 
sector involvement in energy development in the region. I will also 
ensure that we retain a leadership position in APEC for advancing trade 
and investment liberalization throughout the Asia-Pacific.
    Equally important to these policy initiatives, if confirmed, I will 
work with our missions in the region to expand the already extensive 
assistance they give to U.S. companies on a daily basis in identifying 
new business opportunities and advocating on their behalf, whether to 
win bids for government contracts or press host governments to revise 
policies impede trade and investment. As part of these efforts I will 
work to ensure continued focus on deepening our economic engagement 
with China with the aim of promoting an economic relationship in which 
China demonstrates a commitment to the global rules-based trading 
system.

    Question. What have been the main results to date of the 
rebalancing initiative? What parts of the initiative can be improved or 
modified? Are you comfortable that you and Secretary Kerry are on the 
same page in your conception of how the rebalancing strategy should be 
implemented going forward?

    Answer. The administration's rebalance, which covers diplomatic, 
economic, development, security, and cultural initiatives, is rooted in 
the recognition that America's prosperity and security are very much 
intertwined with the Asia-Pacific region. As underscored by Secretary 
Kerry during his trip to the region in April, the State Department is 
working hard to implement this U.S. strategic objective by building an 
increasingly active and enduring presence in the region. I 
wholeheartedly support the Secretary and President's shared vision for 
the Asia-Pacific in which the United States engages deeply throughout 
the region and advances our values and national interests, security, 
and leadership. The State Department and the Bureau of East Asian and 
Pacific Affairs (EAP) have already taken tangible actions in support of 
that commitment. For example, the United States is providing new 
resources for regional efforts such as the Lower Mekong Initiative, 
which helps improve water management, disaster resilience, and public 
health. EAP is deeply involved with implementation of the U.S.-Asia 
Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership and the U.S.-ASEAN Expanded 
Economic Engagement (E3) initiative announced by President Obama last 
November in Cambodia. EAP leads U.S. participation in APEC, the premier 
forum for U.S. economic engagement with the Asia Pacific.
    If confirmed, I will continue these programs and support the early 
conclusion of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), 
which will deepen U.S. trade and investment ties in the Asia Pacific.

    Question. Have the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
National Security Staff put out a budget data request asking agencies 
for more detailed information about their activities in and associated 
budgetary resources devoted to Asia? Has the administration circulated 
a priorities memo as part of the FY 2015 budget process that directs 
agencies to assign greater importance to Asia? How important is an 
integrated whole-of-government approach to the region to achieving U.S. 
objectives?

    Answer. The Department of State works very closely with the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB), the National Security Staff (NSS), and 
other key interagency partners such as Department of Defense and USAID, 
in preparing an integrated budget that supports whole-of-government 
strategy for the rebalance in the Asia-Pacific. The administration 
routinely provides whole-of-government budget guidance to agencies that 
include a strong focus on the Asia-Pacific region given the 
administration's rebalance policy. I firmly believe we need to lock in 
and sustain resources from around the U.S. Government, both in the 
short- and long-term, in order to advance the administration's 
ambitious rebalance agenda.
    If confirmed, I look forward to participating in important 
interagency deliberations on the FY 2015 budget and other planning 
efforts to ensure that our resources are aligned with the 
administration's policy priorities.

    Question. More than 2 years after the administration launched its 
rebalancing initiative, staffing in and funding for the State 
Department's East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) Bureau continue to rank 
among the lowest among the Department's six regional bureaus. Since the 
premise of the rebalancing is that Asia has become more important to 
U.S. national interests, is the EAP Bureau being given sufficient 
priority to carry out its mission?

    Answer. As underscored by Secretary Kerry during his trip to the 
region in April, the State Department remains committed to building an 
increasingly active and enduring presence in the Asia-Pacific region. 
Despite an overall decrease in the State Department and USAID's budget, 
the overall FY 2014 budget request provides $1.2 billion in funding for 
East Asia and the Pacific, which reflects a 7.1-percent increase from 
FY 2012 in support of the East Asia rebalance--the largest growth rate 
of any region. The FY 2014 budget is but one aspect of building our 
longer term budgetary efforts to advance the rebalance, which also 
include advancing our public diplomacy agenda and political dialogue.
    If confirmed, I will advocate for staffing and funding levels 
appropriate to the important missions of the EAP bureau.

    Question. President Park has called for creating a ``new era'' on 
the Korean Peninsula by building trust between North and South Korea. 
Despite the North's recent behavior, she has indicated she wants to go 
forward with modest, incremental initiatives, including providing some 
humanitarian aid.

   Does the Obama administration support such moves? Would it 
        consider also providing humanitarian assistance, including food 
        aid? What, if any conditions, would the administration insist 
        upon to ensure humanitarian aid is not diverted to the 
        military? Are there any additional efforts to strengthen the 
        U.S.-ROK alliance that you think are important and necessary to 
        undertake in parallel with any efforts at North-South 
        reconciliation?

    Answer. The Obama administration is committed to working closely 
with the Republic of Korea (ROK) on the North Korea issue. This 
includes close coordination to press Pyongyang to demonstrate 
seriousness of purpose by taking meaningful steps to abide by its 
international obligations and its commitment made in the 2005 Joint 
Statement of the Six-Party Talks, to pursue the denuclearization of the 
Korean Peninsula. This also involves coordination on ways to engage 
with North Korea diplomatically and, over time, build trust in its 
willingness to cooperate in the pursuit of denuclearization and inter-
Korean reconciliation.
    The longstanding policy of the United States is that humanitarian 
assistance, including food aid, should not be linked to political or 
security issues. Decisions on U.S. humanitarian assistance are based on 
three factors: (1) the level of need in a given country; (2) competing 
needs in other countries; and (3) the ability to ensure that aid 
reliably reaches the vulnerable populations for which it is intended. 
If confirmed, I will continue to implement the Obama administration's 
policy, including the prevention of diversion of food or other 
assistance.
    On the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-ROK alliance, our partnership 
has never been stronger. The United States and the ROK maintain a 
comprehensive strategic alliance with longstanding mechanisms for 
cooperation on security issues. The United States is working to enhance 
our combined capabilities to deter North Korea, including for extended 
deterrence, and, if confirmed, I will support this effort. The United 
States continues to hold regular and close consultations with the ROK 
on North Korea issues, as illustrated by ROK Special Representative for 
Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Cho Tae-yong's June visit to the 
United States.

    Question. China's assertive behavior toward the Senkakus has grown 
increasingly heated since summer 2012. U.S. officials have consistently 
stated that while the United States takes no position on the question 
of sovereignty, it is the U.S. position that Japan administers the 
Senkakus and that they are covered by the U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty.

   In the face of rising tensions and increasing Chinese 
        activity in the area, has the United States taken the proper 
        stance in the situation? How might the United States help Japan 
        to resolve this dispute?

    Answer. The consistent U.S. position on the Senkaku Islands is that 
while we do not take a position on the question of ultimate sovereignty 
over the islands, we call on all parties to manage their differences 
through peaceful means.
    Japanese administration of the islands places them within the scope 
of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and 
Security. Our alliances are the cornerstones of our Asia policy, and we 
take our commitments under them very seriously.
    The United States has a strong interest in ensuring the stability 
of a region that is an engine of global economic growth. To this end, 
the administration has engaged in sustained, intensive, and high-level 
diplomacy on this issue to encourage all parties to exercise restraint, 
avoid coercive or unilateral actions, and pursue dialogue to lower 
tensions and resolve differences.
    We urge all parties to avoid actions that could raise tensions or 
result in miscalculations or incidents that would undermine peace, 
security, and economic growth. If confirmed, I will work to promote the 
reduction of tensions and risk, appropriate diplomatic dialogue among 
the concerned parties, and will firmly oppose coercive or destabilizing 
behavior.

    Question. Japanese Prime Minister Abe has called for revising and/
or reinterpreting Japan's Constitution to allow Tokyo to participate in 
``collective self-defense,'' moves that have been welcomed by U.S. 
defense officials in the past. Abe also has embarked on an ambitious 
economic agenda to revitalize the Japanese economy, including entering 
TPP negotiations.

   What position do you think the United States should take on 
        Abe's proposals? What opportunities do you see for 
        strengthening and deepening the U.S.-Japan alliance and 
        economic partnership? How might Abe's initiatives, should he 
        take them, hurt or help the rebalancing strategy?

    Answer. The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of peace and 
security in the region. We work in a partnership around the world to 
advance common values and shared interests. The United States and Japan 
are currently working together to strengthen the already excellent 
quality and capabilities of the alliance to ensure that it remains 
prepared to respond to the evolving security environment of the 21st 
century. If confirmed, I will be deeply involved in and supportive of 
our efforts to strengthen and deepen our alliance with Japan.
    The administration believes it is for the Japanese people and their 
elected representatives to decide whether, when, and in what manner to 
revise or reinterpret their constitution. We are following developments 
closely as Japan considers a potential relaxation of its self-imposed 
restrictions on collective self-defense in order to assess the 
potential impact on our alliance and its roles, missions, and 
capabilities.
    On the economic front, Prime Minister Abe's policies appear to be 
helping to reinvigorate the Japanese economy, and a healthy Japanese 
economy is good for both Japan and the United States. The TransPacific 
Partnership (TPP) is a key piece of the Japanese Government's reform 
efforts, as well as the economic centerpiece of our rebalance toward 
Asia.
    If confirmed, I will urge the Abe government to follow through on 
its economic reform proposals, and will work closely with the United 
States Trade Representative and other U.S. Government agencies to 
pursue productive trade negotiations with Japan both within TPP and in 
parallel bilateral talks.
                                 ______
                                 

        Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by 
                           Senator Bob Corker

    Question. Despite our continuing efforts to increase ``mutual 
understanding,'' the United States and China have very different views 
on a wide range of economic, security and human-rights-related issues.

   How best can the United States pursue deeper engagement with 
        China while simultaneously articulating, clearly and publicly, 
        an overall foreign policy strategy that advances America's core 
        interests and values?

    Answer. The United States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and 
successful China that plays a key role in world affairs and adheres to 
international standards. The administration is committed to pursuing a 
positive, comprehensive, and cooperative relationship with China. The 
United States advances our national interests and values and encourages 
China to adhere to international standards on human rights, trade, and 
other issues by clearly articulating U.S. principles and by promoting 
high-level, consistent, and constructive dialogue between the United 
States and China.
    Key elements of the U.S. approach to economic relations with China 
have been to encourage China's integration into the global, rules-based 
economic and trading systems and to expand U.S. exporters' and 
investors' access to the Chinese market. Human rights issues also 
continue to be a central element of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S.-
China bilateral relationship. The administration is committed to 
raising human rights issues directly with Chinese counterparts and to 
urging China to respect the rule of law and protect the human rights 
and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens.
    Additionally, working with China on cyber security is one of the 
administration's top priorities. The U.S. Government is actively 
addressing cyber issues, including the growing concern about the threat 
to economic and national security posed by cyber-enabled theft of 
intellectual property and business and trade secrets. As Secretary 
Kerry announced in April, the U.S. Government established a Cyber 
Working Group with the Chinese to facilitate sustained and meaningful 
diplomatic discussions regarding cyber.

    Question. In April 2013, Secretary Kerry stated that the United 
States wants ``a strong, normal, but special relationship with China.'' 
Traditionally, the United States has reserved the term ``Special 
Relationship'' to describe ties with the United Kingdom.

   Do you agree with the Secretary's call for a new ``special 
        relationship'' with China?

    Answer. Developing deeper ties between the United States and China 
is in the national interest of the United States and is important to 
safeguarding U.S. interests in the region and around the world. I 
believe the importance we place on U.S.-China ties is consistent with, 
and in no way detracts from, the continued importance and strengthening 
of our existing partnerships and alliances.
    There are few diplomatic, economic, or security challenges that can 
be addressed without China at the table and without cooperation between 
our countries. Earlier this month in California, President Obama and 
President Xi agreed to continue exploring ways to strengthen our 
overall political, economic, cultural, and military ties. If confirmed, 
I will use the diplomatic tools at my disposal to advance the U.S.-
China relationship and our cooperation on a range of issues at the same 
time as we work to strengthen our relations with countries throughout 
the region.

    Question. How can the United States more effectively press China to 
enforce international rules regarding intellectual property, which 
continue to negatively impact and undermine key sectors of the U.S. 
economy?

    Answer. Despite greater protections being incorporated into the 
Chinese legal system, American and other companies lose billions of 
dollars each year due to intellectual property (IP) theft in China. 
Piracy and counterfeiting levels in China remain unacceptably high, 
harming U.S. and Chinese consumers and enterprises. Stronger 
enforcement mechanisms and efforts are still needed.
    I believe the United States must urge China to: (1) continue the 
work of the permanent State Council-level leadership structure to focus 
IP enforcement efforts at all levels of government on IP theft, 
including the growing problem of theft over the Internet; (2) recognize 
the importance of trade secrets protection to the health of China's 
overall IPR regime, which is essential to promoting innovation and 
economic growth; (3) achieve measurable results on software 
legalization, both in government and in enterprises; and (4) make 
intermediaries such as online content hosts liable for the infringement 
that their sites facilitate.
    If confirmed, I will ensure that the protection of intellectual 
property rights through robust laws and enforcement remains a top 
priority in our engagement with China. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, 
and trade secrets must have adequate safeguards in China to protect the 
ideas of American entrepreneurs and the jobs of American workers.

    Question. If confirmed, what role do you envision for the EAP 
Bureau in the recently established U.S.-China cyber working group?

    Answer. Cyber security is one of the administration's top 
priorities, and cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets and confidential 
business information emanating from China is of particular concern and 
has been discussed with China at all levels of government, including by 
the President. 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, and, if 
confirmed, I envision this role continuing for EAP.
    To have a meaningful, and constructive dialogue with China on this 
issue, Secretary Kerry announced the establishment of the U.S.-China 
Cyber Working Group in April. The State Department will lead the 
working group, and if confirmed I will ensure that the EAP Bureau, in 
close cooperation with S/CCI, will continue to play a central role in 
shaping the development of the working group.

    Question. During the recent Obama-Xi summit in California, National 
Security Advisor Tom Donilon said that ``President Xi indicat[ed] that 
China was interested in having information on the [Trans-Pacific 
Partnership] process as it went forward and being briefed on the 
process and maybe setting up a more formal mechanism for the Chinese to 
get information on the process and the progress that we're making with 
respect to the TPP negotiation.''

   What is the administration's position on sharing such 
        information with a country that is not a party to the TPP?
   Do our TPP allies support China's reques?
   Do you view China's request to be informed on TPP's progress 
        as a sign Beijing is interested in joining the regional free-
        trade agreement?
   What steps would China need to take in order to obtain 
        approval to eventually join TPP discussions or a finalized 
        agreement?

    Answer. The United States is working hard with our TPP partners to 
conclude the TPP negotiation as expeditiously as possible. We and our 
partners believe our work in TPP will be important not just for current 
and future TPP members, but for the trade and investment environment 
throughout the Asia-Pacific. The administration welcomes China's 
interest and that of others in the region in learning more about TPP.
    The United States and its TPP negotiating partners have stated that 
TPP is open to Asia-Pacific economies that are prepared to adopt its 
ambitious commitments and eliminate trade and investment barriers. 
Economies that are interested in pursuing this path initiate a process 
of bilateral consultation with each of the TPP members to demonstrate 
their readiness, and the consensus of all current TPP members is 
necessary for new parties to join. That is the process that Mexico and 
Canada successfully completed in 2012, and is the process that Japan is 
currently engaged in.
    In the past, we have offered briefings at a general level on the 
broad outlines and principles behind the agreement to interested 
countries in the region that are not presently a party to the TPP, and 
have done so in coordination with our current TPP partners. We would 
respond to expressions of interest by China with this type of general 
briefing, and I would refer you to USTR for details of what information 
we would be able to provide in such a briefing. It is difficult to 
assess at present the significance of China's request. Many non-TPP 
countries have sought information to understand the development of the 
regional trade and investment context, even if they have no specific 
interest at present in joining the negotiations. Clearly, China would 
need to take many steps to open its economy, promote transparent 
regulatory practices, and address a range of specific issues to be able 
to demonstrate its readiness for the TPP.

    Question. Some in the U.S. business community believe that the 2012 
Revised Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) does not sufficiently 
cover issues related to China's state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) and have 
called for the BIT with China to include appropriate disciplines to 
ensure that China's SOEs do not enjoy preferential advantages over 
their foreign competitors.

   With respect to talks with China on a BIT, does the 
        administration support an ambitious agreement that includes 
        appropriate disciplines on China's SOEs?
   Does the administration believe that the provisions of the 
        2012 revised model BIT sufficiently cover SOE issues that have 
        been raised by U.S. businesses?

    Answer. The United States seeks to reach agreement on a bilateral 
investment treaty that sets high standards, including on openness, 
nondiscrimination, and transparency for American investors and 
investments. We are taking an ambitious approach in our bilateral 
investment treaty 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 
SOEs and national champions. The 2012 U.S. Model BIT provides a number 
of tools to address this issue, including the comprehensive approach 
that it takes to the national treatment nondiscrimination obligation 
and the application of all BIT obligations to SOEs exercising delegated 
government authority. Negotiations are at an early stage, and we will 
continue to address the U.S. business community's concerns as we move 
forward. We are 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.

    Question. Given that SOEs are an important component of the TPP 
trade negotiations, how does the administration intend to coordinate 
negotiations on the SOE provisions in the TPP with the negotiations on 
the China BIT and the SOE issues that have been raised with respect to 
China?

    Answer. Leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses and workers 
that compete with foreign state-owned enterprises is a priority for 
this administration. The United States is seeking to address this issue 
through coordinated efforts in a range of bilateral and multilateral 
forums, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and our 
ongoing work in the OECD. A top priority in the bilateral investment 
treaty negotiations with China is to level the playing field for U.S. 
firms that face unfair competition from Chinese state-owned enterprises 
or national champions. We have also been using results-oriented, high-
level dialogues like the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade and the 
Strategic and Economic Dialogue to address trade distortions and 
discriminatory treatment resulting from China's heavy reliance on 
state-owned enterprises.

    Question. The United States and Republic of Korea are presently 
engaged in negotiations on a new nuclear cooperation agreement or 123 
Agreement. The U.S. negotiating team is led by the Department of 
State's International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) Assistant 
Secretary, Thomas Countryman.

   If confirmed, will you commit to maintain the EAP Bureau's 
        supporting role in 123 negotiations led by A/S Countryman and 
        his team of nuclear experts?

    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I can reassure you that the Bureau of 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs will remain committed to supporting ISN 
Assistant Secretary Countryman and the interagency team of nuclear 
experts to conclude a successor civil nuclear cooperation agreement 
with the Republic of Korea.

    Question. Please state your views on U.S. engagement with North 
Korea. Should the United States pursue bilateral talks with North Korea 
or should the six-party talks framework remain the forum for engagement 
between Washington and Pyongyang?

    Answer. The United States remains committed to seeking a negotiated 
solution to the North Korea nuclear issue, which will require 
multilateral diplomacy. North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile 
program, proliferation activities, and provocative behavior are a 
threat to the entire international community. The United States 
maintains channels for bilateral contact with North Korea and 
coordinates closely with its allies and partners to press North Korea 
to choose the path of peaceful denuclearization.
    North Korea committed on numerous occasions, including in the 
September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, to abandoning 
all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. The United States 
and the international community must continue to hold North Korea to 
those commitments and its international obligations. The United States 
seeks authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September 
2005 joint statement and bring North Korea into compliance with all 
applicable Security Council resolutions through irreversible steps 
leading to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The onus is on 
North Korea to take meaningful actions toward denuclearization and 
refrain from provocations.

    Question. Please state your views on the provision of humanitarian 
assistance to North Korea, including food aid.

    Answer. I am deeply concerned about the well-being of the North 
Korean people.
    The United States has a longstanding policy that decisions on 
humanitarian assistance, including food aid, are based on three 
factors: (1) the level of need in a given country; (2) competing needs 
in other countries; and (3) the ability to ensure that aid reliably 
reaches the vulnerable populations for which it is intended. If 
confirmed, I will continue to implement this longstanding U.S. policy 
on humanitarian assistance.

    Question. How would you assess China's willingness to use its 
leverage to alter North Korea's behavior? Are there still limits to how 
much pressure Beijing will apply to Pyongyang?

    Answer. China has stated that it shares the concerns of the 
international community regarding North Korea's destabilizing and 
provocative behavior and agrees that the denuclearization of the Korean 
Peninsula is of critical importance. If confirmed, I will continue to 
concentrate U.S. diplomatic energy and efforts on deepening dialogue 
and cooperation on North Korea with China. I will also encourage China 
to more effectively leverage its unique relationship with North Korea 
to achieve our shared goal: the verifiable denuclearization of the 
Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.
    China has cooperated in a number of significant and constructive 
ways to address North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs 
and provocations. For example, China played a critical role in crafting 
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2094, which imposed new sanctions on 
North Korea. If confirmed, I will continue to press China to enforce 
all provisions of the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions on 
North Korea, including tough new sanctions, and to address North 
Korea's threats to regional peace and security and the global 
nonproliferation regime.

    Question. Last year, the United States and Japan announced that our 
governments will review the Guidelines of Japan-U.S. Defense 
Cooperation, which are intended to provide a framework for bilateral 
roles and missions in response to military contingencies. Please 
outline the objectives of the United States for this review, including 
our position on engaging Japan on collective self-defense.

    Answer. The U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines are the framework upon 
which our bilateral defense cooperation rests. The present version of 
the Guidelines dates back to 1997, and in the intervening years Japan 
has expanded the Self Defense Forces role, including by dispatching 
them to Indian Ocean to support Operation Enduring Freedom, to Iraq, 
and to Djibouti in support of antipiracy efforts. Our security 
relationship has naturally evolved since 1997 and the United States and 
Japan have agreed that the time is right to review the Guidelines and 
discuss the future of the Alliance. At the conclusion of the review, if 
a mutual decision is made to revise the Defense Guidelines, we will 
engage in a deliberate process to reach a consensus outcome that is 
firmly supported by fiscal resources on both sides. If confirmed, I 
will work closely with the Department of Defense to use the Guidelines 
review to establish a joint vision for the shape of our Alliance over 
the next 15-20 years. How Japan addresses its self-imposed restriction 
on collective self-defense will be a subject of Japanese domestic 
debate and will help shape the future of the Alliance, and we will 
engage with Japan on this matter closely.

    Question. Under current law, U.S. companies can export liquefied 
natural gas (LNG) if the Department of Energy deems it to be the public 
interest. If the United States has a free-trade agreement with the 
importing country, the public interest determination is automatically 
satisfied. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz recently said he would 
review LNG export applications ``on a case-by-case basis 
expeditiously,'' but to date, only two export facilities have been 
approved by the Obama administration.

   Does the administration believe that expediting natural gas 
        exports to formal allies and emerging partners will strengthen 
        strategic ties and contribute to the administration's 
        rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific? If so, what steps is the 
        administration planning to take to expedite pending 
        applications for natural gas exports?

    Answer. I recognize the importance of energy security for ourselves 
and our allies. The administration has had a number of discussions with 
allies and partners interested in importing U.S. LNG. The projects that 
have been approved, so far, include potential sales to Japan and India, 
as well as to companies that intend to market gas into global markets.
    The Department of Energy has the statutory responsibility to review 
export license applications, and is therefore best placed to answer 
specifics about the application review process. I would note, however, 
that the public interest determination is not a simple question. The 
various applications for LNG exports total almost 40 percent of U.S. 
gas production, and the applicants are considering multibillion dollar 
investments and seeking approval for long-term (typically 20-year) 
sales commitments. It is important that we get this right, and that the 
process reflects careful consideration of all the factors.
    If confirmed, I will work with the State Department's Bureau of 
Energy Resources and the Department of Energy to ensure that this issue 
is given the attention it requires.
                                 ______
                                 

        Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by 
                       Senator Benjamin L. Cardin

    Question. We welcome the administration's rebalance to Asia. While 
the rebalance has a strategic basis, I have stressed that we need to 
make sure that the promotion of human rights is not forgotten. The 
situation in Tibet is both a strategic matter and a human rights 
problem.

   Could you speak to how the administration plans, first, to 
        improve the human rights situation in Tibet, and second, to 
        engage on the strategic aspects of the Tibetan issue, including 
        India-China relations and tensions over the sharing of water 
        flowing off the Tibetan plateau?

    Answer. I am concerned about the deteriorating human rights 
situation in Tibetan areas and, if confirmed, I will raise U.S. 
concerns with my Chinese counterparts. We will continue to call on the 
Chinese Government to engage with the Dalai Lama or his 
representatives, without preconditions, as the best means to address 
Tibetan concerns and relieve tensions. We will consistently raise 
concerns about Tibetan self-immolations and continue to urge the 
Chinese Government to address the underlying problems in Tibetan areas 
and reexamine existing, counterproductive policies that exacerbate 
rather than resolve existing tensions. I will also continue to press 
the Chinese Government to allow journalists, diplomats, and other 
observers unrestricted access to China's Tibetan areas. We will 
continue to work broadly across the Himalayan region to encourage 
countries to work together cooperatively to manage their shared water 
resources.

    Question. For over 30 years, the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six 
Assurances have governed United States policy toward Taiwan, and have 
contributed to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region.

   As the United States undertakes plans to expand and 
        intensify the already significant U.S. role in the region, how 
        does it plan to continue to implement the security commitment 
        the United States has for Taiwan under this framework?

    Answer. 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 
sufficient self-defense. The administration approved nearly several 
billion in new defense sales to Taiwan, as notified to Congress in 
2012. If confirmed, I will continue to support the sale of defense 
articles to Taiwan. Such sales help meet our commitments to Taiwan and 
at the same time help maintain stability both across the Taiwan Strait 
and within the region.

    Question. Discrimination against minorities in Myanmar remains a 
serious problem. For example, discriminatory local orders in Rakhine 
State which require members of the minority Rohingya community to seek 
government permission to travel, marry, have more than two children per 
household, and repair their houses and places of worship are sources of 
severe persecution and undermine any prospect of regional economic 
development.

   What policy option does the U.S. Government have to urge the 
        Government of Myanmar to create and implement a plan to 
        eliminate discrimination toward religious and ethnic 
        minorities, end ethnic segregation; and engage in voluntary 
        resettlement of displaced persons?

    Answer. I am deeply concerned about recent religious conflict in 
Burma and urge all parties to refrain from violence and the government 
to end impunity by holding all perpetrators accountable for criminal 
acts of violence regardless of race, religion, or citizenship status. 
Ambassador Mitchell and Embassy Rangoon officers continue to travel 
throughout Burma to engage and petition government, religious, 
political, and community leaders to advocate restraint, tolerance, and 
reconciliation.
    Tensions remain high in Rakhine State since outbreaks of violence 
in June and October 2012 left over 200 people dead and at least 140,000 
displaced. Most victims were Muslim Rohingya. Reports in May that local 
Rakhine State officials planned to enforce a two-child limit for 
Rohingya in two townships are also worrying. Senior Department of State 
officials, including Ambassador Mitchell in Rangoon, continue to 
encourage the Government of Burma to develop a long-term solution to 
the crisis that addresses humanitarian needs of all Rakhine State's 
residents in a manner consistent with international norms and 
principles, including implementing the constructive recommendations 
included in the recent report by the government's Rakhine Investigation 
Commission. Our officials have stressed to the government, local 
authorities, religious leaders, and representatives of civil society 
that respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms, along with reintegration, redress, and reconciliation are the 
path toward lasting peace.
    The administration led coordination efforts with the international 
community to mobilize a response ahead of this year's rainy season to 
meet the needs of communities affected by the conflict, and we will 
continue to underline the urgency of that response in the coming 
months. The United States has provided more than $7 million in 
humanitarian assistance since June 2012 to address the shelter, food, 
nutrition, and water and sanitation needs of internally displaced 
persons (IDPs).
    I also remain very concerned about anti-Muslim violence that 
erupted on March 21 in Meiktila Town, central Burma, and spread to 
several neighboring townships displacing nearly 13,000 people, killing 
an estimated 100, and destroying homes, mosques, and other buildings. 
In April, the State Department received disconcerting reports of anti-
Muslim violence in Lashio in Burma's Shan State that led to burning of 
Muslim shops and religious buildings. The State Department recently 
provided $100,000 for humanitarian assistance to aid the victims of 
violence. Although the Government of Burma has reported that 
authorities detained a number of alleged Buddhist perpetrators in the 
wake of anti-Muslim violence, the State Department is aware of none 
that have been publicly sentenced. In contrast, authorities have 
prosecuted Muslims following these outbreaks, including, for example, 
two Muslim women who received sentences of 2 years hard labor for 
bumping into a young monk and allegedly sparking an outbreak of mob 
violence on April 30. If confirmed, I will continue to strongly urge 
the Government of Burma to hold accountable all individuals responsible 
for the March and April anti-Muslim violence in central Burma in a 
nondiscriminatory manner. I remain deeply concerned by the lack of 
equitable justice and accountability to date.
    The administration is committed to working with other donor 
governments, affected countries in the region, and the international 
community to meet critical humanitarian protection and assistance needs 
and develop comprehensive durable solutions for Burmese IDPs, refugees, 
asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants in Burma and the region. The 
United States and international community support voluntary returns in 
safety and dignity. The U.S. Government continues to express to 
affected countries in the region our commitment to provide assistance 
to improve conditions in ethnic minority areas inside the country that 
will allow for the safe return of displaced persons.

    Question. If current Cambodia Prime Minister Hun Sen secures a new 
term in July through an election process which is not free and fair, 
how should the U.S. Government respond?

    Answer. The United States has conveyed to Cambodia at high levels 
that the lack of progress on democracy and human rights is an 
impediment to deeper relations between our two countries. The upcoming 
national elections will be a critical test of the Cambodian 
Government's commitment to strengthening the nation's democracy. We are 
monitoring the situation closely and will reassess as appropriate our 
assistance and/or engagement with the Government of Cambodia in light 
of how the election is conducted. If confirmed, I will continue to 
press for improvements in human rights and a credible, free, and fair 
electoral process that allows for the full and unfettered participation 
of all political parties and their leaders.

    Question. The rebalance to Asia policy aims to use military, 
diplomatic, and economic tools of power and influence in a more 
coherent and deliberate fashion. Will these policy pronouncements be 
translated into an across-the-government plan to implement new elements 
of the strategy? What are our current skills and abilities in terms of 
language and area studies outside the State Department, in Energy, 
Commerce and other agencies?

    Answer. The administration's rebalance, which covers diplomatic, 
economic, development, security, and cultural initiatives, is rooted in 
the recognition that America's prosperity and security are very much 
intertwined with the Asia-Pacific region. As underscored by Secretary 
Kerry during his trip to the region in April, the State Department is 
working hard to implement this U.S. strategic objective by building an 
increasingly active and enduring presence in the region. I 
wholeheartedly support the Secretary and President's shared vision for 
the Asia-Pacific in which the United States engages deeply throughout 
the region and advances our values and national interests, security, 
and leadership.
    I believe that our policy and resource planning must be fully 
integrated and closely coordinated with our interagency partners in 
order to advance our shared military, diplomatic, development, and 
economic objectives in the Asia-Pacific. I personally participated in 
interagency planning sessions on our Asia rebalance during my tenure as 
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian 
Affairs in the National Security Council. For example, the Department 
of State works very closely with the Office of Management and Budget, 
the National Security Staff, the Department of Defense, and USAID in 
preparing an integrated budget that supports our whole of government 
strategy for the Asia-Pacific. If confirmed, I will look at additional 
ways to coordinate our planning and, just as importantly, to 
communicate our strategy and thinking to the American public.
    I believe that efforts within the State Department, and with our 
interagency partners, to strengthen language and areas studies skills 
of our overseas and domestic staff will become increasingly vital as we 
rebalance our U.S. engagement to a region with over half of the global 
population, 10 languages designated as either hard or super hard, and a 
tremendously diverse range of cultures and ethnicities. The 
administration has consistently placed a high value on ensuring our 
diplomats and interagency officials obtain the right skills and 
expertise to advance our foreign policy.
    The Foreign Service Institute (FSI), the government's premier 
training institution for officers and support personnel of the U.S. 
foreign affairs communities, continues to be an especially valuable 
asset in our support for other agencies, particularly those in need for 
knowledge of foreign language, cultures, and international affairs. FSI 
provides training for some 47 U.S. Government agencies. Training 
offered to our interagency partners includes language training and 
country-specific and regional area studies courses including on East 
Asia, China; South Asia, Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Maritime 
Southeast Asia, and Mainland Southeast Asia. My own view is that we 
could do more to train U.S. officials in the region and at home--for 
State as well as officials in our sister agencies. If confirmed, I will 
continue to work with our State and interagency partners to enhance the 
relevant skills and knowledge to advance our core policy objectives for 
the Asia-Pacific.

    Question. President Park has called for creating a ``new era'' on 
the Korean Peninsula by building trust between North and South Korea. 
Despite the North's recent behavior, she has indicated she wants to go 
forward with modest, incremental initiatives, including providing some 
humanitarian aid. Should the United States consider also providing 
humanitarian assistance again?

    Answer. The longstanding policy of the United States is that 
humanitarian assistance, including food aid, should not be linked to 
political and security issues. Decisions on U.S. humanitarian 
assistance anywhere are based on three factors: (1) the level of need 
in a given country; (2) competing needs in other countries; and (3) the 
ability to ensure that aid reliably reaches the vulnerable populations 
for which it is intended. If confirmed, I will continue to implement 
this longstanding U.S. policy on humanitarian assistance.
                                 ______
                                 

        Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by 
                          Senator Marco Rubio

    Question. Can you explain how, in pursuing the Asia pivot/
realignment, the United States will deal with countries like Vietnam 
and Cambodia, which have highly problematic human rights records?

    Answer. Promoting human rights is an essential element of the 
administration's rebalance strategy. If confirmed, I will conduct 
candid and constructive human rights discussions with Asian governments 
in bilateral and multilateral settings. In close consultation with 
Congress, I will also work with my colleagues in the State Department 
and USAID to ensure that foreign assistance programs for East Asia and 
the Pacific reflect our commitment to bolster civil society, support 
human rights, and promote democracy throughout the region. The 
administration has been disappointed by the deterioration in human 
rights conditions over the last several years in Vietnam, particularly 
by the ongoing crackdown on bloggers and restrictions on Internet and 
media. If confirmed, I will urge Vietnam to respect human rights and 
emphasize that advancing the relationship with the United States is 
contingent on improving its human rights performance. Although 
Vietnam's record is of significant concern, there were some positive 
developments earlier this year, including Vietnam's decision to release 
lawyer Le Cong Dinh for humanitarian reasons and to host a high-level 
visit by Amnesty International.
    The Department of State has consistently and frankly raised our 
concerns about human rights with Cambodia. President Obama has 
emphasized that the lack of progress on human rights in Cambodia would 
be an impediment to deeper relations between our two countries. 
Challenges remain, such as land rights disputes and evictions without 
adequate compensation, judicial interference by the ruling political 
party to intimidate the opposition, and the infringement of the freedom 
of speech and press. However, Cambodia has taken some positive steps 
including the release of Mam Sonando in March. If confirmed, I will 
urge Cambodia to systemically improve its human rights record and to 
take measures to provide for a healthy democratic process, particularly 
in the runup to national elections in July.

    Question. If confirmed, what will you do to address the issue of 
China's repeated repatriation of North Korean refugees back to a 
country where they face almost certain torture and imprisonment?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will urge China to comply with its 
obligations as a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to Status of 
Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, including not to expel people protected 
under these treaties and to cooperate with the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the exercise of its mandate.

    Question. Should the President impose the sanctions on China called 
for in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, now that China has been 
lowered to Tier 3. If not, why?

    Answer. I am concerned about human trafficking in China and, if 
confirmed, will carefully review all our efforts to combat trafficking 
in persons in the region to ensure that we are taking all appropriate 
steps to address this issue. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act 
(TVPA), as amended, authorizes restrictions on assistance for countries 
ranked Tier 3 in the Trafficking in Persons Report, but the President 
may waive some or all restrictions if he determines that the affected 
assistance ``would promote the purposes of [the TVPA] or is otherwise 
in the national interest of the United States.''

    Question. If confirmed, would you commit to attend the Human Rights 
Dialogue to show the importance of this aspect of our discussions with 
China to our bilateral relationship?

    Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to supporting the Dialogue and 
continuing to raise our human rights concerns directly with our Chinese 
counterparts. The promotion of human rights is a key tenet of U.S. 
foreign policy, and the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue is an 
important channel to discuss our key human rights concerns with China. 
I would welcome the opportunity to participate. I strongly believe 
respect for the rule of law and protection of universal human rights 
are critical to China's long-term prosperity and stability.

    Question. What steps is the administration taking to support the 
work of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on North Korea, including its 
efforts to gain access to China to examine the conditions faced by 
those fleeing North Korea?

    Answer. The United States remains deeply concerned about the human 
rights situation in North Korea, and cosponsored the annual resolution 
that established the U.N. Human Rights Council's Commission of Inquiry 
(COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and systematic violations 
of human rights in North Korea.
    If confirmed, I will continue U.S. efforts to urge North Korea to 
cooperate with the COI--including by granting COI members access to the 
country to evaluate human rights conditions on the ground--and actively 
work with our partners and international organizations to address and 
raise attention to the deplorable human rights conditions in North 
Korea.
    I will also continue U.S. efforts to urge all countries in the 
region, including China, to cooperate in the protection of North Korean 
refugees and asylum seekers within their territories and to act in 
conformity with their obligations under the 1951 U.N. Convention 
Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, including (1) 
not to refoule North Koreans protected under these treaties, and (2) to 
cooperate with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

    Question. As Taiwan is likely to retire some of its older fighter 
aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe that sales of 
advanced aircraft and other weapons systems are an important, next step 
in this commitment?

    Answer. 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 
sufficient self-defense capability. With U.S. assistance, Taiwan is 
currently undergoing an extensive modernization of its F-16 A/B fleet, 
and we are aware of Taiwan's desire to replace older F-5, and perhaps 
Mirage 2000-5 fighters, with additional F-16 aircraft. No decisions 
have been made about possible future sales of military aircraft to 
Taiwan.
    If confirmed, I will continue to support U.S. policy to meet our 
commitments to Taiwan and assist Taiwan's maintenance of a sufficient 
self-defense capability. Doing so increases stability both across the 
Taiwan Strait and within the region.

    Question. What is the administration's position regarding the 
eventual participation of Taiwan in the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
negotiations?

    Answer. The United States and its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 
negotiating partners have stated that the TPP is open to economies in 
the Asia-Pacific that can establish their readiness to meet the high 
standards of the agreement. The addition of new members into the TPP is 
based on the consensus of current members. The Ma administration has 
set a goal of joining the TPP within 8 years, indicating that Taiwan 
understands it will take time to prepare for possible future entry into 
the TPP. The State Department and other U.S. trade agencies welcome the 
liberalization of Taiwan's economy and have encouraged this in meetings 
under our Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. If confirmed, I 
will continue to encourage Taiwan's liberalization efforts.

    Question. If confirmed, will you personally commit to restate the 
administration's support for President Reagan's ``Six Assurances'' to 
Taiwan, as was done during the first term by Assistant Secretary 
Campbell?

    Answer. The United States remains firmly committed to the U.S. one-
China policy, the three joint communiques, and our responsibilities 
under the Taiwan Relations Act. The ``Six Assurances'' indeed help form 
the foundation of our overall approach to Taiwan. If confirmed, I will 
uphold this approach.
    The United States opposes attempts by either side to unilaterally 
alter the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The United States does 
not support Taiwan independence.
    The United States has long maintained that differences between the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan are matters to be resolved 
peacefully.

    Question. Knowing that the current Taiwan 123 Agreement will expire 
in March 2014, and knowing that the renewal will need 90 legislative 
days to sit with Congress before it comes into effect, when does State 
plan to send the negotiated renewal to Congress so as to avoid a 
situation where a legislative fix is needed?

    Answer. For the Department of State, the Bureau of International 
Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) leads on negotiation of agreements 
regarding peaceful uses of nuclear energy, often referred to as ``123 
Agreements.'' I understand that, through the American Institute in 
Taiwan (AIT), on the U.S. side, and Taiwan's Taipei Economic and 
Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO), 
negotiators are working hard to reach a new agreement at an early date. 
Their goal is to put a new AIT-TECRO 123 Agreement before Congress this 
autumn. If confirmed, I will support efforts to bring the negotiations 
to an early, successful conclusion with sufficient time to allow for 
the required congressional review period prior to entry into force.
                                 ______
                                 

        Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by 
                      Senator Christopher A. Coons

    Question. Under your leadership, how will the Bureau of East Asian 
and Pacific Affairs further advance economic opportunities for women in 
the region and expand programs such as the South Asia Women's 
Entrepreneurship Symposium?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will strongly support programs that create 
opportunities for and empower women and girls as a vital component of 
our economic engagement in the region. The United States currently 
works both bilaterally and through multilateral frameworks, including 
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, Lower Mekong 
Initiative (LMI), and the Association of Southeast Asian nations 
(ASEAN), to support women's economic empowerment.
    For example, under APEC, the State Department is focused on 
implementing the San Francisco Declaration, which calls on APEC members 
to take concrete actions to realize the full potential of women, 
integrate them more fully into APEC economies, and maximize their 
contributions toward economic growth. Within this framework, the United 
States is implementing capacity-building activities focused on women's 
access to markets and capital and is supporting a number of studies to 
identify specific, actionable barriers to women 's participation in the 
economy in targeted APEC member economies.
    The United States has also supported the efforts of the ASEAN 
Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and 
Children to strengthen economic rights and opportunity for women. The 
Department supports USAID's upcoming launch of the 5-year U.S.-ASEAN 
Partnership for Good Governance, Equitable and Sustainable Development, 
and Security (PROGRESS), which will include women's and children's 
rights as a key focus area. The Department will also soon announce open 
applications for the U.S.-ASEAN Science Prize For Women, which will be 
awarded to a promising, early-career woman scientist from the ASEAN 
region.
    The Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI), the Mekong Technology, 
Innovation Generation, and Entrepenuership Resources (TIGERS) Project 
will facilitate access to economic opportunities for women 
entrepreneurs and support the development of an ``innovation 
ecosystem'' in the countries of the Lower Mekong subregion.
    Bilaterally, the United States will bolster women's participation 
in the private sector in Papua New Guinea through training programs to 
support the development, sustainability, and advocacy skills of the 
nascent Papua New Guinea Women's Chamber of Commerce.
    In December 2012, the State Department held a Women's 
Entrepreneurship Symposium to galvanize women's economic empowerment 
along the New Silk Road and the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, which 
links India and Bangladesh with Southeast Asia. The Symposium brought 
together over 100 women entrepreneurs, government officials, private 
sector and civil society leaders from 11 South and Central Asian 
countries, including Burma, to identify opportunities and priorities 
for advancing women's entrepreneurship in South Asia.

    Question. How will the Bureau address violence against women and 
girls in the region, including sexual- and gender-based violence, as 
recently highlighted by the gang rape and death of the 23-year-old 
woman on a Delhi bus in India?

    Answer. The Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP) is 
working closely with the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues 
(S/GWI), and Bureaus and Offices across the Department to 
comprehensively prevent and respond to gender-based violence in the 
Asia-Pacific. S/GWI's small grants programming around the world, 
including in the Asia-Pacific region, supports the advancement of 
respect for women's and girls' human rights, and will include targeted 
programs that address gender-based violence. These grants work to 
support and build the capacity of local, grassroots organizations, 
raise awareness of gender-based violence, legal rights, and strengthen 
community referral systems. Additionally, EAP supports S/GWI's efforts 
to increase women's participation in peace negotiations, conflict 
prevention and response efforts, and peace-building processes.
    Preventing and responding to gender-based violence is a critical 
step toward the U.S. Government's goal of supporting the emergence of 
stable, democratic countries that are at peace with their neighbors and 
provide for the basic needs of their citizens. If confirmed, I commit 
to continuing EAP's close cooperation with S/GWI and all other 
stakeholders to prevent violence against women and girls.
                                 ______
                                 

        Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by 
                         Senator John Barrasso

    Question. Like many U.S. industries, soda ash faces significant 
trade barriers around the world. It is a key manufacturing component of 
glass, detergents, soaps, and chemicals. Soda ash is also used in many 
other industrial processes.
    U.S. ``natural soda ash'' is refined from the mineral trona. It has 
long been regarded as the standard for quality, purity, and energy 
efficiency in production. The Green River Basin in Wyoming is the 
world's largest area for naturally occurring trona.

   As part of your effort to promote U.S. industries in the 
        East Asian and Pacific region, can you commit to me that you 
        will be an advocate for eliminating trade barriers for soda ash 
        and other important U.S. industries in the international 
        marketplace?

    Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I will prioritize the 
East Asian and Pacific (EAP) Bureau's promotion of U.S. exports and the 
facilitation of U.S industries' participation in international markets. 
I understand the Department is aware that some countries have pursued 
actions against the importation of soda ash, including barriers to 
trade in soda ash. I will ensure that EAP provides necessary support to 
the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative to address this issue and other trade-distorting 
measures. I will also advocate strongly for U.S. firms and industries, 
encouraging our trading partners' adherence to their international 
trade obligations in providing nondiscriminatory market access for our 
exporters, including those in the soda ash industry.

    Question. Last year, the U.S. Department of State and U.S. 
Department of Defense initiated a process to remove a war memorial in 
Wyoming. It honors the lives of 48 soldiers who were massacred in their 
sleep by insurgents in the Philippines on September 28, 1901. The 
Department of State and Department of Defense intentionally withheld 
information about the commencement of its removal from Congress.

   Will you commit to me to not send our war memorials, which 
        honor our fallen service men, women, and their families, to 
        foreign lands?
   What is your position on providing Congress with information 
        and notice about these types of actions?

    Answer. I understand and appreciate the deep historical and 
emotional connections Americans have to the Bells of Balangiga, which 
represent the ultimate sacrifice of so many young Americans in the 
service of our Nation. If confirmed, I will continue to consult with 
Congress, the Department of Defense, and all other interested parties 
on this issue.

    Question. As you know, the North Korean Government has appealed to 
the United States to open talks to ease the tensions on the Korean 
Peninsula.

   Do you believe the United States should reward the North 
        Koreans by directly engaging with North Korea?
   Do you believe the North Koreans will dismantle their 
        nuclear program as a precondition to hold talks with the United 
        States?
   If you were in a position to set the preconditions for U.S.-
        Korean direct talks, can you please detail those preconditions?

    Answer. I believe the United States should not seek talks for the 
sake of talks. Rather we should be 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 by ending its ballistic missile program and abandoning all 
nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, 
verifiable, and irreversible manner. For negotiations to be authentic 
and credible, North Korea must demonstrate it is prepared to halt and 
ultimately abandon all of its nuclear weapons and programs.
    The onus is on North Korea to take meaningful actions toward 
denuclearization and refrain from provocations, and improve relations 
with South Korea. North Korea committed on numerous occasions, 
including in the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, 
to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. The 
United States and the international community must continue to hold 
North Korea to those commitments and its international obligations.
    The United States remains committed to finding a diplomatic 
solution on North Korea, which will require multilateral action. North 
Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program, proliferation 
activities, and provocative behavior are not just bilateral issues 
between the United States and North Korea, but are of concern to the 
entire international community. If confirmed, I would continue to 
coordinate closely with allies and partners to press North Korea to 
choose a path different leading to peaceful denuclearization.

    Question. Do you believe tougher sanctions should be imposed on 
North Korea for its continued violation of all its nonproliferation 
agreements?

    Answer. I believe the United States should continue to work with 
the international community to ensure full enforcement of international 
and national sanctions as part of our effort to bring about 
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The international community 
has posed strict measures in response to North Korea's defiance of its 
international obligations, and the United States continues to demand 
that North Korea fully comply with its international obligations.
    In unanimously adopting U.N. Security Council Resolution 2094, 
which expanded sanctions on North Korea in response to the February 12, 
2013, North Korean nuclear test, the U.N. Security Council expressed 
its determination to take further significant measures in the event of 
a future North Korean missile launch or nuclear test. The United States 
has also imposed--and as necessary will continue to impose--national 
measures on entities and individuals involved in proliferation-related 
activities proscribed by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
    Sanctions on North Korea are aimed at impeding its ability to 
sustain and advance its proscribed nuclear, ballistic missile, and 
proliferation programs and activities. The international community's 
concerted efforts to implement these sanctions have demonstrated to 
North Korea the increasing costs of defying the international 
community.
    If confirmed, I will strongly support full implementation of 
sanctions by our international partners and will work closely with the 
Department of the Treasury and other agencies to examine further 
unilateral or multilateral sanctions as appropriate.

    Question. What additional unilateral sanctions are available to the 
United States to impose against the regime in North Korea?

    Answer. The United States has a range of unilateral sanctions 
authorities available to address North Korea's proliferation activities 
and will continue to use them to expand sanctions on North Korea and 
target entities and individuals associated with North Korea's 
proscribed nuclear and ballistic missile programs and other illicit 
acts.
    I believe that sanctions are a valuable and effective part of our 
overall strategy to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction and their means of delivery.
    If confirmed, I will cooperate with the Department of the Treasury 
and other agencies to consider all appropriate measures to impede North 
Korea's ability to sustain and advance its proscribed nuclear and 
missile programs and associated proliferation activities.

    Question. What consequences have there been, if any, for North 
Korea's long-range missile test in February?

    Answer. The February 12, 2013, North Korean nuclear test resulted 
in the unanimous adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 
2094, which significantly expanded an already strong set of sanctions 
on North Korea, as well as in broad international condemnation--from an 
unprecedented 80-plus countries and international organizations.
    The measures contained in UNSCR 2094 are already being implemented 
and making it harder for North Korea to move the funds, equipment, and 
personnel needed to develop its prohibited nuclear and ballistic 
missile programs. The United States has worked closely with the 
international community to ensure that these measures are fully 
implemented.
    On March 11, 2013, the United States designated the North Korea's 
Foreign Trade Bank, consistent with UNSCR 2094's obligation to prevent 
financial transactions that could contribute to North Korea's illicit 
programs. The United States also designated four senior North Korean 
officials for their role in activities explicitly proscribed by U.N. 
Security Council resolutions.

    Question. What is the current relationship between Iran and North 
Korea? How much cooperation is there between the two countries on 
missile and nuclear development?

    Answer. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 prohibit 
the transfer to or from the DPRK of goods and technology related to 
nuclear, ballistic missile or other weapons of mass destruction-related 
programs. Likewise, any cooperation with Iran on prohibited, 
proliferation sensitive nuclear and ballistic missile activities could 
violate multiple U.N. resolutions on Iran.
    If confirmed, I will strongly support U.S. efforts to prevent 
collusion and to press both the DPRK and Iran to comply fully and 
transparently with their international commitments and obligations and 
to refrain from any undertakings which would further threaten the 
global nonproliferation regime.
                                 ______
                                 

        Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by 
                           Senator Rand Paul

    Question. Over the past few years we've seen reduced tensions in 
the Taiwan Strait. How will you continue to encourage the development 
of cross-strait relations?

    Answer. I applaud the cross-strait agreements signed by China and 
Taiwan over the past 5 years. Cultural exchange, direct transportation 
links, and investment promotion are just a few examples of these 
accomplishments.
    For the past 34 years, the United States has pursued its one-China 
policy based on the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. 
Regional stability and U.S. policy have provided Taiwan with the 
confidence and flexibility needed to improve cross-strait relations.
    If confirmed, I will encourage both Taiwan and China to continue 
expanding cross-strait cooperation and oppose any attempts by either 
side to unilaterally alter the status quo.

    Question. Would the United States support expanding the Trans-
Pacific Partnership to include Taiwan?

    Answer. The United States and its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 
negotiating partners have stated that the TPP is open to economies in 
the Asia-Pacific that can establish their readiness to meet the high 
standards of the agreement. The addition of new members into the TPP is 
based on the consensus of current members. The Ma administration has 
set a goal of joining the TPP within 8 years, indicating that Taiwan 
understands it will take time to prepare for possible future entry into 
the TPP. The State Department and other U.S. trade agencies welcome 
steps Taiwan is taking to liberalize its economy, and have encouraged 
this in our discussions under our Trade and Investment Framework 
Agreement. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage Taiwan's 
liberalization efforts.

    Question. Do you see an enhanced role for Taiwan under the 
rebalance to Asia policy on economic and security fronts?

    Answer. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and a developed market 
economy. It is the United States 11th-largest trading partner, 7th-
largest export market for American agricultural and food products, and 
the 6th-largest source of international students in the United States. 
If confirmed, I will ensure the United States expands its commercial, 
economic, and cultural engagement with Taiwan through our Trade and 
Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), through economic integration 
initiatives in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and through 
greater people-to-people contacts, including student exchanges. Our 
people-to-people engagement has been further facilitated by Taiwan's 
entry into the Visa Waiver Program in 2012. If confirmed, I will also 
ensure the United States continues to build a robust unofficial 
relationship with Taiwan and fulfill its longstanding commitment to 
enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, in 
accordance with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.


     NOMINATIONS OF VICTORIA NULAND, DOUGLAS LUTE, AND DANIEL BAER

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2013

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                              ----------                              

Hon. Victoria Nuland, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of 
        State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Douglas Edward Lute, of Indiana, to be United States Permanent 
        Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic 
        Treaty Organization
Daniel Brooks Baer, of Colorado, to be U.S. Representative to 
        the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
                              ----------                              

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher 
Murphy, presiding.
    Present: Senators Murphy, Cardin, Shaheen, Kaine, Johnson, 
Risch, Rubio, McCain, Barrasso, and Paul.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Murphy. I call this nomination hearing to order.
    Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider 
three nominations: Victoria Nuland to be the Assistant 
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs; Douglas 
Lute to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO; and 
Daniel Baer to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe.
    Before we begin, let me remind members that the deadline 
for submission of questions for the record is the close of 
business, this Monday.
    First, let me welcome our nominees as well as your 
families:
    Our first nominee, Victoria Nuland, is a 29-year veteran of 
the Foreign Service. She most recently served at the State 
Department as the spokesperson there, but Ambassador Nuland has 
worked at the highest levels of both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, earning the respect of her colleagues at every 
step along the way. She served with integrity and dedication as 
the Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the 
U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, and the Principal Deputy 
National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney. As her 
colleagues note, her 20 years of work as an expert specifically 
on Russia, as well as her talents as a diplomat, negotiator, 
and strong voice for democracy and human rights, makes her 
ideally suited for the position of Assistant Secretary for 
Europe and Eurasia.
    Victoria is originally from my home State of Connecticut, 
so I am especially pleased to preside over her confirmation 
hearing today. She is here with her family--her parents, as 
well as her husband, Robert, and her son, David. We welcome 
them, as well.
    Daniel Baer is the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau 
of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, currently at the U.S. 
Department of State. Prior to joining the administration in 
2009, he had teaching positions at both Georgetown and Harvard. 
And during his time in academia, the private sector, and 
government, Dr. Baer has distinguished himself as a talented 
diplomat and passionate defender of human rights, and I believe 
that he is an excellent choice for our Ambassador to the OSCE.
    He is here today with his partner, Brian Walsh, and we 
welcome him.
    Douglas Lute has long had a distinguished career in both 
military and civilian service. He is currently serving as the 
Deputy Assistant to the President and Coordinator for South 
Asia and the White House national security staff. He retired 
from Active Duty in the United States Army as a lieutenant 
general in 2010, after 35 years of service. General Lute's 
previous positions include time at the U.S. European Command in 
Germany and as the commander of U.S. Forces in Kosovo, where he 
first worked with NATO.
    General Lute, we thank you for your service. We look 
forward to working with you in your new position, and we also 
welcome your wife, Jane, who is here today.
    I congratulate all of you on your nominations.
    Let me say that, as we are going to be talking about Europe 
today, probably the most overused word in the foreign policy 
community today is ``pivot.'' There is no doubt that America 
has new and important diplomatic, economic, and security 
interests in Asia, and there is no doubt that the original 
reason for many of our values-based alliances with Europe--the 
cold war--is no longer present today. But, today, no less than 
ever before, Europe, as a unit and as European nations 
individually, remain America's most important allies to be 
found anywhere on the globe. Our most important security 
relationship is with Europe. When confronting a global crisis, 
the first place we almost always turn is to our European 
allies. Our most important economic relationship is with 
Europe. That is why we are reinvesting in this side of the 
relationship, with a kickoff, this week, of negotiations on the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
    In a lot of ways, as the United States and Europe face the 
new economic growth in Asia, as we look at communal security 
challenges in places like Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan, our 
alliance is now more important than ever before.
    So, if confirmed, Ambassador Nuland, you will be 
formulating U.S. policy toward Europe at a crucial moment in 
our alliance's history, and I look forward, today, to hearing 
your thoughts, for instance, on how the State Department can 
assist the U.S. Trade Representative in moving forward a 
potentially transformational economic deal with Europe. We need 
to hear from you as to how we continue to maneuver an 
increasingly complicated--to frankly use a generous term--
relationship with Russia. How do we work together on common 
goals, like arms control and Middle Eastern stability while not 
letting them off the hook for a dangerous downward turn in the 
treatment of civil society? And, while we welcome the EU's 
emergence as a leader in the Balkans, how do we work with our 
partners in Europe to continue to integrate these fragile 
nations into the world community?
    General Lute, you are going to be working with NATO 
partners to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, while, at 
the same time, formulating the future role of the alliance. 
NATO still remains the world's preeminent security alliance. 
But, to remain strong, you are going to continue the work of 
your predecessor in emphasizing the importance of smart 
defense, of interoperability and coordinated strategic 
planning.
    And, Dr. Baer, you are going to be going to an organization 
that, more than any other, represents our ideals, and yet you 
will be faced with the challenge--maybe more of a challenge 
today than ever--of putting those ideals into action.
    So, I congratulate each of you on your nomination. And my 
hope is that the full Senate will work quickly and positively 
on your confirmations.
    At this point, I turn it over to Senator Johnson for 
opening remarks.

                STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your 
opening remarks, and I certainly appreciate, also, the 
distinguished service that the nominees have already provided 
to their Nation, and truly appreciate the fact that you are 
willing to step up to the plate again and serve your Nation in 
new capacities, here. So, we have some, I think, first-class 
nominees here, and I am looking forward to your testimony.
    What is being contemplated, however, in the United States 
Senate, I think, requires some comment, and I would like to 
utilize my opening remarks to talk about what we were talking 
about in both of our caucuses, that the majority is 
contemplating taking action, breaking precedent, basically 
breaking the rules to change the Senate rules in a way that I 
believe would be incredibly damaging, if not very destructive, 
to the United States Senate, this institution that we totally 
revere. And it is doing it on the basis of what, I think, 
certainly the folks on our side of the aisle believe is a 
manufactured crisis. It has to do with nominations and, 
supposedly, Republican obstruction and, apparently, our 
blocking of nominations. But, here are the facts.
    In the 111th Congress, there were 920 of President Obama's 
nominations confirmed, only one was rejected. In the 112th 
Congress, 574 nominations were confirmed, only two were 
rejected. During the 113th Congress, our current Congress, 
there have been 66 nominees confirmed, with only one being 
rejected. Hardly a record of obstruction.
    In terms of Cabinet nominees, just in terms of the length 
of time it has taken to get confirmation, President Obama, his 
Cabinet nominees have taken 51 days, on average. During 
President Bush's administration, it was 52 days. During 
President Clinton's administration, it was 55 days. Again, 
President Obama has been, certainly, given due consideration. 
His nominees have been, really, moved forward very rapidly.
    In this term, in his second term, President Obama has 
already confirmed 28 judges--or we have--the Senate's confirmed 
28 judges, compared to 10 judges in President Bush's second 
term.
    This is manufactured crisis. And I am not the only one that 
believes that the nuclear option would be incredibly damaging. 
This is the words of Majority Leader Harry Reid when he wrote a 
book, in March 2009. He said, ``The nuclear option was the most 
important issue I had ever worked on in my entire career, 
because if that had gone forward, it would have destroyed the 
Senate as we know it.'' That is not the only thing Senator 
Harry Reid has mentioned about breaking the rules to change the 
rules. He said, ``In violating 217 years of standard procedure 
in the Senate, changing the rules by breaking the rules is 
about as far as you could get from a constitutional option.'' 
He also said, ``For people to suggest that you can break the 
rules to change the rules is un-American.''
    The only way you can change the rule in this body is 
through a rule that now says, ``To change a rule in the Senate 
rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes.'' You 
cannot do it with 60 votes. You certainly cannot do it with 51. 
Now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called 
``nuclear option.'' The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is 
illegal, it is wrong, you cannot do it, and they would overrule 
it. It would simply be, ``We are going to do it because we have 
more votes than you.'' You would be breaking the rules to 
change the rules. That is very un-American.
    And finally, he said, ``The American people, in effect, 
reject the nuclear option because they see it for what it is, 
an abuse of power, arrogance of power.'' Lord Acton said, 
``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' 
That is what is going on. The rules are being changed in the 
middle of the game. They are breaking the rules to change the 
rules. Regardless of one's political affiliations, Americans 
understand this is a political power-grab, a partisan political 
grab.
    Vice President Biden commented on this when he was a 
Senator. He said, ``The nuclear option is ultimately an example 
of the arrogance of power. This is a fundamental power-grab by 
the majority party. It is nothing more or nothing less.''
    Former Senator Christopher Dodd, in his farewell address, 
said, ``But, whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble 
desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political 
expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise. To my 
fellow Senators who have never served a day in the minority, I 
urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change the Senate 
rules.''
    Now, Senator Murphy, neither one of us, unfortunately, had 
the pleasure of serving with Senator Robert C. Byrd, from West 
Virginia, somebody who, certainly as I watched the Senate from 
afar, was acknowledged as somebody who revered the Senate, who 
fully understood the rules. We, unfortunately, did not get to 
have him speak to us during orientation, but he gave a very 
famous orientation speech on December 3, 1996, for that 
incoming Senate class, and I would like to take some time--
because I think his words bear repeating.
    He said, ``Let us clearly understand one thing. The 
Constitution's Framers never intended for the Senate to 
function like the House of Representatives''--in other words, 
be a majoritarian body. ``I have said that, as long as the 
Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited 
debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure. The 
Senate was intended to be a forum for open and free debate and 
for the protection of political minorities. I have led the 
majority and I have led the minority, and I can tell you, there 
is nothing that makes one fully appreciate the Senate's special 
role as the protector of the minority interests like being in 
the minority.
    ``Since the Republican Party was created, in 1854, the 
Senate has changed hands times 14 times, so each party has had 
the opportunity to appreciate, firsthand, the Senate's role as 
guardian of minority rights. But, almost from its earliest 
years, the Senate has insisted upon its members' rights to 
virtually unlimited debate. When the Senate reluctantly adopted 
the cloture rule in 1917, it made the closing of debate very 
difficult to achieve by requiring a supermajority and by 
permitting extended post-cloture debate.''
    By the way, back then, the supermajority was two-thirds 
votes, now it is three-fifths.
    ``This deference to the minority view sharply distinguishes 
the Senate from the majoritarian House of Representatives. The 
Framers recognized that a minority can be right and that a 
majority can be wrong. They recognized that the Senate should 
be a true deliberative body, a forum in which to slow the 
passions of the House, hold them up to the light, examine them, 
and, through informed debate, educate the public. The Senate is 
the proverbial saucer intended to cool the cup of coffee from 
the House. It is the one place in the whole government where 
the minority is guaranteed a public airing of its views.
    ``Woodrow Wilson observed that the Senate's informing 
function was as important as its legislating function. And now, 
with televised Senate debate, its informing function plays an 
even larger and more critical role in the life of our Nation. 
The Senate is often soundly castigated for its inefficiency, 
but, in fact, it was never intended to be efficient. Its 
purpose was, and is, to examine, consider, protect, and be 
totally independent--a totally independent source of wisdom and 
judgment on the actions of the lower House and on the 
executive. As such, the Senate is the central pillar of our 
constitutional system.
    ``The Senate is more important than any or all of us, more 
important than I am, more important than the majority and 
minority leaders, more important than all 100 of us, more 
important than all of the 1,843 men and women who have served 
in this body since 1789. Each of us has a solemn responsibility 
to remember that, and to remember it often.''
    And finally, in a speech he gave on May 19, 2010, Senator 
Byrd said, ``The Senate has been the last fortress of minority 
rights and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two 
centuries. I pray the Senators will pause and reflect before 
ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political 
priority of the moment.''
    I have that same prayer. I came to the Senate because this 
Nation is facing enormous challenges. You, in serving this 
Nation, will face enormous challenges. We simply cannot afford 
to damage this incredibly important institution, the United 
States Senate. And I hope our colleagues on the majority side 
contemplate exactly what they are doing.
    But, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it back over to 
you and look forward to the testimony.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
    Let us go to our right to left, and we will start with 
Ambassador Nuland.
    Welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTORIA NULAND, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT 
      SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS

    Ambassador Nuland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Ranking Member Johnson, all the members of this committee.
    I am honored to come before you to be considered for the 
position of Assistant Secretary of State for European and 
Eurasian Affairs, and I am grateful for the confidence that 
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have shown in me. If 
confirmed, I pledge to work with all of you to protect and 
advance U.S. interests, in promoting security, prosperity, 
democracy, and human rights in Europe and Eurasia, and working 
with our allies and partners there to advance our shared global 
interests.
    I am also delighted to share this panel today with my 
colleagues and friends, Doug Lute and Dan Baer. I can think of 
no better partners to provide vital U.S. leadership at our two 
essential transatlantic multilateral institutions.
    As a lifetime Europeanist, I have witnessed firsthand some 
of the most profound moments of change in Europe and Eurasia. 
From my days as a young political officer in Moscow, when I 
stood on Red Square on New Year's Eve in 1991, when the Soviet 
flag came down and the Russian flag went up, to the brutal wars 
in Bosnia and Kosovo, the enlargement of NATO and the EU, the 
creation of the euro. I know that, when Europeans and Americans 
join forces in defense of our common security and values, we 
are more effective than when we work alone, whether it is in 
Afghanistan, Iran, Mali, Burma, countering terrorism, promoting 
nonproliferation, good governance, human rights, development, 
health, or a cleaner planet. America needs a strong, confident 
Europe, and our European allies depend on America's unwavering 
commitment to their security and our continued support for 
Europe's prosperity, its cohesion, and its growth.
    As we look at the agenda ahead of us, our first task is to 
revitalize the foundations of our global leadership and our 
democratic, free-market way of life. We need growth, we need 
jobs, on both sides of the Atlantic. The Transatlantic Trade 
and Investment Partnership, that Senator Murphy mentioned, that 
we began this year with the EU could support hundreds of 
thousands of additional jobs. But the T-TIP is about more than 
our economic underpinnings. T-TIP is also a political and 
strategic investment in our shared future and our effectiveness 
as global leaders in the 21st century.
    We have also got to focus on the unfinished work within 
Europe. Today, we have a real chance to capitalize on changing 
attitudes and circumstances to address the 40-year-old division 
of Cyprus. Kosovo and Serbia have made important commitments 
toward long-term reconciliation, and those deserve our support. 
And we must not break faith with other members of our European 
and Eurasian family, who have been trapped for too long in 
frozen conflicts and territorial disputes.
    We must also do more to defend the universal values that 
bind us. The quality of democracy and rule of law in Europe and 
Eurasia is gravely uneven today; and, in some key places, the 
trends are moving in the wrong direction. If, as a 
transatlantic community, we aspire to mentor other nations who 
want to live in justice, peace, and freedom, we have got to be 
equally vigilant about completing that process in our own 
space.
    And we must also continue to work together beyond our 
shores. As the President has said so many times, as you have 
said, Mr. Chairman, Europe is our global partner of first 
resort. Whether in Afghanistan, Libya, working on Iran, on 
Syria, the United States and Europe are strongest when we share 
the risk and the responsibility and, in many cases, the 
financial burden of promoting positive change.
    When we can, we also have to work effectively with Russia 
to solve global problems. With respect to Iran, DPRK policy, 
Afghanistan, counterterrorism, and nuclear arms control, we 
have made progress in recent years, and the President's looking 
for opportunities to take our cooperation to the next level. 
However, we must also be very frank when we disagree with 
Russian policy, whether it is with regard to weapon sales to 
the Assad regime or with regard to the treatment of civil 
society, political activists, and journalists inside of Russia.
    Finally, we have got to be attentive to the fast-changing 
energy landscape of Europe and Eurasia. We welcome the many 
steps that Europeans have taken to diversify their energy 
market. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that U.S. companies 
continue to play a leading role in this dynamic market. As the 
President said in Berlin last month, ``Our relationship with 
Europe remains the cornerstone of our own freedom and 
security.'' If confirmed, I pledge to work with all of you to 
seize the opportunities before us to revitalize and deepen our 
ties with Europe and to ensure we continue, together, to have 
the will, the trust, and the capability to advance our shared 
security and prosperity and to meet our many global challenges 
together.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ambassador Nuland follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Victoria Nuland

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and all the 
members of this committee. I am honored to come before you to be 
considered for the position of Assistant Secretary for European and 
Eurasian Affairs, and I am grateful for the confidence that President 
Obama and Secretary Kerry have shown in me. If confirmed, I pledge to 
work with all of you to protect and advance U.S. interests by promoting 
security, prosperity, democracy and human rights in Europe and Eurasia, 
and working with our allies and partners there to advance our shared 
global interests.
    I am also delighted to share the panel today with my colleagues and 
friends, Doug Lute and Dan Baer. I can think of no better partners to 
provide vital U.S. leadership at our two major TransAtlantic 
multilateral institutions.
    As a lifetime Europeanist, I have witnessed firsthand some of the 
most challenging and profound moments of change in Europe and Eurasia's 
recent history--from my days as a young political officer in Moscow 
when I stood on Red Square on New Year's Eve 1991 as the Soviet flag 
came down and the Russian flag went up, through the bloody and 
agonizing Bosnia and Kosovo wars, to the birth of the EURO, and the 
enlargement of NATO and the EU to include much of Central Europe. I 
have also learned through decades of shared effort that when Americans 
and Europeans join forces in defense of our common security and values, 
we are stronger and more effective than when we work alone--from 
Afghanistan to Iran to Mali to Burma; from countering terrorism to 
promoting nonproliferation, good governance, human rights, development, 
health and cleaner planet. America needs a strong, confident Europe. 
And our European allies depend on America's unwavering commitment to 
their security, and our continued support for Europe's prosperity, 
cohesion, and growth.
    As we look at the agenda that lies ahead of us, our first task with 
our European allies is to revitalize the foundations of our global 
leadership and our democratic, free market way of life. We need growth 
and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. The TransAtlantic Trade and 
Investment Partnership that we began negotiating this week with the EU 
could support hundreds of thousands of additional jobs and strengthen 
our international competitiveness. But T-TIP is about more than our 
economic underpinnings. T-TIP is also a political and strategic 
investment in our shared future and our effectiveness as global leaders 
in the 21st century. When we break down trade barriers between us, we 
also strengthen our ability to raise international standards in favor 
of free and open societies.
    We must also focus on the unfinished work within Europe. Today, we 
have a real chance to capitalize on changing attitudes and 
circumstances to address the 40-year-old division of Cyprus. Kosovo and 
Serbia have made important commitments toward long-term reconciliation, 
thanks to the good offices of EU High Representative Ashton. We need to 
support the full implementation of these agreements, and with them, the 
integration of both countries into European structures. Croatia's 
acceptance into the European Union last week sets a powerful example 
for other Balkan States. And we cannot break faith with other members 
of our European and Eurasian family who have been trapped for too long 
in frozen conflicts and territorial disputes.
    We must also do more to defend the universal values that bind us. 
While all states in the EUR region hold elections and most have 
democratic constitutions, the quality of democracy and the rule of law 
in Europe and Eurasia is gravely uneven, and in some key places, the 
trends are moving in the wrong direction. Too many citizens do not feel 
safe criticizing their governments, running for office or advancing a 
vibrant civil society. In too many places, press freedom is stifled, 
courts are rigged and governments put their thumbs on the scales of 
justice. If, as a TransAtlantic community, we aspire to support and 
mentor other nations who want to live in justice, peace, and freedom, 
we must be equally vigilant about completing that process in our own 
space. Our democratic values are just as vital a pillar of our strength 
and global leadership as our militaries and our economies.
    We must also continue to work together beyond our shores to advance 
security, stability, justice and freedom. As the President has said so 
many times, Europe is our global partner of first resort. Our 
investment together in a safe, developing, democratic Afghanistan is 
just one example. Even as we wind down the ISAF combat mission in 2014, 
we will keep our promise to support the ANSF and Afghanistan's 
political and economic development. More than a decade of deploying 
together in that tough terrain has also made our NATO alliance more 
capable, more expeditionary and better able to partner with countries 
across the globe. As we look to future demands on our great alliance--
and they will come--we must build on that experience, not allow it to 
atrophy. In these difficult budget times, that will require working 
even harder to get more defense bang for our buck, Euro, pound, krone 
and zloty with increased pooling, sharing and partnering to ensure NATO 
remains the world's premier defense alliance and a capable coordinator 
of global security missions, when required.
    America's work with European partners and the EU across Africa, in 
Asia, on climate and on so many other global challenges must also 
continue. Today, the most urgent focus of common effort should be in 
Europe's own backyard and an area of vital interest to us all: the 
broader Middle East and North Africa. From Libya, to Tunisia, to Egypt, 
to Lebanon, to Iran, to Syria, to our work in support of Middle East 
peace, the United States and Europe are strongest when we share the 
risk, the responsibility and in many cases, the financial burden of 
promoting positive change. When we join forces with Canada, our Gulf 
partners and others, the effect is even stronger.
    When we can, we must also work effectively with Russia to solve 
global problems. With respect to Iran, DPRK policy, Afghanistan, 
counterterrorism and nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, we have 
seen important progress in the past 4 years, and the President is 
looking for opportunities to take our cooperation to the next level. 
However, we must also continue to be frank when we disagree with 
Russian policy, whether it's with regard to weapons sales to the Assad 
regime in Syria or the treatment of NGOs, civil society and political 
activists or journalists inside Russia. And we must encourage the next 
generation of Russians and Americans to reject zero sum thinking, and 
instead invest in the ties of business, culture, and people that will 
create opportunities for both of us.
    Finally, we must be attentive to the fast changing energy landscape 
of Europe and Eurasia, and the opportunities and challenges that 
brings. Europeans have taken important steps to diversify their energy 
market with new routes, new regulations, new power plants and LNG 
terminals, and investments in new energy sources. We welcome these 
developments, which are also creating opportunities for U.S. firms. If 
confirmed, I will work to ensure our companies continue to play a 
leading role in this dynamic market.
    As the President said in Berlin last month, our relationship with 
``Europe remains the cornerstone of our own freedom and security. 
Europe is our partner in everything we do . . . and our relationship is 
rooted in the enduring bonds . . . (of) . . . our common values.'' In 
every decade since World War II those bonds have been tested, 
challenged and in some quarters, doubted. In every decade, we have 
rolled up our sleeves with our European Allies and partners and beat 
the odds. These times of tight money, unfinished business at home and 
competing priorities abroad are as important as any we have faced. If 
confirmed, I pledge to work with all of you to seize the opportunities 
before us to revitalize and deepen our ties with Europe, and to ensure 
we continue to have the will, the trust, and the capability to advance 
our shared security and prosperity and to meet our many global 
challenges together.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    General Lute.

  STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS EDWARD LUTE, OF INDIANA, TO BE UNITED 
  STATES PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE COUNCIL OF THE NORTH 
                  ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

    General Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Johnson, and all the members of this committee.
    I am honored to be considered, today, for the position of 
Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. I am grateful for the confidence that President 
Obama has shown in my nomination. And, if confirmed, I pledge 
to work with all of you to represent, faithfully, America's 
interests in NATO, the alliance that, since 1949, has served as 
the cornerstone of our security interests.
    It is a privilege today to sit here and appear alongside 
Victoria Nuland and Daniel Baer, two distinguished colleagues. 
If we are confirmed, the three of us will join the corps of 
U.S. officials devoted, full-time, to securing our interests in 
Europe and beyond. I could have no better teammates.
    At the outset, I want to recognize and thank my wife, Jane, 
who joins me here today, along with my sister, Pat. Jane 
recently completed service as the Deputy Secretary at the 
Department of Homeland Security. Her public service also 
includes work in several foundations and over 6 years in the 
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Together, 
we have served the Federal Government for a combined total of 
nearly six decades, with both of us beginning as Army officers 
right out of college. We both took initial assignments in 
Germany at the height of the cold war; Jane in Berlin, and I 
along the East-West German border. I would not be here today 
without her support.
    This opportunity for me to serve once again with NATO began 
with that first assignment in Germany, and it continues to this 
day. I was in Germany when the wall fell, in 1989. I remember 
well that, on September 11, 2001, NATO, for the first time 
ever, invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty in response to 
the terrorist attacks here in America, demonstrating that an 
attack on one is an attack on all. Later, I commanded U.S. 
forces in NATO's Peace Enforcement Mission in Kosovo, an 
important crisis response on the periphery of NATO. Most 
recently, I have spent the last 6 years in the White House, 
focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where, again, NATO 
has played important roles. If confirmed, I look forward to 
this opportunity to proudly serve my country again in NATO.
    Much has changed in Europe over the past several decades, 
but there has been one cornerstone for transatlantic security: 
NATO. Large multilateral institutions like NATO do not adapt 
quickly or easily; yet, in the last 20 years, we have seen NATO 
adjust to the end of the cold war, expand its membership to 
former enemies, extend its reach to threats on its periphery, 
and adapt its defense structures to emerging threats. No one 
would have believed, in 1989 when the wall fell, that NATO 
would conduct operations in places like the Balkans, 
Afghanistan, and Libya.
    Serious challenges lie ahead for NATO. The key operational 
challenge is Afghanistan, where NATO leads, today, a coalition 
of 50 nations. We are on a path to pass full security 
responsibility to Afghan forces by the end of 2014, next year. 
This is a path set by NATO and the Afghans, together, at the 
Lisbon summit in late 2010, and it was refined last year in 
Chicago.
    Several weeks ago, the Afghans reached a very important 
strategic milestone along that path as they assumed the lead 
for security across the entire country, with NATO passing into 
a support-and-advisory role. But, the military campaign is only 
one part along this path, and it represents only one variable 
in a very complex equation that includes: political transition 
that culminates next April in the Presidential elections; it 
includes economic transition, which has Afghanistan adjusting 
to the reduced presence of Western forces; it includes a 
political process that explores the potential of the Afghan 
Government talking to the Taliban, with an effort to bring an 
Afghan solution to this conflict. Finally, Afghanistan lives in 
a very tough neighborhood, and regional dynamics will play a 
major role.
    None of this work will be completed in the next 18 months, 
by December 2014, so NATO and the United States are both 
planning for a military presence beyond 2014, with a mission to 
continue to train, advise, and assist Afghan forces. Such a 
post-2014 mission requires a political agreement with the 
Afghan Government, and our negotiators are making progress in 
advance of next year's Afghan election season. Afghanistan has 
been NATO's largest operation. Drawing it to a responsible 
close will be a significant challenge in the next several 
years.
    NATO also faces a fundamental policy challenge, and that is 
the growing gap between NATO's mission and the resources allies 
commit to fulfilling that mission. This ends/means gap is 
centered on the imbalance between America's defense resources 
committed to the alliance and those of the other allies. All 28 
members of the alliance benefit from that membership. All 28 
have to contribute equitably. This is especially true as NATO 
recovers from a decade of operations in Afghanistan and faces 
new challenges, like missile defense and cyber security.
    There are ways to approach this challenge, including smart 
defense, pooling and sharing high-end resources, and exploring 
specialization among allies, and, finally, nurturing 
partnerships that extend the reach of NATO beyond the core 28 
members. But, this ends/means gap may be the most severe 
challenge the alliance has faced since the end of the cold war.
    NATO operates on a firm foundation of shared democratic 
values that bind together the 28 member nations. Because of 
these shared values, I am confident that NATO can, today, 
fulfill its three core tasks--collective defense, crisis 
management, and cooperative security--while also addressing the 
challenges of the future. If confirmed, I will do my best to 
represent American interests in the most successful, most 
durable alliance in history, the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. I ask for this committee's support.
    [The prepared statement of General Lute follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Douglas Lute

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and all the 
members of this committee. I am honored to be considered for the 
position of Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO). I am grateful for the confidence that President 
Obama has shown in me by this nomination. If confirmed, I pledge to 
work with all of you to represent faithfully America's interests in 
NATO, the alliance that since 1949 has served as the cornerstone of our 
security interests.
    It is a privilege to appear alongside Victoria Nuland and Daniel 
Baer, two distinguished colleagues. If we are confirmed, the three of 
us will join the core of U.S. officials devoted full time to securing 
our interests in Europe and beyond. I could have no better teammates.
    At the outset, I want to recognize and thank my wife, Jane, who 
joins me here today. Jane recently completed service as the Deputy 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Her public service 
also includes work in several foundations and over 6 years in the 
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Together we have 
served the Federal Government for a combined total of over six decades, 
with both of us beginning as Army officers right out of college. We 
both took initial assignments in Germany, Jane in Berlin and I along 
the East-West German border, at the height of the cold war.
    This opportunity for me to serve once again with NATO began with 
that first assignment and continues to this day. I was in Germany when 
the Wall fell in 1989. I saw Germans from the east walk across no-mans-
land to buy fresh fruit in the west. I remember well that on September 
11, 2001, NATO for the first time ever invoked Article V of the 
Washington Treaty in response to the terrorist attacks here in America, 
demonstrating that an attack on one is an attack on all. Later I 
commanded the U.S. forces in NATO's peace enforcement mission in 
Kosovo, a crisis response mission on the periphery of NATO. Most 
recently, I have spent the last 6 years in the White House focused on 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where again NATO has played key 
roles. If confirmed, I look forward proudly to this opportunity to 
serve my country again in NATO.
    Much has changed in Europe over the past several decades, but there 
has been one cornerstone for trans-Atlantic security--NATO. Large 
multilateral institutions like NATO do not adapt quickly or easily. Yet 
in the last 20 years we have seen NATO adjust to the end of the cold 
war, expand its membership to former enemies, extend its reach to 
threats on its periphery, and adapt its defense structures to emerging 
threats. No one would have believed in 1989 when the Wall fell that 
NATO would conduct operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya.
    Serious challenges lie ahead for NATO. The key operational 
challenge is Afghanistan, where NATO leads a coalition of 50 nations. 
We are on a path to pass full responsibility to Afghan forces by the 
end of 2014, a path set by NATO and the Afghans at the Lisbon summit in 
late 2010 and refined last year at the Chicago summit. Several weeks 
ago the Afghans reached a strategic milestone along that path as they 
assumed the lead for security across the entire country, with NATO 
passing into a support and advisory role. But the military campaign is 
only one part of a complex equation to stabilize Afghanistan and ensure 
it is not a safe haven for al-Qaeda. The outcome will not rely solely 
on NATO. Perhaps most important, Afghan political transition culminates 
next April in the Presidential elections. Economic transition must 
adjust to the reduced presence of NATO forces. A political process that 
explores the possibility of Afghan Government talks with the Taliban is 
struggling at its outset. Finally, Afghanistan lives in a tough 
neighborhood, and regional dynamics will play a major role. None of 
this work will be fully completed in the next 18 months, so NATO and 
the United States are planning for a military presence beyond 2014, 
with the mission to continue to train-advise-assist the Afghan forces. 
Such a post-2014 mission requires a political agreement with the Afghan 
Government and our negotiators are making progress in advance of the 
Afghan election season. Afghanistan has been NATO's largest operation. 
Drawing it to a responsible close will be a significant challenge in 
the next several years.
    NATO also faces a fundamental policy challenge--the growing gap 
between NATO's mission and the resources allies commit to fulfilling 
that mission. This ends-means gap is centered on the imbalance between 
America's defense resources committed to the alliance and those of 
other allies. All 28 members benefit from the alliance; all 28 have to 
contribute equitably. This is especially true as NATO recovers from a 
decade of operations in Afghanistan and faces new challenges like 
missile defense and cyber security. There are ways to approach this 
challenge, including ``smart defense,'' pooling and sharing high-end 
resources, exploring specialization among allies, and nurturing 
partnerships beyond the core 28 members. This ends-means gap may be the 
most severe challenge the alliance has faced since the end of the cold 
war.
    As we look to the future, the alliance is committed to keeping open 
the door to NATO membership. Our position is clear: Membership must be 
earned. Candidate nations must meet standards.
    Beyond adding new members, NATO effectively extends its reach 
through partnerships based on reciprocity, mutual benefit, and mutual 
respect. Today NATO's partners include countries from the Middle East, 
Africa, and from across Asia. These partnerships broaden and increase 
the flexibility of NATO-led coalitions, expand and diversify NATO's 
political influence, and are a vehicle to emphasize common values. 
Recent NATO operations in Afghanistan and Libya have benefited from 
significant partner contributions.
    NATO's partnership with Russia--the NATO-Russia Council--provides 
an important venue for frank political dialogue and can lead to 
practical cooperation, as in Afghanistan today. Areas of cooperation 
include counterterrorism, counternarcotics and nonproliferation. This 
partnership also faces challenges including missile defense cooperation 
and defense transparency. The NATO-Russia Council remains an important 
channel to address mutual interests and potential areas of cooperation.
    NATO operates on a firm foundation of shared democratic values that 
bind together the 28 member nations. Because of these shared values, I 
am confident NATO can today fulfill its core tasks of collective 
defense, crisis management and cooperative security, while addressing 
the challenges of the future. If confirmed, I will do my best to 
represent American interests in the most successful, most durable 
alliance in history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I ask for 
this committee's support.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, General.
    Dr. Baer.

   STATEMENT OF DANIEL BROOKS BAER, OF COLORADO, TO BE U.S. 
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION 
                           IN EUROPE

    Dr. Baer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and 
members of this committee.
    It is an honor to come before you as the President's 
nominee to serve as the United States Permanent Representative 
to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and 
I am grateful for the confidence that President Obama and 
Secretary Kerry have expressed through this nomination.
    I am humbled to be here in front of you, and also humbled 
to be here with two great American public servants, Ambassador 
Nuland and Ambassador-designate Lute. If we are confirmed, I 
look forward to working with each of them, and with all of you, 
to advance U.S. interests.
    I have worked closely with Toria over the last few years, 
and she has been, not only a great friend, but a great partner 
in fighting for human rights. I would also like to acknowledge 
my family--my parents, thank them for the investment of love 
and resources in my future; my wonderful siblings; my sister, 
Marrett, who is here today--and my partner, Brian, who, though 
seated three rows behind me, is always standing beside me.
    Mr. Chairman, for the past 4 years, I have had the 
privilege of serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State 
Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In 
this capacity, I have welcomed the opportunity to contribute to 
a long tradition, sustained through both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, of putting human rights at the 
center of U.S. foreign policy. This experience has deepened my 
conviction that human rights must be at the core of any 
successful long-term strategy for peace and security, and that 
U.S. leadership is as crucial today as it was when Eleanor 
Roosevelt helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights almost 70 years ago. There is no genuine security or 
lasting peace in the absence of respect for human rights and 
adherence to the rule of law. Recent history has shown us that 
the apparent stability afforded by repressive regimes is 
illusory, and, because of this, when states violate the rights 
of their citizens and fail to uphold international obligations, 
it is not merely internal affairs, but the rightful concern of 
the entire international community.
    The OSCE is unique in having embraced a comprehensive 
approach to security at its founding and is the only regional 
security organization that places the political/military, 
economic and environmental, and human dimensions of security on 
an equal footing. The 57 participating states have recognized 
that whether and how an OSCE state is implementing its 
commitments is a legitimate concern for all participating 
states. This principle is part of a broader framework of highly 
elaborated human rights, cooperative security, and rule-of-law 
norms that are reflected in the mandates of OSCE institutions 
and field operations, enabling them to respond to a range of 
challenges, from attacks on media freedom to ethnic tensions 
across the OSCE, from Vancouver to Vladivostok. From election 
observation to arms control, military transparency, and 
confidence-building regimes, from the quiet diplomacy of the 
High Commissioner on National Minorities to the exchange of 
technical expertise in combating trafficking, supporting women 
entrepreneurs, or maintaining border security, the OSCE's 
resources encompass expertise and established habits of 
cooperation that cannot be replaced, recreated, or duplicated.
    Challenges to security, human rights, and rule of law are 
prevalent across the OSCE space, including intolerance and 
xenophobia, corruption, flawed elections, declining military 
transparency, and unresolved conflicts. Some participating 
states are failing to uphold and implement their commitments, 
including as they relate to fundamental issues, such as media 
freedom and the role of civil society. This is troubling, but 
it cannot, and does not, change the fundamental truth on which 
the OSCE is based, that the three dimensions of security are 
interconnected and must be advanced together. Shortcomings 
reinforce the fact that the work goes on and that we need the 
OSCE to continue to address challenges in a practical, 
principled manner in order to achieve true comprehensive 
security for all citizens throughout the OSCE space.
    If confirmed, in all my efforts my priority will be to 
leverage and strengthen the OSCE as an institution that 
efficiently and effectively advances American and European 
interests.
    Ambassador Nuland and Ambassador-designate Lute have laid 
out the enduring and unquestionable U.S. interests in a strong, 
democratic, prosperous, and secure Europe as a central 
component of maintaining our own national security in the 21st 
century. By supporting robust and deep transatlantic ties 
through our bilateral diplomacy, maintaining the strength and 
agility of our NATO alliance, and continuing to advance 
transatlantic cooperation through a comprehensive approach to 
security issues like those at the center of the OSCE's work, 
the U.S./European relationship will remain a foundation for 
progress toward a more peaceful and democratic world.
    Thank you again for having me. If confirmed, I will look 
forward to working with members of this committee and, of 
course, with the Helsinki Commission. And I welcome your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Baer follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Daniel B. Baer

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the 
committee.
    It is an honor to come before this committee as the President's 
nominee to serve as the United States Permanent Representative to the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and I am 
grateful for the confidence that President Obama and Secretary Kerry 
have expressed through this nomination.
    I am humbled to be here in front of you, and also humbled to be in 
such good company, with Ambassador Nuland and General Lute. I look 
forward to working with each of them--and with you--to advance U.S. 
interests if we are confirmed. I have worked closely with Toria over 
the last few years, and she has been not only a great friend but also a 
great partner in fighting for human rights.
    Mr. Chairman, for the past 4 years I have had the privilege of 
serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department's 
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In this capacity, I have 
welcomed the opportunity to contribute to a long tradition--through 
both Democratic and Republican administrations--of putting human rights 
at the center of U.S. foreign policy and to be part of that team that 
helps shape our response to emerging human rights challenges, such as 
growing threats to Internet freedom.
    This experience has deepened my conviction that human rights must 
be at the core of any successful long-term strategy for peace and 
security, and that U.S. leadership in advancing human rights is as 
critical today as it was when Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights almost 70 years ago. Today, no 
serious observer can doubt the link between human rights and security. 
We know that respect for human rights cannot be relegated to the ``nice 
to have, but not essential'' category, because there is no genuine 
security in the absence of respect for human rights and adherence to 
the rule of law. Recent history has shown us that the apparent 
stability afforded by repressive regimes is often proven illusory. And 
we know that because of this, when states violate the rights of their 
citizens and fail to uphold their international human rights 
obligations, it is not merely ``internal affairs'' but the rightful 
concern of the entire international community.
    The OSCE is unique in having embraced this comprehensive approach 
to security at its founding, and is the only regional security 
organization that places the human, economic and environmental, and 
political-military dimensions of security on an equal footing. The 57 
participating States of the OSCE have recognized that whether and how 
an OSCE State is implementing its OSCE commitments is a legitimate 
concern for all participating States.
    This principle is part of a broader framework of highly elaborated 
human rights, cooperative security, and rule of law norms that are 
reflected in the mandates of the OSCE institutions and field 
operations, enabling them to respond to a range of challenges--from 
attacks on media freedom to ethnic tensions--across the OSCE--from 
Vancouver to Vladivostok. From election observation to arms control and 
military transparency and confidence-building regimes; from the quiet 
diplomacy of the High Commissioner on National Minorities to the 
exchange of technical expertise in combating trafficking, promoting 
good governance in the public and private sector, supporting women 
entrepreneurs, or maintaining border security; the OSCE's resources 
encompass expertise and established habits of cooperation that cannot 
be replaced, recreated or duplicated.
    Over almost four decades--from its origin at the signing of the 
Helsinki Final Act in 1975, to its emergence as the OSCE in 1990 when 
Europe and Eurasia were undergoing deep and turbulent transformation, 
we have witnessed enormous progress toward our goal of a Europe whole, 
free, and at peace. But there is still more work to be done.
    The ``Helsinki+40'' process, a 3-year framework for action leading 
up to the 40th anniversary in 2015 of the signing of Helsinki, provides 
an opportunity for participating States to reaffirm existing OSCE 
commitments and to bolster the Organization across all three 
dimensions. Helsinki+40 should promote trust and mutual confidence in 
the political-military realm, help revitalize conventional arms control 
as well as confidence and security-building regimes, and seek to 
address the protracted conflicts in the OSCE space. The security 
afforded to OSCE participating States is often uneven, particularly in 
the so-called ``gray zones'' of Europe. We should aim to rebuild an 
environment at the OSCE where military transparency is the norm, 
creating a more stable security environment for all.
    In the economic and environmental dimension, we will maximize fully 
the OSCE's unique position to leverage the connection between human 
rights, accountable and responsive government, and economic prosperity. 
We will continue to promote good governance and prioritize the 
organization's work to improve trade and transport connections, notably 
at border crossings, where good governance practices and efficient 
customs procedures are helping to increase trade volumes between 
participating States and improve income generation for small business 
entrepreneurs.
    If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues across the 
administration, as well as in Congress, to advance a vision that 
preserves what we value most about the OSCE, including its 
comprehensive approach to security, while developing a strategic 
framework that addresses 21st century challenges, leveraging U.S. 
resources together with those of our partners to achieve results. And 
even as we aim to rebuild an environment at the OSCE where military 
transparency is the norm, the OSCE can leverage its security 
cooperation experience and knowledge, reaching out to other regions on 
measures for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
confidence- and security-building regimes.
    Challenges to security, human rights and rule of law are prevalent 
across the OSCE space including intolerance and xenophobia, state-
sponsored corruption, flawed elections, declining military 
transparency, and unresolved conflicts. Some participating States are 
failing to uphold and implement their commitments, including as they 
relate to fundamental issues such as media freedom, investigative 
journalism and the role of civil society. This is troubling. But it 
cannot and does not change the fundamental truth on which the OSCE is 
based: that the three dimensions of security are interconnected and 
must be advanced together. Shortcomings reinforce the fact that the 
work goes on, and that we need the OSCE to continue to address 
challenges in a practical, principled manner, in order to achieve true, 
comprehensive security for all citizens throughout the OSCE space.
    I know that some experts and some OSCE states have expressed doubts 
about the Organization's efficiency and effectiveness. We need to make 
a clear-eyed assessment of the OSCE and address these concerns. We 
should deal with challenges in a practical way that reaffirms our 
shared values and principles. The OSCE remains the only regional 
organization that includes all of Europe and Eurasia as well as Canada, 
the United States, and most recently Mongolia. Though its scope can 
make consensus difficult, it also makes the organization that much more 
powerful when we find ways to address challenges together.
    And we should remember that when shared political will exists, the 
results are impressive. The OSCE's role in facilitating the peaceful 
participation in Serbian elections for dual nationals in Kosovo last 
year is a case in point. Based on the OSCE's success in that 
challenging mission, the EU has called on the organization to help 
administer local elections in northern Kosovo this fall, a key aspect 
of the recent normalization agreement between Serbia and Kosovo.
    Looking to the decade ahead, the OSCE has the potential to play a 
pivotal role in advancing interests we share with OSCE participating 
States, including support for democratic development, economic 
integration, and security in Central Asia, as well as contributing to 
ongoing transitions on the periphery of the OSCE space among our 
Mediterranean Partners and in Afghanistan. The OSCE has expertise and 
experience that is directly relevant to our Partners' aspirations.
    In all of my efforts, if confirmed, my priority will be to 
strengthen the OSCE as an institution that efficiently and effectively 
advances American and European interests in maintaining and deepening 
comprehensive security. The sustained commitment of the United States 
and other like-minded democracies is essential to the establishment of 
rights-respecting and sustainable institutions, military transparency 
and cooperative security, increased engagement with civil society, and 
greater adherence to rule of law and respect for human rights across 
the OSCE space. No state can achieve this outcome alone; we need strong 
partners and organizations such as the OSCE.
    Ambassador Nuland and Ambassador-designate Lute have laid out the 
enduring and unquestionable U.S. interest in a strong, democratic, 
prosperous and secure Europe as a central component of maintaining our 
own national security in the 21st century. By supporting robust and 
deep transatlantic ties through our bilateral diplomacy; maintaining 
the strength and agility of our NATO alliance; and continuing to 
advance trans-Atlantic cooperation through a comprehensive approach to 
security issues like those at the center of the OSCE's work, the U.S.-
European relationship will remain a foundation for progress toward a 
more peaceful and democratic world.
    Thank you again for having me and I welcome your questions.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, again, to all of our nominees.
    Let me start with questions to you, Ambassador Nuland. Let 
me draw on your years of expertise with respect to Russia. This 
is an immensely important relationship; and, given all of the 
attention on the disputes we have, it sometimes belies the fact 
that we are actually at work with them on a variety of issues 
in which we have deep mutual interests, whether it be 
antiterrorism efforts, missile defense, or the work we have 
done together with respect to Afghanistan.
    That being said, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we 
cannot let them off the hook with respect to the fairly severe 
downward turn that the Kremlin's take on civil society has 
undergone. As I have said before, if you are sitting in front 
of a court today accused of political crimes, you are less 
likely to be acquitted than you were during the Great Purge.
    So, we can attack the issue of United States-Russia 
relations from a number of perspectives, but let me ask you to 
talk about this. What are the right pressure points upon Russia 
to try to turn around, I think, this very detrimental turn that 
has come in the way in which Putin and others are treating 
civil society and political dissidents?
    Ambassador Nuland. Well, thank you, Senator. I certainly 
share your concern about the internal political environment in 
Russia. As I said at the outset, I agree with you, as well, 
that, wherever we can, as we tried to do with the Soviet Union, 
we have to try to work with Russia in our common interests. And 
we have had some success in that regard, particularly on some 
of the foreign policy issues that we share.
    With regard to our support for democratic change, for 
reform, for those speaking out for a pluralistic society with 
rule of law, we have to, despite the environment, continue to 
do what we can to work with those Russians who are willing to 
work with us. If we are not able to support them as fully as we 
used to inside Russia, we still need to make support available 
in other ways. And I will, if confirmed, be eager to work with 
all of you on this committee to look for more ways to do that.
    In addition, we have to speak out, as you said and as I 
said in my opening, when we disagree. And we have to work more 
intensively and more cohesively with our European allies and 
partners, because, when we speak together about our concerns, 
our voice is even stronger.
    Thanks.
    Senator Murphy. Let me ask you one question about the trade 
agreement. How worried are you about the ability of Europe to 
be on the same page throughout these negotiations? We have 
seen, just over the past week, France seems to--at every turn, 
trying to--try to find an excuse to postpone or maneuver the 
beginning stages of these negotiations. There are two sets of 
negotiations happening; one between European nations and one 
between the United States and Europe. What is your role, in 
coordination with the Trade Representative, in trying to make 
sure that Europe speaks with one voice throughout these 
negotiations?--which is the only way that we are going to end 
up getting a product which is as big and bold as we all hope we 
can get.
    Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. Well, you are right 
that, on the one hand, it is a bilateral trade agreement 
between the United States and the European Union, but it is 
obviously a trade agreement between the United States and the 
28 member states of the European Union, if we are able to be 
successful. So, we do have an interest in the European position 
remaining clear, remaining cohesive. I think we have a role to 
play, at the State Department, through our 28 embassies, in 
continuing to help make the case, along with our colleagues in 
USTR who lead these negotiations, for a trade agreement that 
will increase jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, and will 
reduce barriers. We need to be coordinated in the way we use 
our public diplomacy and the way we work with business groups 
on both sides of the pond.
    And, as I have said in some of my calls to meet some of you 
in advance of this hearing, I also hope that we will have 
bipartisan support in the Senate and in the House for working 
closely with parliamentarians in Europe, and particularly with 
Members of the European Parliament, who will have 
responsibilities for ratifying this agreement. I know some of 
them were here to see some of you, just in the last week, and 
we thank you for taking the time to do that.
    But, we are going to have to provide a clear sense of the 
landscape in Europe and where we have points of agreement, 
where we have difficulties emerging in member states from our 
embassies. And we are going to have to provide a strong 
American voice out in Europe through our embassies. And I look 
forward to supporting USTR and Mr. Froman in that regard, from 
EUR, and also working with our Under Secretary for Economic 
Affairs at the Department.
    Senator Murphy. Well, Senator Johnson and I have already 
led several of those conversations with our parliamentary 
colleagues from Europe. We hope that we will continue that.
    General Lute, I think, today there is only about three or 
four nations in NATO that are at the targeted percentage of GDP 
dedicated to defense. And clearly, the way things are going 
with respect to the European economy, we probably cannot bet on 
that number getting any better. So, we are having a 
conversation, one that occurred in Chicago at the last summit, 
about specialization.
    The Europeans, though, believe that that has to be a two-
way street, that if they are going to be asked to specialize, 
so should we, and that we might, as part of that negotiation, 
consider giving up some of our capabilities on, maybe, some 
nonintegral defense platforms, to our European allies.
    Talk to me about both the European and the American will to 
get into a serious conversation about specialization, which 
ultimately could solve the problem, today, of the United States 
picking up 75 percent of the tab for NATO.
    General Lute. Thank you, Senator. I think the 
specialization argument largely hinges on different views of a 
balance--different views among the 28--of a balance between 
full-spectrum ability by each of the 28 to fulfill their 
Article V commitments for mutual defense. And, on the one hand, 
those capabilities, balanced against, as you--suggesting, 
increased efficiency across the 28, by way of specialization--
national specialization.
    If you look at the 28 allies today, clearly the United 
States has full-spectrum capacity in every defense realm. But, 
there are only a couple of other allies that even approach 
that. And even those who approach the full-spectrum capability 
can do so for only limited durations before they again rely on 
us.
    I think the Secretary General and NATO already have begun 
to move down the path of some specialization. You see this by 
way of the pooling of resources, especially high-end, high-
tech, expensive niche capabilities, like the airborne--or, air-
ground surveillance system, based on the pooling of resources 
to buy the Global Hawk surveillance aircraft; you see it with 
AWACs; you see it with the C-17 pool of lift resources.
    I must tell you that, in my view, we should not relent on 
the 2-percent goal. We should let no one off the hook, that 
equal membership means equal contributions. And 2 percent is 
the standard. But, at the same time, we should pursue these 
kinds of efficiencies, that it could include national 
specialization, because the reality is that the economic 
pressures across the 28 members is not likely to relent in the 
next 5-plus years.
    Senator Murphy. Including on this Nation, as well.
    General Lute. Exactly.
    Senator Murphy. I have run out of time, so I will turn it 
over to Senator Johnson.
    I will just mention that we may have votes, at some point 
over the course of this hearing. We hope that not to be the 
case, but, if we do have time for a second round--we will have 
to inquire--you, Dr. Baer.
    Turn it over to Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And again, I would like to thank all the nominees for 
taking time to meet with me. I enjoyed the conversations. And 
again, I appreciate your service to the country.
    And, Ambassador Nuland, I particularly want to say thank 
you for coming in, you know, during, kind of, the height of the 
talking-points controversies, sitting down with me in my office 
and explaining a few things.
    Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of questions that 
still remain about what happened following Benghazi, and, quite 
honestly, even before it. For example, we still have not been 
given the names or access to the survivors. I asked General 
Dempsey, in a Budget Committee hearing, you know, really what 
was the status of the commander in-extremis force that was on 
patrol in--or, actually, on training in Croatia. Still have not 
found out what the end-plus time was, in terms of their ready 
reaction. So, there are still an awful lot of questions.
    And, you know, during the hearings of this full committee, 
both--with Secretary Clinton, in response to my question, when 
she uttered, you know, ``At this point, what difference does it 
make?''--or, I guess, ``At--what difference, at this point, 
does it make?''--the question I have is, Do you believe that, 
in your role representing the United States Government, that 
the American people deserve the truth out of members of the 
administration?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, the American people deserve the 
truth, this body deserves the truth, those of us who were 
friends of the victims, as I was, deserve the truth, yes.
    Senator Johnson. In reviewing the change from the talking 
points--original talking points, and how they were sanitized--
it is pretty remarkable how sanitized they really were. And I 
know you had some participation in there. In your September 14 
e-mail, it states that changes made to the CIA talking points 
still, ``don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building 
leadership.'' Can you just tell me who that ``building 
leadership'' was? who you were referring to there?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I very much appreciate the 
opportunity to talk about my role in the talking-points issue. 
With your forbearance, I would like to give a little bit of 
background before I answer your specific question.
    First, I just want to make clear that, when I was reviewing 
these talking points, which was only on the Friday evening of 
September 14, they were not for a member of the administration 
to use; they were talking points that the CIA was proposing to 
give to members of the House Intelligence Committee----
    Senator Johnson. Correct.
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. To use. Right? So, that was 
the first thing.
    Second, I was not in a policy role in this job; I was in a 
communications role. So, my responsibilities were to ensure 
consistency of our public messaging, but not to make policy. 
So, I never edited these talking points, I never made changes. 
I simply said that I thought that policy people needed to look 
at them.
    Also by way of background, by the time Friday came around, 
as spokesperson for the Department, I had already given three 
public briefings on Benghazi. The first was on Wednesday 
evening. I gave a background briefing in which I clearly said 
that this had been a complex attack, it was an attack by 
extremists. Then I gave two briefings at the podium: my regular 
midday briefing on Thursday, and my midday briefing on Friday. 
In those briefings, I was on agreed interagency talking points 
in which I noted, again and again, our firm commitment to 
investigate, fully, what had happened. But, I declined to give 
any more details, citing the need to have a full investigation, 
and particularly the integrity of the FBI's investigation.
    So, when I saw these talking points on Friday night, just a 
few hours after that had been my guidance, they indicated a 
significant evolution beyond what we had been saying at noon. 
And it was on that basis that I raised three questions, in my 
communications role.
    The first was--and, again, these were for Members of the 
House to use, not for an administration official to use--so my 
first question was with regard to consistency. It struck me as 
strange that we were giving talking points to Members of the 
House that went considerably further than what we, in the 
administration, had been saying at that point. And I felt that 
if House Members were going to say this, we, government 
communicators, should be able to say it, too.
    The second was that I had been under very tight guidance 
that we must do and say nothing that would prejudice the 
integrity of the FBI's investigation, so I wanted to make sure 
that the CIA had actually checked with the FBI and Justice, and 
that they were comfortable with these talking points.
    The third concern that I had was with regard to the second-
to-last paragraph of the talking points, as I was looking at 
them, which made reference to past agency reporting about the 
situation in Benghazi. And, frankly, Senator, I looked at them, 
and they struck me as a partial rendering of some of the 
background information behind the situation, and I was 
concerned that giving them to the--out this way would encourage 
Members of Congress and members of the public to draw 
inaccurate conclusions about our respective agency's role in 
the entirety of the Benghazi issue. So, I did not change them--
--
    Senator Johnson. OK, let us not----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. I did not edit them----
    Senator Johnson. OK, I appreciate that, but----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Yes.
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. I think your specific quote 
in your e-mail about that penultimate point was that you were 
concerned that Members of Congress would beat the State 
Department. So, you were a little more concerned about the 
State Department getting beat up by Members of Congress than 
potentially getting the truth out to the American people. I 
mean, that would be my concern, in terms of interpretation of 
that.
    Ambassador Nuland. Sir, as I said, my concern was that this 
was not an accurate representation of the----
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. OK.
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Full picture----
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. But, again, let us----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. That they were----
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. Just get back to some facts.
    Ambassador Nuland. Yes.
    Senator Johnson. So, who would be the ``building 
leadership'' that were not--or that were not satisfied with the 
resolution of suggested changes to the talking points? Who 
would those people be?
    Ambassador Nuland. So, after my first e-mail with these 
concerns, the agency came back with another draft, but that 
draft continued to make reference to the past agency reporting 
that I thought was a prejudicial way of characterizing it. So, 
it was on that basis that I raised objections again.
    Senator Johnson. OK, but----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. And here, this was----
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. Ambassador Nuland, I am 
running out of time, so, you know, I----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Yes.
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. I just really wanted some--
just facts. I mean, who were the ``building leadership'' that 
you are referring to that was not satisfied with the suggested 
changes? Who would those individuals be?
    Ambassador Nuland. Again, I----
    Senator Johnson. And then, further--because I will--the 
next question would be, Who was at the deputy's meeting? Who 
were those people?
    Ambassador Nuland. With regard to ``building leadership,'' 
I was concerned that all of my bosses at the policy level 
would--needed to look at these to see if they agreed with me 
that they were----
    Senator Johnson. And who would those bosses be?
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Potentially inaccurate.
    Senator Johnson. What about names? I mean, who were those 
individuals?
    Ambassador Nuland. Well, obviously, as I reported to the 
full spectrum of Under Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries and 
everybody----
    Senator Johnson. Were there particular----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. At the Department----
    Senator Johnson. Were there particular people that were 
concerned about the changes that were not being made?
    Ambassador Nuland. The only person that I consulted with 
that night was my regular reporting channel, with regard to 
issues that I was not able to solve at my level. So, our 
regular procedure, when I, as spokesperson, could not solve an 
issue at my level, was--or when I thought that there needed to 
be more policy input versus communications input--was to send 
my concerns up to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. That is 
what I did that night. I----
    Senator Johnson. And that----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Did not----
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. Person is?
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Consult with anybody else.
    Senator Johnson. And that person is?
    Ambassador Nuland. At the time, that was Jake Sullivan.
    Senator Johnson. OK, thank you.
    Ambassador Nuland. And he is on the e-mails, as you can see 
them, as they----
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Were released to you.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me thank all three of our nominees for their 
extraordinary service to our country over many years. And we 
thank you for your willingness to assume these new 
responsibilities. And I particularly want to acknowledge your 
families, because this is a family sacrifice, and we very much 
appreciate your willingness, at this important juncture in 
American diplomacy, of taking on these responsibilities.
    I want to spend a moment, since I have Mr. Baer and 
Ambassador Nuland here, to discuss the Helsinki Commission and 
human rights. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator 
McCain, on this day, where, as you might have seen, the Russian 
courts held Mr. Magnitsky guilty of certain crimes; whereas, 
the international community knows full well that Mr. Magnitsky 
was the victim.
    My question, basically, to Mr. Baer and Ambassador Nuland, 
is that--we have worked very closely together, the 
administration and Congress, on human rights issues, good-
governance issues, on economic-stability issues for countries 
in Europe, Central Asia, and partner countries within the OSCE, 
all coming under, Ambassador Nuland, your portfolio in the new 
position on which you have been nominated, and to, Mr. Baer, 
your responsibility in Vienna. I would like you to comment as 
to how important you see the relationship to the Helsinki 
Commission and to the Congress in the work that you do to 
advance the priorities of America in its participation in the 
OSCE.
    Dr. Baer. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, and thank 
you for your leadership on human rights across the world. The 
last time I testified for you was on Asia; and so, it is a 
pleasure to have a conversation about a different part of the 
world this time. And thank you for your leadership on the 
Helsinki Commission, as well.
    I see the Helsinki Commission as one of the unique gifts 
that whoever is fortunate enough to be serving as the U.S. 
Ambassador to the OSCE has, because, if confirmed, it would be 
a real boon to be able to have that institutional connection to 
Congress that is really unique in the world. And, as you know, 
there is somebody from the Commission who serves on the staff 
of the mission in Vienna. There is also a detailee from the 
State Department who serves on the staff of the Commission. And 
there is, you know, an opportunity for open communication and 
collaboration on the full range of OSCE issues--political/
military, economic/environmental, human rights issues--on an 
ongoing basis. And, if confirmed, that is an asset that I would 
look forward to leveraging to the fullest extent.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    Ambassador Nuland. I fully agree with what Dr. Baer has 
said. In my long experience working with the Bureau and serving 
in Europe, Helsinki principles, the Commission, are the 
foundation of all we do together. They undergird our values. 
And when we stray from those values, all we need to do is look 
back at that document from 1975. So, I look forward to working 
on these issues with Dan, if confirmed, and with you, Senator, 
and with this whole committee.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you. One of the most challenging 
countries will be Russia. We have already talked about Russia a 
couple of times. Russia's participation within many 
international organizations has been challenging. They have 
committed to the Helsinki principles, but, at opportunities 
that they can undermine those principles, they have done that, 
whether it is election monitoring, whether it is the Magnitsky 
issues. Ambassador Nuland, as you are responsible, with the 
present administration, to develop agendas for the bilaterals 
and the international organizations, can you assure this 
committee that human rights with Russia will remain a high-
priority issue?
    Ambassador Nuland. Absolutely, Senator. I have never, in my 
career, been shy about speaking out about human rights, and I 
will certainly continue to do so, if confirmed.
    Senator Cardin. And, Mr. Baer, you are going to be 
confronted with some tough choices with Russia. They are going 
to say, ``You need our consensus; therefore, back off,'' on 
different issues. Will you commit to us that the United States 
will stand strong on the human rights basket within the OSCE as 
it relates to Russia?
    Dr. Baer. Senator, you have my full commitment to stand 
strong. It is part of the reason why I am interested in 
serving, is to stand strong for human rights.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    Ms. Nuland, I do not want to dwell on the Benghazi 
question, but the Benghazi question is there, and it has not 
been answered. And I have got some questions maybe you can help 
me with.
    The administration is focused on this--hiding behind a 
curtain of, ``Oh, well, we are doing an investigation.'' And 
they have done that since day one on this. And, when we get 
briefed on stuff, this is the only situation, in my experience 
here, that they have done this.
    Senator McCain and I sat in a briefing--what was it, a week 
after, or 10 days after? We had the Secretary of State, the 
head of the CIA, the number two in the FBI, and we asked them, 
``Who did this?'' Because that was the question. The American 
people wanted to know who did this. Was this a protest gone 
bad, or was this, indeed, a terrorist attack? Which, of course, 
we all know it was. These people told us they did not know. 
Now, we are 10 days out, and they are telling us that they do 
not know.
    Since then, we have run into a number of people who have 
said that they advised both the State Department and virtually 
every agency of government that it was, indeed, a terrorist 
attack, and they told them that in real time.
    When was the first time that you were advised that this was 
a terrorist attack?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I do not recall the precise 
date that we moved to being confident that it was a terrorist 
attack, but I do recall that the President made reference, in 
that first week, to a terrorist attack, and I believe that 
Secretary Clinton did, as well, on the Friday. So, my talking 
points would obviously have derived from what they were ready 
to say and what the intelligence indicated.
    Senator Risch. Well, of course, Susan Rice was on TV, 
telling people that, indeed, they did not know whether it was a 
terrorist attack. You are aware of that, are you not?
    Ambassador Nuland. I am aware of those programs, yes.
    Senator Risch. What other information did you have that 
this was a terrorist attack, and when did you get it, within 
the first 48 hours?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I just need to remind that I 
was not in a policy job, I was in a communications job at that 
time, so I was, frankly, not reading intelligence reporting, 
because it was difficult to keep one brain for the public and 
one brain privately. So, I was the conveyor of agreed policy 
and agreed decisionmaking about what we could say publicly. So, 
I really--you know, I think it was quite clear, when the 
President made his first reference to terror, that this is what 
we were dealing with. But, I never took an intelligence 
briefing, myself, that week.
    Senator Risch. Since then, have you gone back and looked at 
that intelligence information you had, that you had access to?
    Ambassador Nuland. Sir, it was not something that I was 
privy to, because I did not need it in the jobs I was in.
    Senator Risch. Did you help in choosing Susan Rice to speak 
on the Sunday talk shows?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Risch. Did you brief her at all?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Risch. You had no conversations with her prior to--
from the time of the attack until she appeared on the Sunday 
talk shows?
    Ambassador Nuland. I had no conversations with Susan Rice, 
herself. I had--we had interagency discussion, which her staff 
participated in, on the days that I briefed, which was the 
Wednesday, the Thursday, the Friday. I never spoke to her. I, 
frankly, never saw the talking points that were prepared for 
her, in final form. As I said, when I saw the talking points, 
they were for members of the House Intelligence Committee.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Baer, Senator Shaheen and I had the 
honor and privilege of representing the United States at the 
October 1st elections in Georgia, as overseers. And we came 
back, gave our reports, and what have you. I was interested in 
the report from the OSCE on the subsequent elections that took 
place in April. And I realize this is dated just July 9. It is 
dated Warsaw, July 9. Have you had an opportunity to review 
their report on this?
    Dr. Baer. I have not yet, sir.
    Senator Risch. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Nuland, the Georgians are concerned regarding getting 
back Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I met with our Ambassador 
yesterday, and we had a robust discussion about this. What is 
your view of that situation and the likelihood that they are 
going to get back those two provinces in the near future?
    Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for 
taking time to see Ambassador Nordland. I appreciate that very 
much. We, as a Department, appreciate that.
    Senator, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of 
Georgia is absolutely vital and essential. The United States 
has supported that from the moment of Georgia's independence. 
It is personally important to me. This was an issue that came 
up quite clearly when I was in the job as Special Envoy for 
Conventional Forces in Europe. And, as you may know, we were 
trying to look at how we might update that treaty, and we came 
to consensus within NATO about how that might be done. We came 
to consensus among most of the 35 members who were party to the 
treaty--36. But, we were unable to come to consensus with 
Russia because of the problems agreeing on territorial 
integrity issues, both with regard to Georgia and with regard 
to Moldova. And it was my judgment and my recommendation to the 
Secretary at that time that we call off the negotiations 
because it was not possible to settle the issue without 
impugning those basic principles of democracy in Europe.
    Senator Risch. Is there any plan, at this point, that you 
are putting forward, to assist the Georgians in recovering 
these two provinces? The Russians refuse to leave. Obviously, 
that is a huge issue. Do we have a plan in that regard?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, we have been active in 
supporting efforts that Tbilisi, that the Georgians themselves, 
have initiated to try to reach out to the people of Abkhazia 
and the people of South Ossetia so that they can have a better 
understanding that their future would be bright in Georgia, 
itself, and to impact and give them a better understanding of 
the conditions in that country. Because, as you may know, the 
media environment is controlled pretty heavily. We will 
continue to do that, and we will be--continue to be guided by 
Georgian efforts to work on these issues.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    My time is up. Thank all three of you for your service to 
the country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And, to the witnesses, my best. Thank you for your service.
    Senators do a lot of things, but there are actually not 
that many things we do that are part of our written job 
description in the constitution. Article II, Section 2 says 
that the President shall make appointments to executive 
positions, and that that shall be done with the advise and 
consent of the Senate. That same section stipulates that 
``advise and consent'' is supermajority when it is about 
treaties, but not supermajority when it is about appointments. 
I wish you the best as we move forward. And it is good to be 
about this work.
    General Lute, my questions are really going to be, for you, 
about Afghanistan, because of the karma of a Foreign Relations 
Committee meeting I was in earlier today, in the same room, 
that was all about Afghanistan. We heard a number of 
witnesses--Ambassador Dobbins, Dr. Peter Lavoy, Stephen Hadley, 
former National Security Advisor, Ahmad Nadery, from a 
elections foundation--Free and--Elections Foundation in 
Afghanistan, and Sarah Chayes, from the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace. I asked a basic, kind of, threshold 
question of the witnesses, to which they all agreed, and I 
wonder if you do, and that question was, Was it their opinion 
that a strong majority of the Afghanistan population wanted 
there to be a residual United States and NATO force, post 2014? 
And they all said that they believed a strong majority of the 
Afghan population wanted that. Is that your sense, as well?
    General Lute. It is, Senator. And all our opinion polling 
and our work across the political spectrum in Afghanistan 
supports that view.
    Senator Kaine. And just--I know, from your background, that 
you were--you have been deeply involved in questions about 
Iraq, as well. Was there similar polling done or a similar 
effort to undertake what the Iraqi population sense was about 
that question?
    General Lute. I do not know that there is a close parallel 
with the Iraq experience in this regard. There certainly was 
among the two political classes, the two political elites, the 
two sets of political elites. I do not recall, from my Iraq 
experience, that kind of countrywide opinion poll----
    Senator Kaine. And just----
    General Lute [continuing]. Popular opinion.
    Senator Kaine [continuing]. Just from your--and regardless 
of polling, just from your experience in the area, do you have 
a sense, of your own, about the Afghan population for a desire 
for a follow-on residual force, versus that desire in the Iraqi 
population at the time?
    General Lute. I think there are two things that clearly 
underline Afghan interest in a continuing Western presence of 
some sort beyond 2014. One is the question of just raw 
resources. The Iraqi people always knew that they did not 
really require external resources to prosper as a nation, and 
clearly the Afghans know that they do require external 
resource.
    The other thing is the neighborhood. Iraq lives in a 
difficult neighborhood. But, I would argue, Afghanistan lives 
in a worse neighborhood.
    Senator Kaine. Yes.
    General Lute. And it is very clear, from even the last 30 
years of experience, that all Afghans understand that very 
clearly.
    Senator Kaine. General Lute, your opening testimony talked 
a little bit about the need for the residual force. And there 
is obviously all kinds of debates going on about potential 
size, and I am not going to get into that. But, Stephen Hadley 
testified--and I thought it was an interesting bit of testimony 
that was both written and then I followed it up orally--that 
his recommendation was that the United States should announce, 
relatively promptly, with some clarity, the size of a robust 
follow-on force, and that, if that happened, there would be the 
following consequences. It would create more confidence among 
the Afghan population in the runup to the 2014 elections. It 
might encourage more candidates to consider standing for 
election, which would be a positive thing. It would potentially 
deter or dissuade some who want to manipulate either the 
bilateral security agreement negotiation process or the 
elections, themselves. And he also indicated, in oral, not 
written, testimony, but that a relatively prompt and certain 
statement from the United States about the follow-on force 
might also promote prompt and certainty--certain commitments to 
be made from the partners--the NATO partners that we have in 
Afghanistan. That was if you will just take it from me--I think 
I have done a pretty fair job of summarizing the written 
testimony--do you--What would your opinion be of that 
testimony?
    General Lute. So, certainly those factors ring true to me. 
I would just argue--and I actually heard Steve's presentation.
    Senator Kaine. Oh, OK.
    General Lute. I would argue that the size and scale, scope 
of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 is one 
factor in Afghan confidence, but maybe it is not the dominant 
factor. I think equally dominant or equally important will be 
the smoothness, the efficiency of the political transition, 
which I know also the testimony covered in a lot of detail this 
morning. I think Afghans need to see that, under the 
constitution, for the first time, that they can efficiently and 
smoothly, peacefully transfer political power from the Karzai 
regime of the last 10 years to whoever succeeds President 
Karzai.
    I think, frankly, that that is the dominant factor in 
Afghan confidence. There are others, as well. They need to see 
that their security forces are going to be sustained. And, of 
course, the international community, alongside NATO, has taken 
steps to secure that funding beyond 2014 so that they can feel 
confident in that way. They need to see that their economy's 
not going to crumble. And the international community, last 
July in Tokyo, marshaled the resources for 4 years, beginning 
in 2013 through the transition period, to fill the budget gap 
between what the Afghan budget can provide for itself and the 
needs of the country itself.
    So, there are a number of confidence factors, one of which 
might be U.S. military presence, but I am not even sure it is 
the dominant one.
    Senator Kaine. Would you agree that the commitment of the 
U.S. and NATO allies to a presence might have an effect upon 
the smoothness of the transition, to the extent that it might 
encourage people to run for office, to the extent that it might 
give people some confidence going into the election season? 
Would you agree that U.S. and NATO commitments, vis-a-vis the 
residual force, might be a factor in the smoothness of a 
political transition, which I agree is ultimately the most 
important element that we are looking at?
    General Lute. I think it is a factor, Senator. I think, 
alongside that factor, though, is the political factor, the 
political commitment made by NATO in Lisbon in 2010, and by the 
United States, by way of our strategic partnership agreement 
last spring, that, politically, we are committed to be there 
beyond 2014, and then also the counterpart economic commitment 
made both for security assistance--that is, to sustain the 
Afghan forces--but, beyond that, for economic assistance. And 
then, finally, I think the presence of some residual force 
would be a factor.
    Senator Kaine. Great.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, to the witnesses.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, to all the nominees, for your 
service and for being here today.
    Ms. Nuland, I wanted to, first, say that I think there is 
very little debate on this committee about your qualifications 
to serve in this post. And, as I mentioned to you yesterday, 
the only reason you are getting questions, quite frankly, about 
the Benghazi issue, is because you were in that policy role. 
And, because the committee is not holding any further hearings 
on it, you are, quite frankly, the only witness we have--on 
questions with regards to these things that we want answers to. 
So, I wanted to briefly touch on it, hopefully in an effort to 
expedite the hearing and maybe close the book on it.
    I read your e-mail, that is now available, that is dated 
the 14th of September at 7:39 p.m. You raised two concerns, 
primarily. The first was that there were mentions of Ansar--
Ansar al-Sharia--in the context of that September 11, 2012, 
attack and that you did not want to prejudice the 
investigation. The second concern talked about the agency 
having produced--``agency'' being the CIA--having produced 
numerous pieces of information on the threat of extremists 
linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Those were 
the two concerns that you raised in that e-mail.
    So, on point No. 1, about the mention of Ansar al-Sharia 
and prejudicing the investigation, did the FBI share that 
concern?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, thank you for that.
    I want to clarify here that, with regard to the substance 
of mentioning Ansar al-Sharia, I did not have concerns about 
that.
    Senator Rubio. OK.
    Ambassador Nuland. As I mentioned earlier, it was not for 
me to decide what we knew, nor what we could declassify. I 
assumed, that evening, that if the agency was prepared to have 
Members of Congress name Ansar al-Sharia, that their 
information was solid and it was releasable to the public.
    My concerns were the two that I mentioned earlier; namely, 
that I did not understand why Members of Congress could say 
more about it than we could, in the administration; and, 
second, that we had been under tight guidance not to prejudice 
the investigation, so I wanted to make sure my CIA colleagues 
had cleared these points with the FBI and Justice. I was later 
reassured that they had.
    Senator Rubio. OK, good. Then, the second question I had is 
on point No. 2, and it is the one about the agency having 
produced numerous pieces of information on the threat of 
extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. We 
now know that that is accurate, correct?
    Ambassador Nuland. The agency had produced some pieces. My 
concern was not about the accuracy of what was on the paper, 
Senator; my concern was that it was an incomplete 
representation--and, frankly, a prejudicial one, I felt--of the 
totality of the situation in Benghazi. I had been under pretty 
tight instructions, for the 3 days running up to that, along 
the following lines: that we were to stay, as the State 
Department, very tightly lashed up as an interagency community, 
with regard to what we could say, and that the integrity of the 
investigation was paramount, that we had to get all of the 
facts so that we could learn the lessons from this tragedy; and 
that I had to be extremely attentive to the equities of other 
government agencies--there were a number of other government 
agencies that had very sensitive equities in this; and that 
that was the environment that all of us should be operating in. 
So, my concern, when I saw that particular paragraph, which was 
retained, was that it might not be in that spirit. And again, I 
did not edit them, I simply asked----
    Senator Rubio. Right.
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. That policy people above me 
check my instincts.
    Senator Rubio. Those instructions that you have just 
highlighted for us, were they from Mr. Sullivan?
    Ambassador Nuland. They were from the entire leadership of 
the Department, that we needed to get the facts and we needed 
to learn the lessons of Benghazi, and that we needed to be good 
colleagues in the interagency, yes.
    Senator Rubio. Does that--so, does the entire leadership 
include Secretary Clinton?
    Ambassador Nuland. Secretary Clinton was, as she testified, 
herself, the leader in saying we had to get to the bottom of 
this, that we had to take responsibility for what had gone 
wrong, and we had to fix it. Yes, sir.
    Senator Rubio. Did you have any conversations with 
Secretary Clinton about the talking points or the specific 
concerns that you raised?
    Ambassador Nuland. At no point, that evening or 
subsequently, did I talk about the talking points with 
Secretary Clinton.
    Senator Rubio. You did talk to them with Mr. Sullivan about 
these concerns, however?
    Ambassador Nuland. I did not.
    Senator Rubio. So, the--your concerns were unilateral--
these were concerns based on the instructions you had received 
from your leadership, but not concerns that they specifically 
told you to have.
    Ambassador Nuland. Correct. And, as I said before, and as 
the e-mails indicate, whenever I had a problem that I could not 
solve at my level, or a concern that what I was being asked to 
clear was not a communications question but a policy question, 
I referred it to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, which is 
what I did that night.
    Senator Rubio. So, just to close the loop on it, you had 
instructions on what the tone and tenor of talking points 
should be from the State Department's position. You reviewed 
and made decisions on the talking points, based on those 
instructions, but they did not specifically tell you, ``Object 
to this point'' or ``Object to that point''?
    Ambassador Nuland. At no point was I ever told to object to 
anything. I was acting on my instincts and asking for a higher 
level review to check them, and I did not make any edits, as I 
said.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you for your answers.
    In the minute-and-a-half that I have left, I want to ask 
about Russia. We reset our relationship with Russia, about, I 
do not know, 3 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago. What is your 
personal opinion of how that has worked out? And where are we 
today with Russia? Are we still in a reset mode, or are we in a 
reset of the reset? Where are we with Russia? And what is, in 
your view, the status of that relationship, given the 
reelection, I guess we should call it, of Mr. Putin, and the 
direction he has decided to take his country?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, as I said at the outset, I do 
believe that we have made important progress with Russia in 
recent years, that the work we do together to contain and 
sanction Iran, the DPRK, our ability to exfil and move 
equipment from Afghanistan through Russia, our counterterrorism 
cooperation, and the New START Treaty, are valuable things that 
resulted from the reset. But, I also believe that, when we 
disagree with Russia, we have got to be absolutely clear. And 
you can see that that is clearly the case now, with regard to 
Russian policy in Syria. It is--we are--and you have seen 
Secretary Kerry's efforts to try to use the Geneva agreement 
that the Russians agreed to under Secretary Clinton to try to 
get to the negotiating table, but, at the same time----
    Senator Rubio. Can I interject at----
    Ambassador Nuland. Yes, please.
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. That point? I am sorry to 
interrupt you, but----
    Ambassador Nuland. Please.
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. I am going to run out of time.
    I wanted to ask about that, in specific. What is your view, 
what are your hopes, what are the odds that Russia could be 
enticed or have any incentive to try to reach a negotiated 
settlement in the Syrian conflict that results in something 
that is in the national interests of the United States? Or are 
their interests, vis-a-vis Syria, so diametrically opposed to 
ours that any sort of arrangement there is almost impossible, 
realistically?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, without delving too deeply into 
it in this setting, I would simply say that I believe that 
Russian views of the situation will very much be guided by the 
ground situation in Syria.
    Senator Murphy. Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
    And thank the witnesses. And, for the record, I have known 
and admired Ambassador Nuland for a long time. General Lute, 
you and I have been friends for many years. And, Mr. Baer, I 
congratulate you on your assignment.
    I must say, the progress that you noted, Ambassador Nuland, 
is minuscule, as compared to what the Russians are doing. I am 
very disappointed in your answer. Did you see--did you see 
the--what--the news report yesterday--yesterday--``Dead Russian 
Lawyer Magnitsky Found Guilty''? Did you happen to see that? 
Did you see that, Mr. Baer? Does that remind you of the good 
old days--of the bad old days of the Soviet Union, when we 
convict dead people? Doesn't that appall you, I would ask 
Secretary Nuland, and you, who are supposed to be an advocate 
of human rights? Isn't that outrageous, that a man, who we know 
was tortured to death by the Russian authorities--was guilty of 
nothing, and we are saying that it is valuable progress that 
the Russians are letting us transship some equipment back? 
Somebody's got their priorities screwed up, here.
    I am proud to have worked with Senator Cardin on the 
Magnitsky Act. You both say, ``Well, we will get tougher on 
them.'' How about giving me some specifics? How could we get 
tougher? Do you know one of the ways we could get tougher?--is 
expand the scope of the Magnitsky Act and make some more 
Russians feel some pain. Obviously, they did not react well--
or, they did not like the fact that we passed the Magnitsky 
Act.
    I would like to hear, either now, verbally, or for the 
record, what, specifically, do you want to do to--we have reset 
back to 1955. And when I meet Mr. Broder and I meet the family 
of Sergei Magnitsky, and we have, now, a situation where it 
goes almost unremarked by our administration, when they try and 
convict a deadman----
    I would be glad to hear your responses, and I hope they are 
a little more vigorous than what you have been giving, so far.
    Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. And I appreciate----
    Senator McCain. By the way, I admire you very much, 
Ambassador. I do not admire your choice of spouses, but that is 
another issue. [Laughter.]
    Ambassador Nuland. You have given me an opening, Senator. I 
neglected to thank my fabulous family--my parents and my--the 
two handsome gentlemen in the middle, there, my husband and my 
son, David, for coming, today. And I thank you for all the 
years that we have worked together, including when I was out at 
NATO.
    I cannot disagree with you that it is a travesty of justice 
when one is putting energy into convicting a deadman rather 
than finding out who is responsible for his murder. When I was 
spokesperson of the Department, I was very proud to speak out 
forcefully on this issue, as well as on the Magnitsky 
legislation.
    With regard to the legislation, our work on the list is 
ongoing, and we will add names, as we are able to.
    Senator McCain. You will.
    Ambassador Nuland. We will.
    Senator McCain. You will.
    Ambassador Nuland. Dan, I do not know if you want to add 
anything.
    Senator McCain. Mr. Baer.
    Dr. Baer. What Toria said is absolutely right. My Bureau 
has been involved in producing the first list, and we do see it 
as an ongoing project, and we plan to add names to the list. 
And I certainly share your feeling of being appalled at the 
conviction of Magnitsky. It is a tragedy.
    Senator McCain. And again, I do not want to--I would rather 
ask a couple more questions, but I think it is important to 
point out that, literally on every major issue of significant 
consequence, that Mr. Putin has exhibited nothing but the most 
obdurate and, in many times, aggressive behavior. We know that 
the support that they are providing to Bashar Assad. We know of 
many of the other transgressions, including internally--and 
this is where your work comes in, Mr. Baer--the repression of 
the media, the--bringing people to court who disagree, the--the 
whole--it all smacks of the old Soviet Union, and it is--and we 
seem to want to think, somehow, that things will get better, 
when everything that I can see that has real consequence has 
been retrograde.
    But, let me ask General Lute, real quick.
    General, I was a little surprised you did not mention Syria 
in your comments. And I would like to have your comments about 
that. But, I would like for you to explain to the committee why 
the United States is negotiating or seeking to negotiate with a 
group, the Taliban, that refuses to renounce its relationship 
with al-Qaeda and refuses to commit, ahead of time, to respect 
for women's rights. Explain to me the logic there.
    General Lute. Well, as you know, Senator, right now we are 
not negotiating. What we are trying to do----
    Senator McCain. Oh, but we intend to.
    General Lute. We would like to explore the possibility of 
getting----
    Senator McCain. No, I have been briefed several times, and 
you have, too, General. Let us be clear that they were setting 
up the office in Qatar, and they----
    General Lute. Right.
    Senator McCain [continuing]. Were doing everything possible 
to have negotiations. Why do we want to have negotiations with 
an organization that refuses to renounce its relationship with 
al-Qaeda and refuses, as a precondition, to recognize women's 
rights?
    General Lute. The two things you mentioned, the support of 
al-Qaeda and the support, generally, for the Afghan 
Constitution, which includes the kind of women's rights 
provisions that you are suggesting, are both designed to be 
outcomes of a discussion with the Taliban. And so, the----
    Senator McCain. In other words----
    General Lute [continuing]. The attempts----
    Senator McCain [continuing]. It is on the table.
    General Lute. No, it is not on the table.
    Senator McCain. Why shouldn't it----
    General Lute [continuing]. Those are our----
    Senator McCain [continuing]. They----
    General Lute [continuing]. So----
    Senator McCain [continuing]. It is either on the table or 
it is a precondition, one of the two.
    General Lute. It is not a precondition to talks, it is a 
precondition to Taliban being considered reconciled and 
eligible to return to political life, under the constitution, 
in Afghanistan.
    So, it is very much the distinction between preconditions 
and end conditions. And the idea that is under exploration is 
to see if you can get into talks--most important, Afghan-
government-to-Taliban talks--that see if those end conditions 
can, in fact, be met.
    So, there is no supposing or imagining that reconciliation 
comes without achieving those three end conditions. The third 
one, by the way, is to end the violence.
    Senator McCain. Well, again, I think that if you--if we are 
going to really be interested in the Afghan people and their 
rights, those are preconditions. There can be no agreement 
without them, so they might as well be preconditions. And by 
not making them preconditions, we have somehow conveyed the 
impression to them that they are on the table. And that is--
they are either on the table or they are preconditions. It is 
not, ``the subject''--if they are the subject of negotiation, 
then they are the subject of negotiation.
    My time has nearly expired.
    I want you to say, a little bit, what you think we ought to 
be doing in Iraq, in light--in Syria--in light of the 100,000 
people that have now been massacred. Do you believe that we 
should be moving forward with arms to the rebels and 
establishing a new--no-fly zone?
    General Lute. Well, Senator, first, I have to just say that 
I do not follow Syria like you and I used to follow Iraq 
together. It is about 15---actually more than 1,500 miles away 
from where I am--I focus, on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think 
that, certainly, the situation in Syria is absolutely central 
to stability in a vital region. As much as Iraq was, 5 or 6 
years ago, when we were there, and the numbers we ran, and as 
much as Iraq is today.
    I support the administration's policy of the blend of tools 
that are being applied, principally the diplomatic/political 
approach, to try to find a resolution, but--that approach, as 
supported by humanitarian support to the refugees to address 
the humanitarian crisis--and then, finally, the provision of 
means, to include lethal means, to the insurgents.
    Senator McCain. I thank the Chair.
    Senator Murphy. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ambassador Nuland, General Lute, Mr. Baer, thank you all 
very much for being here and for your willingness to serve the 
country.
    Ambassador Nuland, I am going to begin with you and ask 
about Georgia. Senator Risch, who was here earlier, and I had 
the opportunity to be election monitors during their recent 
elections, last October. And I have watched, with some concern, 
to see that the government of Prime Minister Ivanishvili has 
arrested a number of the folks who were in opposition to them, 
and am concerned about the kind of signal that sends about what 
is happening to their move to democracy in Georgia. And I 
wonder if you could assess for me how you think the progress is 
going under the new leadership, and whether you--what kind of 
action we are doing to try and continue to encourage Georgia to 
keep moving toward democracy.
    Ambassador Nuland. Well, thank you, Senator. And I thank 
you and Senator Risch for being willing to be election monitors 
and for your long-time commitment to Georgia.
    I share your concern. Georgia has come so far in recent 
years, including the elections last year, then the peaceful 
transfer of power, the development of a vibrant multiparty 
parliament, greater media freedom, the efforts to curb police 
and prison abuses, and the continuity in foreign policy, but--
and nobody wants to see Georgia slide backward.
    We completely understand that this government ran and won 
on a platform of redressing past abuses, but we believe 
strongly in the primacy of the rule of law. And this cannot 
become cover for political retribution, or even the perception 
of political retribution. There has got to be full 
transparency, there has got to be due respect for the rule of 
law, because the world is watching. And this goes to the heart 
of Georgia's own aspirations, which we support, to join, fully, 
all the transatlantic organizations. So, Georgia's got to stay 
on a democratic path.
    I am also, frankly, concerned about the economy. So, we 
want to see Georgians looking forward, not looking backward. 
And, if confirmed, I will be very vigorous on these issues, and 
I look forward to working with you and with other friends of 
Georgia here in the Senate.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    Let me just--to stay on Georgia, General Lute, one of the 
things that I have been encouraged about has been to hear Prime 
Minister Ivanishvili continuing the commitment to MAP for NATO 
and the continued commitment they have had to the conflict in 
Afghanistan. They have been a great partner in that effort.
    So, can you talk about how you see, and what you see, in 
terms of their efforts to get MAP through NATO?
    General Lute. One of the great incentives, I think, for 
Georgia, to make the kind of reforms that were just addressed, 
is the potential to walk through the open door and gain 
membership in NATO. So, in this way, the NATO open-door policy 
really provides a very positive incentive for Georgians to look 
forward.
    Georgia is on its path to meet the standards required for 
NATO membership. It has got work to do. I know that, by way of 
the NATO-Georgia Commission, that work is underway, so we join 
that effort, nationally, but we are joined by other members 
today, of NATO, to ensure that they understand what the path 
consists of and that they are making steady progress along that 
path.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    Let me ask another question about Afghanistan. One concern 
I have heard from some followers of the conflict there, and 
what we are hearing from Afghans themselves, is concern about 
the zero option: Should we withdraw all American troops? Can 
you talk about what--how that discussion is influencing what is 
happening on the ground in Afghanistan?
    General Lute. Thank you, Senator. So, as we deal closely 
with our Afghan counterparts, we remind them that the United 
States commitment beyond 2014 is embodied in a binding 
international executive agreement signed by President Obama and 
President Karzai more than a year ago. So, we already have a 
strategic partnership with Afghanistan that extends well beyond 
2014. In fact, 10 years beyond 2014.
    Likewise, NATO, in fact, beat us to the punch and 
established a strategic partnership of its own with Afghanistan 
in the Lisbon summit in November 2010.
    So, the framework already exists for a continuing 
contribution, a partnership, beyond 2014. Beyond that, we have 
solidified those commitments beyond 2014 with the funding 
commitments, both to support the Afghan security forces, but 
also to the Afghan economy, beyond 2014.
    So, I think, as we discussed earlier with Senator Kaine, 
this is a multipart package of political commitments, economic 
commitments, and security commitments.
    And the last piece that needs to fall into place is exactly 
what will be the size and shape of a U.S. military presence, 
and then, beyond that, a NATO military presence. And that is 
still under negotiation. But, those negotiations are active, 
they are progressing, and we think we will see them through to 
a successful conclusion.
    Senator Shaheen. Great, thank you.
    Ambassador Nuland, on that same trip to Georgia last year, 
I had the opportunity to stop in Turkey and meet with the 
ecumenical patriarch of the Greek Church who was very 
impressive. And I wonder if you can--one of the things that I 
talked with him about was what was happening in Cyprus. And I 
know that Secretary Kerry has indicated this is an--we have an 
opportunity, here, with what he calls ``a frozen conflict,'' 
perhaps, to make some progress in addressing what has been a 
stalemate for a very long time, on Cyprus, between Greece and 
Turkey. I wonder if you can talk about whether there is--this 
is an opportunity, and how additional diplomatic engagement 
might help to change what has been a status quo for too long 
there.
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I do believe we have an 
opportunity now. I think circumstances are changing, attitudes 
are changing, not just within Cyprus, but also in Greece and in 
Turkey, and we have to capitalize on that. We also have natural 
gas off the coast of Turkey, which is a--off the coast of 
Cyprus--which is a powerful motivator for getting to the 
solution that we all want, which is a bizonal, bicommunal 
federation that can share the benefits. And it is absolutely 
vital to Europe that Turkey--that Cyprus begin to prosper 
again, and I think that working on this could be a positive in 
that direction, as well.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    My time is up, but let me just say, in closing, I hope that 
we will continue to support the very positive progress that has 
been made between Serbia and Kosovo on settling their 
disagreements there. And anything we can do to support that, I 
think is very helpful.
    Thank you.
    Senator Murphy. Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, on May 10 of this year, the Republican 
members of this committee sent a letter to Chairman Menendez 
respectfully requesting additional committee hearings to review 
the open questions surrounding the September 11, 2012, 
terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. It has now been 2 months, 
and we have not heard back from Chairman Menendez about our 
request.
    While the House of Representatives has been holding 
hearings and heard from numerous witnesses, including Mark 
Thompson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
Counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former Deputy Chief of Mission in 
Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former Regional Security Officer in 
Libya, those important witnesses have not had the opportunity 
to testify and provide answers in the Senate.
    The American people have lingering questions about what 
happened on September 11, 2012, and why the State Department 
failed to protect our brave Americans in Benghazi, yet this 
committee has failed to schedule any additional hearings and 
has been attempting to avoid the issue altogether.
    Ambassador Nuland, during an interagency e-mail exchange on 
September 14, 2012, you expressed concerns that the information 
you were providing could be used by Members of Congress to 
question the State Department for not paying attention to CIA 
warnings about the security situation in Benghazi. In an e-
mail, you stated that you had, ``serious concerns,'' about, 
``arming Members of Congress,'' with information from the CIA. 
You went on to say that, ``Points should be abused--could be 
abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying 
attention to agency warnings, so why do we want to feed that, 
either?''
    Well, now the President has nominated you as Assistant 
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. This 
handles a very critical region. I am concerned about your 
willingness to provide truthful and relevant information to the 
America people. And I say this because you have implied that it 
is dangerous to inform Members of Congress, who are the 
representatives of the American people.
    So, my question is, Why should we believe that you will be 
open and forthcoming on the disclosure of important information 
to Congress, when you deliberately and intentionally withheld 
information about Benghazi from Congress and the American 
people while working at the U.S. Department of State as the 
spokesperson?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, thank you for the opportunity 
to address this.
    I am 400 percent committed to positive cooperation with the 
Congress, to sharing, fully, all information that we can.
    As you recall, in that first week after the attack, there 
were numerous briefings, classified and some unclassified, and 
briefings thereafter of Members of the Senate, Members of the 
House of Representatives, that my bosses participated in. My 
concern was not, Senator, that evening, about sharing 
information with Congress. My concern was that these were 
talking points that the CIA was proposing that members of the 
House Intelligence Committee use with the media. And I felt 
that, if these were used with the media, they would give a 
mistaken and flawed perception of our respective agencies' 
roles in Benghazi. It was a partial representation of some of 
the information that we had had, some of the activity that we 
had been involved in together. So, I thought that, as media 
points--not as information to Congress; obviously, I have 
always, and will continue to, if confirmed, fully support 
transparency with the Congress and full cooperation with the 
Congress--my concern was that they were inappropriately crafted 
as points for the media, and they would be misleading.
    Senator Barrasso. So, you--I think you just used the phrase 
``partial representation.'' So, were your concerns with the 
Benghazi talking points that--were they made to shelter the 
State Department from responsibility or accountability 
regarding the terrorist attacks in Benghazi?
    Ambassador Nuland. Absolutely not, Senator. As I said 
earlier, we were under firm instructions, all of us, that what 
mattered most was a full and fair investigation of all of the 
facts so that we could learn the lessons and ensure that it 
never happened again. As I said earlier, I was personal friends 
with Ambassador Stephens. He was somebody I was very close to. 
For me, it is personal, to get to the bottom of this.
    Senator Barrasso. And I think the President, in his 
comments--as he said, as soon as he heard about the attack, he 
said, ``No.1, I want to make sure that we are securing our 
personnel, doing whatever we need to. No. 2, we are going to 
investigate exactly what happened, so it does not happen 
again.'' And, No. 3, he said, ``We want to find out who did 
this so we can bring them to justice.''
    In a letter dated December 18, Secretary Clinton stated, 
``We continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the 
attacks in Benghazi, and are determined to bring them to 
justice.''
    Today, July 11, it has now been exactly 10 months since the 
attacks. To your knowledge, are we any closer to identifying 
and bringing those terrorists to justice?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I share your frustration. As I 
said, as a citizen, I want to know what happened, as well. I 
have to tell you that, in my previous role as spokesperson of 
the State Department, and in my current capacity, I am not 
privy to information about how the investigation is going.
    Senator Barrasso. OK. In your written testimony, you talked 
about some things related to energy. You talked about that 
Europeans have taken important steps to diversify their energy 
market with new routes and new regulations.
    I have introduced legislation enabling the United States to 
use its newfound abundance of natural gas to help our NATO 
allies diversify their energy imports in order to break Russian 
dominance over them through its control of their natural gas 
supply. Many experts have argued that U.S. natural gas exports 
can diminish the cartel behavior of rival suppliers, like Iran 
and Russia, help persuade allies to isolate these rogue states, 
like Iran, and encourage the decoupling of international gas 
prices from oil prices, which can reduce gas prices around the 
world.
    Do you agree that natural gas exports, including LNG, can 
serve as an important diplomatic tool for the United States to 
strengthen our relationships with our allies and restore our 
standing throughout the world?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, certainly the fast pace of 
change with regard to the natural gas picture in Europe is 
making a very valuable contribution to Europe's energy 
security. And I think you know that the Department of Energy 
has approved some U.S. exports. It is obviously within the 
purview of the Department of Energy to decide if we can do more 
of that. But, the degree to which Europe has more diverse 
sources of natural gas, it is a good thing for Europe, and it 
is a good thing for the security of the transatlantic alliance.
    Senator Barrasso. It does seem that our energy resources 
can, at this point, increase our own economic competitiveness 
and enhance our power around the world. Do you support 
expediting LNG licenses to our NATO allies?
    Ambassador Nuland. Again, Senator, this decision set is not 
within the purview of the State Department, it is within the 
purview of the Department of Energy, so I would not want to 
speak to decisions that they have to make. But, it is certainly 
the case that the more sources of natural gas for Europe--and 
they are really diversifying their LNG terminals now, they are 
also looking at shale gas, as you know, and we are very active 
in promoting that--the better for their security and for our 
common security.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. At this time, I would 
like to submit additional questions for written records.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Murphy. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Murphy. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Congratulations, to the panel, for your 
nominations.
    Ambassador Nuland, where were you, the evening of Benghazi, 
during the attacks and in the aftermath?
    Ambassador Nuland. I was at the State Department on 
September 11 until about 1 o'clock in the morning, sir.
    Senator Paul. Was Secretary Clinton there, also?
    Ambassador Nuland. She was.
    Senator Paul. I did not hear you. Was or was not?
    Ambassador Nuland. She was.
    Senator Paul. She was. Were you in the same room with 
Secretary Clinton during the period of time during the attacks?
    Ambassador Nuland. For some of that period--she did a 
written statement on the attacks that evening. I worked with 
her on that written statement, but I was not with her the whole 
time, no.
    Senator Paul. OK. Did you have any conversations with 
anybody in Libya during the attacks or during the immediate 
aftermath?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul. With anybody from Special Operations Command 
in Africa?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul. No. Were you present during any conversations 
with Secretary Clinton with anybody in Libya?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul. Were you present with any conversations with 
Secretary Clinton and anyone from Special Operations Command in 
Africa?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul. Did you have any conversations with Secretary 
Clinton concerning reinforcements being sent from Tripoli?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir. My role with her was purely 
with regard to communications.
    Senator Paul. You did not have any----
    Ambassador Nuland. Public----
    Senator Paul. You were not present during any 
conversations----
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul [continuing]. That had anything to do with 
sending reinforcements.
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul. Were you present during any conversations 
with either--with yourself or with Secretary Clinton--of 
General Hamm, Admiral Losey, Lt. Colonel Gibson?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul. OK.
    Have you ever had any conversations with Secretary Clinton 
concerning the purpose of the CIA Annex?
    Ambassador Nuland. I am not quite sure what you--what you 
are asking, Senator.
    Senator Paul. What was the purpose of the CIA Annex in 
Benghazi?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I would be delighted to talk to 
you about the relationship between the State Department and the 
CIA in a separate setting, if that is helpful. I do not think 
it is appropriate----
    Senator Paul. Have you had any conversations with Secretary 
Clinton concerning the purpose of the CIA Annex?
    Ambassador Nuland. Not with regard to the purpose, no. But, 
with regard to the responsibility of government communicators 
to protect the equities and requirements of all other agencies, 
yes.
    Senator Paul. Did you ever have a discussion with Secretary 
Clinton concerning the fact that the function and the 
activities of the CIA Annex may have had something to do with 
the attacks?
    Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
    Senator Paul. Are you personally aware of what the CIA 
Annex function is, or was?
    Ambassador Nuland. Sir, I do not believe I have had a full 
briefing on what the activities were, no.
    Senator Paul. Have you read the New York Times article, 
from 2 weeks ago, that talks about the fact that the CIA has 
been involved with sending arms to Syria over the last year?
    Ambassador Nuland. I did see that piece. I cannot assess 
its accuracy.
    Senator Paul. OK. Are you aware of the reports that a 
Turkish ship left Benghazi, or Libya, in the week preceding the 
Ambassador's killing, docked in Turkey, interviews have been 
conducted with the media, with the captain, distribution of the 
arms to Syrian rebels have been reported and discussed in the 
media? Are you aware of those reports?
    Ambassador Nuland. I am not, Senator.
    Senator Paul. All right.
    We have got a lot of questions. We have got a lot of very 
short answers.
    How often in--with your tenure, is sort of your typical 
routine, as communications--or in charge of communications at 
the State Department--how often would you have personal contact 
with Secretary Clinton, or conversations?
    Ambassador Nuland. When I was briefing, which was most days 
when we were home, I would see her every morning at our senior 
staff meeting. I would also support her when she had bilateral 
meetings with foreign visitors, particularly when there were 
press conferences. That was our home drill. And then, I 
traveled with her on all of her foreign travel.
    Senator Paul. Right.
    Part of the reason I bring up the CIA Annex is that, you 
know, we are in the process of becoming involved in a new war, 
in Syria, and there are many within the administration, which 
you will be part of, who argue for just doing this secretly, 
without votes; basically, to have a covert war. And that is 
basically what we are having now, according to articles 
concerning CIA activity in Syria, is that we are going to have 
a covert war, not a war where Congress votes on declaring war 
or votes on whether or not we should be involved.
    The question, really, here, is a big question of whether or 
not, you know, we obey the Constitution, which says the 
Congress really declares war, the Congress makes these 
decisions, that, unilaterally, these decisions are not made 
without the approval of Congress or the people.
    There is a question of the rule of law, basically. We have 
it on the books that says that, if there is a military coup, 
that foreign aid will end--not only if there is a military 
coup, if the military is involved in any way--in any 
substantial way, in removing a government from power. So, you 
can understand the--you know, the displeasure of some of us who 
believe in the rule of law, that, basically, this 
administration has said, ``We are not going to obey the law, we 
are above the law, and we are just going to say it is not a 
coup.''
    The problem, here, is that there is a certain lawlessness. 
There has been a big discussion on, you know, leaks from the 
NSA. People have said, ``My goodness, these leaks are damaging 
national security.'' Well, you know, what is also damaging to 
national security is when people come and lie to Congress. Now, 
I am not saying you did. You have said that it was classified, 
you cannot talk about it. But, if members of the administration 
are going to come to us and say, ``Oh, I am just going to lie, 
because it is classified, and tell you the least untruthful 
thing,'' what it does is, it really does damage the 
intelligence community, it damages the reputation of your 
administration, or the administration you will choose. It 
just--it damages the whole community, in a way, to say that it 
is OK to lie to Congress. That is basically what the opinion is 
now, and what is being told to the public, ``It is fine to lie 
to Congress.'' If that is true, it really damages the 
credibility of people who do things.
    So, when I ask the question, which I understand your 
inability, maybe, to answer it because it may be classified--
there are many of us who believe that it was--it had to do with 
an arms trade going out of the CIA Annex, and that perhaps 
people were unhappy about arms being taken from one group to 
another and sent to another, that may have incited the rioting 
and may have incited the terrorist attack. But, the problem is, 
we cannot ever get to the truth, because people just say, ``Oh, 
it's secret.'' That is the problem with running a secret 
government and running secret wars. We do not get any 
oversight. We cannot have oversight because we do not have any 
information.
    So, all I would say is that we need to think these things 
through. If you look at what the public wants right now, the 
public is not interested in a new war.
    Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Paul.
    We will do a second round, maybe of 5 minutes each, for 
members that are remaining.
    Ambassador Nuland, I just wanted to expand upon the 
questions from Senator Shaheen on Turkey, just to ask a broader 
question. What Erdogan is doing is certainly not to the extent 
of what we have seen in Russia with Mr. Putin, but troubling 
nonetheless: the crackdown within Istanbul, his treatment of 
journalists, his disposition toward the military. What are the 
tools at our disposal to continue to raise these questions of a 
free and open civil society in Turkey?--given the same problem 
we have with Russia, in that we have so many irons in the fire, 
with respect to our very complicated security relationship with 
Turkey, that it often makes it difficult to put the issue of 
human rights and his treatment of political opponents front and 
center. What are the tools at our disposal to continue to press 
Erdogan with respect to the--some of the same issues, albeit to 
a lesser degree, that we are pressing Putin's government on, as 
well?
    Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. Our alliance with 
Turkey, our relationship with Turkey, is absolutely critical, 
as you know, not just in the Eurasian space, but also in all of 
the work that we are doing now in the Middle East and North 
Africa, and particularly with regard to Syria. I think it is 
because we have such an intense and tight relationship, and 
because we have constant contact--I think Secretary Kerry's now 
made seven-plus trips to Turkey, the President talks regularly 
with President Erdogan--that we can speak very clearly and 
frankly when we have concerns about Turkey's democratic path--
and we have done that at all levels, because it is--Turkey's 
democracy and the strength of it is important, not only for the 
country itself, not only as a NATO ally, but also because, as a 
majority Islamic population, Turkey's democracy is looked at by 
other countries around the world and in the region who aspire 
to be able to be Islamic and democratic at the same time.
    So, these are the points that we will continue to make to 
the Turkish Government, that freedom of assembly, freedom of 
expression, protection of journalists, are fundamental 
democratic values that strengthen the country. And, in the 
context of the review that the Government of Turkey is doing 
now of the constitution, we are urging that these protections 
be strengthened and not lightened.
    Senator Murphy. Well, I thank you for raising the issue of 
constitutional reform. I hope that that will be an issue that 
we will continue to raise with them. I think that we should be 
troubled by the prospect of Erdogan trying to rearrange the 
constitution as a means of continuing his reign there beyond 
what has been expected by the people of Turkey. I appreciate 
your raising that.
    General Lute, just very quickly, with regard to NATO 
enlargement, we have got a number of candidates, particularly 
in the Balkans. Can you just sort of speak very briefly about 
the commitment that you will have, as our Ambassador there, to 
actively work with the Balkan nations who are in line for 
membership to go through the final stages of that process?
    General Lute. Yes, Senator, you have my personal commitment 
to do this. Of course, this is standing NATO policy, under the 
open-door provision. And it is longstanding U.S. policy, as 
well, that the door should be open, not only to the Balkan 
States that you are mentioning, but, as we mentioned earlier, 
Georgia, as well.
    Senator Murphy. Let me just, finally, before I turn it over 
to Senator Johnson--I do want to associate myself with at least 
the final comment made by Senator Paul. I know this is not 
particularly within your individual books of business, but it 
may be. I do think he raises a very important point about the 
interplay between overt and covert activity. And we have seen 
that produce fairly troublesome results for this Nation, but 
also for the State Department, in places like Pakistan, as we 
move forward in Syria, which is--you may have some interactions 
with.
    I hope we look to prior history and understand that major 
military actions happening in a covert manner present problems, 
certainly with regard to oversight by the United States 
Congress, but also present problems within the administration, 
when there are entities negotiating with players across the 
globe who do not necessarily have control over all of the tools 
that are subject to those negotiations.
    Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Lute, as long as you did listen to the Afghanistan 
hearing--I was able to be there--here for the first hour, and 
could not ask questions, so let me ask you a couple of 
questions.
    It was the--a comment was made that ISAF is providing 
critical support to the Afghan army and the police force, and 
that the elections were--I cannot remember the exact quote, but 
``absolutely essential,'' in terms of progress being made in 
Afghanistan. But, there have been some real problems. Critical 
appointments have not been made.
    The point I want to make is, if we are going to stop all 
military operations by the end of 2014, and basically turn it 
over to the Afghan army and police force by 2015, what if they 
are not ready? What is going to happen?
    General Lute. Well, the December 2014 goal to arrive at a 
point where the Afghans are fully responsible, as we said at 
Lisbon in 2010, at the end of this 4-transition process, is 
just that: a goal. And the reports--I think you heard, this 
morning, but the reports we consistently get, and have gotten 
for a number of years now, are that our military believes--and 
they have day-to-day, shoulder-to-shoulder contact with their 
Afghan counterparts--that we are on track, and that the 
remaining 18 months will complete that job to arrive at a 
position where they are fully responsible.
    Now, I think you also heard, this morning, and we see in 
more routine reports, that there remain gaps today. Some of the 
ones most obvious are close-air support, medical evacuation, 
logistics. When you see--you see----
    Senator Johnson. But, let me--I think that one----
    General Lute [continuing]. Newspaper reports on these, as 
well.
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. One of the more critical gaps 
is managerial, at the officer level, which is an incredibly 
difficult gap to fill, isn't it, in just 18 months?
    General Lute. Well, Senator, you--I think you are right. 
You do not build an army in 4 or 5 years. And we have really 
only been seriously at the building of the Afghan army over the 
last 4 or 5 years. And that is why, beyond 2014, the work will 
not be done. And that is why we are committed to a training/
advising/assisting mission even beyond 2014. As I mentioned 
earlier, that, of course, is--needs to be governed by a 
bilateral security agreement, which is under negotiation. So--
--
    Senator Johnson. To what extent are militias being stood 
back up in Afghanistan?
    General Lute. I do not think this is a major change or a 
major initiative in Afghanistan today. The ethnic groups, 
especially in the rural areas that are quite remote from the 
population centers, the metropolitan population centers, have 
always been somewhat secured by local power brokers, who have 
armed contingents. And this is, to some extent, the natural 
state of affairs in Afghanistan. But, these are not dominant. 
And I can also tell you that, in the last several years, we 
have not seen a dramatic rise in the presence of these sorts of 
forces.
    Senator Johnson. Do you think those militias are a 
stabilizing force?
    General Lute. I think they are a natural part of the 
security landscape in Afghanistan. We do not see them as a 
destabilizing force. They tend to stick quite close to their 
home turf. They are ethnically and tribally organized. And they 
do not present a, necessarily, destabilizing force.
    Now, what is new to the scene is 350,000 Afghan National 
Security Forces, both army and police. And the standup of that 
national force is designed to be the glue that holds the very 
disparate regions of Afghanistan together.
    Senator Johnson. OK.
    Senator Murphy. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you.
    And I apologize for having to do this again, because this 
is not directly related to you, but I just want to clearly 
understand the timeline on the talking-points issue once more.
    So, I want to go back. On October 10, Mr. Carney--Jay 
Carney--said that, ``Again, from the beginning, we have 
provided information based on the facts as we knew they became 
available, based on assessments by the intelligence community--
not opinions--assessments by the intelligence community. We 
have been clear all along that this was an ongoing 
investigation, that the more facts became available, we would 
make you aware of them, as appropriate, and we have done 
that.''
    He went on to say, later, back in May, that, ``What we 
said, and remains true to this day, is that the intelligence 
community drafted and redrafted these talking points.'' That 
was then.
    In fact, the President, on October 18 of last year, said, 
on ``The Jon Stewart's Show,'' believe it or not, ``But, 
everything we get, every piece of information we get, as we got 
it, we laid it out to the American people.''
    That's the statements from the White House with regards to 
the talking points.
    Now, the original CIA talking points were pretty blunt. 
They talked about ``an assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi 
as a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic 
extremists, including some with ties to al-Qaeda.'' That was 
the original talking points that the CIA circulated. But, 
then--well, the original talking points they prepared--they 
then circulated these talking points to the administration 
policymakers on the evening of Friday, September 14. They had 
changed ``Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda'' to, 
simply, ``Islamic extremists,'' but they also add a new context 
in the references to the radical Islamists. They noted--they 
pointed to Ansar al-Sharia's involvement, and they added a 
bullet point that highlighted the fact that the CIA had warned 
about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in 
the region.
    And that was the point where all the things we have talked 
about already began, right?--the e-mails circulating, you 
raised the concerns, et cetera, and overnight on the 14th. Then 
there was that meeting, on the 15th, of the--I do not want to 
mischaracterize the name of the group--``the deputies group.'' 
Is that right? You were not a part of that meeting, but there 
was a meeting. Correct?
    Ambassador Nuland. Correct. My understanding was that this 
issue was taken up there, yes. I----
    Senator Rubio. So, you were not in the meeting.
    Ambassador Nuland. But, I was not there.
    Senator Rubio. But, what we know from subsequent e-mails 
from someone--we do not know who it was--but, an e-mail to U.S. 
Ambassador Rice after the meeting, and it basically said, 
according to the e-mail there were several officials in the 
meeting that shared your concerns--you were not part of the 
deliberations--that the CIA talking points might lead to 
criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA's 
warnings about an attack. And the e-mail also reported to Susan 
Rice that Mr. Sullivan would work with a small group of 
individuals from the intelligence community to finalize the 
talking points on Saturday before sending them on to the House.
    So, that was what happened from that meeting, and then 
these changes came about, and then we get these talking points.
    So, I guess the point that I want to raise is that, while, 
in fact, the intelligence community may have physically and 
technically written these talking points, the most substantive 
changes to the talking points--the most substantive changes to 
these talking points, from the original version, either--even 
the amended versions that were first circulated--the 
substantive changes came as a result of direct input from the 
State Department and from these--this deputies meeting. Is 
that--that is correct, right?
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator Rubio, as you correctly pointed 
out, I cannot speak to the whole chain of events. When I 
received the talking points, on the evening of Friday the 14th, 
they said--they did not make reference to al-Qaeda, they made 
reference to Ansar al-Sharia.
    Senator Rubio. Right.
    Ambassador Nuland. As I said, I had no difficulties, in 
substance, with that. When I, as a citizen, read the dozens and 
dozens and dozens of e-mails that we released to the Congress, 
to the public, about this, it was clear to me, in reading 
those, as I am sure it was clear to you, that significant 
changes were made, apparently, inside the CIA before they----
    Senator Rubio. But, they were----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Were circulated.
    Senator Rubio. Right. And I understand that the CIA typed 
the changes, but----
    Ambassador Nuland. But, the----
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. The subsequent----
    Ambassador Nuland. While they were in--while they were in 
clearance within the CIA----
    Senator Rubio. Right.
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Before they went into the--
--
    Senator Rubio. But, the point is that the major substantive 
changes came between Friday evening, after you and other State 
Department officials expressed concerns about criticism from 
Members of Congress, and the Saturday morning, following the 
deputies meeting. That is when the big changes to it came.
    And the reason why that raises alarm is another e-mail, to 
Chip Walter, the head of the CIA's Legislative Affairs Office, 
from Secretary Petraeus, where he expressed frustration at the 
new scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped 
of much of the content his agency had provided.
    So, the point I am driving at has, quite frankly, nothing 
to do with you. But, the point that I just wanted to raise here 
is, in fact, when Mr. Carney and when the President says that 
these talking points were a product of the intelligence 
community, that is not accurate. These talking points were--may 
have been typed by the intelligence community, but these 
talking points were dramatically changed, directly at the input 
of non-intelligence-community individuals, primarily in the 
State Department and in this meeting of the deputies. That is 
where the changes were made. They did not come from the 
intelligence community. The intelligence community--in fact, 
its leader at the CIA--expressed frustration at the changes 
that had been made.
    I know my time is up, but I have to get one real-quick 
question, and it has to do with--is--the START Treaty. Is 
Russia in compliance, in your opinion, with the New START? I 
know that is a big change of topic. [Laughter.]
    Ambassador Nuland. Senator, at this--in this current state 
that I am in, I am not privy to all of the information with 
regard to compliance. If confirmed, obviously I would be fully 
transparent with you, within my responsibilities----
    Senator Rubio. OK.
    Then, here's my----
    Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. With regard to that----
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. Last question. Anyone who wants 
to answer it. Maybe, General, you could help with this. Did the 
administration seek or receive any input from our NATO allies, 
ahead of the President's announcement, 2 weeks ago, about 
additional cuts to U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal, beyond the 
limits imposed of New START? Did we talk to our NATO allies 
about it? And, if we did, what was their reaction?
    General Lute. Yes, Senator, I am not aware of that. I am 
obviously not following that issue at that time. I can 
investigate this and come back to you.
    [The information requested of Ambassador Nuland by Senator 
Rubio follows:]

    Following the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the President directed 
his national security team to conduct further analysis and review of 
the U.S. nuclear force structure and posture. The results of this 
analysis were announced during the President's speech in Berlin in June 
2013, including his commitment to continued consultations with allies. 
The speech has been welcomed by our European allies and partners, as 
well as our key Asian allies. The United States regularly consults with 
our NATO allies about our commitment to further nuclear reductions and 
to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. Any 
changes in NATO's nuclear posture must be decided jointly by the 
alliance. This ongoing dialogue with NATO informed the analysis 
conducted by the United States and announced by the President in 
Berlin.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
    Thank you very much for answering all of our questions. You 
have all acquitted yourselves very well. You all have had such 
impressive careers, and I am just so appreciative of the fact 
that you are ready to stand up for this Nation in a new 
capability. Congratulations on your nomination. And we look 
forward to your confirmation.
    This hearing stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


       Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record


          Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted 
                       by Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. Do you see the proposals put forward by the new Cyprus 
Government involving Famagusta as helpful in regenerating the efforts 
to resolve the political situation on the island?

    Answer. We would support any agreement on Famagusta that is 
mutually acceptable to both parties. This issue underscores the need 
for a comprehensive settlement reunifying Cyprus as a bizonal, 
bicommunal federation. We firmly believe that a mutually acceptable 
settlement is in the best interests of the people of Cyprus, and we 
hope the parties will seize the opportunity to end the tragic division 
of the island once and for all.

    Question. I noted with pleasure the spirit of religious cooperation 
demonstrated by the trip of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the 
spiritual head of 300 million Orthodox Christians and the world's 
second-largest Christian Church, to Rome for the installation of Pope 
Francis, the head of the largest Christian Church, Catholicism. 
Historically, the Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope were both bishops in 
the same undivided Christian church until the year 1054. This trip 
marked the first such recognition between the two churches that has 
occurred in nearly 1,000 years and is a great tribute to the ecumenical 
spirit of both religious leaders.

   Can you share with the committee what you plan to do in 
        working with Turkish Government officials to push for full 
        religious freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey?

    Answer. The United States recognizes the ecumenical status of the 
Patriarchate, which is a part of the rich tradition of religious 
diversity in Turkey. As such, the United States fully supports efforts 
to reopen Halki Seminary, a vital institution of spiritual learning for 
Orthodox Christians around the world, as a symbol of the Turkish 
Government's commitment to ensure full religious freedom for all, 
including religious minorities. The Turkish Government's return of 
property surrounding the Seminary to the Church earlier this year was a 
positive step. If confirmed, I will continue to urge the Turkish 
Government to demonstrate its respect for religious freedom by working 
cooperatively with the Patriarchate to overcome legislative and 
political impediments hindering the reopening of this revered religious 
institution and to resolve matters of importance to Orthodox Christians 
and other religious minorities in Turkey.

    Question. Recent reports indicate that there may be good reason to 
question whether there's been mismanagement at the Holocaust Claims 
Conference. What steps has the U.S. Government taken to investigate 
whether $57 million has been lost to fraud and what are we doing about 
it?

    Answer. In late 2009, suspecting fraudulent internal activity, the 
Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (``the Claims 
Conference'') retained outside counsel to conduct an independent 
investigation. The Claims Conference then presented evidence derived 
from this investigation to the FBI and the office of the U.S. Attorney 
for the Southern District of New York, which then launched an 
investigation into the fraud.
    In May of this year, the Claims Conference's former Director of 
Hardship and Article 2 Funds, Semen Domnitser, and two coconspirators 
were convicted in federal court on charges of mail fraud and conspiracy 
to commit mail fraud. Twenty-eight others had already pleaded guilty. 
No Holocaust victims were deprived of any funds because of those 
crimes. After uncovering the fraud, the Claims Conference took steps to 
prevent its recurrence. It engaged Deloitte to conduct an independent 
review of all processing procedures and subsequently revamped them. 
Deloitte has prepared a report with preventative recommendations, 
including how to install appropriate safeguards, and the Claims 
Conference is currently in the process of implementing them. The Claims 
Conference also reviewed thousands of files, one case at a time, to 
identify fraudulent applications and instituted a process to obtain 
restitution. Whenever it came upon documents confirming fraud, the 
Claims Conference suspended improper payments and sought restitution. 
Legitimately eligible claimants, however, continued to be paid.
    These losses to fraud must be measured against the overall 
accomplishment of the Claims Conference, a nongovernmental organization 
that since 1951 has sought a measure of justice for Holocaust survivors 
through negotiations with the German Government in order to provide 
payments both directly to individual survivors and grants to social 
welfare organizations serving survivors. As a result of these 
negotiations, the German Government has paid more than $60 billion in 
indemnification for suffering and losses resulting from Nazi 
persecution. Claims Conference negotiations have also resulted in the 
disbursement of additional funds from German and Austrian industry, as 
well as from the Austrian Government. In May of this year the Federal 
Republic of Germany committed to providing approximately $1 billion 
over a 4-year period for home care for Jewish Holocaust victims, with 
the annual amount increasing every year through 2017.

    Question. In recent weeks Transnistrian authorities have acted to 
increase the security along their line of control to make it resemble 
an international border. Has the U.S. position on Moldovan sovereignty 
over Transnistria changed? If not what diplomatic actions have we 
undertaken to address this change in the status quo?

    Answer. The United States strongly supports a peaceful and 
sustainable negotiated resolution of the Transnistria conflict through 
a settlement that provides a special status for Transnistria within 
Moldova's sovereign borders. The administration has underscored to both 
sides the importance of continuing to engage, compromise, and work 
toward a comprehensive settlement through the OSCE-sponsored 5+2 
process. The administration has also called on both sides to refrain 
from any unilateral action that might impede the process or undermine 
confidence in the negotiations. The State Department will continue to 
raise these points and concerns with authorities in Chisinau and 
Tiraspol and work with its partners in the region to amplify this same 
message.

    Question. President Obama has identified genocide prevention as a 
``core national security interest and core moral responsibility'' of 
the United States. What role does genocide recognition play in 
combating future incidents of genocide? Do you have a personal view on 
U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide?

    Answer. The U.S. Government clearly acknowledges as historical fact 
and mourns that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to 
their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. These horrific 
events resulted in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, and 
the United States recognizes that they remain a great source of pain 
for the people of Armenia and of Armenian descent, as they do for all 
of us who share basic universal values. As the President 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.
    If confirmed, my duty would be to represent the policies of the 
President and administration faithfully, and to work with our allies 
and partners in Europe to make sure that such dark chapters of history 
are not repeated.

    Question. The United States continues to support the democratic and 
economic development of Georgia--both through strong levels of economic 
assistance and a second Millennium Challenge Corporation compact with 
that country. What efforts are being made to ensure that U.S. 
assistance reaches all communities and regions in Georgia equally, 
including the impoverished region of Samtskhe-Javakheti, which is 
predominantly populated by Armenians?

    Answer. U.S. Government assistance in Georgia supports democratic 
and economic development throughout the country, and this includes the 
Samtskhe-Javakheti region. Over the past 6 years, the U.S. Government 
has provided over $240 million in assistance projects in Samtskhe-
Javakheti, including through the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC). 
These assistance projects have ranged from rehabilitating public 
hospitals, helping farmers bring crops to market, fostering economic 
development, supporting civil society, and giving voice to the ethnic 
minority communities.
                                 ______
                                 

        Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted by 
                      Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.

    Question. After a meeting with Foreign Minister Kasoulides, 
Secretary Kerry 
stated, ``We also look forward to working with the Foreign Minister and 
with President Anastasiades and others to try to move Cyprus forward on 
one of the world's frozen conflicts. The United States supports a 
bizonal, bicommunal federation. We would like to see us unfreeze this 
conflict and be able to move to a resolution.''

   What is your assessment of the most effective way to 
        unfreeze the Cyprus-Turkey conflict?
   Do you view the potential for gas exploration in Cyprus's 
        exclusive economic zone as beneficial or harmful to the efforts 
        to solve the country's political problem?

    Answer. As I noted during the hearing, I believe that we have a 
real chance to capitalize on changing attitudes and circumstances to 
help address the 40-year-old division of Cyprus. A comprehensive 
settlement reunifying Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation will 
benefit the people of Cyprus and help strengthen regional stability by 
facilitating normalization of relations between Cyprus and Turkey. The 
Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders have confirmed their 
intention to resume the settlement process in October, and Turkey has 
also expressed its support for the settlement process. If confirmed, I 
will work both publicly and privately with the parties and with the 
United Nations to encourage a settlement.
    The development of offshore energy resources should be a positive 
incentive for the parties to work toward a comprehensive settlement. We 
continue to believe that, in the context of an overall settlement, the 
island's resources should be equitably shared between both communities.

    Question. Ecumenical Patriarchate.--I noted the spirit of religious 
cooperation demonstrated by the trip of Ecumenical Patriarch 
Bartholomew, the spiritual head of Orthodox Christians, to Rome for the 
installation of Pope Francis. This trip marked the first such 
recognition between the two churches that has occurred in nearly 1,000 
years and is a great tribute to the ecumenical spirit of both religious 
leaders.

   What do you plan to do to push for full religious freedom 
        for the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

    Answer. The United States recognizes the ecumenical status of the 
Patriarchate, which is a part of the rich tradition of religious 
diversity in Turkey. As such, the United States fully supports efforts 
to reopen Halki Seminary, a vital institution of spiritual learning for 
Orthodox Christians around the world, as a symbol of the Turkish 
Government's commitment to ensure full religious freedom for all, 
including religious minorities.
    The Turkish Government's return of property surrounding the 
Seminary to the Church earlier this year was a positive step. If 
confirmed, I will continue to encourage the resolution of legislative 
and political impediments that are hindering the reopening of this 
important religious institution.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted 
                       by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. There has been speculation about a third trial of 
Khodorkovsky, Russia's longest serving political prisoner. What would 
be the implications for civil society and the democratic opposition in 
Russia if a third trial were pursued? What can be done by the United 
States or others to ensure Khodorkovsky is released as scheduled next 
year?

    Answer. The Russian Government cannot nurture a modern economy 
without also developing an independent judiciary that ensures equal 
treatment under the law, advances justice in a predictable and fair 
way, and serves as an instrument for furthering economic growth.
    The United States supports the rights of all Russians to exercise 
their freedoms of expression and assembly, regardless of their 
political views. These rights are enshrined in the Russian Constitution 
as well as in international agreements to which Russia is a party.
    If confirmed, I will continue to express our concerns to Russia 
both publicly and privately about the Khodorkovsky case, selective 
prosecutions, and the corrosive effect on society when the rule of law 
is undermined by political considerations.

    Question. It appears U.S. policy toward Central and Eastern Europe 
has lacked focus and this has contributed to the backsliding on 
economic and political developments you referenced in your testimony. 
What are your thoughts on how to fix this?

    Answer. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe are, with one 
exception, strong allies and valued partners of the United States that 
have made critical contributions to NATO and have worked with us on 
other shared priorities around the world. If confirmed, I will seek to 
intensify our already active dialogue with these countries to advance 
our common interests on a broad range of security, economic, global and 
law enforcement issues.
    Although we share with the people of the region a commitment to 
fundamental democratic values and human rights, we have concerns that 
some countries in the region have weakened the institutional checks and 
balances that are essential to democratic governance. We are honest 
with our friends about our concerns, both bilaterally and in venues 
such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and 
work with them to address these issues. If confirmed, I will also make 
it a priority to work actively with individuals and organizations in 
these countries who are striving to strengthen democratic institutions, 
civil protections, and the rule of law.
    Belarus is an exception. In dealing with the Government of Belarus, 
we will continue to impose sanctions until the government releases all 
political prisoners and creates space for democracy.

    Question. After decades of studied neutrality, the newly elected 
Government of Cyprus has decided to adopt a more prowestern foreign 
policy, including by seeking to join NATO's Partnership for Peace 
(PfP). Among other things, admission of Cyprus to the PfP would end the 
anomaly that Cyprus is presently the only significant country in Europe 
or Central Asia (other than Kosovo) that belongs to neither NATO nor 
the PfP.

   Does the Obama administration support Cyprus's aspiration to 
        join the PfP? If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for European 
        Affairs, will you work to help Cyprus gain admission to the 
        PfP?

    Answer. The United States has long supported Cyprus's aspiration to 
join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) Program. Since its start in 1994, 
the Partnership for Peace Program has been an important NATO tool 
seeking to promote reform, increase stability, diminish threats to 
peace, and strengthen security relationships between individual Partner 
countries and NATO, as well as among Partner countries.
    If confirmed, I will continue to work for Cyprus' inclusion in the 
PfP.

    Question. As you know, Cyprus has discovered significant offshore 
gas reserves which could provide a future revenue stream for the 
country, and could create the basis for energy cooperation with Israel. 
Expeditious development of this resource, pursuant to international 
law, could substantially improve Cyprus's economic development and 
potentially act as a unifying factor in the eastern Mediterranean.

   Does the United States support the right of Cyprus to 
        develop this resource?

    Answer. The United States recognizes Cyprus' right to develop 
hydrocarbons resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We 
continue to believe that, in the context of an overall settlement, the 
island's resources should be equitably shared between both communities. 
And, that the development of offshore energy resources should be a 
positive incentive for the parties to work toward a comprehensive 
settlement.

    Question. The stalled negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan 
over Nagorno-Karabakh continue to threaten the security and stability 
of the South Caucasus. It is even more concerning to see the United 
States, one of the cochairs to the Minsk Group, disengage from the 
region. Contrary to the passive U.S. role in the negotiations, Russia 
is very actively engaged. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev 
personally invested substantial political capital on advancing Russian 
interests in the South Caucasus vis-a-vis the Nagorno-Karabakh 
conflict. There is concern about a larger Russian military presence in 
the region, in the absence of U.S. engagement.

   What actions should the United States take to move the 
        stalled negotiations 
        forward?

    Answer. As cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, along with France and 
Russia, the United States plays a major leadership role in helping the 
sides find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If 
confirmed, I will make this a priority. I will work with the sides, at 
the highest levels, to help them overcome the current impasse, and 
involve Secretary Kerry and the President, as appropriate, in our 
diplomacy. We will also continue to encourage near term confidence 
building measures that the sides can take to minimize the danger of 
incidents on the line of control and other actions that could take the 
process backward.
    We will continue to stress that the parties themselves must find 
the political will to make the difficult decisions that a peaceful 
settlement requires. Any durable solution will require compromise from 
all sides. On June 18, Presidents Obama, Putin, and Hollande expressed 
their regret for the recent lack of progress, and called on the sides 
to recommit to the Helsinki principles, particularly those relating to 
the nonuse of force or the threat of force, territorial integrity, and 
equal rights and self-determination of peoples. We will also continue 
to emphasize that it is vital that the sides prepare their people for 
peace, not war, and avoid actions and rhetoric that could raise 
tensions or damage the peace process.
                                 ______
                                 

           Response of Douglas E. Lute to Question Submitted 
                       by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. As the Senate considers your nomination, we need to fully 
understand your views on what is arguably the most important arms 
control regime concerning the stability and security of our NATO 
allies--the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This 
agreement prohibits the production or flight testing of all ground-
launched ballistic and cruise missiles with range capabilities between 
500 and 5,500 kilometers, thereby promoting stability on the European 
Continent. As you are undoubtedly aware, however, Russian officials 
have made statements about the viability of the Treaty. For instance, 
on June 21, 2013, the Russian Presidential Chief of Staff stated that 
the INF Treaty ``cannot exist endlessly.'' Such statements obviously 
are cause for concern. I believe it would be helpful to hear your own 
perspective.

   Could you please provide your views on the importance of 
        preserving the INF treaty over the next decade, including the 
        impact of doing so on stability in Europe?
   Further, could you provide the administration's current 
        policy for information and intelligence sharing with our NATO 
        allied relating to compliance and verification issues 
        associated with the INF and other treaties of importance to 
        NATO?
   Finally, can you assure the committee that our NATO allies 
        have been fully and completely informed of all compliance and 
        certification issues associated with the INF and other 
        treaties?

    Answer. The INF Treaty remains a significant achievement in nuclear 
arms control that contributes greatly to peace and security on the 
European Continent. It was the first arms control treaty to result in 
the elimination of an entire class of weaponry. It remains a vital 
element of the security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic region. 
Accordingly, it is critical that this treaty be preserved. The Russian 
Federation remains a party to the treaty and has not communicated to 
the United States an intention to withdraw from it. The reintroduction 
of INF class ground-launched missiles would destabilize and threaten 
the peace and security in Europe that the INF Treaty has helped ensure 
for over 25 years.
    I want to reassure you that the administration is committed to 
maintaining a full and robust dialogue with NATO allies on the range of 
common security issues of concern, including those related to Russia. 
In fact, all allies share information bearing on our common security 
concerns. In addition, the administration regularly consults with 
allies on security and stability issues, at every level. For further 
information on these topics, we would be happy to brief you in a 
classified setting.
    If confirmed, I personally commit both to representing these and 
all other American interests in NATO and to working with the Congress 
on these critical issues.
    The administration is committed to working to seize the 
opportunities before us to revitalize and deepen our ties with Europe. 
We look forward to working with you on these and other important 
issues.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted 
                    by Senator Christopher A. Coons

    Question. If you are confirmed, how will you approach the 
challenges in Cyprus? What role do you think the United States can play 
in supporting Cyprus in its efforts to end the division of the island? 
How do you think gas exploration in Cyprus' Exclusive Economic Zone 
will impact the political situation?

    Answer. The U.S. Government is not a participant in the 
negotiations, but we have offered to provide any help that both sides 
would find useful. The administration will support the settlement 
process under U.N. auspices, which aims at achieving a bizonal, 
bicommunal federation, with political equality as stipulated in past 
United Nations Security Council Resolutions. As a friend to the people 
of Cyprus, the administration will continue to urge the leaders of both 
communities to engage constructively in the settlement process as the 
best way to reach an agreement. The administration will also engage 
Turkey and Greece to encourage reconciliation and reunification.
    The development of offshore energy resources should be a positive 
incentive for the parties to work toward a comprehensive settlement. We 
continue to believe that, in the context of an overall settlement, the 
island's resources should be equitably shared between both communities.

    Question. During your hearing you spoke at length about your 
concerns over human rights issues in Russia. Were you to be confirmed, 
how would you advise Members of Congress to approach our Russian Duma 
counterparts, with a view to seek changes to Russian legislation, such 
as the antigay propaganda bill? What would you do in your new role to 
support LGBT rights more broadly?

    Answer. The administration has raised concerns about this 
legislation and other new laws negatively affecting civil society with 
Russian Government officials, both publicly and privately. If 
confirmed, I would encourage Members of Congress to do the same with 
their counterparts in the Russian Duma. The administration regularly 
supports congressional delegations visiting their Russian colleagues. 
Interactions of this kind provide an opportunity to urge Russia to 
honor its obligations and commitments with respect to freedoms of 
expression, association, and assembly.
    Throughout my career, I have been an ardent supporter of LGBT 
rights, including most recently as State Department spokesperson when I 
spoke out regularly on these issues. If confirmed, I will work with our 
like-minded partners in all European countries and multilateral fora to 
protect the rights of LGBT individuals.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted 
                         by Senator Marco Rubio

    Question. What strategic goals does the President expect to 
accomplish in Europe by 2016?

    Answer. Europe is our partner in everything we do around the world 
and as I said in my testimony, this administration's first task with 
our European allies is to revitalize the foundations of our global 
leadership and our democratic, free market way of life. We need growth 
and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and 
Investment Partnership (T-TIP) that the United States and European 
Union began negotiating last week with the EU could support hundreds of 
thousands of additional jobs and strengthen our international 
competitiveness. But 
T-TIP is about more than our economic underpinnings. T-TIP is also a 
political and strategic investment in our shared future and our 
effectiveness as global leaders in the 21st century.
    We must also focus on the unfinished work within Europe. Today, 
there is a real chance to capitalize on changing attitudes and 
circumstances to address the 40-year-old division of Cyprus. Kosovo and 
Serbia have made important commitments toward long-term reconciliation, 
thanks to the good offices of EU High Representative Ashton. And the 
United States cannot break faith with other members of our European and 
Eurasian family who have been trapped for too long in frozen conflicts 
and territorial disputes.
    Together, the United States and Europe must also do more to defend 
the universal values that bind us. While all states in the EUR region 
hold elections and most have democratic constitutions, the quality of 
democracy and the rule of law in Europe and Eurasia is gravely uneven, 
and in some key places, the trends are moving in the wrong direction. 
Too many citizens do not feel safe criticizing their governments, 
running for office or advancing a vibrant civil society. In too many 
places, press freedom is stifled, courts are rigged and governments put 
their thumbs on the scales of justice. If, as a transatlantic 
community, we aspire to support and mentor other nations who want to 
live in justice, peace, and freedom, we must be equally vigilant about 
completing that process in our own space.
    The United States and Europe must also continue to work together 
beyond our shores to advance security, stability, justice, and freedom. 
Our investment together in a safe, developing, democratic Afghanistan 
is just one example. As we look to future demands on our great 
alliance--and they will come--we must build on that experience, not 
allow it to atrophy. In these difficult budget times, that will require 
working even harder to get more defense bang for our buck, euro, pound, 
krone, and zloty with increased pooling, sharing, and partnering to 
ensure NATO remains the world's premier defense alliance and a capable 
coordinator of global security missions, when required.
    America's work with European partners and the European Union across 
Africa, in Asia, on climate and on so many other global challenges must 
also continue. Today, the most urgent focus of common effort should be 
in Europe's own backyard and an area of vital interest to us all: the 
broader Middle East and North Africa. From Libya, to Tunisia, to Egypt, 
to Lebanon, to Iran, to Syria, to our work in support of Middle East 
peace, the United States and Europe are strongest when we share the 
risk, the responsibility, and in many cases, the financial burden of 
promoting positive change.
    When this administration can, it must also work effectively with 
Russia to solve global problems. With respect to Iran, DPRK policy, 
Afghanistan, counterterrorism and nuclear arms control and 
nonproliferation, we have seen important progress in the past 4 years, 
and the President is looking for opportunities to take our cooperation 
to the next level. However, we must also continue to be frank when we 
disagree with Russian policy, whether it's with regard to weapons sales 
to the Assad regime in Syria or the treatment of NGOs, civil society, 
and political activists or journalists inside Russia.
    Finally, the United States must be attentive to the fast changing 
energy landscape of Europe and Eurasia, and the opportunities and 
challenges that brings. We welcome these developments and need to 
ensure U.S. companies continue to play a leading role in this dynamic 
market.
    As the President said in Berlin last month, ``our relationship with 
Europe remains the cornerstone of our own freedom and security. 
``Europe is our partner in everything we do . . . and our relationship 
is rooted in the enduring bonds . . . (of) . . . our common values.'' 
In every decade since World War II those bonds have been tested, 
challenged, and in some quarters, doubted. In every decade, we have 
rolled up our sleeves with our European allies and partners and beat 
the odds. These times of tight money, unfinished business at home and 
competing priorities abroad are as important as any we have faced.
    If confirmed, I pledge to seize the opportunities before us to 
revitalize and deepen our ties with Europe, and to ensure we continue 
to have the will, the trust, and the capability to advance our shared 
security and prosperity and to meet our many global challenges 
together.

    Question. Please explain how the administration is ensuring that 
growing attention to the Asia-Pacific region does not come at the 
expense of security commitments in Europe, the Middle East, and South 
Asia?

    Answer. The administration's plan to ``rebalance'' our global 
posture to augment our focus on the Asia-Pacific region does not 
diminish our close and continuing partnerships with European and other 
allies. Reductions in U.S.-stationed forces in Europe will not impede 
our ability to fulfill our article 5 or other enduring security 
commitments to allies and partners. Rather, changes to U.S. force 
posture in Europe--such as deployment of missile defense assets to 
Europe and an aviation detachment to Poland; steps to enhance our 
special operations capability; investment in shared NATO capabilities 
like Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) and a revitalized NATO Response 
Force--will yield a capable, more modern U.S. presence in Europe that 
will enable us to partner with Europeans and other allies on regional 
and global security operations, build partner capacity, and respond to 
future contingencies. Even after the cuts are implemented, over 60,000 
U.S. servicemembers will remain in Europe, supporting our defense 
commitments to our allies and U.S., NATO-led, and coalition operations 
globally. We will maintain two brigade combat teams in Europe as part 
of a large, permanent military footprint, one of the largest military 
footprints outside the United States.
    NATO will remain the cornerstone of transatlantic security, and our 
European allies--NATO allies in particular--are our partners of first 
resort for dealing with the full range of global security concerns.

    Question. There is significant concern in the Senate about the 
administration's 
potential interest to conduct further nuclear reductions outside of a 
formal treaty process. If confirmed, how would you intend to keep the 
Senate informed about discussions with the Russians on this issue?

    Answer. The administration is committed to continuing its 
consultations with Congress on arms-control-related issues.
    Last month the President said in Berlin that he intends to seek 
further negotiated reductions with Russia. The administration has just 
begun to have conversations with the Russians about how this might 
proceed, so it is very early to know their level of interest and what 
might be possible. Clearly anything we do must be rooted firmly in our 
own national interests and must meet the national security needs of the 
American People.
    If confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with the 
Senate on these issues as they would relate to my responsibilities for 
the bilateral relationship with Russia. I have the utmost respect for 
the Senate's prerogatives and responsibilities with regard to these 
issues.

    Question. What is the administration's assessment of civil freedoms 
and government transparency in Russia? What factors are most 
threatening to the development of independent civil society in Russia? 
How has the environment in which independent civil society operate in 
Russia changed over the last 4 years? Is there more or less space for 
them to operate freely?

    Answer. The administration is concerned about the sharply negative 
trends in democracy and human rights in Russia, particularly the 
shrinking space available for Russian civil society. In the wake of the 
mass public protests that followed parliamentary elections in 2011, the 
Russian Government has adopted a series of measures aimed at 
restricting the workings of civil society and limiting avenues for 
public expressions of dissent. These include laws increasing fines for 
public protests, restricting the funding of nongovernmental 
organizations, recriminalizing libel, expanding the definition of 
treason, and curbing the rights of members of minority groups. A number 
of activists, human rights defenders, and opposition leaders are facing 
charges and prison in what appear to be politically motivated cases, 
while civil society organizations like election monitor Golos face 
steep fines, criminal prosecution, and the suspension of their 
activities under the ``foreign agent'' law.
    The administration continues to believe that political pluralism, 
democratic accountability, and respect for human rights and rule of law 
are the keys to unlocking Russia's enormous potential. We will continue 
in public and private to urge Russia to reverse the negative democratic 
trends. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of State, I will make it a 
priority to support the work of those Russians that strive to create a 
more free, modern, and democratic country.

    Question. Does the administration have the tools necessary to 
continue to help independent civil society organizations in Russia?

    Answer. As you are aware, at the request of the Russian Government, 
USAID closed its mission as of October 1, 2012. The Russian Government 
has also enacted a series of laws in the last year that restrict 
cooperation between Russian nongovernmental organizations and foreign 
partners. I regret the decision of the Russian Government to end 
USAID's operations and am concerned by its actions against NGOs in 
recent months.
    While these actions have changed how we work with Russian NGOs, the 
administration remains committed to supporting the development of civil 
society in Russia and to fostering links between Russian and American 
civil society. The tools we have include people-to-people ties and 
exchanges, public diplomacy outreach, and the activities of the 
Bilateral Presidential Commission. The administration also raises its 
concerns about restrictions on civil society with Russian officials, 
both publicly and privately. If confirmed, I will keep Congress 
informed of efforts to enhance these links, and I look forward to 
consulting with Congress as we develop new tools to support the 
aspirations of Russian civil society.

    Question. What is the administration's assessment of the 
prosecution in Georgia of officials from the previous government? What 
is the status of the rule of law and due process in Georgia?

    Answer. We are closely following the criminal cases involving 
officials from the previous government in Georgia. Embassy Tbilisi 
personnel observe courtroom proceedings, and meet regularly with 
international monitors from the OSCE's Office for Democratic 
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and with representatives of both 
the Office of the Chief Prosecutor and the defendants. We continue to 
urge Georgia to conduct prosecutions with full respect for the rule of 
law while avoiding the perception or reality of political retribution. 
The cases are ongoing, and we will continue to watch them closely with 
these criteria in mind.

    Question. Does the administration plan to review U.S. civilian 
assistance programs in Georgia in light of ongoing political 
developments in the country? If so, how?

    Answer. U.S. assistance is an important means for us to achieve our 
foreign policy goals in Georgia, and a significant portion supports 
programs that strengthen the rule of law, civil society, and democratic 
institutions. We regularly monitor and review our foreign assistance 
programs in every country, including Georgia, in order to ensure their 
effectiveness, alignment with our foreign policy goals, and 
responsiveness to changing events on the ground.
    If confirmed, I will keep a close watch on assistance to Georgia to 
ensure it supports that country's democratic development and the rule 
of law.

    Question. What is the administration's position on the popular 
protests that broke out in Turkey in late May and on the Turkish 
Government's response? How is this likely to affect United States-
Turkey relations and the regional picture?

    Answer. We continue to monitor developments in Turkey closely. As 
we have stated repeatedly, as Turkey's friend and NATO ally, we are 
concerned about the excessive use of force by police in several 
instances, endorse calls for a full investigation, and welcome efforts 
to calm the situation through an inclusive political dialogue. The 
United States supports full freedom of expression and assembly, 
including the right to peaceful protest, as fundamental to any 
democracy. If confirmed, I will continue to urge Turkey to strengthen 
its constitutional and legal protections of human and civil rights.

    Question. What practical steps could the administration take to 
work with Turkish authorities in order to meaningfully reduce their 
interference with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey, including full 
freedom to choose its leadership?

    Answer. The United States supports the Ecumenical Patriarchate's 
right to choose its own Patriarch and its efforts to obtain citizenship 
for Greek Orthodox Metropolitans, as well as gain recognition of the 
Patriarch's ecumenical status from the Turkish Government. We will 
continue to urge the Turkish Government to demonstrate its respect for 
religious freedom by working cooperatively with the Patriarchate to 
resolve these and other matters of importance to Orthodox Christians 
and other religious minorities in Turkey.

    Question. Secretary Kerry expressed an interest in helping resolve 
the Cyprus problem. What are some of the ways the Secretary can do so 
in practical terms?

    Answer. The U.S. Government is not a participant in the 
negotiations, but we have offered to provide any help that both sides 
would find useful. We will support the settlement process under U.N. 
auspices, which aims at achieving a bizonal, bicommunal federation, 
with political equality as stipulated in past United Nations Security 
Council Resolutions. As a friend to the people of Cyprus, we will 
continue to urge the leaders of both communities to engage 
constructively in the settlement process as the best way to reach an 
agreement. We will also use our relationship with Turkey and with 
Greece to encourage reconciliation and reunification.
    If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Kerry to look for 
opportunities to support the reunification talks through his personal 
diplomacy and travel.

    Question. It is troubling to hear Iranian officials' aggressive 
rhetoric on Azerbaijan, including discussions at the Iranian Parliament 
questioning Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. How is the 
administration working with our Azeri partners to counter Iran's 
growing threats to the region?

    Answer. The United States and Azerbaijan have clear, 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. 
The Government of Azerbaijan has played an important role in enforcing 
international sanctions against Iran.
    U.S. and Azerbaijani security cooperation is focused on a number of 
relevant issues including: Caspian maritime domain awareness, border 
security, combating illegal trafficking, and NATO interoperability. We 
convene the U.S.-Azerbaijan Security Dialogue each year to review 
progress, raise important bilateral issues, and pursue additional areas 
of cooperation. We also work with Azerbaijan on counterterrorism, and 
continue to support Azerbaijan's independence by cooperating closely 
with Azerbaijan to diversify energy routes and resources for European 
markets.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Douglas E. Lute to Questions Submitted 
                         by Senator Marco Rubio

    Question. Given your role in overseeing Afghanistan policy at the 
White House since 2007, what is your view about the appropriate role 
for NATO in Afghanistan after 2014?

    Answer. At the end of 2014, the Afghan forces will be fully 
responsible for security across the country, having already assumed the 
lead for security countrywide with the June 18 announcement of the 
``Mid-2013 Milestone.'' As agreed at the Chicago summit, the new NATO 
mission after 2014 will train, advise, and assist the Afghan forces. It 
will be a narrowly focused, noncombat mission, significantly smaller 
than the current International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 
mission. NATO's ongoing planning calls for a ``limited regional 
approach'' to cover the army corps and police regions, and also focuses 
on national institutions, including the security ministries and main 
training facilities.

    Question. I'm concerned about reports that the President may decide 
to not leave any U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2014. What are your 
thoughts on the appropriate post-2014 U.S. presence?

    Answer. The President is still reviewing a range of options from 
his national security team with respect to troop numbers and has not 
made a decision about the size of a U.S. military presence after 2014. 
The President has made clear that--based on an invitation from the 
Afghan Government--the United States is prepared to contribute to 
NATO's train-advise-assist mission and also sustain a U.S. 
counterterrorism capability. A number of factors will define the U.S. 
contribution beyond 2014, including progress in our core goal to defeat 
al-Qaeda, progress with the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), the 
Afghan political transition, the potential for Afghan-led peace talks, 
regional dynamics, and completion of a U.S.-Afghan Bilateral Security 
Agreement (BSA) and a NATO-Afghan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). 
We've made significant progress on the text of a BSA, which is required 
for us to retain U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

    Question. I've also been troubled by the administration's recent 
decision to apparently drop several key conditions before agreeing to 
talk to the Taliban. What role did you play in the formulation of U.S. 
policy on this issue and what is your assessment of the likelihood that 
such talks will further our goal of a stable democratic Afghanistan 
that respects the rights of women and minorities?

    Answer. As we have long said, and as President Obama and President 
Karzai reaffirmed together in January, as a part of the outcome of any 
negotiations, the Taliban and other armed opposition groups must break 
ties with al-Qaeda, end the violence, and accept Afghanistan's 
Constitution including its protections for women and minorities. There 
is no purely military solution to the Afghan conflict. The surest way 
to a stable, unified Afghanistan is for Afghans to talk to Afghans. We 
have called on the Taliban to come to the table to talk to the Afghan 
Government about peace and reconciliation. Our goal remains for Afghans 
to be talking to Afghans about how they can end the violence, move 
forward, and rebuild their country, while protecting the progress made 
over the past decade.

    Question. What are your views on Russia's behavior in Europe and 
what measures NATO can take to reassure our allies in Central and 
Eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic countries, about our commitment 
to their security?

    Answer. The United States has made clear publicly that Europe--
including Russia--remains a key partner in meeting 21st century 
security challenges throughout the world. NATO and Russia disagree on a 
number of important issues--Georgia, Syria, and missile defense are 
among them--but we also have some areas of common concern, like 
Afghanistan.
    The United States is committed to strengthening the NATO alliance, 
with the cornerstone of NATO being the mutual defense commitment in 
article 5 of the Washington Treaty. We have political consultations 
with all of our NATO allies at every level, including ministers, on the 
full range of security issues. Allies also raise concerns about Russian 
policy directly with Russia in the NATO-Russia Council, where the 
United States continues to urge frank political dialogue, including on 
areas where NATO and Russia disagree.
    The United States is fully capable of and determined to fulfill its 
article 5 commitments, and will remain so even after our ongoing force 
posture changes in Europe are implemented. With respect to the Baltics, 
one example of our commitment to their security is that we have 
committed to extending NATO's Baltic Air Policing mission and are 
working with the Baltic States on their contributions to sustaining 
this initiative through host nation support. This mission exemplifies 
the spirit of Smart Defense, which will become increasingly important 
as we reconcile NATO's security requirements with budget realities.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted 
                        by Senator John Barrasso

                           russian adoptions
    Question. On December 28, 2012, Russian President Vladmir Putin 
signed into law a bill ending the intercountry adoptions between the 
United States and Russia. The law prevents U.S. citizens from legally 
adopting Russian children. The Russian law went into effect on January 
1, 2013.
    On January 1, 2013, the United States Senate unanimously passed 
Senate Resolution 628, which voiced disapproval of the Russian law. It 
also urges Russia to reconsider the law and prioritize the processing 
of intercountry adoptions involving parentless Russian children who 
were already matched with United States families before the enactment 
of the law.
    There are numerous families across this Nation who are already in 
the process of adopting children from Russia, including a family in 
Sheridan, WY. According to the Department of State, there are currently 
between 500 and 1,000 U.S. families in various stages of the adoption 
process.

   Since January 1, 2013, what specific efforts have the U.S. 
        Department of State made on allowing those American families to 
        finalize their pending adoption of Russian children?

    Answer. The United States deeply regrets Russia's decision to ban 
the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens, restrict Russian 
civil society organizations working with U.S. partners, and to 
terminate the U.S.-Russia Adoption Agreement. The Department has 
repeatedly engaged with Russian officials at all levels and urged them 
to permit all adoptions initiated prior to the law's enactment to move 
forward on humanitarian grounds.
    Despite the Department's continued efforts, Russian officials 
reiterated in our April 17 and June 25 U.S.-Russia adoption discussions 
that they will only permit those cases where an adoption ruling was 
issued before January 1, 2013, to be completed.
    The Department continues monthly meetings with the Russian Embassy 
to provide information regarding the U.S. child welfare system and to 
discuss intercountry adoption matters. The Department also continues to 
correspond with families that have reached out to the Department on 
broad and case-specific issues and to hold conference calls for 
families.

   If confirmed, what specific actions do you plan on taking to 
        help those families already in the process of adopting children 
        from Russia to be able to complete the adoption process?

    Answer. The Department has repeatedly engaged with Russian 
officials at all levels and urged them to permit all adoptions 
initiated prior to the law's enactment to move forward on humanitarian 
grounds.
    Despite the Department's continued efforts, Russian officials 
reiterated in our April 17 and June 25 U.S.-Russia adoption discussions 
that only those cases where an adoption ruling was issued before 
January 1, 2013, may be completed.
    If confirmed, I will continue to raise this issue with Russian 
officials at all levels and encourage intercountry adoption as an 
important child welfare measure. While Russia has the sovereign right 
to ban the adoption of its citizens, if confirmed, I will continue to 
underscore that this ban hurts the most vulnerable members of Russian 
society. I will also continue to highlight the dedication of U.S. 
families to these children.

   Will you commit to addressing this problem directly to the 
        Russian Government?

    Answer. The Department has repeatedly engaged with Russian 
officials at all levels and urged them to permit all adoptions 
initiated prior to the law's enactment to move forward on humanitarian 
grounds. In this effort, the Department continues monthly meetings with 
the Russian Embassy to provide information regarding the U.S. child 
welfare system and to discuss intercountry adoption matters.
    If confirmed, I will continue to raise this issue with Russian 
officials at all levels and encourage intercountry adoption as an 
important child welfare measure. While Russia has the sovereign right 
to ban the adoption of its citizens, if confirmed, I will continue to 
underscore that this ban hurts the most vulnerable members of Russian 
society. I will also continue to highlight the dedication of U.S. 
families to these children.

   Will you ensure that the U.S. Department of State works with 
        impacted U.S. families to provide them with updates and 
        information regarding their individual cases?

    Answer. The Department continues to correspond with families that 
have reached out to the Department on both broad and case-specific 
issues, and to hold conference calls for families. The Department 
values the input of all families and has met with a number of 
prospective adoptive parents to further discuss this matter. If 
confirmed, I will continue to make it a priority for the State 
Department to continue working with all U.S. families impacted by this 
ban and to keep them fully informed.
                       russia's support of syria
    Question. It appears the administration's policy is to basically 
continue to ask Russia to use its leverage to help stop the violence in 
Syria. It is clear Russia has no such interest in doing that.
    The Washington Post reported at the beginning of June that 
``sophisticated technology from Russia . . . has given Syrian 
Government troops new advantages in tracking and destroying their foes, 
helping them solidify battlefield gains against rebels.'' The same 
article went on to quote a Middle Eastern intelligence official as 
saying ``we're seeing a turning point in the past couple of months, and 
it has a lot to do with the quality and type of weapons and other 
systems coming from . . . Russia.''
    It is clear Russia's continued support for Syrian President Assad 
is one of the main reasons close to 100,000 have been slaughtered in 
the current conflict. Russia has vetoed every resolution to come before 
the United Nations Security Council on the matter, and has also voted 
against a nonbinding General Assembly Resolution. The absurdity of 
thinking Russia is going to cooperate with us on Syria is self-evident.

   Can you help me understand why the administration thinks 
        Russia has any interest at all in helping in Syria?

    Answer. Russia's continued support to the Assad regime--military 
and otherwise--only serves to prolong the suffering of the Syrian 
people. Since the Syrian uprising began, the State Department and the 
administration have been extremely vigorous, both publicly and 
privately, in exposing and demanding a halt to Russia's support to the 
regime and its vetoes of three Security Council resolutions. The 
administration opposes any arms transfers to the Syrian regime and has 
repeatedly and consistently urged Russia to cease arms transfers and 
sales to the Assad regime.
    In our Syria discussions with Russia, we continue to make the case 
that Moscow's current course of action is exacerbating the very 
regional instability that Russia has asserted is a danger to its 
interests. We have urged Russia stop all support for the regime and 
instead use its influence to bring the regime to the negotiating table 
to find a political solution that expresses the sovereign will of all 
Syrians. If confirmed, I will place a high priority on our efforts to 
change Russia's current calculation and seek more cooperation to end 
the suffering in Syria.

   What kind of cooperation is the administration currently 
        seeking from Russia on the situation in Syria?

    Answer. The administration continues to urge Russia to end all 
support for the Assad regime, especially military support, and to use 
its influence to help get the parties to the negotiating table to 
discuss a political transition, along the line agreed in the Geneva 
Communique.

   What steps are being taken to end Russia's support for the 
        Assad regime and the Russian Federation's complicity in the 
        crimes against humanity being committed inside Syria?

    Answer. The United States opposes any arms transfers to the Syrian 
regime, which has used helicopters, fighter jets, and ballistic 
missiles to attack civilians. The administration has repeatedly and 
consistently urged Russia to cease arms sales to the Assad regime. 
Providing the regime with additional weapons inhibits reaching a 
negotiated political solution to the conflict and contradicts Russia's 
stated policy of seeking an end to violence.
    The United States, European partners, and Syria's neighbors have 
been consistent and unequivocal in conveying to Russia that supporting 
the Assad regime with arms and access to Russian banks is not in 
Russia's long-term interest and is damaging to the region and to 
Russia's global credibility.

    Question. Russia is essentially a serial violator of arms control 
treaties. When President Obama completed New START there were a number 
of issues outstanding on the original START. The State Department is 
unable to verify Russian compliance with the Biological Weapons 
Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention, while it affirmatively 
finds Russian noncompliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe 
Treaty and the Treaty on the Open Skies.
    In his April 2009 speech in Prague promising to rid the world of 
nuclear weapons, President Obama proclaimed ``rules must be binding. 
Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.''
    When Russia violates arms control agreements while the United 
States adheres to them, Russia gains a military advantage that puts 
U.S. national security at risk. For example, the former Commander of 
U.S. Strategic Command, General Chilton, predicated his support for 
U.S. nuclear levels and New START on the assumption ``that the Russians 
in the post-negotiation time period would be compliant with the 
treaty.''

   Do you agree with the position that for the arms control 
        process to have any meaning, parties must adhere to the treaty 
        commitments they have made?

    Answer. Yes, parties must adhere to their treaty commitments. The 
administration reports regularly to the Congress on arms control 
compliance matters through the annual report on ``Adherence to and 
Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Related Agreements 
and Commitments.'' The Compliance Report for 2012 was transmitted to 
the Hill on July 9.
    Regarding compliance matters in general, the administration takes 
very seriously the importance of compliance with arms control treaties 
and agreements. When compliance questions arise, the administration 
raises them frankly with our treaty partners and seeks to resolve them, 
and the administration will continue to do so.
    If confirmed, I will approach issues of noncompliance with arms 
control treaties and agreements with the utmost seriousness. I look 
forward to working on these issues closely with colleagues in the 
administration as they relate to my responsibilities for the bilateral 
relationship with Russia.

   Do you agree with the position of President Obama that 
        violations of arms control obligations must be punished?

    Answer. As President Obama said in Prague, violations must be 
punished. Regarding compliance matters in general, the administration 
takes very seriously the importance of compliance with arms control 
treaties and agreements. When compliance questions arise, the 
administration routinely seeks to resolve them with treaty partners, 
and the administration will continue to do so.
    If confirmed, I will approach issues of noncompliance with arms 
control treaties and agreements with the utmost seriousness. I look 
forward to working on these issues closely with colleagues in the 
administration as they relate to my responsibilities for the bilateral 
relationship with Russia.

   How has the administration punished Russia for its 
        noncompliance?

    Answer. As you know, the Department reports regularly to the 
Congress on arms control compliance matters through the annual report 
on ``Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation 
and Related Agreements and Commitments.'' The Compliance Report for 
2012 was transmitted to the Hill on July 9. The Compliance Report lists 
several instances of concerns with Russian compliance. It also makes 
clear steps the United States has taken to address those concerns. With 
regard to the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, for example, 
in 2011 the United States announced that as a legal countermeasure in 
response to Russia's 2007 ``suspension'' of CFE implementation, we 
would cease implementing certain treaty provisions vis-a-vis Russia. 
All our NATO allies and two other treaty parties took a similar step.
    The Department discusses compliance concerns with Russia in 
bilateral channels as well as in appropriate multilateral fora, and the 
Department will continue to discuss these issues and press for full 
compliance with and implementation of treaty obligations. The 
Department also keeps Congress informed of such matters, both through 
the compliance report and through interagency briefings with relevant 
congressional committees.
    If confirmed, I will approach issues of noncompliance with arms 
control treaties and agreements with the utmost seriousness. I look 
forward to working on these issues closely with colleagues in the 
administration as they relate to my responsibilities for the bilateral 
relationship with Russia.

   Can you explain why the United States would enter into 
        negotiations for future arms control treaties when there is 
        evidence of a major arms control violations that remain 
        unresolved with Russia?

    Answer. The United States enters into and remains in arms control 
agreements that are in our national security interest. Russia is in 
compliance with the New START Treaty, which includes the right to 
conduct inspections of Russian strategic forces--an opportunity that 
the administration would not have without the New START Treaty.
    Last month the President said in Berlin that he intends to seek 
further negotiated reductions with Russia. The administration has just 
begun to have conversations with the Russians about how this might 
proceed, so it is very early days to know their level of interest and 
what might be possible. Clearly anything we do must be rooted firmly in 
our own national interests and must meet the national security needs of 
the American people.
    If confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with the 
Senate on these issues as they would relate to my responsibilities for 
the bilateral relationship with Russia.

    Question. Presidential candidate Obama promised robust consultation 
with allies in developing the foreign policy of the United States. 
Specifically, for example, at the Munich Security Conference in 2009, 
Vice President Biden said we would develop missile defenses in Europe 
``in consultation with you, our NATO allies.''
    The facts are, unfortunately, quite different, as ``consult'' has 
really turned out to mean ``inform.'' When President Obama in 2009, in 
a gift to the Russians, cancelled plans to deploy certain missile 
defense systems in Europe, the New York Times reported the Czech 
Republic was informed of this decision by ``a hasty phone call after 
midnight from Mr. Obama to the Czech Prime Minister.''
    This is particularly ironic, given that Senator Obama said on the 
floor on July 17, 2007: ``The Bush administration has also done a poor 
job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile 
defense system.''

   Do you pledge to consult with our allies in NATO and across 
        Europe in developing U.S. foreign policy initiatives of 
        consequence to them, especially U.S. arms control and missile 
        defense plans?

    Answer. Yes. As U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 2005 to 2008, it was 
my honor and privilege to maintain the closest possible consultations 
with our allies on all issues of shared concern, notably including 
missile defense. If confirmed, I look forward to resuming these 
relationships.
    The administration regularly consults with allies on both arms 
control and missile defense. The United States works closely with our 
NATO allies regarding our commitment to further nuclear reductions and 
to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. During his 
recent speech in Berlin the President also reaffirmed the U.S. 
commitment to continued consultations with allies on future nuclear 
reductions. Similarly, the administration works closely with NATO 
allies and others on missile defense, regularly updating them and 
exchanging views on missile defense plans.

   Do you promise to share with [allies in NATO and across 
        Europe] information we learn about Russia bearing on the 
        security of our allies?

    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to maintaining the 
closest possible security consultations with our allies, and sharing 
relevant information, including with regard to Russia.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Douglas E. Lute to Questions Submitted 
                        by Senator John Barrasso

    Presidential candidate Obama promised robust consultation with 
allies in developing the foreign policy of the United States. 
Specifically, for example, at the Munich Security Conference in 2009, 
Vice President Biden said we would develop missile defenses in Europe 
``in consultation with you, our NATO allies.''
    The facts are, unfortunately, quite different, as ``consult'' has 
really turned out to mean ``inform.'' When President Obama in 2009, in 
a gift to the Russians, canceled plans to deploy certain missile 
defense systems in Europe, the New York Times reported the Czech 
Republic was informed of this decision by ``a hasty phone call after 
midnight from Mr. Obama to the Czech Prime Minister.''
    This is particularly ironic, given that Senator Obama said on the 
floor on July 17, 2007: ``The Bush administration has also done a poor 
job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile 
defense system.''

    Question. Do you pledge to consult with our allies in NATO and 
across Europe in developing U.S. foreign policy initiatives of 
consequence to them, especially U.S. arms control and missile defense 
plans?

    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I pledge to continue the close 
discussions we have had with our NATO allies on the full range of 
security issues, including missile defense and arms control, as we seek 
to further deepen our ties with Europe. In my military career, from 
Europe and Kosovo to overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I 
appreciate the value and importance of consulting with our allies. As 
Assistant Secretary-designate Nuland has also noted, the policy of this 
administration is that the United States works closely with our NATO 
allies regarding our commitment to further nuclear reductions and to 
maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. During his 
recent speech in Berlin the President also reaffirmed the U.S. 
commitment to continued consultations with allies on future nuclear 
reductions. The United States is also firmly committed to engaging 
allies regularly regarding bilateral consultations with Russia on 
missile defense and soliciting their views.

    Question. Do you promise to share with [allies in NATO and across 
Europe] information we learn about Russia bearing on the security of 
our allies?

    Answer. Yes. If confirmed as United States Ambassador to NATO, I 
look forward to maintaining the closest possible security consultations 
with our allies, and sharing relevant information, including with 
regard to Russia. We regularly consult with NATO allies on the full 
range of security issues, including those related to Russia, at every 
level. All allies share information bearing on our common security 
concerns. In addition to discussions within NATO, which inform our 
approach to issues including arms control and missile defense, we have 
also briefed allies on our bilateral conversations with Russia, as 
appropriate. NATO allies also raise questions and concerns about 
Russian policy directly with Russia in the NATO-Russia Council, where 
the United States continues to urge frank political dialogue, including 
on areas where NATO and Russia disagree.


                      NOMINATION OF SAMANTHA POWER

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY. JULY 17, 2013

                              ----------                              

Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be the Representative of 
        the United States of America to the United Nations, the 
        Representative of the United States of America in the 
        Security Council of the United Nations, and to be 
        Representative of the United States of America to the 
        Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations
                              ----------                              

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Udall, Murphy, 
Kaine, Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, McCain, Barrasso, 
and Paul.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order.
    Good morning, Ms. Power. Welcome to the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee.
    Your nomination as Ambassador to the United Nations has 
come with much fanfare and with some criticism which, at the 
end of the day, means you must be doing something right. But 
without fanfare or criticism, I do not believe anyone can 
question your credentials. Nor can anyone question your 
service.
    And certainly no one can question your willingness to speak 
your mind, often forcefully, always passionately, and usually 
without hesitation, and I commend you for your willingness to 
speak out, particularly on human rights issues around the 
world, whether as a war correspondent in Bosnia, in the former 
Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and Sudan where, as you said in your 
Pulitzer Prize winning book on genocide, you witnessed ``evil 
at its worst.''
    You have been an unrelenting, principled voice when it 
comes to human rights and crimes against humanity, and I know 
that voice will be heard around the world, should you be 
confirmed.
    Personally, I am incredibly appreciative of the principled 
position you have taken, on many of these issues, but 
particularly on the Armenian genocide. In 2007, you wrote in 
Time Magazine, ``a stable, fruitful 21st century 
relationship,'' in referring to Turkey, ``cannot be built on a 
lie.'' And I completely agree.
    Your belief that we should use the lessons of what clearly 
was an atrocity of historic proportions to prevent future 
crimes against humanity is a view consistent with my own and 
many others on this committee and which is supported by your 
role on the President's Atrocities Prevention Board.
    I agree that we must acknowledge and study the past, 
understand how and why atrocities happen, to put into practice 
and give meaning to the phrase ``never again.''
    As the son of immigrants from Cuba, one whose family and 
friends bore witness to, suffered, and continue to suffer under 
the Castro regime's oppression, I personally appreciate your 
commitment to exposing the Castro dictatorship's total 
disregard for human and civil rights and for not idealizing the 
harsh realities of communism in Cuba. I know from the 
conversation we had in my office that you appreciate the 
suffering of the Cuban people, the torture, abuse, detention, 
and abridgment of the civil and human rights of those who voice 
their dissent.
    I also welcomed your commitment to reach out to Rosa Maria 
Paya, a daughter of the longtime dissident and Cuban activist, 
Oswaldo Paya, who died under mysterious circumstances last year 
in Cuba. Ms. Paya is in Washington this week accepting a 
posthumous award from the National Endowment for Democracy on 
behalf of another young activist from Cuba who died alongside 
Oswaldo Paya, making your commitment to reach out to her that 
much more timely.
    And yesterday's news of the discovery of illegal arms 
shipments from Cuba to North Korea reinforces in my view the 
necessity of the United States keeping Cuba on the list of 
countries who are the sponsors of terrorism.
    I share your view that we should not lose sight of these 
moral issues even as we are addressing the pressing economic 
and security issues that confront our Nation.
    It is fitting that you will be at the United Nations, which 
was created after a period of atrocity and conflict with the 
goal of bringing nations together to achieve peace and 
stability.
    In the words of the U.N. preamble that was created, quote, 
``to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity 
and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and 
women of nations large and small.''
    If confirmed, your focus on the United Nations will, no 
doubt, be on the crisis du jour, the Middle East, Syria, Iran, 
North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, increasingly North Africa, 
and the nature of nations that emerge from the Arab Spring. But 
I would encourage you to also keep your focus and task your 
staff to not forget what is happening off the front page as 
well as on it: What may be happening on freedom of expression 
in Latin America; fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and polio in 
Africa; on the status of talks to resolve the 66-year-long 
question of Cyprus; on women's rights in Pakistan; labor rights 
in Bangladesh; and human rights in Sri Lanka.
    The United Nations, for all its faults, has a great ability 
to serve as an arbitrator and neutral fact-finder and overseer 
of peace. I urge you to harness its strengths in the interests 
of our Nation and not coincidentally in the interest of 
fulfilling the stated purpose of the United Nations, which is 
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and 
security.
    We will address these issues, among many others, in our 
questioning, but let me take this opportunity again to welcome 
you to the committee and to say that we look forward to a full 
and frank dialogue on the issues you will face, should you be 
confirmed.
    Let me also say for the record if there are additional 
questions for the record of this nominee, they should be 
submitted by 5 p.m. today.
    With that, let me turn to the distinguished ranking member 
of the committee, Senator Corker, for his opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this 
hearing.
    And I want to welcome the nominee. We had a very good 
meeting.
    I will be brief.
    I know you are going to be received very well here in spite 
of the two introducers that you have beside you.
    But I do appreciate the time and the candor in our office. 
I want to thank you for being willing to serve in this way, and 
I think you know our Ambassador to the United Nations is one of 
the most important diplomatic posts that we have. You have 
daily contact with leaders from all around the world and, 
therefore, are maybe out there amongst people around the world 
more than anybody else, and it can be a critical component of 
our diplomatic efforts.
    We are the largest contributor to the United Nations. I 
think you know that. And I hope that one of the things you are 
going to pursue--I know you are very policy-oriented, and I 
appreciate that, but I hope you are also going to pursue 
reforms at the United Nations to cause it to function in a much 
better way for not only U.S. taxpayers but for the world. All 
too often--I think you know this--the United Nations acts as a 
place where bad actors deflect criticism. And I hope that you 
will--I think you will actually--but I hope you will follow the 
footsteps of predecessors like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and 
Jeane Kilpatrick who basically got out there and championed our 
national interests at the United Nations even when it was 
unpopular.
    So, again, I thank you for coming before us today. I look 
forward to your service. I know there will be a number of 
questions today that I know you will answer well. And, again, 
thank you for your willingness to serve.
    Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our extra-
distinguished guests today that I know are looking at their 
watch wanting to go to the next hearing, even though they are 
glad to be here I know.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Corker.
    We are pleased to have our distinguished colleagues from 
Georgia with us to introduce Ms. Power to the committee. So I 
will first recognize the senior member from Georgia, Senator 
Chambliss, followed then by Senator Isakson.

              STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

    Senator Chambliss. Well, thank you very much, Chairman 
Menendez and Senator Corker, for allowing Johnny and me to come 
today to introduce Samantha Power to the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
    Samantha is already well known by this committee, but 
suffice it to say she is an Irish-born American who 
matriculated to Atlanta to become educated in high school to 
prepare herself not just for this job but to go to Yale and go 
to Harvard Law School. Pretty good credentials coming out of 
Lakeside High School in Atlanta.
    She has a passion for human rights, as you stated, Mr. 
Chairman, and she takes her passion very seriously. She is a 
prolific writer who believes in what she is writing about to 
the extent that she gets into the fray as she did in Yugoslavia 
by dodging bullets to report on the war in Yugoslavia.
    She is a Pulitzer Prize winning author.
    She has extensive foreign policy experience as a staffer, 
as well as a member of the President's national security team.
    You know, the job that she has been nominated by the 
President to assume is a very difficult job. It is one that 
requires charisma and at the same time toughness. Now, I am 
told by her friends that Samantha can be kind and gentle, but 
she is one more smart, tough lady who can express herself in 
very strong terms when she needs to. And she is going to need 
that ability.
    I look forward to seeing her as an adversary to some of the 
tougher leaders around the world that she will be dealing with 
at the United Nations because I am confident that the same 
passion she has for human rights she has for this country, and 
she will express that passion in no uncertain terms.
    She is going to be a great representative of the United 
States as Ambassador to the United Nations. I commend her to 
you highly, and I look forward to seeing her confirmed in short 
order.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Isakson.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

    Senator Isakson. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Senator 
Corker. It is an honor to be here to introduce a woman with 
Georgia roots.
    At the age of 9, Samantha's parents brought her from 
Ireland to the United States and she ended up at Lakeside High 
School in DeKalb County, Georgia, where she graduated.
    I did some research to find out what others said about her 
when she was in Georgia, and a good friend of mine, Jeff 
Hullinger, who is the sports director for WSB in Atlanta, had 
her as one of his interns in 1989. And I want to quote directly 
from what he said about Samantha. He said ``she seemed to be a 
fish out of water in the sports department. Oh, my God, was she 
bright, acerbic, lightning-witted, and the depth of the Mariana 
Trench.'' So I do not know if you have got a better 
introduction or a better compliment than that, but Jeff said 
she is one of the brightest people that he has ever known.
    I appreciate her asking me to introduce her today, and I 
will just share a few thoughts additional to those Senator 
Chambliss said.
    As you know, I have traveled to Sudan. I have traveled to 
Rwanda. I have been to some of the places Samantha has written 
about and been an activist about. In fact, in her book about 
Rwanda, ``A Problem from Hell,'' which was a great book, she 
wrote that she could not believe that during the 3 months of 
the slaughter of over a million Rwandans, there was not even a 
high-level meeting at the White House. That, I am sure, was 
part of the motivation for her to create the Atrocities 
Prevention Board in the White House and for her to be a part of 
it.
    Rich Williamson, who was the Special Envoy for President 
Bush to the Sudan, who I met with in Darfur--Senator Corker 
traveled with me to Darfur--gives her high marks.
    My dear friend, Senator Bob Dole, sent me an e-mail after 
her nomination and said this is one woman who is most 
appropriate for the position to which she has been nominated.
    Last, I am the Republican designee from the United States 
Senate to the United Nations for this session of Congress. 
Senator Leahy is the Democrat. I have traveled to the U.N. 
Security Council and watched the challenges that Senator Corker 
referred to in dealing with those 13 members. I have no 
reservation or doubt whatsoever that Samantha Power will be 
just what her name implies, a powerful representative of the 
United States of America in a very powerful body, the Security 
Council of the United Nations.
    It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to introduce her 
and I wish her the best of luck in her confirmation.
    The Chairman. Well, we thank both of our colleagues for 
coming and joining our work.
    We welcome Senator Isakson back to the committee. Senator 
Isakson was a distinguished member of the committee. We miss 
him on the committee, and we hope that in some point he will 
return in the future.
    And I know you have busy schedules. So when you feel it 
appropriate, please feel free to leave as you need to.
    With that great set of introductions, Ms. Power, you are 
welcome to start your testimony. If you have family or friends 
here, please feel free to introduce them. We understand this is 
a commitment not only of yourself but family, and we appreciate 
that.
    Your full statement will be entered into the record, 
without objection. And the floor is yours.

   STATEMENT OF SAMANTHA POWER, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE THE 
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED 
NATIONS, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 
     THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, AND TO BE 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE SESSIONS 
         OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Ranking Member 
Corker and distinguished members of this committee.
    It is a great honor to appear before you as President 
Obama's nominee to serve as the U.S. Permanent Representative 
to the United Nations. Representing the United States would be 
the privilege of a lifetime. I am grateful to the President for 
placing his trust in me.
    I would like to thank my friends and my remarkable family. 
My parents, who brought me here from Ireland, Vera Delaney and 
Edmund Bourke; my husband Cass Sunstein; and our children, 4-
year-old Declan and 1-year-old Rian, who has already proven 
less interested in this hearing than others here today. 
[Laughter.]
    I would also like to thank Senator Chambliss and Senator 
Isakson for their generous, remarkable introductions. Growing 
up as an Irish immigrant in Atlanta, GA, I cannot say that the 
United Nations was a popular topic with my classmates at 
Lakeside High School. But it was in Georgia, while working at 
the same local television station, that I witnessed footage of 
the massacre in Tiananmen Square and resolved then that I would 
do what I could for the rest of my life to stand up for 
American values and to stand up for freedom. My Georgia friends 
supported me every step of the way, and I am so proud now to 
count these two great public servants, Senator Isakson and 
Senator Chambliss, among them.
    When I first came to this country, I viewed the United 
Nations as a place where people assembled to resolve their 
differences. It was the stage, as Senator Corker said, on which 
iconic Americans like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane 
Kirkpatrick stood up for what was right.
    Unfortunately, when I traveled to the Balkans in 1993, I 
saw a different side to the United Nations. U.N. peacekeepers 
had been sent to protect civilians, but in the town of 
Srebrenica, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were executed 
in cold blood as the peacekeepers stood idly by.
    The United Nations is, of course, multifaceted and its 
record mixed. It was with the support of the United Nations 
that I traveled in 2004 to Darfur where I discovered a mass 
grave and many charred villages, hallmarks of the genocide 
being carried out by the Sudanese Government. Today it is the 
World Health Organization that is helping to provide polio 
vaccinations, even as terrorists wage an assassination campaign 
against doctors.
    And last Friday, it was the United Nations that provided a 
stage for Malala, the brave, young Pakistani girl who was shot 
last year by the Taliban on her way home from school. Together, 
she and the United Nations will inspire millions to stand up 
for girls' education.
    Yet alongside all of this within the United Nations, an 
organization built in part to apply the lessons of the 
Holocaust, we also see unacceptable attacks against the State 
of Israel. We see the absurdity of Iran chairing the U.N. 
Conference on Disarmament. We see the failure of the U.N. 
Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria, a 
disgrace that history will judge harshly.
    What is also clear, 68 years after the United Nations was 
founded in San Francisco, is that an effective United Nations 
depends on effective American leadership. The war in Bosnia did 
not end because the United Nations acted. It ended because 
President Clinton, backed by a bipartisan coalition in 
Congress, including Senator McCain, took robust action. It is 
now possible to imagine an AIDS-free generation in Africa not 
merely because of the essential work of UNAIDS, but because 
President George W. Bush decided to provide lifesaving drugs on 
a massive scale.
    I believe that America cannot--indeed, I know that America 
should not--police every crisis or shelter every refugee. While 
our good will knows no bounds, our resources are, of course, 
finite, strained by pressing needs at home, and we are not the 
world's policeman. We must make choices based on the best 
interests of the American people, and other countries must 
share the costs and burdens of addressing global problems.
    There are challenges that cross borders that the United 
States alone cannot meet. There are cases, as with sanctions 
against Iran and North Korea, where U.S. efforts pack far more 
punch when we are joined by others. There are occasions, as in 
Mali today, when the United Nations has to step up to prevent 
state failure which abets terrorism.
    An effective United Nations is critical to a range of U.S. 
interests.
    Let me highlight quickly three key priorities that I would 
take up, if confirmed by the Senate.
    First, the United Nations must be fair. The United States 
has no greater friend in the world than the State of Israel. We 
share security interests. We share core values, and we have a 
special relationship with Israel. And yet, the General Assembly 
and Human Rights Council continue to pass one-sided resolutions 
condemning Israel. Israel, not Iran, not Sudan, not North 
Korea, is the one country with a fixed place on the Human 
Rights Council's agenda. Israel's legitimacy should be beyond 
dispute and its security must be beyond doubt. And just as I 
have done as President Obama's U.N. advisor at the White House, 
I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to defend it.
    Second, the United Nations must become more efficient and 
effective. In these difficult budget times, when the American 
people are cutting back, the United Nations must do the same. 
This means eliminating waste, strengthening whistleblower 
protections, ending any tolerance for corruption, and getting 
other countries to pay their fair share. It means closing down 
those missions and programs that no longer make sense. The 
United States has the right and the duty to insist on reform, 
and if confirmed, I will aggressively pursue this cause.
    Third, the United Nations must stand up for human rights 
and human dignity, which are American values and universal 
values. Today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 
widely hailed and yet only selectively heeded.
    Taking up the cause of freedom is not just the right thing 
to do, it is, of course, the smart thing to do. Countries that 
violate the rights of women and girls will never approach their 
full potential. Countries that do not protect religious freedom 
create cleavages that destabilize whole regions. If I am given 
the honor of sitting behind the sign that says ``United 
States,'' I will do what America does best: stand up against 
repressive regimes and promote human rights. I will also do 
everything in my power to get others to do the same.
    This means contesting the crackdown on civil society being 
carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and 
Venezuela. It means calling on the world to unite against human 
trafficking and against the grotesque atrocities being carried 
out by the Assad regime. And it means uniting peoples who long 
to live free of fear in the cause of fighting terrorism.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and other 
distinguished members of the committee, the late ambassador, my 
friend, Richard Holbrooke, told this committee that Congress 
should be in on the take-offs, not just the landings. I appear 
before you today not just to seek your support, but to ask to 
join you in a conversation about how to strengthen what is 
right and fix what is wrong at the UN. If I am confirmed, I 
will continue this dialogue directly and personally. And if the 
prospect of visiting the UN does not immediately entice you, my 
son Declan has resolved to become a tour guide like no other.
    If I am given the privilege of sitting behind America's 
placard, behind the ``United States of America,'' you will be 
able to count on me. I will fight fiercely every day for what 
is in the best interests of the United States and of the 
American people. I will be a blunt, outspoken champion of 
American values and human rights. I will be accessible and 
forthright in my dialogue with you, and above all, I will serve 
as a proud American, amazed that yet again this country has 
provided an immigrant with such an opportunity, here the 
ultimate privilege of representing the United States and 
fighting for American values at the United Nations.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Power follows:]

                   Prepared Statement Samantha Power

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished 
members of the committee.
    It is a great honor to appear before you as President Obama's 
nominee to serve as the United States Permanent Representative to the 
United Nations. Representing the United States of America would be the 
privilege of a lifetime. I am grateful to the President for placing his 
trust in me.
    I would like to thank my friends and my remarkable family who are 
here with me today--my parents, who brought me here from Ireland, Vera 
Delaney and Edmund Bourke; my husband, Cass Sunstein; and our children, 
4-year-old Declan and 1-year-old Rian, who may prove less interested in 
this hearing than others here today.
    I would also like to thank Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson 
for their generous introductions. Growing up as an Irish immigrant in 
Atlanta, GA, I cannot say that the United Nations was a popular topic 
with my classmates at Lakeside High School. But it was in Georgia, 
while working at a local television station, that I witnessed footage 
of the horrible massacres in Tiananmen Square and resolved that I would 
do what I could the rest of my life to stand up for American values and 
to stand up for freedom. My Georgia friends supported me every step of 
the way, and I am now very proud to count these two great public 
servants among them.
    When I first came to this country, I viewed the United Nations as a 
place where people assembled to resolve their differences and prevent 
hunger and disease. It was the stage on which iconic Americans like 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick stood up for what was 
right.
    Unfortunately, when I traveled to the Balkans in 1993, I saw a 
different side to the U.N. The U.N. Security Council had sent 
peacekeepers to Bosnia to protect civilians. But in the town of 
Srebrenica, those Bosnians who sought the protection of the blue 
helmets were handed over to those who wished them harm. More than 8,000 
Muslim men and boys were executed in cold blood, as the peacekeepers 
stood idly by.
    A decade later, I traveled across the Chadian border into Darfur to 
document the genocide being carried out by the Sudanese Government. 
After discovering a mass grave and many charred villages, I brought out 
some of the burnt remnants of those villages, which were exhibited at 
the U.S. Holocaust Museum. It was U.N. humanitarian workers who steered 
me to living witnesses, so eager were they to expose the regime-
sponsored horror. I should note that, as the crisis in Darfur once 
again intensifies, U.N. peacekeepers on Saturday suffered a horrific 
ambush that killed 7 soldiers and wounded 17 others--a reminder of the 
risks that U.N. personnel face every day.
    Elsewhere, today, we see physicians from the World Health 
Organization working with governments and local volunteers to provide 
polio vaccinations in Nigeria and Pakistan--determined to heal even as 
terrorists wage a campaign of assassinations against them. Just last 
Friday, the U.N. provided a platform for Malala Yousafzai--the brave 
young Pakistani girl who was shot in the head last year by Taliban 
gunmen on her way home from school--to inspire millions to stand up for 
girls' education.
    Yet within this organization built in the wake of the Holocaust--
built in part in order to apply the lessons of the Holocaust--we also 
see unacceptable bias and attacks against the State of Israel. We see 
the absurdity of Iran chairing the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, 
despite the fact that its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons is a 
grave threat to international peace and security. We see the failure of 
the U.N. Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria--a 
disgrace that history will judge harshly.
    The U.N. is multifaceted, and its record mixed. But 68 years after 
the United Nations was founded in San Francisco, one fact is as true 
today as it was then: an effective U.N. depends on effective American 
leadership. The war in Bosnia didn't end because the U.N. was shamed by 
the massacres in Srebrenica. It ended because President Clinton, backed 
by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, decided that American values and 
interests were imperiled and acted to end the war. It is now possible 
to imagine an AIDS-free generation in Africa not merely because of the 
essential work of UNAIDS, but because President George W. Bush decided 
to provide 
life-saving drugs on a massive scale.
    I believe that America cannot--indeed, I know that America should 
not--police every crisis or shelter every refugee. While our good will 
knows no bounds, our resources are finite, strained by pressing needs 
at home. And we are not the world's policeman. We must make choices 
based on the best interests of the American people. And other countries 
must share the costs and burdens of fighting injustice and preventing 
conflict.
    That is where the U.N. can be very important. There are challenges 
that cross borders that the United States alone cannot meet--terrorism, 
nuclear proliferation, and pandemics. There are cases--as with 
sanctions against Iran and North Korea--where U.S. efforts pack a far 
greater punch when we are joined by others. There are occasions--as in 
Mali today--when the U.N. has to step up to prevent state failure, 
which abets terrorism and regional instability.
    An effective U.N. is thus critical to a range of U.S. interests, 
and strong American leadership at the U.N. is indispensable to 
advancing those interests. Under the leadership of President Obama, the 
U.N. supported action to save countless lives in Libya; assisted a 
peaceful referendum giving birth to an independent South Sudan; and 
established a new agency dedicated to the empowerment of women 
worldwide.
    If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will remain clear-eyed about the 
U.N.'s flaws as well as its promise, and I will fight fiercely every 
day for what is in the best interests of the United States and the 
American people. The list of our challenges in New York is of course 
long, but let me highlight three key priorities.
    First, the U.N. must be fair. The U.N. cannot focus 
disproportionate attention on a few, while giving a pass to others 
flouting their international obligations. There cannot be one standard 
for one country and another standard for all others. The United States 
has no greater friend in the world than the State of Israel. Israel is 
a country with whom we share security interests and, even more 
fundamentally, with whom we share core values--the values of democracy, 
human rights, and the rule of law. America has a special relationship 
with Israel. And yet the General Assembly and Human Rights Council 
continue to pass one-sided resolutions condemning Israel above all 
others. Israel--not Iran, not Sudan, not North Korea--is the one 
country with a fixed place on the Human Rights Council's agenda. 
Israel's legitimacy should be beyond dispute, and its security must be 
beyond doubt. Just as I have done the last 4 years as President Obama's 
U.N. adviser at the White House, I will stand up for Israel and work 
tirelessly to defend it.
    Second, the U.N. must become more efficient and effective. In these 
difficult budget times, when the American people are facing tough cuts 
and scrutinizing every expense, the U.N. must do the same. This means 
eliminating waste and improving accounting and internal management. 
This means strengthening whistleblower protections and ending any 
tolerance for corruption. It means getting other countries to pay their 
fair share. And it means closing down those missions and programs that 
no longer make sense. As both the U.N.'s principal founding member and 
its largest contributor, the United States has the right and the duty 
to insist on reform. I will aggressively pursue this cause.
    Third, the U.N. must stand up for human rights and human dignity, 
which are American and universal values. The U.N. Charter calls for all 
countries ``to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the 
dignity and worth of the human person.'' But fewer than half of the 
countries in the world are fully free. The Universal Declaration on 
Human Rights is universally hailed and yet only selectively heeded.
    Taking up the cause of freedom is not just the right thing to do, 
nor is it simply the American thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. 
Countries that abuse their own people are unstable. Countries that 
violate the rights of women and girls will never approach their full 
potential. Countries that allow people to be trafficked provide safe 
haven to dangerous transnational criminal organizations. Countries that 
do not protect religious freedom create cleavages and extremism that 
cross borders and destabilize whole regions. Countries that fail to 
invest in the health and education of their citizens undermine our 
shared efforts to promote opportunity. Countries that are corrupt 
trample upon the dignity of their people, while scaring away 
investment. If I am given the honor of sitting behind the sign that 
says ``United States,'' I will do what America does best: stand up 
against repressive regimes, fight corruption, and promote human rights 
and human dignity. I will also do everything in my power to get others 
to do the same.
    This means pushing for democratic elections, but also pushing for 
the freedoms necessary for democracy to work--freedom of speech, 
freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, 
independence of the judiciary, and civilian control over the military. 
It means contesting the crackdown on civil society being carried out in 
countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. It means calling on 
the countries of the world to unite against human trafficking and 
against grotesque atrocities of the kind being carried out by the Assad 
regime. It means ensuring that in places like the Democratic Republic 
of Congo, peacekeepers sent into harm's way have the resources and the 
will to protect civilians. It means bolstering U.N. mediation so that 
conflicts can be defused before they become costly, protracted wars. It 
means strengthening non-U.N. forums like the Community of Democracies 
and President Obama's flagship governance initiative, the Open 
Government Partnership. It means redoubling our efforts to end extreme 
poverty. And it means uniting peoples who long to live free of fear in 
the cause of fighting terrorism and terror of all kinds.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and other distinguished 
members of the committee, let me stress before closing that this 
administration will most effectively confront our current challenges if 
we benefit from the counsel and collaboration of this essential 
committee, and if we can earn the bipartisan support of both Houses of 
Congress. I would like to echo the words of the late Ambassador, my 
friend Richard Holbrooke, who told this committee that ``Congress 
should be in on the takeoffs, not just the landings.'' So I appear 
before you not just to seek your support, but to ask to join you in a 
conversation about how to strengthen what is right and fix what is 
wrong at the U.N. If I am confirmed, I will continue this dialogue 
directly and personally. If the prospect of visiting the U.N. does not 
immediately entice you, my son Declan has resolved to become a tour 
guide like no other.
    In closing, please know that, if I am given the privilege of 
sitting behind America's placard, you will be able to count on me. I 
will tirelessly promote and defend U.S. interests. I will be a blunt, 
outspoken champion of American values and of human rights. I will be a 
straight-shooter, always accessible to you and forthright in my 
dialogue with you and the American people. And above all, I will serve 
as a proud American, amazed that yet again this country has provided an 
immigrant with such opportunity--here, the ultimate privilege of 
representing the United States and fighting for American values at the 
United Nations.
    Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

    The Chairman. Well, thank you very much for your statement.
    We will start a round of questioning.
    And I would just say that following Declan at the United 
Nations, I would not get lost because I would see that red hair 
no matter what. [Laughter.]
    And he is being very well behaved despite that this is 
boring. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Power. The day is young. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. We have got a lot of rooms here.
    Let me start off. I appreciate your statement on Israel, 
and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
    You know, above and beyond fighting battles against those 
who seek to delegitimize Israel, the United States has been 
very helpful in promoting Israel's position at the United 
Nations. As you know, Israel is seeking to represent The 
Western Europe and Others Group on the Security Council in 
2018, representing the first time that Israel would serve at 
the pinnacle of the U.N. system.
    Do you know if we are working to promote Israel for the 
Security Council, and how can we work in that regard? As well 
as the other injustice that Israel faces in the U.N. system is 
that in Geneva, unlike in New York, Israel is not part of any 
regional grouping. So would you commit to the committee that 
you will make efforts, should you be confirmed, to have Israel 
among the family of nations have an opportunity just like any 
other country would?
    Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I did speak in my opening 
remarks about fighting delegitimation, but what is a critical 
complement to that is legitimation. We have had modest success 
I think working with our Israeli friends to secure leadership 
positions across the U.N. system such as the vice-presidency of 
the General Assembly several years back, some leadership roles 
in U.N. Habitat and other organizations, membership in WEOG and 
participation in WEOG in New York.
    But you are right. The Security Council seat is one that 
has eluded Israel despite its many contributions across the 
years. And I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense, as 
well as playing defense, on the legitimation of Israel and will 
make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli 
public servants in the U.N. system.
    The Chairman. Now, this committee has had a great deal of 
focus and the chair has had a great deal of focus on the 
question of Iran and sanctions. You mentioned it in your 
remarks about we are stronger when we can multilateralize those 
sanctions and I agree with you, although often we take the lead 
and we get others to then join us in a multilateral effort. So 
sometimes leadership is important in order to bring others to a 
point where they may not be, but for American leadership.
    As Iran continues, despite our best efforts, to march 
toward nuclear weapons capability, clearly the Senate does not 
always express itself unanimously. It has on this issue to 
continue our efforts to prevent Iran from becoming the next 
nuclear state.
    How do you plan to use your position at the United Nations 
to build consensus for additional measures against Iran and how 
do you see bringing that continuing multilateral effort to the 
next stage? The clock is ticking. The centrifuges are spinning, 
and the window is increasingly closing for us.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for all of 
your leadership on that issue.
    Let me start by saying that the last 4 years have entailed 
a ramp-up of very significant pressure on Iran, including of 
the multilateral kind. And you are absolutely right that the 
foundation for our leadership is the domestic measures that we 
have put in place, which other countries have also replicated 
with their own national measures.
    The Security Council passed a crippling resolution back in 
2011 that I think has had a great effect. They are some of the 
most stringent sanctions that we have ever seen put in place in 
the multilateral system. And I was very much a part of that 
effort by virtue of my position as the President's U.N. advisor 
working with the team in New York.
    I think there are a couple things that we need to think 
about going forward. First of all, given that we need to 
increase the pressure until Iran is willing to give up its 
nuclear weapons program, we should always be prepared to look 
at new measures and see whether further action of the Security 
Council is required.
    In addition, the Panel of Experts, which is a very useful 
way of holding countries accountable--it is a body that holds 
countries accountable for their compliance with the sanctions 
regimen that exists already--has pointed out I think in its 
most recent report that there are a fair number of evasive 
tactics that are being used not only by Iran but by other 
members of the United Nations. So one of the things that we 
need to move forward on with haste--and again, the team in New 
York is already seeking to do this--is the Panel of Experts' 
recommendations as to how those loopholes can be closed and how 
those countries that are in deviance of sanctions can be called 
out and held accountable and, indeed, how those practices can 
stop.
    The other thing I would draw attention to, of course, is 
the human rights situation in Iran. Again, over the last 4 
years, we have had some success. The margin now in which the 
General Assembly Iran human rights resolution passes is larger 
than it ever has been I believe. We have also created the 
first-ever country-specific human rights rapporteur at the 
Human rights Council and that is for Iran. And that 
individual--I talked to Senator Kirk about this earlier this 
week--deserves our full support as the crisis that the Iranians 
are facing inside the country is extremely grave.
    So what I can commit to you, sir, is to be maximally 
consultative with you and to hear any ideas you have about 
things that we could be doing within the U.N. system that we 
are not doing, ways we can shore up the sanctions regime that 
already exists, and any other additional measures we should be 
contemplating to try to increase the pressure on Iran because I 
agree wholeheartedly with your premise which is that there is a 
window, but the window will not stay open forever.
    The Chairman. Finally, this committee acted in a bipartisan 
manner as it relates to Syria, and the conflict in Syria has 
killed over 100,000 Syrians, created 1.7 million refugees, 
millions more displaced inside of the country, a continuing, in 
my mind, tragedy of enormous proportions, probably one of the 
largest ones in the world right now if not the largest one in 
the world.
    But we have seen Russia and China continue to obstruct 
action by the Security Council, so much so that your 
predecessor, Ambassador Rice, said that the council's inaction 
on Syria is a moral and strategic disgrace that history will 
judge harshly.
    I assume you agree with that characterization, and how do 
you work to move the Security Council to a more vigorous role 
on Syria?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator. I agree with you. It is one 
of the most critical issues facing us today, one of the most 
devastating cases of mass atrocity that I have ever seen. I do 
not know that I can recall a leader who has in a way written a 
new playbook for brutality in terms of the range of grotesque 
tactics that the Assad regime has employed in response to a 
democratic uprising.
    What I will say is that the situation on the Security 
Council is incredibly frustrating. I described it as a disgrace 
that history would judge harshly in my opening statement, and I 
certainly agree with Ambassador Rice's claim that this is a 
moral and strategic disgrace in both respects.
    What we have sought to do, as you know, is not simply rely 
on the Security Council, but to proceed with a multifaceted 
approach aimed at isolating the regime, bringing about the end 
of the regime, strengthening the opposition, et cetera.
    We have worked through the General Assembly to signal just 
how isolated Syria is even as the Security Council remains 
paralyzed.
    We have worked on the Human Rights Council to create a 
commission of inquiry to investigate the abuses because when 
the Assad regime falls--and it will fall--the individuals 
responsible for these atrocities will need to be held 
accountable and the evidentiary base needs to be built now.
    And we have gone outside the United Nations, of course, to 
the Friends of Syrian People to coordinate the efforts of the 
likeminded.
    I think we have to be clear-eyed about our prospects for 
bringing in the Russians, in particular, on board at the 
Security Council. I am not overly optimistic. By the same 
token, their interests also are imperiled with the rise of 
terrorism in the region with the use of chemical weapons. And 
we will continue forcefully, repeatedly, to make that argument 
to Russian officials and to engage them given the urgency and, 
again, the devastating human consequences of allowing this 
crisis to persist.
    The Chairman. And one final point before I turn to Senator 
Corker.
    Am I correct in that right now it is the turn of the United 
States to chair the Security Council?
    Ms. Power. We have the presidency of the Security Council 
in the month of July, which happens once every 15 months, yes, 
sir.
    The Chairman. So right now, that presidency--the person who 
is sitting there is in an acting position.
    Ms. Power. It is a wonderful Foreign Service officer named 
Rosemary DiCarlo.
    The Chairman. And I am sure she is wonderful, but it would 
be great to have the United States Ambassador to the United 
Nations sitting in that chair.
    Senator Corker.
    Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you again for being willing to serve. I enjoyed 
our meeting and our discussion about what a liberal 
interventionalist is. I certainly, though, would like to drill 
down a little bit on the responsibility to protect.
    First of all, you know, in following up on the Security 
Council discussion that just was had, do you believe that for 
us to take unilateral military action, that we need a U.N. 
Security Council approval to do so?
    Ms. Power. Sir, I believe the President always should act 
in the interests of the American people when U.S. national 
security is threatened and the Security Council is unwilling to 
authorize the use of force but the President believes that it 
is judicious to do so. Of course, that is something that he 
should be free to do.
    Senator Corker. That was brief. [Laughter.]
    What exactly does the responsibility to protect mean to 
you?
    Ms. Power. Well, sir, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, some of the foundational events in my life were----
    Senator Corker. I should not say ``to you.'' What does that 
mean to us? Knowing that you are going to be at the United 
Nations, you no doubt are going to be a force. I think anybody 
who has met you knows that that is going to be the case. But 
how will that affect our efforts? When is it that we should 
respond to atrocities? And what are the guidelines as to 
whether we do that unilaterally?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    I believe that the way the President has articulated this 
is very important, which is that the United States has a 
national interest, national security interest, and a moral 
responsibility to respond to cases of mass atrocity, when 
civilians are being murdered by their governments. That does 
not mean the United States should intervene militarily every 
time there is an injustice in the world. What the President has 
asked us to do and what I strongly support doing and am eager 
to do again, if confirmed by you, is to look at the tools in 
the toolbox, diplomatic, economic, arms embargos, radio 
jamming, expelling diplomats from various institutions, 
creating commissions of inquiry, et cetera, and maybe deploying 
peacekeepers, providing different forms of assistance. There 
are so many tools in the toolbox.
    So I think the concept of the responsibility to protect, 
which is less important I think than U.S. practice and U.S. 
policy, which is that when civilians are being murdered by 
their governments or by nonstate actors, it is incumbent on us 
to look to see if there is something we might do in order to 
ameliorate the situation. And there is no one-size-fits-all 
solution. There is no algorithm, nor should there be. If I am 
confirmed to this position, I will act in the interests of the 
American people and in accordance with our values. That is the 
formula.
    Senator Corker. And that action might take place under a 
U.N. resolution or it might take place unilaterally. Is that 
what you are saying?
    Ms. Power. If you are referring to the use of military 
force, the President needs to make judgments about when to use 
military force on the basis of U.S. national interests.
    I think what we have found in history is that there are 
times where we have to work outside the Security Council 
because the Security Council does not come along, although 
Presidents have believed that it is in our national interest to 
act.
    There are times when we find it beneficial, of course, to 
have Security Council authorization because then we tend to be 
able to get some buy-in on the back end, maybe get some 
assistance with peacekeeping or reconstruction assistance and 
so forth. There is no question that internationally a Security 
Council authorization is helpful, but from the standpoint of 
American interests, it is U.S. national security interests and 
the needs of the American people that are paramount.
    Senator Corker. Thank you so much.
    We may have a scare about just the overall growth of the 
United Nations. I know that just in 2000, there was a $2.5 
billion budget. It is now up to $5.4 billion. Some people have 
advocated a zero growth policy. I would like for you to speak 
to that and just whether you believe there are many, many 
duplicative programs there that are wasteful and should be 
looked at and streamlined.
    Ms. Power. Well, thank you, Senator. Again, as I said in my 
opening remarks, I completely share the spirit of your 
question. These are such tough times for so many people here at 
home that we have to be zealous in our scrutiny of every 
program and every initiative that the American people are 
helping to support through their generosity.
    We have had, I think, significant success over the last 4 
years on a U.N. reform agenda, building on some of the work 
done by our predecessors. We have found in the peacekeeping 
budget $560 million to cut, and that is a very substantial 
amount when, as you say, the U.S. share of that budget is 
significant.
    The cuts can come when we have found, in the case of 
peacekeeping, duplications where a peacekeeping mission in one 
place is staffed or serviced logistically by one base and in 
another mission there is another base supporting that 
peacekeeping mission. Those have now been consolidated, and 
that is where some of those savings have come.
    The Security Council has closed down two peacekeeping 
missions over the course of the last 4 years, and that is a 
very important cost savings, again looking at the situation on 
the ground and making sure that closing down a mission is 
something that will not squander the gains that have already 
been made, but very cognizant of the tough budget times that we 
operate in.
    We actually brought about the first budget reduction, I 
believe, in 50 years in the history of the United Nations. It 
is very important that we keep that sensitivity that I think we 
have inculcated in New York going forward.
    And as you and I discussed, I believe, in your office, 
there are always countries who want to throw new programs onto 
the table. But what I will commit to you, as I said in my 
opening statement, is when I sit down, if confirmed, in New 
York with the team and to go over the landscape and be as 
aggressive as possible in seeking to deliver again on the 
generosity of the American people.
    Senator Corker. And that includes looking at other 
longstanding peacekeeping missions that may or may not be 
necessary.
    Ms. Power. Indeed. I think we already, looking out on the 
horizon, can see some that can be reduced in size and will be 
reduced in size, which should bring about some savings.
    Senator Corker. Richard Holbrooke was able to negotiate our 
share back in 2000, I think it was, at being 25 percent, and it 
got down to just a little under 26 percent I think in 2009. It 
is back up today to 28.4 percent. And I am just interested in 
your thoughts there and whether you would be willing to try 
to--I know there are lots of Holbrooke doctrines, but if this 
is one you would try to adopt.
    Ms. Power. Certainly, sir, I commit to you that I will do 
everything in my power to reduce the U.S. share of the 
peacekeeping budget. There are complicated formulas that are 
involved in that that we have inherited from our predecessors, 
but I will do everything in my power to address that.
    I will say also again that the absolute size of the 
peacekeeping pie is critical to this as well. So in addition to 
dealing with our share, we have to bring down, if we can, the 
overall cost, and that becomes evermore challenging with al-
Qaeda and other terrorist actors out there on the scene 
targeting the United Nations as they are because the cost of 
peacekeeping missions has gone up in light of the threat posed 
to U.N. workers, which we have seen cause very tragic 
consequences in recent years.
    Senator Corker. And briefly--I know we have to move on, but 
your view of expanding permanent seats on the Security 
Council--I know there has been some discussion there.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    The effectiveness of the Security Council is very important 
for U.S. interests, as I have described in my opening 
statement. I think any expansion of the membership of the 
United Nations Security Council should be one that both 
increases the representativeness of the council, which is what 
a lot of aspirants have emphasized, but also ensures the 
effectiveness of the council. And so it is not enough just to 
look to representativeness. We need to look at the degree to 
which the Security Council is going to maintain international 
peace and security. We do oppose, of course, giving up the 
veto.
    Senator Corker. Well, we have lots of people who come 
before us, some of which are more interesting than others. I 
have a feeling that you certainly are going to carve a path at 
the United Nations. I look forward to watching that. And I do 
appreciate the conversations we have had privately. I look 
forward to you carrying out in the same way that we have 
discussed things. I thank you for your willingness, and I 
certainly look forward to your service. OK?
    Ms. Power. Thank you so much, Senator.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Power, thank you so much for being here today and for 
your willingness to take on this very important role. I 
certainly intend to support your confirmation, and I hope the 
entire Senate does as well.
    You had an interesting exchange with Chair Menendez about 
Iran sanctions. Obviously, one of the things that has changed 
recently in Iran is the election of their new President, Mr. 
Rohani. And I wonder if you think that offers an opening. He 
has indicated that it is his intention to improve relations 
with the United States. Do you think there is an opening there 
with the new President-elect? And how can we pursue that? And 
does the United Nations have a role in trying to move Mr. 
Rohani and Iran to resume negotiations with the P5+1?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, so much for raising that 
issue.
    I would say first that whatever the public statements out 
of Iran, we have to remember the conditions that gave rise to 
that election or the conditions surrounding that election, 
which were the furthest thing from free, the furthest thing 
from fair. And I do not think anybody can say that the election 
in Iran represented the will of the Iranian people. I think we 
saw the will of the Iranian people reflected in the previous 
election and the democratic will of those people crushed. So 
that is point one.
    Second, I would say that our policy, the administration's 
policy since I am not currently in the administration, is I 
think very much reflective of the views of people here in this 
body as well, which is verify, then trust, deeds not words. And 
again, we have a negotiation track. It is something that we 
want very much to succeed, and we recognize that we need to 
increase the pressure in order to increase its chances for 
success. And so we call upon the Iranians to engage that 
process substantively in a way that has not happened to date.
    Senator Shaheen. And is there further action that could be 
taken at the United Nations that might help move the discussion 
in a positive way?
    Ms. Power. Again, to my exchange with Senator Menendez, I 
think we have to look at everything. This is so critical. This 
is so urgent. The clock is ticking. If there are steps that we 
can take in the Security Council, we should take them. And 
again, this is atop the list of urgent priorities in New York. 
But beyond that, I think it is probably best to get into the 
specifics in the event I am confirmed and can look at what is 
possible.
    Senator Shaheen. You mentioned in your opening statement 
and you have written very eloquently about the tragedy in 
Bosnia. And we have seen, since those days, that Croatia has 
achieved EU membership. We are seeing some breakthroughs with 
Serbia and Kosovo. But Bosnia really seems to be stalled. And 
in talking to some of the folks who have been involved with 
efforts in Bosnia for a very long time, they have suggested 
that the structure that was set up as the result of the Dayton 
Accords has made things more difficult there to really achieve 
long-term resolution in the country for some of their 
challenges.
    Can you speak to that and to what more we might be able to 
do to support efforts in Bosnia to move them toward EU 
integration and further into the West?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
    And as you know, yes, Bosnia is a country very close to my 
heart.
    I think what I would say is that, first, it is important to 
put today's challenges in some context. The country is at 
peace, at relative peace. It is an inspiring tribute, I think, 
to American leadership when you travel to the country and see 
the cafes open and see the hills no longer a source of target 
practice for nationalists and extremists, but instead a source 
of beauty. And it is a remarkable country and it is a 
remarkably resilient people. So I think the United States can--
especially, again, the Americans who supported U.S. leadership 
can feel some sense of satisfaction at what the United States 
and our allies have done in preventing what was one of the most 
horrific crises of the last half century.
    Second, though, in terms of ethnic polarization, I agree 
completely with your characterization. I think it is extremely 
problematic when you go to central Bosnia and you see entrances 
for Croatian students on one side of the building and for 
Bosniac or Muslim students on the other side. I mean, how is 
that possible in 2013 in Europe?
    With regard, I think, to the degree to which the Dayton 
structure is to blame versus the absence of political will in 
the leadership across Bosnia, I have not worked on that issue 
very much over the last 4 years. It is something I certainly 
would be eager to look at if I return to the administration. 
But I think starting with popular will, popular culture, doing 
away with the polarization as a matter of social norms is also 
something that needs to be done. And again, there are real 
efforts, an amazing set of contributions by the international 
community, and amazing leadership at the civil society level in 
Bosnia. But of the leadership, we just have not seen that 
commitment to multiethnicity that we need.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    Finally, there is a relatively new office at the United 
Nations that deals with women and empowering women around the 
world. I think one of the things that we have realized more in 
the last several decades is how important empowering women is 
to the success of communities and countries, and that when 
women have human rights and the opportunity to participate 
fully in a society, that communities and countries do better.
    So I wonder if you will commit to doing everything you can 
to ensure that that office continues to operate in a way that 
continues to support women around the world and recognize the 
importance of the future legacy for that office.
    Ms. Power. Absolutely, Senator. I think President Bachelet 
did a remarkable job. As you know, we worked behind the scenes 
with the Secretary General in order to try to bring about that 
consolidation of all the efforts on women and girls across the 
U.N. system. We are very encouraged with its launch, but 
needless to say the stakes and the urgent needs in the real 
world are very high. So the more support we can give, the 
better. And I think U.N. Women is operating very well in tandem 
with some of our bilateral programming on these issues as well.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, Ms. Power. Congratulations on your 
nomination. I know your family is proud of you.
    As you recall from our meeting--and I highlighted this at 
the time and I am sure you are aware of it--one of the parts of 
any nomination is a nominee will be asked questions about 
previous statements that they have made and asked to clarify 
those. So I wanted to give you an opportunity to do that here 
this morning. I am not sure that time will permit to go through 
all of them, but I did want to go through a few. And I am sure 
you are familiar with them. You have been asked about them 
before.
    So let me start by a 2002 interview where you advocated the 
use of a, ``mammoth protection force,'' to impose a solution to 
the Israel-Arab conflict saying external intervention was 
needed. Do you still hold that view and how would you place 
that in the context of today?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for giving me an 
occasion to clarify in a very public setting my actual views.
    I have disassociated myself from those comments many times. 
I gave a long, rambling, and very remarkably incoherent 
response to a hypothetical question that I should never have 
answered.
    What I believe in terms of Middle East peace is I think 
what is obvious to all of us here which is peace can only come 
about through a negotiated solution. There is no shortcut. That 
is why Palestinian efforts at statehood--by the way, my 
daughter does not like that quote either, just for the record. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio. We have all been heckled.
    The Chairman. And we have all answered hypothetical 
questions.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    Palestinian unilateral statehood efforts within the U.N. 
system--shortcuts of that nature just will not work. A 
negotiated settlement is the only course.
    Senator Rubio. OK.
    Then in 2003 in an article, you recommended, ``a historical 
reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the 
United States.'' Which crimes were you referring to, and which 
decisions taken by the current administration would you 
recommend for such a reckoning?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator. And again, thank you for 
giving me occasion to respond to that.
    I, as an immigrant to this country, think that this country 
is the greatest country on earth, as I know do you. I would 
never apologize for America. America is the light to the world. 
We have freedoms and opportunities here that people dream about 
abroad. I certainly did.
    And with regard to that quote, one of the things that had 
moved me I had, as some have mentioned, written very 
critically--I guess Senator Isakson mentioned--written very 
critically about the Clinton administration's response to the 
Rwanda genocide back in 1994, written in great detail about 
that. And President Clinton himself, as you know, had come 
forward and expressed his regret that the United States did not 
do more in the face of the genocide.
    When I traveled to Rwanda, however, having been very, very 
critical, I was stunned to see the degree to which Clinton's 
visit to Rwanda, his apology for not having done more, how it 
had resonated with Rwandans, how it had impacted their sense of 
the United States and the kind of regard the United States had 
for them. And it moved me and I probably very much overstated 
the case in that article.
    But the point, I think, that I was trying to make is that 
sometimes we, as imperfect human beings, do things that we wish 
we had done a little bit differently, and sometimes it can be 
productive to engage in foreign publics--excuse me--engage with 
foreign citizenry in a productive dialogue. And I think that is 
what President Clinton did in the wake of the Rwandan genocide. 
It had a great effect. It really meant a great deal. And that 
is really all I was meaning.
    Senator Rubio. So I would categorize the Rwanda situation 
as a crime, the words you used, permitted by the United States.
    Which ones did the United States commit or sponsor that you 
were referring to?
    Ms. Power. Again, sir, I think is the greatest country on 
earth. We have nothing to apologize for.
    Senator Rubio. So you do not have any in mind now that we 
have committed or sponsored?
    Ms. Power. I will not apologize for America. I will stand 
very proudly, if confirmed, behind the U.S. placard.
    Senator Rubio. No, I understand. But do you believe the 
United States has committed or sponsored crimes?
    Ms. Power. I believe the United States is the greatest 
country on earth. I really do.
    Senator Rubio. So your answer to whether we have committed 
or sponsored crimes is that the United States is the greatest 
country on earth.
    Ms. Power. The United States is the leader in human rights. 
It is the leader in human dignity. As you know, one of the 
things that makes us so formidable as a leader on human rights 
is that when we make mistakes--and mistakes happen, for 
instance, in the case of Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Nobody is proud of 
that. Virtually every American soldier operating in the world 
is operating with profound honor and dignity. We hold people 
accountable. That is what we do because we believe in human 
rights. We believe in international humanitarian law and we 
observe those laws. We are, again unlike any other country, a 
country that stands by our principles.
    Senator Rubio. What is the reckoning you referred to? What 
would you consider reckoning for those instances that you have 
just highlighted for example?
    Ms. Power. I think when any of us who have the privilege of 
serving in public office deviate in any way, we have procedures 
in order to be held accountable--deviate any way from our own 
laws, regulations, standards.
    Senator Rubio. I understand, but that is true of the 
individuals that committed those acts. What about the country? 
Because your quote was about the United States committed or 
sponsored a crime. What reckoning does the country have to face 
in response to acts committed by individuals of that nature? 
Because certainly that was not the command they had received.
    Ms. Power. Again, sir, I mean, I gave the Rwanda example. I 
think sometimes we see in the course of battle--unlike most 
militaries around the world, we put every target every choice 
through the most vigorous scrutiny, and occasionally there is 
collateral damage even after all of that energetic effort. And 
in those cases, we engage with foreign publics. That can be 
done at a national level. That can be done at a local level. I 
think there are various ways one can go about----
    Senator Rubio. My time is about to expire, so two very 
quick questions.
    One is given an opportunity to restate what you wrote in 
that 2003 article, it sounds like you would state it 
differently.
    Ms. Power. Indeed, sir, I would absolutely----
    Senator Rubio. So let me bring you to a more recent one. In 
a 2008 op-ed, you described the Bush administration's concern 
about Iran as a, ``imagined crisis.'' And you said that, 
``redundant reminders that military force is still on the 
table,'' strengthen the regime.
    Do you still hold the views that you held in 2008 with 
regard to Iran? Is it still an imagined crisis? And do you 
believe that reminders that military force is still on the 
table strengthen the Iranian regime?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir. I have never referred to Iran's 
pursuit of a nuclear weapon as an imagined crisis. Ever. What I 
have long argued is that it is important both to have a 
pressure track and a negotiation track. And as we have 
discussed here today, it is essential to kick up the pressure, 
to tighten the vice. That is what the sanctions that I worked 
on over the course of the last 4 years have done. That is what 
we need to do in terms of, again, closing loopholes that have 
been established by the Iranian regime. So, of course, part of 
pressure is making very clear that military force is on the 
table.
    With respect to that article, I was stressing the 
importance of also having a negotiation track so that if the 
pressure could be intensified, there was an off-ramp so that 
Iran could, in fact, give up its nuclear weapon, if they ever 
chose to do so.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Ms. Power.
    The cold war is over and yet we have seen specifically most 
recently with respect to our deliberations internationally over 
Syria, that the juxtaposition between the United States and 
Russia can effectively cripple deliberations of the United 
Nations. Our relationship with them is obviously incredibly 
complex. Lots of good news in the last decade: cooperation on 
arms control, cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, willingness 
to work together on Afghanistan that was maybe unexpected at 
the beginning of that conflict. And yet, during that time, we 
have seen a very rapid downward slide in terms of the status of 
civil society in Russia.
    And so without asking you to explain how you are going to 
essentially negotiate every different political issue with 
Russia, I would love for you to talk for a minute about what 
the role of the Permanent Representative is to continue to 
raise these issues of civil society and issues of human rights 
abuses in Russia knowing, as we heard at a hearing not long 
ago, that the State Department is preparing, as they told us, 
to send forward another set of names to be added to the 
Magnitsky Act which is going to further complicate 
relationships with Russia but also give us a renewed platform 
to raise some of these issues.
    So the administration is always in a difficult position 
because there are all sorts of important proactive work to do, 
which sometimes makes it difficult for them to try to raise 
issues of human rights. You will be in the same position 
whereby you will be trying to get them to the table on things 
that we care about, which may potentially compromise your 
ability to call them to the table on the way in which they are 
treating political opposition there.
    So talk to me about how you strike that balance.
    Ms. Power. Senator, thank you so much. It is, of course, 
one of the most important relationships that has to be managed 
in New York, and we have a whole range of interests, as you 
have indicated, that flow through Moscow.
    I think the challenge is to maintain--to stand up for U.S. 
interests and to stand up for U.S. values. I mean, it is a sort 
of simple formula. Sometimes our interests, of course, 
necessitate cooperation, as you have again alluded to, 
supplying our troops in Afghanistan, the North Korean and Iran 
sanctions regimes where Russia has stepped up and supported 
multilateral sanctions that are critical in our larger effort. 
These are examples where we have found a way to work with 
Russia.
    But we can never be silent in the face of a crackdown on 
civil society, something I mentioned in my opening remarks 
today. We can never be silent--to get to an exchange I know 
Senator McCain had earlier in the week or last week, we can 
never be silent when the Russian Government sentences Sergei 
Magnitsky or convicts him of a crime rather than looking into 
those who are responsible for his death. I mean, we have to use 
the pulpit. We have to use the platform. We have to recognize 
that when the placard says ``The United States,'' people around 
the world, including across Russian civil society, are looking 
to the United States for leadership.
    And I do think we can do both at once. I think it is 
extremely challenging, and there is no question that threading 
that needle and making sure that you do not sort of silence 
yourself and silence the values of your nation in the service 
of your short-term needs--it is a big challenge. Every diplomat 
has, I think, faced it. But I think our greatest ambassadors in 
New York are remembered for how they stood up for our values.
    Senator Murphy. I do not want to steal Senator McCain's 
thunder on this issue. He has been a hero. But we are at a 
fulcrum point, and the problem is not only the very quick 
downward slide in Russia. It is that their neighbors are 
watching them and we are confronting many of the same issues, 
whether it be in the Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan. And when the 
United States does not stand up at the United Nations to 
Russia, then that is a signal to them that we may allow for 
them to engage in that same kind of behavior.
    Quickly to turn to the issue of climate change, a really 
wonderful new initiative at the United Nations surrounding the 
issue of short-lived climate pollutants and fast-acting climate 
pollutants, specifically working with other nations to try to 
engage in best practices for the capture of methane coming out 
of landfills to work, as the United Nations has been doing for 
years, on building a new type of cook stove to downgrade the 
amount of black carbon escaping into the atmosphere--there is 
technology and best practices out there today with respect to 
noncarbon dioxide emissions. We are going to have a big fight 
over a new international global warming treaty, but there are 
some relatively simple things that you can do when it comes to 
just managing landfills better or trying to get $15 cook stoves 
into the hands of more Indians and Chinese.
    I think the answer to my question as to whether you are 
going to continue to help lead on this issue is probably self-
evident, but this potentially allows for some of the quickest 
gains in the interim between now and when we ultimately get an 
operative global warming agreement in 2020. And you can play an 
incredibly important role in trying to move forward the work of 
the United Nations to engage in voluntary measures with member 
countries to try to engage in best practices as to decreasing 
the release of short-lived common pollutants, and we would love 
to see your leadership on that.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir. You will have it.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Power, welcome. Like Senator Corker, I certainly 
enjoyed our conversation. It was very interesting. I think you 
will be a force.
    I also want to thank you for your willingness to serve. You 
have got a young family. It will be a sacrifice. So we truly do 
appreciate it.
    I also recognize you are a pretty prolific writer. I did 
compare notes. I actually had another 2003 article which I 
found very interesting. There are a number of interesting 
comments you make in that. And I do have to ask you some 
questions. And I realize your thoughts can certainly change 
over time, but there are certainly some quotes here that do 
disturb me.
    Kind of going back to what we talked about in our office, I 
was very disappointed in President Obama early in his term 
going around the country on, you know, basically what has been 
called as an apology tour. I do not believe that is helpful. 
You are saying you will never apologize for America now. That 
is good.
    But back in this article, this was full force in the New 
Republic, March 3, 2003. You said a country has to look back 
before it can move forward. Instituting a doctrine of mea culpa 
would enhance our credibility by showing that American 
decisionmakers do not endorse the sins of the predecessors.
    Kind of going back to what Senator Rubio was talking about, 
which sins are you talking about there? And do you think 
President Obama's apology tour was well advised? Did that work 
very well?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator. I do not know if it is good 
news, but the quote that Senator Rubio was referring to is the 
same quote as this. So my response is similar.
    But let me start just by saying what I should have said 
perhaps at the beginning before, which is I have written 
probably 2 million words in my career, a million, 2 million. I 
have certainly lost track. Only my husband, Cass Sunstein, 
has--well, there are others perhaps who have written more, but 
Cass has left most of humanity in the dust in terms of 
prolificness.
    There are things that I have written that I would write 
very differently today, and that is one of them, particularly 
having served in the executive branch----
    Senator Johnson. Move forward in terms of President Obama's 
apology tour, the reset with Russia. I mean, has that worked? 
Was that a good strategy for us to go across the world and 
actually provide that mea culpa? Do you think that was good or 
bad? Did it work or did not work?
    Ms. Power. I am not sure exactly to what you are--are you 
talking about the reset?
    Senator Johnson. We can talk about reset, sure.
    Ms. Power. So the reset, again, is I think something that 
has yielded a very complex set of consequences. In some 
respects such as Syria, the reset has not produced the kind of 
dividend that we seek in New York and with devastating 
consequences again for the people of Syria.
    On shipping supplies and reinforcing our troops in 
Afghanistan, the fact that we have a channel of dialogue and 
cooperation with Russia has produced results.
    Honestly, the sanctions imposed against Iran back in 2011, 
the sanctions resolutions we have imposed even recently on 
North Korea--they come about in part because the bilateral 
relationship is strong, at least strong enough to allow us to 
agree on issues of shared interests.
    There is also a lot, which I did not mention in response to 
Senator Murphy, that goes unseen. And again, none of this takes 
away from the crackdown on civil society, takes away from 
Snowden and his presence in Moscow, takes away from Magnitsky, 
takes away again from Syria. But there are things that happen 
on the Security Council, for instance, Russian support for 
robust peacekeeping action in Ivory Coast, Russian support for 
the South Sudan referendum going off on time, which was a major 
mass atrocity averted. So we work with them where we can get 
them to see that their interests align with ours and that their 
interests align with maintaining international peace and 
security.
    Senator Johnson. You had mentioned earlier that Assad will 
fall. I think we have heard that in the past where it is not a 
matter of ``if'' but ``when.'' It seems like he is getting more 
entrenched, and I am not quite so sure. Do you believe there 
was a point in time, had we shown leadership, that we could 
have tipped the scales and he could have already fallen by now? 
Have we missed opportunities?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    Look, I think the situation on the ground right now is very 
worrying for a whole host of reasons. First, the military gains 
that the Assad regime has made lately; second, the fact of 
chemical weapons use in recent months; third, something you and 
I talked about I believe, the growth of the extremist presence 
within the opposition, et cetera. So I think nobody is 
satisfied with where we are today. I know the President is not. 
And the administration is constantly examining and reexamining 
how it can heighten the pressure on Assad so as to hasten that 
day that he departs.
    I guess to come back to my comment where, given some of the 
facts on the ground right now, how I could say something of 
that nature, just again I think history shows that regimes that 
brutalize their own people in that manner, that totally forfeit 
their legitimacy, that do not abide by even basic norms of 
human decency--they just do not have the support to sustain 
themselves. So the day of reckoning will come. I agree 
certainly, wholeheartedly with your concern that the day is not 
coming soon enough.
    Senator Johnson. Obviously he is going to fall because we 
are all mortal.
    Getting back to that article, the final concluding 
paragraph, embedding U.S. power in an international system and 
demonstrating humility would be painful, unnatural steps for 
any empire, never mind the most important empire in the history 
of mankind, but more pain now will mean far less pain later.
    Do you believe America is an empire?
    Ms. Power. I believe that we are a great and strong and 
powerful country and the most powerful country in the history 
of the world, also the most inspirational. Again, that is 
probably not a word choice that I would use today having 
served----
    Senator Johnson. Fair enough.
    Besides giving up a pinch of sovereignty will not deprive 
the United States of the tremendous military and economic 
leverage it has at its disposal in the last resort. So you are 
basically recommending that we give up a pinch of sovereignty. 
Is that still your view?
    Ms. Power. One of the things that I would do every day, if 
confirmed for this position, is defend U.S. sovereignty. I 
think nothing that I have supported the last 4 years would ever 
have that effect of giving up U.S. sovereignty. It is 
nonnegotiable.
    Senator Johnson. So your thinking has changed on that then.
    Ms. Power. Again, serving in the executive branch is very 
different than sounding off from an academic perch. Yes.
    Senator Johnson. Good. I appreciate your answers. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Welcome, Ms. Power, and congratulations. I 
look forward to working together. You have the ideal 
intellectual and values credentials for this position. When I 
heard of the appointment, though, my first reaction was, wow, 
she is pretty blunt and outspoken. I do not think blunt and 
outspoken is actually usually a great qualification for a 
diplomatic post, but actually for this one, it is because my 
experience with the United Nations is it is vague and 
amorphous, and then you translate vague and amorphous into six 
languages. [Laughter.]
    And I think the United Nations could use a lot more blunt 
and outspoken, and I think that is part of the reason why you 
are going to do a very good job in that position.
    I visited the United Nations recently and spent a day with 
Ambassador Rice, and I would encourage any Member of the Senate 
to do it. To go to a Security Council meeting even on a topic 
that may not be the one that you are most passionate about is 
instructive, and you immediately sense some of the dynamics, 
some of the good, some of the bad.
    One of the things that I really came away with from that 
visit, even seeing good and bad, was a real pride, a pride in 
this country for having been such a key part in creating the 
institution. You know, it was an American President who had the 
visionary idea in the aftermath of World War I to try to create 
something like it in the League of Nations, and neither the 
American public nor Congress or really the world embraced the 
idea.
    But America would not let the dream die. And in the closing 
days of World War II, President Roosevelt and his advisors 
planned it. President Roosevelt did not get to see it. He died 
before the San Francisco conference.
    President Truman had two decisions to make in his first two 
days in office, first, whether to keep the Roosevelt Cabinet--
and he decided to do it--and second, when he was asked if we 
should cancel or postpone the San Francisco meeting that was 
going to happen within weeks of President Roosevelt's death, he 
decided that we needed to carry it forward.
    And so for all the frustrations of the United Nations--and 
there are many, and I am going to ask you about my chief one in 
a second. But for all the frustrations, it was the United 
States that would not let the dream of an international 
institution of this type die. It was birthed here. We have 
nursed it along. We have funded it. We have kept it going. We 
have hoped for its improvement. We battled for its improvement. 
And of the many things to be proud about about this country, 
the United Nations I think is one. And yet, there are a lot of 
frustrations.
    I was in Israel in April 2009. I was at Yad Vashem, at Yom 
HaShoah, as a guest of Prime Minister Netanyahu. And at the 
very moment we were there, the United Nations had convened an 
antiracism conference, Durban II, in Geneva, and it invited 
President Ahmadinejad to be one of the keynote speakers. Now, 
the United States, this administration boycotted that 
conference in Geneva, encouraged other nations to boycott it as 
well. Many other nations did. Some others attended and then 
walked out during Ahmadinejad's speech.
    But I think one of the things that we wrestle with here and 
I think the American public wrestles with, too, is the 
psychology within an institution that was so critical to the 
formation of the State of Israel, to the beginning of the State 
of Israel. Explain, because you have been involved with the 
institution, the psychology that puts Israel on the permanent 
agenda to talk about human rights when North Korea is not, when 
so many other nations are not. Israel is not perfect, but 
neither is the United States and neither is any of the member 
nations of the United Nations. You can be frustrated about the 
lack of pace toward a two-state solution, but we can think of 
frustrations about any nation that is a member of the United 
Nations.
    I think the single thing that is the hardest for American 
citizens to grapple with is the continual drumbeat out of the 
United Nations that is hostile to the nation of Israel and it 
seems to hold Israel to a standard that is different than other 
nations that ought to also have their time under the microscope 
in terms of the analysis of their flaws and the recommendations 
for improving those flaws.
    So with your experience in the institution and in working 
in these areas, I would love for you just to explain to us what 
is it about the psychology of the body that makes Israel the 
perennial punching bag at the United Nations.
    Ms. Power. Thank you so much, Senator.
    The constant delegitimation of Israel across the U.N. 
system, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is a source of 
almost indescribable concern to me and to this administration. 
As the President's U.N. advisor the last 4 years, working with 
the team in New York, our team in Geneva and elsewhere, we 
pushed day in/day out to contest this kind of delegitimation.
    In terms of the psychology, what I will say is that fewer 
than half of the countries within the United Nations are 
democratic. When you are not democratic, it helps to have a 
diversion. It helps to scapegoat other countries. And I think 
that is part of the psychology, is just having sort of a 
reliable way of changing the subject, and that is what these 
countries have done over so many years.
    We have contested this, again, day in/day out. I 
spearheaded the decision not to participate in Durban II, 
because it reaffirmed Durban I which was so problematic. We 
stood up against the Goldstone Report, against attempts to 
politicize and judge Israel over the flotilla incident in the 
Human Rights Council which, as you know, we have joined in part 
to be within that institution to stand up for Israel. We have 
succeeded in cutting down the number of special sessions, 
cutting down the number of country-specific resolutions. But 
given, again, what I said at the start, the fact that there is 
a standing agenda item for one country--and that is Israel--and 
not for Cuba and not for North Korea and not for Iran just 
reflects a lack of seriousness and just how political and 
politicized this has become and unfair this has become.
    Senator Kaine. I do not have another question, but I will 
just conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying I think the blunt and 
outspoken part of you will really be pressed in the service in 
this job. And I think the best ambassadors that we have had 
have been willing to do that, and it is issues like this double 
standard with respect to Israel that really demand very blunt 
and outspoken American leadership. And I wish you well.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Senator Flake.
    Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for the answers so far. I appreciate you coming 
by my office and the discussion. It was nice to discover we 
have a mutual interest and time spent in Zimbabwe and writing 
on the subject too. And thanks for sending those articles.
    With regard to the United Nations, our law requires that we 
compile a list, an analysis of who votes with us and who votes 
against us, and it is sometimes frustrating to see so many 
countries where we play a vital role, in terms of aid and 
development and in their economy and see them just continually 
go against us. It sometimes seems in the General Assembly, if 
it were not for Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands, we 
would not have any friends. But in fact, I think 131 countries 
in the United Nations vote against the U.S. position more than 
50 percent of the time. In the 2012 General Assembly, there 
were about eight resolutions that went before the General 
Assembly that were deemed important by the State Department, 
and countries voting with us--just about 34 percent of them 
voted with our position.
    How can we change that culture? What can we do to better 
that situation?
    You and I have seen situations--just take the country of 
Namibia where the General Assembly had long declared just one 
of the parties as the sole and authentic representative of the 
Namibian people, which was highly detrimental I think for a 
number of years and forestalled negotiations that should have 
happened. But then the Security Council came in with a 
resolution that actually paved the way for Namibian 
independence and played a vital role and a good role. And so we 
see both within the same institution, just the difference 
between the General assembly and the Security Council.
    How can we in the General Assembly have a better situation 
where countries recognize that we are friendlier than we seem I 
guess?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
    This issue of voting divergence is critical. It has been 
acutely frustrating. I will say if you could look at the charts 
that show the trend lines, we are trending more positively than 
you would expect. I would say in the General assembly----
    Senator Flake. It is a pretty low base, but yes.
    Ms. Power. It is a low base. It is. I very much agree with 
that.
    I do not think the convergence rate is trending positively 
in the General Assembly on Israel, however. And again, that is 
something that we have to fight every day to try to change.
    But with regard to other countries, it is acutely 
frustrating. I mean, some of it relates to my response to 
Senator Kaine's question, which is standing up to the United 
States can be a cheap and easy political win for a small 
country to show that they are not with us. But again and again, 
we see them voting against their interests. And in the case of 
those countries that are democratic, either fully free or 
partly free, we see them acting in defiance of the values that 
they are most proud of in their own countries. And that is the 
conversation I have certainly sought to have over the last 4 
years with countries who vote en masse as part of regional 
groupings reflexively rather than thoughtfully. And again, we 
are nibbling away at it.
    But it is an urgent priority for any incoming official in 
New York. And if I am confirmed, getting countries to vote 
their interests and their values, getting them to see the 
importance of maintaining international peace and security, 
doing that has huge consequences for the United States, but it 
has huge consequences for these countries as well. Taking 
advantage of the fact that a lot of countries, including 
several important African countries, are involved in U.N. 
peacekeeping, to get their countries engaged in the politics in 
the countries where their troops and their police are 
deployed--so there are just a lot of disconnects I think 
between at least what we would perceive as beneficial for those 
countries and, as you suggest, how they have performed on 
various votes. And we just have to keep fighting every day and 
be aggressive in our pursuit of convergence, not divergence.
    Senator Flake. On that last point, with Zimbabwe, a country 
that we are both very interested in, elections are scheduled 
July 31, likely too soon to have any real prospect of free and 
fair elections or elections that mean anything. Can you foresee 
a role for the United Nations, a broader role than is currently 
planned, in that situation?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
    I mean, that is certainly something we should look to. It 
has been very difficult for the United States, very difficult 
for United Nations programs that Zimbabwe most needs, for 
instance, a human rights office, development assistance that is 
spread equally across the country irrespective of the politics 
of the recipients, et cetera, the kinds of standards we would 
want to see as part of our assistance with the Mugabe regime, 
just almost impossible to operate in that environment.
    And so I think the hope would be that in the wake of the 
election and certainly with the passage of authority to new 
leadership, that there is an opening to have a conversation 
about what an impactful U.N. presence would look like and how 
it could contribute to what has to happen in Zimbabwe, which is 
a meaningful transition to democracy.
    And I would note--and I know you are more familiar with 
this than I am--but the civil society in Zimbabwe is 
unbelievable. I mean, just they keep slogging along and 
battling it out, going to court, getting released from court, 
going on hunger strike, going again and again back at the 
regime, refusing to accept that Zimbabwe cannot achieve its 
promise. And again, I think the United States has a critical 
role. They look to us for leadership. They have some friends in 
the U.N. system, but they are now outliers. You know, friends 
like Cuba and Iran, et cetera are not credible.
    So given that there is a moment of opportunity potentially 
upon us, I think we have to look at what programming could be 
helpful.
    Senator Flake. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome and thank you for your continued service and 
advocacy on behalf of human rights. I am glad you are able to 
correct the record on some of your past statements. Speaking 
for myself and my colleagues, I have never said anything that I 
later regretted or wanted to correct in the record. [Laughter.]
    And I note your young son there. He has a future in the 
diplomatic corps if he has been able to sit quietly through 
this ordeal. I congratulate you on this. There he is.
    In your testimony, you called the failure of the U.N. 
Security Council--failure to respond in Syria a disgrace that 
history will judge harshly. Do you think that the Security 
Council will ever authorize an international military 
intervention in Syria certainly in the foreseeable future?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for all that 
you have done for me and my family. Thank you for all you have 
done for Syria.
    Right now, the fact that the Security Council has not 
managed even to pass a condemnatory resolution, never mind 
economic sanctions, to this point not even anything on chemical 
weapons use, I think we could start there in terms of where we 
would seek to move the Russians. The Russian position, as you 
know----
    Senator McCain. I got you. I have got about three or four 
questions.
    Ms. Power. Oh, please. Go ahead.
    Senator McCain. Go ahead. The answer is I think is not 
likely in the near future.
    Ms. Power. That is probably better put.
    Senator McCain. Is that correct?
    I was struck by an article by Anne Marie Slaughter in a 
piece she published in the Financial Times that said that the 
article 52 of the U.N. Charter could serve as a basis for 
international action in Syria in the event that regional 
organizations like NATO and the Arab League notify the Security 
Council of their actions as required by article 54, but not 
necessarily seek approval. Do you believe that article 52 of 
the U.N. Charter could serve as a basis for international 
military intervention in Syria by regional organizations?
    Ms. Power. Well, Senator, as you know, the President's 
policy is to focus on all forms of assistance to the opposition 
to build up the opposition. In terms of the legal rationales, 
that is not something I feel eqiupped to weigh in on.
    Senator McCain. I hope you will look at that because that 
is specifically under your area, article 52 of the U.N. 
Charter, because I think with 100,000 people massacred, we are 
going to have to look at every option that we possibly can.
    Senator Lindsey Graham, with the help of our chairman and 
ranking member, has passed a couple of authorizations 
concerning Iran. He has now authored, with a large number of 
us, a resolution by the Senate or Congress that would authorize 
the use of force on Iran if the Iranian nuclear progress 
reached a point that the President has described as 
unacceptable.
    What do you think about that?
    Ms. Power. Well, sir, as somebody aspiring to go back into 
the executive branch, it may not surprise you that I would want 
to ensure that the President had the flexibility that he needed 
to make a judgment that he thought best on behalf of the 
American people.
    Senator McCain. Well, it authorizes him to use force. In 
fact, it gives him flexibility.
    Ms. Power. Having not studied the authorization, I probably 
should not comment.
    Senator McCain. I think it is very important because I do 
not think there is anyone who would argue that the Iranians 
have proceeded undeterred from their pursuit of the ability to 
acquire and use nuclear weapons. I think you would agree with 
that. Which means that matters are probably going to come to a 
head, at least in the view of some experts, within 6 months to 
a year. You would agree.
    Ms. Power. That is certainly what our assessments have 
shown.
    Senator McCain. Everybody has for you the cheapest 
commodity in this town, and that is advice. So I will not 
exempt myself from that privilege.
    I have known and admired many men and women who have served 
as our Ambassador to the United Nations, and I agree that it is 
a very important position. The one I admire most is a woman 
named Jeane Kirkpatrick. I hope you will look at her record of 
service in the United Nations. She spoke truth to power. She 
took on the vested interests. She argued for budgetary 
restraint. She spoke up for the United States of America in a 
way that I think still many of us admire her and we revere her 
memory. So when you look at the record of your predecessors, as 
I have looked at my predecessors in the United States Senate, I 
hope you will be instructed to some degree by her performance 
which I think made all Americans who had a very poor opinion of 
the United Nations very proud of the role she played speaking 
for them in the United Nations.
    Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I actually got to know her a 
little bit as an intern in this town in the early 1990s when 
she was a forceful advocate on Bosnia long after her service in 
New York and absolutely will study her legacy.
    Senator McCain. Well, I hope you will continue the work you 
have done in speaking up for human rights. We are about to see 
a Middle East that is already imploding. You may be faced with 
issues before the United Nations and the Security Council, the 
likes of which we have not seen. So I know that you will 
preserve your fundamental beliefs in the supremacy of the role 
of the United States in the world and our advocacy for the 
freedoms that are so important to all of us. So I look forward 
to having you go to work as soon as possible.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Power, first of all, your work in Idaho has not gone 
unnoticed, and we thank you for that. It is greatly 
appreciated.
    Thank you for coming to see me, and you and I talked about 
a number of things. One of the things I am concerned about is 
one of the matters that Senator Corker raised, and that is 
reform at the United Nations.
    People in America are not happy with the growth and 
particularly with what seems to be this expanding reach. The 
United Nations plays an important role when it comes to 
peacekeeping, when it comes to nations being able to sit down 
and resolve their differences. But this continued growth and 
this continued reach in the areas that really are the sovereign 
concern of an individual nation bothers me and I think it 
bothers a lot of Americans.
    What are your thoughts on that?
    Ms. Power. May I ask you to be more specific? If not 
peacekeeping, what do you have in mind in terms of----
    Senator Risch. Well, I am talking about just the continued 
growth of the size of it and its reach into areas. I have one 
particular item in mind but I am not going to raise it as it 
would probably divide the panel as we talk here. But this 
continual arena in the matters that are sovereign concerns of 
individual nations is concerning.
    Ms. Power. OK. Well, let me, if I could, address maybe two 
dimensions of that, one, the growth, and then second, maybe 
U.N. treaties which tend to raise sovereignty concerns----
    Senator Risch. Always.
    Ms. Power [continuing]. Particularly in this body, yes.
    So in terms of the size, you mentioned peacekeeping, and I 
appreciate your recognition and we discussed this in our 
meeting as well that peacekeeping can perform an important 
service. Mali is a great example today of a mission that 3 
years ago, if you had said in 2013, are we going to have a 
peacekeeping mission in Mali, we would have said Mali--why 
peacekeeping there at that time? And yet, in the wake of the 
French intervention, we cannot afford to squander the gains 
that have been made and to allow al-Qaeda to regain a foothold 
in that country. And again, the peacekeepers are not going to 
be challenging al-Qaeda but they are going to be strengthening 
the Malian Armed Forces who, hopefully, then will have occasion 
or will be in a strong position to hold off any further 
resurgence. So that is just one example of something that sort 
of comes onto our plate because the world demands it.
    The Iraq and Afghanistan missions are much bigger now than 
they were 5 years ago--the U.N. missions, that is, political 
missions. And of course, it is in our interest to see those 
missions do important work particularly in the wake of our 
withdrawal from Iraq and as we draw down from Afghanistan. The 
last thing we want to see after all of the sacrifices that 
Americans have made is those gains in terms of political 
reforms and political transition and the road to democracy--
those gains squandered.
    So, you know, that is the good side of the growth.
    Senator Risch. Let me ask a little more----
    Ms. Power. Pardon me. Okay.
    Senator Risch. Have you been an advocate for any areas for 
the United Nations to expand into that they are not already 
into? I do not mean geographical areas. I mean just issue 
concerns. Is their reach broad enough, I guess, is what I am 
asking.
    Ms. Power. There are two issues. One is are there places 
the United Nations should go where they have not gone. Nothing 
is coming to mind.
    Senator Risch. I am not talking about places.
    Ms. Power. No, no, no. Sorry. I meant thematic areas.
    The United Nations touches so many social and economic 
developments, peace, and security issues, but there is plenty. 
And I would cite corruption as one where there is a U.N. 
Convention on Corruption, but the modalities of actually 
tackling corruption in countries around the world are not as 
strong as I think they could be. And so there is an example 
where there is reach, but not necessarily substance or 
sufficient substance. And so those are the kinds of gaps.
    So there are two forms of cuts that one would seek. One is, 
is there just extraneous stuff being done that was started 50 
years ago for one reason and persists today for no good reason? 
That, of course, we would need to--or even if it started 10 
years ago or 5 years ago. And that is where we draw down 
peacekeeping missions when the original motivation for those 
peacekeeping missions has gone away or has been addressed. And 
then beyond shrinkage are the things the United Nations is 
doing that it should be doing but that it is not doing well, 
where we increase effectiveness and not just efficiencies. And 
so I think both have to be an area of emphasis.
    But my message to you, you know, which I hope I have 
expressed forcefully, is that the American people are making 
cuts. This Congress and this President are negotiating how to 
get our fiscal house in order. It is not tenable for the United 
Nations to exist immune from that conversation. I do not think 
it has in the sense that I think the administration has really 
pushed it to tighten its belt, and I think that is where we 
found more than half a billion dollars in savings in 
peacekeeping just in the last year.
    Senator Risch. Let me touch on just a couple other things.
    Ms. Power. Please.
    Senator Risch. Because my time is running out here.
    First of all, as Senator McCain said, advice is rampant in 
this town, and I want to give you mine. I hope, as you go to 
the United Nations, you will take the view that America is 
unique and exceptional, and we are a unique and exceptional 
people. We need to hold our heads high. We need to be proud. We 
need to not apologize for things that we do. We are leaders in 
this world. We need to be leaders in this world, and I 
certainly hope that when you go to the United Nations, you will 
convey that to them that we are a proud people and we do good 
things. And if you look around the world, the world would not 
be what it is today without the leadership of America when it 
comes to quality of life or anything else.
    Finally, let me say one of my concerns, as we talked about, 
is Israel. There is a lot of us. In fact, Senator Rubio 
yesterday or today dropped a bill on the United Nations 
Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act. I do not know if 
you are familiar with that or not. A number of us are 
cosponsors of that bill. And it has some really good reform 
provisions in it, and particularly one of the several 
provisions has to do with withholding the United States 
contributions to any U.N. entity that grants full membership to 
the Palestinian Authority. As you know, there has been a push 
to do that in some of the operations of the United Nations to 
include the Palestinian Authority in the absence of a 
negotiated peace settlement with Israel. We want to see that. I 
am sure you want to see that. Everyone wants to see that. One 
of the ways I think we need to do that is to insist that the 
United States withhold contributions to any U.N. entity that 
would grant full membership to the Palestinian Authority.
    Do you have any thoughts on that?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    First, on your first point on advice, I have spent my whole 
career standing up for American values.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    Ms. Power. And I will not apologize for America. American 
leadership is the light to the world. I could not agree more.
    Second, we need to deter the Palestinians in any way we 
can, and we need to get their attention. They have held off 
but, as you know, they have made clear their previous intention 
to join various U.N. agencies in the wake of the General 
Assembly vote last fall.
    The one caution I would issue--and again, we are completely 
aligned on preventing the Palestinians from seeking unilateral 
actions at the United Nations. The one caution is that when we 
are out of U.N. agencies, which would be the consequence 
ultimately of defunding U.N. agencies, we cannot stand up for 
Israel, we cannot stand up for American values, we are not 
there leading on a range of other U.S. interests. And so I just 
think we have to find the right balance.
    Senator Risch. That is the decision the agency has got to 
make if it goes ahead with that kind of proposal. And I think 
we ought to put them in that position where if they are going 
to make that judgment, they are going to live with the 
consequences of it.
    So thank you for your thoughts on that. Thank you for your 
candor on that.
    My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to follow up a little bit of what Senator 
Risch has talked about.
    First, congratulations to you and to your family, and I 
appreciate you coming by to visit on issues.
    I want to talk about the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty. When 
Secretary Kerry came before this committee in January of this 
year, I asked him during his confirmation process if he would 
support any treaty that allows the United Nations to establish 
and maintain a gun registry on law-abiding U.S. gunowners. He 
stated in writing that we will not support a treaty that 
impacts domestic arms transfers or creates a U.N. gun registry.
    I have that U.N. Arms Trade Treaty here, and article 12 is 
called ``Recordkeeping.'' It encourages countries to maintain 
records on the importation of conventional arms, including 
small arms. It specifically requests that the states maintain 
records on the quantity, the value, the model, the type, and 
the end user. These records, it says, must be maintained for a 
minimum of 10 years.
    Article 13, titled ``Reporting''--that requires signatory 
states to issue annual reports to the United Nations on all 
imports and exports.
    So the question I have is, Do you believe that this 
framework could lead to a U.N. gun registry?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
    Let me start just by saying again that we in this 
administration and certainly I, if I have the privilege of 
going to New York, would never do anything that would infringe 
on U.S. sovereignty or that would interfere in any way with 
American law. Second Amendment rights are paramount. American 
law is paramount. The Constitution is paramount.
    Again, in terms of what the U.N.'s designs are in taking 
that treaty forward, I am not myself familiar with those. I 
think what is important is that Secretary Kerry has given you 
the assurance that nothing the administration put forward with 
regard to that treaty would ever contemplate a gun registry in 
this country or our participation in a gun registry. So I think 
that the key point is, irrespective of the provisions that you 
have pointed to, the United States, in dealing with this body 
in any future engagement on the Arms Trade Treaty, would never, 
again, allow anything in that treaty to interfere with American 
law or American practice.
    Senator Barrasso. So the simple question would be, Do you 
support the United Nations in establishing and maintaining a 
gun registry on law-abiding U.S. gunowners?
    Ms. Power. No.
    Senator Barrasso. The answer is no. Thank you.
    Following up on also what some other members have asked 
about in terms of U.N. budget, reporting to Congress, in 2009-
2010, the Office of Management and Budget provided Congress 
with a list of total U.S. contributions to the United Nations 
from the State Department, as well as 18 other U.S. departments 
and agencies. And I believe this information is valuable for 
all citizens. I think it is important for everyone to 
understand how the United States is spending taxpayer money at 
the United Nations. I do not want to quiz you on the specifics 
of the budget, but I would ask, do you support transparency of 
U.S. funding?
    Ms. Power. I do, sir.
    Senator Barrasso. Support the Congress and the American 
people receiving a report from OMB on an annual basis on U.S. 
contributions provided to the United Nations?
    Ms. Power. Full transparency I think to sustain support 
for, again, the generous contributions that the American people 
make--you have to provide transparency.
    Senator Barrasso. The other question that you raised is the 
issue of sovereignty. Your position is very important. Can you 
just talk a little bit about how you plan on preserving and 
protecting American sovereignty within the United Nations?
    Ms. Power. Well, one starts, of course, sir, by asserting 
again and again the importance of American sovereignty. It also 
involves protecting the interests and projecting the values of 
the United States within the United Nations when countries seek 
to judge us and take steps, any steps, that would interfere, 
again, with domestic law or domestic practice, to stand up 
against that and to fight for our laws to be ascendant as they 
are within this country.
    Senator Barrasso. Can you talk a little about your 
commitment to challenging the actions of the United Nations 
that run contrary to our standards, our values, and our 
interests?
    Ms. Power. Well, I think there are at least two dimensions 
to that, one on the mismanagement side. That certainly runs 
contrary to our aspirations for how we govern ourselves. And 
then again, on the values side, whether it is corruption or 
those countries that trample human dignity or that stand with 
human rights abusers, we have to use the bully pulpit and be 
forceful in contesting that wherever we can and also creatively 
thinking about what other tools we can do beyond speaking out, 
what tools we could put in place in order to halt those 
practices.
    Senator Barrasso. Can you talk a little bit about what 
measures you might use in assessing whether or not to veto a 
specific U.N. resolution, just how you would think about those 
things?
    Ms. Power. Obviously, any discussion or decision about 
using the veto would be something that one would have in the 
context of the interagency and so forth, but we will not allow 
anything to go through the Security Council that we deem a 
threat to U.S. national security interests. And that is, I 
think, a broad standard but a critical one.
    Senator Barrasso. I wanted to follow up a little bit with 
Senator Risch on the Palestinian Authority. I have a number of 
written questions that I will submit.
    I am just wondering how you are going to make it clear to 
the Palestinians that their actions at the United Nations will 
have serious implications and consequences.
    Ms. Power. Well, I know from having worked this issue for 
the last 2 years that we make it clear in every bilateral 
encounter we have with the Palestinians that it will have 
serious consequences. Moreover, it will have serious 
consequences not just to the United States-Palestinian 
bilateral relationship but to the peace process which the 
Palestinians have invested in and which all of us have an 
interest in seeing bear fruit. I think there is legislation up 
here as well that would impose direct symbolic and financial 
consequences in terms of the Palestinian office and some of the 
funding, and the Palestinians have been made well aware of 
those consequences as well.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Congratulations on your nomination, and 
thanks for coming today.
    Was the recent military takeover in Egypt a coup?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
    As you know and as we discussed, I share the President's 
concern and your concern over the seizure of power from 
President Morsi, the suspension of the constitution, the 
arrests, et cetera.
    On the legal matter and on the review that the 
administration is carrying out, I just do not feel equipped to 
comment not now serving in the administration, not having 
access to full facts and not being part of the review.
    Senator Paul. So for the record, you are unsure if it is a 
coup.
    Ms. Power. I do not feel equipped to comment.
    Senator Paul. Very politic of your answer.
    You stated that whenever a government is killing its 
citizens, it is morally incumbent, I presume, for us to 
intervene. In Pakistan, they kill their citizens for certain 
types of speech. Does that mean we should intervene in 
Pakistan?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
    The quotation that you read surprises me because that is 
not language that I would normally use, but let me refine my 
own view, if I could.
    ``Intervene'' is a word that can mean a range of things. 
When you speak out in a country to contest gross violations of 
human rights or mass atrocities, that is a form of intervention 
in the sense that you are, in a way, meddling in the internal 
affairs of a state on behalf of human rights. Economic 
sanctions are a form of response. I think in the face of gross 
violations of human rights, mass atrocity, genocide--and this 
is, again, something we discussed yesterday--we have a vast 
array of tools in the toolbox: assistance----
    Senator Paul. I guess my specific question then would be 
are you willing today to speak out against the practice of 
killing people for making religious statements that are 
objectionable to certain religions.
    Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I have spent my whole life 
speaking out about such.
    Senator Paul. Because I mean, that is part of it. I think 
we have become so timid with certain of these--you know, at the 
very least we can call them intolerances, but basically killing 
people for religious speech I think is something we should not 
be ashamed of speaking out about. I am not proposing we invade 
Pakistan to tell them how to lead their lives in their country, 
but I am saying that not only should we speak out about it, we 
should make our aid contingent upon it. Do you think any aid to 
these countries should be contingent behavior?
    Ms. Power. Well, sir, again as we discussed, I think every 
tool in the toolbox needs to be reviewed, and depending on the 
circumstances--it is a little hard to speak in the abstract, 
but we need to use the levers we have at our disposal, 
consistent with our other interests because we do retain other 
interests, of course, with these countries as well, but 
certainly examine anything we can do to deter such horrible 
practices.
    Senator Paul. When we intervene in countries, who gets to 
make that decision? The President or the Congress?
    Ms. Power. Thank you.
    Well, let me just say--and I hope the last few weeks--that 
the past is prologue in a way. If I am confirmed, I would 
benefit enormously if I could maintain the relationships that I 
feel like I have begun to forge here these last weeks and 
continue these conversations.
    So consultation is indispensable. I cannot do this job, 
even if confirmed without you.
    Senator Paul. Congress or the President decides whether 
we----
    Ms. Power. As you know, there is a longstanding debate 
between the executive and the legislature that has crossed 
Republican and Democratic administrations about authorizations 
for the use of force. And all I can say is that I promise to 
consult with you extensively at all times.
    Senator Paul. It sounds like a nonresponse response.
    But, you know, the thing is that these are important 
questions. The vast majority of the public is not in favor of 
arming Islamic rebels who, in all likelihood, will be killing 
Christians in Syria. The vast majority of the American public 
is not in favor of giving arms to people who are basically 
allied with al-Qaeda in Syria. The vast majority of the public 
does not believe that we are going to have a way of knowing who 
our friends and who our foes are. We cannot even tell who our 
friends are in the Afghan Army, which is a much more stable 
situation than Syria. So I find it incredible to think that we 
will.
    But the thing is those can be honest disagreements among 
people who say, oh, absolutely we can say who the good people 
are and we are only going to give weapons to good people. I 
find it a ridiculous argument, but I think it is an argument 
that some could make.
    But the thing is that I do not think there is a valid 
argument for fighting secret wars without the permission of 
Congress. And basically that is where we are right now.
    I think it is also untenable to the American public for the 
administration to say, well, you know, we are going to go over 
there and we are going to arm them. We are not really going to 
try so much to win, but we really would like to get to 
stalemate so we could get the Russians to negotiate. And I 
think that is really not very tenable either and not too 
exciting for American GIs who might lose lives and limbs, 
should we be stuck in another war in the Middle East, to be too 
excited about this, that well, our goal is stalemate.
    And I think you have noble purposes in wanting to eradicate 
human rights abuses around the world, but realize that war is a 
messy business and people do lose their lives, people you know. 
A young sergeant in the neighboring town to mine lost both legs 
and an arm in Iraq. And so these are not geopolitical games and 
they are not things that we can say we are going to make the 
world this great, groovy place where nobody has any human 
rights abuses, but we are going to do it through war.
    And so my caution is to be careful about what we wish for 
and to be careful about the belief that even though we are a 
good people and we want good things--I think you are a good 
person and you want good things--that in all likelihood, as you 
do this, there are unintended consequences. And as we slip into 
this new war in Syria, if our trainers that are over there--I 
do not know how many there are, but the newspaper says several 
hundred trainers are over there that are Americans.
    So I would just say that even though noble intentions, I 
think, are yours, be very wary of what intervention means when 
we intervene. And it is one thing to send bread, but it is 
another thing to send guns.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    I just have some final questions and then we will, 
hopefully, let you go. You have been resilient here for 2 
hours. And your son is doing exceptionally well. It is amazing 
what food can do. [Laughter.]
    Let me ask you. First of all, when you get confirmed--and I 
believe you will be--I would like you to look at our charge and 
mandate at the United Nations on the question of Cyprus and the 
division of Cyprus and where we are at in that regard. I 
believe the Cypriots have a new President and some new 
initiatives even in the midst of economic challenges, and I 
would like to see us be able to be more vigorous in our 
engagement through what is an ongoing U.N. effort to end the 
division of the country for quite some time. So I hope you will 
be able to do that.
    Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I take it that the Special 
Representative Downer is hoping to restart talks in October, 
and it feels like a ripe opportunity.
    The Chairman. Now, these are two generic questions but they 
are important I think. Is genocide genocide only when it is 
convenient to call it so, or is genocide genocide when it 
violates the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the 
Crime of Genocide?
    Ms. Power. I have written, as you know, a great deal about 
this. I think the Genocide Convention is a worthy instrument. I 
would note that political groups are excluded from the 
convention as a potentially targeted group by virtue of the 
role of the Soviet Union in the drafting of the convention. So 
it is not a perfect instrument, but I think it is an agreed 
upon tenet of international law today.
    The Chairman. Well, let us move the convention aside then 
for a moment. Is genocide genocide when all of the facts that 
we observe would lead to a conclusion that a genocide has taken 
place, or is that only when it is convenient to acknowledge it 
is genocide?
    Ms. Power. The former. The facts should drive the analysis.
    The Chairman. And if the facts drive the analysis, then we 
should call that set of actions, whether historical in nature 
of present--God forbid--in reality a genocide.
    Ms. Power. I believe so, yes.
    The Chairman. Is a violation of human rights a violation of 
human rights depending upon where it takes place, or is it 
universal?
    Ms. Power. Universal, sir.
    The Chairman. I think you understand why I asked you those 
questions. And I hope that your past history in this regard, 
even in the context of understanding the new role that you will 
play, will not diminish your fire for making the case 
internally why genocide should be called genocide when the 
historical facts attain themselves to that standard.
    All right. With that, Senator Corker, any final remarks?
    Senator Corker. I do. I want thank you for having the 
hearing and I want to thank Ms. Power for coming before us. 
There are very few people nominated to positions like this that 
have so many people in advance giving strong opinions about 
your service, and as I mentioned on the front end, sometimes 
our nominees are more interesting than others. You, no doubt, 
are one of the interesting nominees.
    And I very much appreciate the conversation that we had in 
the office. I think you have handled yourself exceptionally 
well today. You know, based on those conversations--I know 
nothing know about premeeting you a few weeks ago firsthand--I 
think you are going to be a significant and positive force at 
the United Nations, something that certainly our Nation and the 
world needs at this time from, as you mentioned, the world's 
greatest nation.
    So I happen to be, based on the interaction and again the 
way you have answered questions today, exceptionally excited 
about the fact that you are going to be in this position, and I 
hope that you will continue in your service along the lines 
that the answers were today and certainly the meeting that we 
had in our office and I think you will.
    So, look, we need very, very strong representation and 
leadership at the United Nations especially today. My sense is 
you are going to be, again, an exceptional advocate for our 
country and for causes around the world that we care about. And 
I am thankful that you are going to be in this position very 
soon.
    And I thank your family. I have enjoyed getting to know 
them. I had a chance to spend a little extra time with your 
daughter in the back. [Laughter.]
    Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. I would remind members that 5 o'clock today 
is the close for any questions submitted for the record. I 
would urge you to answer the questions as quickly as possible. 
It is the chair's intention to put your name on an executive 
calendar meeting for next Tuesday. That will depend upon 
answers to questions being submitted in a timely fashion, which 
I would expect you would do, so that we could get, hopefully, 
you seated while we are still the President of the Security 
Council and get you to work.
    With the thanks of the committee, this hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


       Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record


          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                       by Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. U.S. engagement in the United Nations allows us to 
leverage both 
resources and influence with other like-minded nations toward common 
goals.

   Please give us examples of how, by working through the 
        United Nations, we've been able to magnify our efforts. How 
        does the United States work through the United Nations to 
        better protect U.S. national interests? Do we do so 
        effectively? What can we do better?

    Answer. As I noted in my testimony, The U.N. has an important role 
in a wide range of U.S. national security issues, including efforts to 
combat terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and pandemics. The U.N. also 
plays an essential role in advancing American values around the world.
    The United Nations is a primary partner in our efforts to maintain 
peace and security around the world. From Haiti to the Golan Heights to 
Cote d'Ivoire, U.N. peacekeeping operations are the lynchpin to 
maintaining peace, protecting civilians, and stabilizing fragile 
states. In 2011, the United States worked with our partners on the U.N. 
Security Council to prevent a massacre in Libya and help the Libyan 
people begin a transition to democracy after four decades of brutal 
dictatorship. In Mali, U.N. peacekeepers will be 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 Nations also plays a critical role in U.S. and 
international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
and fight terrorism. Working through the U.N. Security Council, we have 
helped facilitate the adoption of robust multilateral sanctions on Iran 
and North Korea that remain key tools in our efforts to convince these 
actors to change their behavior. Similarly, U.N. sanctions on al-Qaeda 
and other terrorist groups are a key tool in our efforts to eliminate 
the threat of terrorism.
    The United States also relies on the U.N. system to help address 
humanitarian crises that require international response. The U.N. World 
Food Programme, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the 
U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) have the expertise, capacity, and 
networks to reach displaced persons and victims of conflict even in 
highly insecure areas. For example, the United Nations has played a 
critical role in coordinating and delivering humanitarian assistance to 
nearly 7 million people affected by the violence in Syria, as well as 
nearly 1.8 million refugees from Syria who have fled to Turkey, 
Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. U.N. agencies such as the World 
Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.N. 
Development Program also 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 to advance American 
values such as freedom of speech and association, protection of 
minorities and the rights of women and children. Through the U.N. Human 
Rights Council, the United States has helped shine a spotlight on the 
worst human rights abusers, including North Korea, Syria, and Iran. We 
have also helped pass the U.N.'s first ever resolution on the human 
rights of LGBT persons and at a time of crackdown on civil society 
created a special rapporteur on freedom of association.
    While the U.N. does much to advance U.S. interests around the 
world, it could do more. Under President Obama's leadership, the United 
States has worked to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the 
U.N. system to carry out its many mandates. This administration has 
also worked with the U.N. to reduce waste and inefficiency, and to 
guarantee that the contributions of the United States and other member 
states are used as effectively and transparently as possible. If 
confirmed, I will continue 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. Please explain the different elements of U.S. assessed 
contributions to the United Nations, how they are assessed, and how the 
United States provides for their payment. For example, there is the 
U.N. regular budget; there is the U.N. Capital Master Plan; and there 
are two U.N. War Crimes Tribunals.

   Are we assessed 22 percent for each of these? Do you think 
        these assessment levels are appropriate? What is the success 
        rate of the United States in keeping the rate of growth in the 
        U.N. regular budget within certain limits?

    Answer. The Unites States pays 22 percent of the U.N. regular 
budget. The 22 percent is the maximum (ceiling) rate under the regular 
budget scale of assessments. The costs of the U.N. Capital Master Plan 
were also assessed according to the regular budget scale. The United 
States paid 22 percent of that assessment over 5 years, from FY 2008 
through FY 2012.
    There is a separate scale of assessments for U.N. peacekeeping 
budgets. One half of the budgets for the U.N. War Crime Tribunals are 
assessed according to the peacekeeping scale of assessments, and one-
half according to the regular budget scale of assessments. The United 
States is assessed 28.4 percent of the total U.N. peacekeeping budget 
under the peacekeeping scale and 22 percent of the amount assessed 
under the regular budget scale.
    The United States and other major contributors to the United 
Nations have been working very hard to limit growth in the U.N. regular 
budget. The administration has been successful in keeping the 2012-2013 
budget level below the level of the 2010-2011 budget, marking only the 
second time in 50 years that the U.N. regular budget decreased from the 
previous biennium.
    Over the next 2 years, in advance of the General Assembly's next 
review of the scales of assessment in 2015, the administration will 
work to achieve reforms in the U.N. scales of assessment methodology to 
better reflect changes to the global economy. Although the latest scale 
of assessments included notable increases for several countries, 
including China and Russia, the methodology used to calculate each 
country's share needs to be streamlined and updated.
    The administration will also work to address the scales in the 
context of a broader U.N. reform agenda, identifying alternative 
formulations for the scales of assessments that better reflect capacity 
to pay, and working closely with other major financial contributors to 
ensure their support for our efforts.

    Question. What is the current status of U.S. arrears in its 
contributions to the U.N. regular budget, including the Capital Master 
Plan and the two war crimes tribunals? Please explain these arrears.

    Answer. The United States has approximately $529 million in arrears 
at the U.N., the vast majority of which date from prior to 2000. The 
unpaid amount consists of $341 million for peacekeeping missions, $176 
million for the regular budget, and $12 million for the U.N. war crimes 
tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
    In 2009, with the support of Congress, the administration cleared 
$243 million in post-2000 arrears at the United Nations. This amount 
consisted of $159 million for peacekeeping missions and $84 million for 
the U.N. regular budget. There are no arrears for the Capital Master 
Plan.

    Question. The United Nations has a longstanding presence in Burma, 
focused largely on humanitarian and development issues. The United 
Nations has sent aid convoys--which frequently have been blocked--to 
aid civilians in areas of fighting between the army and Kachin rebels, 
assisted refugees in camps for the displaced along the country's 
borders, aided ethnic Rohingya minorities who are denied citizenship by 
the government, and carried out disaster risk reduction, health, 
environmental protection, and food security programs, among other 
activities.

   What positive roles do you think the United Nations can play 
        in furthering Burma's tenuous transformation from military 
        dictatorship to democracy?

    Answer. As you noted, the U.N. has been working in Burma for many 
decades and has provided much-needed humanitarian assistance to the 
people of Burma. The Burmese Government has taken positive steps, 
including the release of hundreds of political prisoners and holding 
elections in which the democratic opposition participated as a legal 
political party and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi was elected into the 
Parliament. In response, the United Nations--with the support of the 
United States--has stepped up efforts to assist the transition and 
support long-term economic development.
    Given its expertise and programming, as well as the experience that 
comes with a longstanding presence in Burma, the U.N. can provide 
valuable assistance to help the country transition to a prosperous 
democratic society. Many areas in which the U.N. can work--legal 
reforms regarding political participation, labor, human rights, media, 
and commerce, as well as providing health, education, and livelihood 
programs--can bring tangible benefits to the Burmese people and help 
consolidate political transition. The U.N. can complement U.S. efforts 
in these and other areas.
    The administration supports efforts to resolve ethnic conflicts 
peacefully, and is working with the government, the U.N., and other 
international partners to help the parties reach political settlements 
that address longstanding grievances as well as to provide needed 
humanitarian and development assistance to affected populations.
    Despite the positive efforts, the United States remains concerned 
about the severe limits on humanitarian access in certain parts of the 
country and also concerned about the protection of internally displaced 
persons, refugees, asylum seekers, and other vulnerable migrants. The 
U.N. can play an important role in both Burma and neighboring countries 
to help address these issues. In this regard, the administration 
supports the U.N.'s recent extension of the mandate for a special 
rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burma, paying particular 
attention to the plight of the Rohingya.
    On the eve of President Obama's historic visit to Burma in November 
2012, President Thein Sein publically committed to take concrete steps 
in 11 areas of human rights and humanitarian reforms, including to 
``extend an invitation to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights 
(OHCHR) to establish an office in Myanmar.'' An OHCHR presence in 
country would provide an institution through which the government can 
seek technical assistance and human rights expertise to push to 
completion the ambitious democratic reform agenda it has set out to 
accomplish. During the visit, President Obama spoke at the University 
of Yangon and said, ``No process of reform will succeed without 
national reconciliation. You now have a moment of remarkable 
opportunity to transform cease-fires into lasting settlements, and to 
pursue peace where conflicts still linger, including in Kachin State. 
Those efforts must lead to a more just and lasting peace, including 
humanitarian access to those in need, and a chance for the displaced to 
return home.''
    If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the commitment to open an 
OHCHR office in Burma is fulfilled. I will also work closely with 
senior U.N. management as well as like-minded countries to support the 
U.N.'s continued provision of assistance to support the country's 
transition.

    Question. I remain deeply troubled by reports of systematic 
discrimination and 
organized violence targeting Burma's ethnic Muslim minorities. What can 
the United Nations do to deal with this situation? How will you use 
your position to advance these efforts rapidly?

    Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up 
for human rights and human dignity will a priority for me as U.N. 
Ambassador.
    The U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) and the Human Rights Council (HRC) 
each adopt an annual resolution on the human rights situation in Burma, 
which include expressions of concern regarding discrimination, human 
rights violations, and violence directed against persons belonging to 
ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities in Burma. Recent 
resolutions have maintained scrutiny on Burma and urged continued 
reforms while recognizing the positive changes that the Government has 
made in the past year. The HRC's resolution also renews the mandate of 
the Special Rapporteur (SR) for the Human Rights Situation in Burma. 
The current SR for Burma is Tomas Quintana (Argentina), who conducts 
regular visits to Burma and reports to the HRC and UNGA on his findings 
concerning the situation in the country. If confirmed, I intend to 
continue to work closely with and support the important work of the 
Special Rapporteur.
    During the June HRC session, the Council adopted a Presidential 
Statement (PRST) on the ``Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar as 
Regards to Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State and other Muslims'' that 
the United States supported and joined consensus on alongside of the 
Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other HRC members.
    Despite the evolution in the UNGA and HRC resolutions on Burma and 
in the United States bilateral relationship with Burma, significant 
human rights concerns remain. There have been ongoing human rights 
violations against the Rohingya community in Rakhine State since an 
initial flareup in June 2012 and an increase in the expression of anti-
Muslim sentiment across the country.
    The United States also continues to engage with the Government of 
Burma and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) 
to press for the establishment of an OHCHR country office in Burma, a 
commitment that President Obama secured from the Burmese Government on 
his November trip. An OHCHR office could provide the Government of 
Burma with valuable training and other assistance to build Burma's 
capacity to protect human rights.

    Question. A Commission of Inquiry to examine allegations of human 
rights abuses in North Korea set up by the United Nations Human Rights 
Council began work last week in response to long-expressed concerns by 
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay and several 
independent U.N. human rights experts that serious crimes, including 
crimes against humanity, have been prevalent in North Korea for 
decades. The Inquiry will examine claims of ``systematic, widespread 
and grave violations of human rights'' in North Korea.

   What is your sense of the current human rights situation in 
        North Korea, and how do you think the United States can most 
        effectively move the human rights agenda forward in tandem with 
        our efforts to bring North Korea's nuclear and missile programs 
        under control?

    Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up 
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as 
Ambassador to the United Nations. The human rights situation in the 
DPRK remains deplorable. The DPRK is one of the world's most systematic 
abusers of human rights. The State Department's annual ``Country 
Reports on Human Rights Practices'' details the breadth and depth of 
the government's human rights abuses. The human rights situation in the 
DPRK is addressed every year at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) and 
in the U.N. General Assembly Third Committee and U.S. officials use 
their voice in these venues and beyond to highlight the horrible 
conditions in the DPRK. The United States calls on the DPRK to close 
its gulags, and end systematic repression and the starvation of its 
population. At the March 2013 HRC session, the United States worked 
closely with Japan, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea 
(ROK), among others, to cosponsor a resolution that established a 
Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and 
systematic human rights violations in North Korea. The resolution was 
adopted by consensus, illustrating the extent to which the 
international community shares the concerns voiced repeatedly by the 
United States and others on the Council. The COI, led by Michael Kirby 
(Australia), and including Sonja Biserko (Serbia) and Marzuki Darusman 
(Indonesia), began its work on July 1.
    The COI will build on the important work by the Special Rapporteur 
on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, who has 
provided insightful and detailed reporting on the human rights 
situation despite the DPRK Government's refusal to grant him access to 
the country. The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate the United States 
has consistently supported, has provided an important monitoring 
function, reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council every March as 
well as to the U.N. General Assembly every fall. The United States 
takes the opportunity of the interactive dialogue with the Special 
Rapporteur to express our concerns about human rights in North Korea.
    The United States will continue to work with partners at the Human 
Rights Council to support the COI in its important work, and looks 
forward to the COI's interim report to the Human Rights Council in 
September and its full report of its findings to the HRC in March 2014.
    Ensuring the well-being of North Korean refugees and asylum seekers 
is also very important. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure that 
we continue to work with other countries in the region and our 
international organizations, including the U.N. Human Rights Council 
and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to raise attention to the 
deplorable human rights conditions in the DPRK and to cooperate in the 
protection of partners, especially South Korea, on the issue of North 
Korean refugees and asylum seekers. If confirmed, I would continue to 
urge all countries in the region to act in conformity with the 1951 
U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1976 
Protocol.
    I would welcome any additional ideas you have on how we might raise 
the profile of the human rights crisis in the DPRK.

    Question. I'm interested in your insight on where China is 
regarding North Korea, and how you intend to work with the Chinese 
Ambassador to the United Nations to continue to build on the close 
cooperation Ambassador Rice has established with her Chinese 
counterpart.

   Do you think China is prepared to be serious and implement 
        and enforce sanctions this time? Do you think the PRC has 
        leverage to play to change North Korea's behavior?

   If North Korea conducts an additional missile or nuclear 
        test what do you think U.S. policy ought to be? Are there 
        additional sanctions or action through the UNSC? Additional 
        unilateral sanctions--along the lines of the Banco Delta Asia 
        sanctions from 2005--that we ought to pursue? As you know, 
        there is some consideration in Congress to creating new 
        statutory authority for additional unilateral U.S. financial 
        sanctions on North Korea. Do you think that that would be 
        helpful?

   Cuba's recent shipment of weapons systems to North Korea 
        clearly has serious implications for international security. 
        Does this shipment amount to a violation of U.N. Security 
        Council resolutions and sanctions on North Korea? Does the 
        administration plan to submit this issue to the Security 
        Council for review?

    Answer. The administration has commended Panama for the recent 
actions it has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council 
resolutions with regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The 
United States will work closely with the Government of Panama, which 
has requested our assistance, and the administration intends to provide 
assistance as best we can.
    Panama has informed the UNSC DPRK Sanctions Committee of the 
incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which assists the United 
Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions Committee, to conduct an 
investigation.
    Panama's actions regarding the Sanctions Committee as well as 
requesting the involvement of the Panel of Experts will help clarify 
involvement of the Government of Cuba with this issue. We will look at 
all possibilities regarding appropriate actions once the Committee and 
Panel complete their work. The administration will keep your staff 
informed.
    North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation-related 
activities constitute a serious threat to international peace and 
security and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Shipments of 
arms or related material to or from North Korea, and services related 
to such items, would violate U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 
1874, as reaffirmed this year in Resolutions 2087 and 2094. These 
Security Council resolutions generally provide that all states shall 
prevent the direct or indirect transfer of weapons from their territory 
or by their nationals to North Korea and shall prohibit procurement of 
such weapons from North Korea. The administration hopes that the 
Sanctions Committee, with the support of the Panel of Experts, will 
investigate this case thoroughly, identify parties responsible and 
recommend actions to be taken in response. The administration notes 
that the Sanctions Committee has the ability to impose targeted 
sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals and entities found 
to have contributed to prohibited activities or to evasion of the 
sanctions.
    The United States also continues to work closely with China to 
deepen our dialogue on North Korea to achieve our shared goal of 
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful 
manner. Through our discussions, the administration will continue to 
encourage China to leverage more effectively its unique relationship 
with the DPRK. Chinese officials have made clear their concerns about 
North Korea's destabilizing and provocative behavior and their 
commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
    The administration worked closely with China in the adoption of 
U.N. Security Council Resolutions 2087 and 2094, the two 2013 
resolutions that imposed new sanctions on North Korea. Chinese 
officials have stated publicly that China is committed to strict 
implementation of UNSC sanctions. It is a leading priority in the 
bilateral relationship for the administration to work with China on 
enforcement of all relevant DPRK-related UNSCRs and to address North 
Korea's threats to regional peace and security and the global 
nonproliferation regime.
    The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N. 
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N. 
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it 
harder for the DPRK to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds to 
develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the 
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration 
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and 
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and 
proliferation-related activities.

    Question. In July 2012, the Azerbaijani State Civil Aviation 
Administration said in a statement that planned flights between 
Stepanakert and Yerevan would represent an invasion of Azeri airspace 
and ``taking corresponding measures in connection with that is 
inevitable.''

   What has the United States done to prevent Azerbaijan from 
        committing provocative acts against civil aviation? What 
        consequences would Azerbaijan face if they threatened a 
        civilian aircraft? What role can the United Nations do to 
        protect civil aviation in this situation?
   Members of the international community have repeatedly 
        called for the withdrawal of snipers from the Armenian-
        Azerbaijani line of contact. What's the status of international 
        efforts to accomplish this? Is it true that the Azeri 
        Government has refused?

    Answer. As a Cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States 
remains committed to helping the sides find a peaceful solution to the 
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Secretary Kerry has discussed the issue of 
civil flights to Nagorno-Karabakh with the governments of Armenia and 
Azerbaijan at the highest levels. The Cochairs of the Minsk Group 
(United States, Russia, and France) are working to help the sides find 
a means of resolving this issue diplomatically, and have received 
assurances that they will reject any threat or use of force against 
civil aircraft. We remain concerned about any action that could fuel 
tension in the region or threaten the peace process. We believe the 
Minsk Group remains the best mechanism to help the sides reach 
agreement.
    The Cochairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are working to help reduce 
tension in the region. Over the years the Cochairs have proposed a 
number of confidence-building measures that would reduce violence and 
improve the climate for negotiations. The longstanding proposal from 
the Minsk Group to withdraw snipers is one such measure; they noted 
with regret in March 2011 that it had not been implemented, and they 
continue urging the sides to consider such ideas. In their June 2012 
statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Presidents of the 
United States, the Russian Federation, and France reiterated the need 
for the sides to ``respect the 1994 cease-fire agreement, and abstain 
from hostile rhetoric that increases tension.'' We remain committed to 
helping the sides find a peaceful resolution to this conflict. Member 
states of the U.N. should also reinforce these efforts.

    Question. Alexander Downer has been the U.N. Secretary General's 
envoy to 
Cyprus since 2008. What has he been able to accomplish in his 5 years 
in the position? How often is he present on the island? What is your 
view of the role Turkey plays in the Cyprus issue and in its 
resolution?

    Answer. The United States strongly supports the work of the U.N. 
Secretary General in Cyprus under the leadership of Special Advisor 
Alexander Downer. During his tenure, Downer has worked effectively with 
both sides to restart full-fledged negotiations. From 2008 to 2012, 
Downer and his team convened approximately 150 meetings of the Greek 
Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, in addition to hundreds of other 
meetings of the leaders' representatives and the bicommunal Technical 
Committees.
    Following the election of President Anastasiades in February, 
Special Advisor Downer resumed regular visits to Cyprus to hold 
meetings with both leaders and to lay the groundwork on the way 
forward. The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders have confirmed 
their intention to resume the settlement process in October, and while 
Greece and Turkey have also expressed support for the settlement 
process. If confirmed, I would support the efforts of the United States 
to work closely with the United Nations, both Cypriot communities, 
Greece, and Turkey to encourage reconciliation and reunification. The 
administration is prepared to commit energy and resources toward the 
goal of finally achieving the fair and lasting settlement that has 
eluded the people of Cyprus for so long.

    Question. Does the election of a new President of Cyprus present a 
new opportunity for peace efforts in Cyprus? What can and should the 
United Nations do to take advantage of any existing opportunities? Is 
the resolution of this 66 yearlong dispute a policy priority for the 
administration?

    Answer. The United States applauds the commitment of the two 
leaders to resume the settlement process in October. President 
Anastasiades has taken promising steps in support of the Cyprus talks, 
including the July 16 appointment of a lead negotiator.
    If confirmed, I would strongly support intensive U.N. engagement. 
The United States firmly believes that a mutually acceptable settlement 
is in the best interests of the people of Cyprus and will continue to 
support such a settlement. The United States will continue to urge the 
leaders of both communities to engage constructively in the settlement 
process as the best way to reach an agreement and will also engage with 
Turkey and Greece to encourage reconciliation and reunification. And we 
will consult with you and look to see if there are additional steps we 
should be taking to advance progress.

    Question. For years MONUSCO has been criticized for failing to 
protect civilians. What are your views on this new intervention 
brigade? Tanzania, South Africa, and Malawi are expected to be the 
major troop contributors. Do you think they are they up to the task of 
rooting out armed groups in the DRC?

    Answer. Rooting out armed groups in the DRC is something that has 
been attempted by many different groups over many years. Although it 
will prove a challenging task, it is significant that in March, the 
United States supported the Security Council's approval of an 
Intervention Brigade (IB) within MONUSCO. The South African and 
Tanzanian battalions now are in place, and Malawi is due to arrive in 
the coming weeks. The United States is in the process of providing 
training and limited equipment support to the deployment of the initial 
Malawian battalion and the follow-on Tanzanian battalion and is 
prepared to support South Africa should there be a request. It is in 
the U.S. interest for this force to succeed, and we are looking at the 
ways in which we can support its mission.
    Through the IB, MONUSCO now has a more explicit mandate to conduct 
independent military operations to disarm and neutralize armed groups, 
which have long been a major source of instability and violence against 
civilians, including sexual and gender-based violence, in the DRC. Such 
security operations will be essential to create space in which the DRC 
Government can undertake security sector reform and deliver on all its 
commitments in the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework (the 
Framework) in support of a lasting, regional peace.
    The administration has given its full backing to the Secretary 
General's recent appointments of Martin Kobler as his Special 
Representative and Head of Mission, as well as of Carlos Alberto dos 
Santos Cruz as Force Commander. The United States has been assured in 
turn that MONUSCO stands ready to protect civilians and that it will 
defend Goma if faced with an M23 offensive. The administration 
continues to urge all troop-contributing countries of MONUSCO to remain 
committed to implementing the mission's robust mandate.
    Even though the IB has not fully deployed, it is already having a 
positive effect on the ground. M23 defections have risen and morale is 
reportedly very low. MONUSCO and its IB will play an important part in 
confronting armed groups, but the peacekeeping mission alone cannot 
solve the problem. Signatories must abide by and demonstrate their 
commitments under the framework, the international community must stay 
engaged, and there must be an end to impunity for those who have 
committed abuses and violations of human rights or violations of 
international humanitarian law. There are no overnight solutions to the 
human rights and security challenges in the DRC, but the United States 
has demonstrated, with our recent appointment of former Senator Russ 
Feingold as Great Lakes Envoy and our significant investments in the 
humanitarian and security situation on the ground, how invested we are 
in trying to find ways to help stabilize and promote human rights in 
the region.

    Question. The Security Council recently announced the U.N. Mission 
in South Sudan (UNMISS) will be extended for another year. What other 
steps can the United States take through the United Nations in order to 
help the government better protect civilians?

    Answer. I am deeply disturbed by mounting reports of abuse of 
civilians, including ongoing killings, beatings, and looting and 
destruction of homes and humanitarian facilities in Jonglei State. I am 
extremely concerned about the detrimental impact that these ongoing 
clashes have on the physical security and humanitarian situation of 
tens of thousands of affected South Sudanese. The rainy season, 
currently in progress, makes travel difficult or impossible across vast 
swathes of South Sudan, and this--combined with SPLA restrictions on 
U.N. movement into active conflict areas--greatly complicates 
international efforts to gather information about the extent of the 
conflicts, deliver humanitarian assistance, or to respond to the 
violence that the United States believes to be underway.
    The administration continues to strongly advocate for the U.N. 
Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), U.N. humanitarian agencies, and NGOs 
to have full, unfettered access to all areas in order to protect 
civilians. This access would allow UNMISS to conduct timely patrols and 
air reconnaissance and permit humanitarian workers and U.N. 
representatives to provide assistance and protection to all affected 
populations. The United States has also called on the Government of 
South Sudan to meet its obligations to ensure the safety and security 
of all civilians regardless of their background or ethnicity. The 
United States has reiterated that the Government is responsible for 
preventing SPLA attacks on UNMISS or humanitarian staff and assets. If 
confirmed, I will also continue to press the government to hold 
accountable those individuals who are responsible for the violence and 
who have committed abuses--including members of the security forces--
through transparent judicial processes that respect the rule of law. I 
am also keenly aware of the mobility issues facing UNMISS, particularly 
restrictions affecting the use of helicopters, and will work vigorously 
with the U.N. and other stakeholders to fill these gaps. I am also 
interested in obtaining the views of Members of Congress and advocates 
with long histories of working on South Sudan as I think through what 
additional steps may be taken.

    Question. In the last month, we've seen increasing violence in 
Sudan, particularly in Darfur, against U.N. peacekeepers and between 
ethnic groups. Earlier this month, the U.N. Representative to the 
Secretary General noted that ``[t]he deterioration in the security 
situation in parts of South Sudan has been accompanied by human rights 
violations by both armed groups and national security institutions . . 
. [while] cases of arbitrary arrest, detention, abuse and incidences of 
killings by security forces, as well as the inability of the 
authorities to hold those responsible to account, are cause for deep 
concern.'' And just last week, 7 United Nations peacekeepers were 
killed and 17 were injured.

   What more can be done to better support the United Nations 
        Mission in Darfur?

    Answer. The United States is deeply concerned about increasing 
violence in Darfur and deteriorating humanitarian and human rights 
conditions. The administration has also condemned in the strongest 
possible terms the attack by unidentified assailants on an African 
Union--United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) patrol north 
of Nyala in South Darfur on July 13, which may constitute a war crime, 
and which constituted the largest single loss of life in the history of 
the UNAMID deployment. The United States deplores the persistent 
impunity for attacks on U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur and calls on the 
Government of Sudan to promptly conduct full and credible 
investigations into all attacks against UNAMID and to hold the 
perpetrators accountable.
    The administration is pressing for a full investigation of this 
latest attack by the United Nations and the African Union. Once the 
perpetrators are identified, the United States will pursue targeted 
U.N. sanctions against those responsible for this attack and other 
attacks on peacekeepers.
    The administration will continue to engage the African Union and 
troop contributing countries and work together to press the Government 
of Sudan and all parties to the conflict to cooperate fully with UNAMID 
and humanitarian organizations, to lift all bureaucratic and 
operational impediments to the mission's freedom of movement, and to 
allow the mission to implement its mandate without restriction. The 
administration will also emphasize to the U.N. and UNAMID leadership 
the importance of UNAMID's troops actually enforcing their Chapter VII 
mandate and the rules of engagement under which they operate.
    The United States is providing predeployment training to 
contingents deploying to UNAMID and is engaging diplomatically with the 
governments of nations that provide troops and police contingents to 
UNAMID to encourage them to provide better trained and equipped 
personnel, and to protest the Government of Sudan's restrictions on 
UNAMID.
    Obviously what is most needed, beyond better tactical civilian 
protection, is a meaningful political solution, which has long remained 
elusive. The administration will redouble its efforts to work with 
local parties and international stakeholders to resolve the crisis in a 
manner that addresses the root causes of the violence, holds 
perpetrators accountable, and addresses the longstanding grievances of 
the people of Darfur, who have suffered too long.

    Question. The discovery of significant petrochemical resources in 
Cyprus' offshore economic exclusion zone (EEZ) may provide a new area 
for cooperation with the United States and with Israel. Prompt 
development of this resource could be a key driver of Cyprus's economic 
recovery and could potentially act as a stabilizing and unifying factor 
in the eastern Mediterranean. What can the United States do within the 
U.N. system to assist Cyprus in defending its right to operate in its 
exclusive economic zone?

    Answer. The administration recognizes Cyprus' right to develop 
hydrocarbon resources in its EEZ. It does not believe that developing 
offshore energy resources need hinder the reunification talks. The 
administration continues to believe that, in the context of an overall 
settlement, the island's resources should be equitably shared between 
both communities. It fully supports the settlement process, under U.N. 
auspices, to reunify Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. Such a 
settlement will help to strengthen regional stability as it would 
facilitate the normalization of relations between Cyprus and Turkey. If 
confirmed, as I stated during the hearing, I will support U.N. efforts 
to facilitate the settlement process. I will also support Cyprus' right 
to develop hydrocarbon resources in its EEZ, and urge U.N. member 
states to adopt a similar posture.

    Question. In your book, ``A Problem from Hell: America and the Age 
of Genocide,'' you described American inaction during the Armenian 
genocide. What is the obligation of the United States to condemn and 
commemorate past instances of genocide? What are the dangers of 
genocide denial?

    Answer. With regard to your question about genocide, condemning and 
commemorating such crimes is extremely important. Doing so is a form of 
accountability, and it honors the memory of the victims and the 
survivors. It also reminds us that such horrors can be repeated unless 
we work to bring the promise of ``never again'' to life. As President 
Obama said at the launch of the Atrocities Prevention Board, ``We must 
tell our children. But more than that, we must teach them. Because 
remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. Awareness without 
action changes nothing. In this sense, `never again' is a challenge to 
us all--to pause and to look within.'' If confirmed, as I said in my 
hearing, I will stand up for human rights and stand up against 
atrocities and genocide.
    On the first part of your question, the United States clearly 
acknowledges as historical fact and mourns the fact that 1.5 million 
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days 
of the Ottoman Empire. I will represent the United States Government 
and faithfully carry out the policy of the administration. As President 
Obama has said, a ``full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts 
is in all of our interests.''
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                         by Senator Bob Corker

    Question. If confirmed, will you commit to making oversight a 
priority of your tenure as U.N. Ambassador? Do you consider the OIOS to 
be an independent inspector general and does the current Office of 
Internal Oversight (OIOS) have the tools and authority it needs to 
adequately perform an effective oversight role? If not, what 
recommendations would you make to further strengthen oversight and 
transparency?

    Answer. As I noted in my opening testimony, making the United 
Nations more efficient and effective will be a priority, if I am 
confirmed as Ambassador to the United Nations. The United Nations 
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which was established in 
1994 and uncovers numerous cases of mismanagement, fraud, and abuse 
each year, serves as the U.N.'s inspector general by fulfilling the 
Secretary General's internal oversight responsibilities. The General 
Assembly resolutions governing OIOS established operational 
independence for the Office in order for it to effectively deliver its 
mandates without interference. However, the United States continues to 
press for even greater operational independence for OIOS, including 
greater control over budget and personnel decisions.
    If confirmed, I will support efforts to revitalize OIOS and further 
strengthen its core functions of audit, investigation, and evaluation. 
While I was an advisor at the White House, the United States worked 
tirelessly in the General Assembly to establish an Assistant Secretary 
General position to serve as OIOS Deputy to improve overall management. 
The United States also has strongly supported efforts of the current 
OIOS head, Ms. Carman Lapointe of Canada, to reduce vacancies across 
the Office, particularly in the Investigation Division where the 
vacancy rate was the highest. In addition, the United States supports 
the Secretariat's reaffirmation of OIOS' jurisdiction over U.N. funds 
and programs, to enable OIOS to have full access to these entities and 
all parts of the U.N. system.

    Question. The 2008 report of the cochairs of the Mandate Review, 
which sought to identify and review the ongoing relevance of ``all 
mandates older than five years originating from resolutions of the 
General Assembly and other organs,'' concluded that only 155 (56 
percent) of the 279 mandates in the Humanitarian cluster were ``current 
and relevant'' and that only 18 (35 percent) of the 52 mandates in the 
African Development cluster were current and relevant.

   Which, if any, of these mandates have been eliminated? Do 
        you intend to seek an update of the Mandate Registry or revive 
        the Mandate Review?

    Answer. As the United States faces difficult budgetary challenges, 
the United Nations also needs to closely scrutinize all its budgeted 
activities. The administration remains concerned about the size of the 
U.N. budget and the continuation of anachronistic mandates, policies, 
and programs. Even before joining the U.S. Government, I was outspoken 
about the need for far more rationalization of mandates and missions 
across the U.N.
    The 2005 World Summit established a process to review U.N. 
mandates. That process effectively came to an end with UNGA Resolution 
62/278 (2008). While there was some consensus reached in setting aside 
74 completed mandates and identifying overlapping mandates during Phase 
I of the review, during Phase II of the review, there was limited 
progress in reviewing any significant number of mandates and no 
progress in eliminating or consolidating any mandates.
    Overall, this attempt at a ``mandate review'' was highly 
contentious. Developing countries refused to engage in the process in a 
meaningful way because they viewed the exercise as an effort by the 
United States and others to cut the U.N. budget in areas that they most 
strongly support. As a result of the experience and the controversy, 
the term ``mandate review'' is now viewed negatively by many member 
states. Despite this, I firmly believe the problems this exercise was 
attempting to address are real and continue to deserve attention.
    The administration continues to push for a more selective and 
strategic approach to improve problematic mandates or selective groups 
of related mandates such as in the area of development. In addition, 
the administration supports inclusion of sunset clauses in mandates. 
The administration continues to provide input and look for 
opportunities to evaluate mandates on a routine basis, for example 
through the application of results-based management. The Secretary 
General recently called for the need to seriously review mandates 
again, and I look forward to offering him the whole-hearted support of 
the United States as well as my personal support.

    Question. Previous reform efforts have included strengthening 
protections for whistleblowers at the United Nations. What steps do you 
intend to take to further protect whistleblowers at the United Nations 
from retaliation, including best practices for protecting 
whistleblowers from retaliation? Would you support extending 
whistleblower protections beyond formal U.N. employees and staff 
members to others who report illegality, waste, mismanagement, abuse of 
authority, or acts that pose a substantial and specific danger to 
public health or safety?

    Answer. This administration remains deeply committed to advancing 
oversight, ethics, and accountability reforms throughout the U.N. 
system. Through the United Nations Transparency and Accountability 
Initiative (UNTAI) and U.S. leadership in the General Assembly and 
relevant governing bodies, the United States has pressed U.N. 
leadership to robustly enforce U.N. policies on whistleblower 
protection.
    The UNTAI benchmark for whistleblower protection is based on 
research of best practices, which includes policies on zero tolerance 
of retaliation and mandatory training. If confirmed, I would support 
continued consultations with U.N. system organizations on how they can 
build a culture of accountability and further effective whistleblower 
policies.
    I agree that whistleblowers should be able to report fraud and 
corruption without fear of reprisal. The current U.N. whistleblower 
policy is tailored to protect U.N. personnel against retaliation. The 
policy includes measures to reverse administrative actions deemed to be 
retaliatory, which deems it largely inapplicable to individuals not 
employed by the United Nations. That said, I believe that it is 
important to consider measures for providing greater protection to 
individuals who report illegality, waste, mismanagement, abuse of 
authority, or acts that pose a substantial and specific danger to 
public health or safety.
    At U.S. urging, U.N. member states made a formal request to the 
Secretary General this past spring to expedite the development of 
strengthened protections against whistleblower retaliation, and the 
U.N. Ethics Office is expected to present recommendations to the 
General Assembly this fall. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. also remains 
committed to maintaining a hotline for waste, fraud, and abuse on its 
Web site where U.N. staff or other persons can report to the United 
States any abuse or retaliation at the United Nations.

    Question. Considering the expense and difficulty of obtaining troop 
commitments for peacekeeping operations, especially those missions with 
a more robust mandate, and given the U.S. role as a permanent Security 
Council Member, if confirmed, will you commit to reviewing and 
reporting back to Congress on the ongoing necessity for longstanding 
peacekeeping missions?

    Answer. The United States Government reviews individual 
peacekeeping missions annually, or more frequently in some cases. 
Especially in tough budget times, we need to make sure each mission is 
justified. If confirmed, I look forward to consulting with Congress 
throughout this process.
    In addition, the Department briefs the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee on U.N. peacekeeping on a monthly basis. The Department of 
State also provides an annual report to Congress on U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. The Department also notifies Congress when impending votes 
in the Security Council may modify the mandate of an individual mission 
or increase its size, as required by law.

    Question. What steps has the United Nations undertaken since 2009 
to address sexual exploitation, abuse and misconduct by U.N. 
peacekeepers and civilian personnel participating in those operations? 
What further steps will you pursue, if confirmed?

    Answer. The United States remains a leader in international efforts 
to eliminate sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by U.N. personnel, 
including by U.N. peacekeepers (whether international or local, 
civilian, military, or police). Predatory behavior by a few discredits 
the approximately 111,000 people serving with distinction in U.N. 
peacekeeping missions around the world, and undermines the trust that 
is essential to the success of each mission.
    In late 2011, the United Nations launched an internal review to 
ensure that all peacekeeping missions are complying with the 
regulations and procedures recommended in the 2005 report by Prince 
Zeid of Jordan, the U.N. Secretary General's Adviser on SEA. As a 
result of this review, the U.N. has undertaken a program of action 
focusing on three aspects: (1) ensuring the credibility of the 
Organization's response through increased transparency and cooperation; 
(2) strengthening governance, oversight, and enforcement; and (3) 
enhanced awareness and advocacy for more responsive protection and 
assistance to victims of SEA. These efforts are coordinated by the 
Conduct and Discipline Unit (CDU) in the Department of Field Support.
    Under this program of action, there have been a number of key 
developments over the last year. For example, beginning in September 
2014, the United Nations will include in the annual report of the 
Secretary General on special measures for protection against sexual 
exploitation and sexual abuse, country-specific data on SEA 
allegations, including pending actions and any sanctions imposed. Field 
missions are currently reviewing a draft accountability framework for 
conduct and discipline. The U.N. has also taken steps to improve the 
Misconduct Tracking System (MTS), a database for tracking allegations 
of misconduct, including SEA. As part of a new human rights screening 
policy, issued in December 2012, MTS is now linked to the recruitment 
tool used by the Police Division in the Department of Peacekeeping 
Operations, facilitating clearance of police personnel prior to 
deployment to the field. Work is also underway to establish a similar 
link with the recruitment system used by the Office of Military Affairs 
for military personnel. The enhanced reporting and improvements to MTS 
were undertaken in large part due to sustained engagement by the United 
States over the past few years.
    Persons guilty of sexual misconduct must be held accountable. While 
the U.N. can conduct administrative procedures and waive immunity for 
its own civilian employees, many nations which host peacekeeping 
operations do not have sufficient capacity to provide for fair trials 
or acceptable standards of confinement, which makes local prosecution 
problematic. In addition, different procedures apply for military and 
police personnel, as often do the laws of the host country and the 
sending country. The U.N. can request a sending country to investigate 
and hold accountable its military personnel under their national laws, 
but the U.N.'s authority is limited to ordering repatriation of a 
soldier and requesting the troop contributing country report on actions 
taken to discipline its personnel. In 2011, in an important step 
forward, the General Assembly adopted a U.S. proposal to withhold 
reimbursement to troop-contributing countries for military contingent 
personnel repatriated for disciplinary reasons, including violation of 
the zero-tolerance policy for SEA.
    If confirmed, I will continue to work with the United Nations and 
member states. I view pressing for ending impunity for U.N. officials 
as particularly important, as well as taking the steps needed to ensure 
that the U.N.'s database can effectively prevent previous offenders 
from serving again in the U.N. system, in any capacity.

    Question. The United Nations Human Rights Council has the authority 
to establish mandates to monitor, advise, and report to the Council on 
human rights issues with respect to specifically identified countries. 
The Special Rapporteurs who govern these mandates are authorized to 
investigate and report to the UNHRC on alleged human rights violations 
or abuses. The United States has every reason to expect the Special 
Rapporteurs to carry out their functions in a professional and 
impartial manner. Yet the U.N. does not have a process or system to 
provide transparency and ensure accountability for these rapporteurs 
and other special mandate holders' poor performance, abuse of their 
position, or gross impartiality.

   If confirmed, would you support steps to bring greater 
        transparency, accountability, and professionalism to the 
        position of Special Rapporteur? For example, would it make 
        sense to establish processes for dismissing Special Rapporteurs 
        who repeatedly violate the code of conduct, engage in serious 
        personal misconduct, or provide evidence that their 
        impartiality is gravely compromised or otherwise seriously 
        harms the trust they enjoy of all stakeholders?
   Would you support increased transparency on resources 
        budgeted and expended in support of the mandate?
   Would you consider leading an effort to require Special 
        Rapporteurs to disclose all sources of funding or other 
        compensation received?

    Answer. There are just under 50 different thematic and country 
specific U.N. Special Procedures, which include U.N. Special 
Rapporteurs, Independent Experts, Commissions of Inquiry, and Working 
Groups. While the effectiveness of these mandates depends greatly on 
the mandate holder, at their best these independent experts raise and 
maintain critical human rights issues on the international agenda, 
including gross violations of human rights by countries such as Syria 
and Iran, and often conduct important fact finding country visits.
    While we do not always agree with specific Special Procedures, we 
greatly respect their independence and the overall importance of their 
work. It is essential that they maintain their independent voices, as 
some nations with poor human rights records regularly engage in 
attempts to undermine and weaken mandate holders, especially those who 
heavily scrutinize the records of human rights abusers. We work with 
mandate holders who are under attack from abusive states, such as the 
Iran Special Rapporteur, to ensure their ability to work independently.
    The United States regularly consults with the special procedures 
mandate holders, and we scrutinize their work through their regular 
reports. We also take advantage of the regular interactive dialogues to 
press them on their methodology, operations, and the specific findings 
of their investigations; convey our views on those issues; and 
recommend topics for future inquiry.
    I agree that Special Procedures are discredited and 
counterproductive when used for political purposes. One notorious and 
deeply disturbing example is the biased and discredited United Nations 
Special Rapporteur on ``the situation of human rights in the 
Palestinian territories,'' Richard Falk, who undermines the credibility 
of the Special Procedures and the Human Rights Council--thus hampering 
the promotion and protection of human rights. The United States has 
repeatedly condemned Falk for his despicable and offensive statements, 
as has U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Earlier this year, Falk 
sought to blame the terrorist bombings in Boston on U.S. foreign policy 
and on Israel. Falk also called for a watchdog NGO to be stripped of 
its U.N. observer status after the group rightly criticized Falk's 
repeated biased and anti-Israel remarks, including Falk's publishing of 
a clearly anti-Semitic cartoon on his blog and his repeated assertions 
of an equivalence between Israeli actions toward the Palestinians and 
the Holocaust.
    That said, as a member of the Human Rights Council the United 
States is well placed to engage in efforts to strengthen the 
effectiveness of the Special Procedure mechanisms, and we will continue 
to work with other countries and the mandate holders themselves to do 
so. In 2014, more than one-third of all Special Procedures mandate 
holders (including the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human 
rights in the Palestinian territories) will reach their maximum term to 
serve and will need to be replaced. The United States will seize this 
opportunity to seek and support qualified candidates and will work with 
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the HRC 
President to fill these positions.

    Question. The Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force on U.N. Reform called 
for the U.N.'s hiring practices to increase the focus on competence 
over geographic considerations. To what extent has this reform been 
implemented and, if confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that 
competence is the first and foremost criteria in hiring decisions?

    Answer. The United States is a strong proponent for reform of the 
U.N. Human Resources Management system. Over the past 8 years, the 
United States has advocated for reforms that facilitated recruiting 
highly skilled staff in a timely manner, while promoting top 
performers, getting rid of underperformers, encouraging mobility, and 
providing professional development to ensure continued excellence.
    In 2010, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 65/247, which 
called for a comprehensive review of the entire recruitment process. 
Since then, the Office of Human Resources Management introduced the 
``Long List/Short List'' approach that identifies candidates with the 
highest qualifications. They also developed a roster system that 
compiles the credentials of highly qualified, prescreened candidates to 
facilitate swift placement.
    The United States has also been a strong advocate for the rigorous 
implementation of a comprehensive performance management system. The 
administration believes it is important that the U.N. strengthen the 
link between performance and career progression, in particular for 
those staff members in managerial positions.
    Over the next few years, a large number of U.N. Secretariat staff 
members will retire. This turnover is an opportunity to reshape and 
streamline the U.N. by demanding a thorough review of staffing needs of 
the organization. The administration will support efforts to eliminate 
those positions that no longer contribute to the strategic objectives 
of the organization, as well as plans to combat ``grade inflation'' by 
ensuring the adequate classification of vacant positions.
    This also is an opportunity to ensure that highly qualified 
Americans are employed in the United Nations. As part of the 
administration's strategic approach to fill key positions at the United 
Nations, the United States has taken a proactive approach by focusing 
on positions where the U.S. Government could make the strongest 
contributions and by conducting its own targeted recruitment of 
exceptionally qualified U.S. candidates.

    Question. With respect to U.N. professional compensation, do you 
support the principle that U.N. compensation should not exceed 
equivalent U.S. civil service salaries? If so, what do you plan to do 
to ensure this principle is observed?

    Answer. As the United States Government undertakes an austere 
fiscal diet, including staff furloughs and other cutbacks, it is 
important we send a message to the U.N. that salaries and other 
expenses must be controlled. This is key to ensuring that the overall 
U.N. budget is in line with the new realities.
    The United Nations sets salaries for professional staff according 
to the Noblemaire Principle, which states that compensation should be 
set high enough to attract nationals from all member states, including 
those member states with the highest paid national civil service 
employees. Since its inception, the U.N. has based salaries for 
professional employees on the U.S. civil service scale. In 1985, the 
U.N. General Assembly decided, with agreement from the Reagan 
administration that average U.N. net salaries should fall within 110 to 
120 percent of average U.S. civil service net salaries.
    While the United States has joined consensus a number of times 
since 1985 on maintaining the current margin system, this 
administration has been vocal about the need for greater clarity in the 
methodology used by the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC). 
The Department of State readily accepted the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) recommendation in its recent report, ``U.N. COMPENSATION: 
United Nations Should Clarify the Process and Assumptions Underlying 
Secretariat Professional Salaries,'' which requested that the U.S. 
Mission to the U.N. request that the ICSC clarify the methodology and 
assumptions used to calculate the margin between U.S. civil service and 
U.N. Secretariat staff salaries and to make this information available 
to member states.
    The administration was pleased that GAO was conducting a follow-on 
study because, in actuality, the total U.N. compensation package 
includes salaries, locality pay, benefits, and allowances. It is 
important to determine whether the U.N.'s compensation package in its 
entirety is more generous than the U.S. civil service package. This 
study coincides with the administration's successful request for the 
ICSC to conduct its own comprehensive review of U.N. compensation and 
the methodology used. The administration will continue to push for the 
ongoing ICSC comprehensive review of U.N. compensation and use the 
findings of GAO as an opportunity to review the various components of 
the U.N. compensation package and to seek ways to streamline the 
current system.

    Question. The international community, including the UNSC, has 
imposed broad and far-reaching sanctions on North Korea for its illicit 
nuclear, missile, and proliferation-related activities. Yet the record 
of member state implementation and enforcement of these sanctions 
remains mixed.

   If confirmed, what actions will you undertake to ensure 
        effective implementation and enforcement of sanctions to 
        prevent North Korea's continued illicit proliferation 
        activities?
   If confirmed, will you support continued efforts by outside 
        experts to document sanctions loopholes and expose member 
        states' noncompliance with UNSC resolutions on North Korea?
   Do you believe universal implementation of UNSC requirements 
        in the context of North Korea is achievable?
   Are there additional sanctions that the United States should 
        pursue against third countries should they fail to fully 
        implement and enforce United Nations Security Council 
        resolutions?
   Chinese adherence to its commitments in UNSC resolutions is 
        especially important. If confirmed, what actions will you 
        undertake to specifically influence or pressure China to 
        implement and enforce existing UNSC sanctions?

    Answer. North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and 
proliferation-related activities constitute a serious threat to 
international peace and security and undermine the global 
nonproliferation regime. Shipments of arms or related material to or 
from North Korea, and services related to such items, would violate 
U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874, as reaffirmed this 
year in resolutions 2087 and 2094. These Security Council resolutions 
generally provide that all states shall prevent the direct or indirect 
transfer of weapons from their territory or by their nationals to North 
Korea and shall prohibit procurement of such weapons from North Korea. 
The administration notes that the Sanctions Committee has the ability 
to impose targeted sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals 
and entities found to have contributed to prohibited activities or to 
evasion of the sanctions.
    The United States also continues to work closely with China to 
deepen our dialogue on North Korea to achieve our shared goal of 
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful 
manner. Through our discussions, the administration will continue to 
encourage China to leverage more effectively its unique relationship 
with the DPRK. Chinese officials have made clear their concerns about 
North Korea's destabilizing and provocative behavior and their 
commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
    The administration worked closely with China in the adoption of 
U.N. Security Council resolutions 2087 and 2094, which imposed strong 
new sanctions on North Korea. Chinese officials have stated publicly 
that China is committed to strict implementation of UNSC sanctions. It 
is a key priority in our bilateral relationship with China for the 
administration to work with China on enforcement of all relevant DPRK-
related UNSCRs and to address North Korea's threats to regional peace 
and security and the global nonproliferation regime.
    The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N. 
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N. 
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it 
harder for the DPRK to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds to 
develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the 
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration 
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and 
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and 
proliferation-related activities.

    Question. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry recently convened 
to investigate and document North Korea's ``grave, systematic, and 
widespread'' human rights abuses.

   If confirmed, will you commit the full resources of the U.S. 
        mission to assist the efforts of the Commission? If confirmed, 
        how will you use your position to highlight the deplorable 
        human rights situation in North Korea? Can the United States do 
        more to assist North Korean refugees, and if so, what?

    Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up 
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as U.N. 
Ambassador. The human rights situation in the DPRK remains deplorable. 
The DPRK is one of the world's most systematic abusers of human rights. 
The State Department's annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices'' details the breadth and depth of the government's human 
rights abuses. The human rights situation in the DPRK is addressed 
every year at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) and in the U.N. 
General Assembly Third Committee and U.S. officials use their voice in 
these venues and beyond to highlight the horrible conditions in the 
DPRK. At the March 2013 HRC session, the United States worked closely 
with Japan, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea (ROK), among 
others, to cosponsor a resolution that established a Commission of 
Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and systematic 
human rights violations in North Korea. The resolution's adoption by 
consensus illustrated the extent to which the international community 
shares the concerns voiced repeatedly by the United States and others 
on the Council. The COI, led by Michael Kirby (Australia), and 
including Sonja Biserko (Serbia) and Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia), 
began its work on July 1.
    The COI will build on the important work by the Special Rapporteur 
on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, who has 
provided insightful and detailed reporting on the human rights 
situation despite the DPRK Government's refusal to grant him access to 
the country. The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate the United States 
has consistently supported, has provided an important monitoring 
function, reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council every March as 
well as to the U.N. General Assembly every fall. The United States 
takes the opportunity of the interactive dialogue with the Special 
Rapporteur to express our concerns about human rights in the DPRK.
    The United States will continue to work with partners at the Human 
Rights Council to support the COI in its important work, and looks 
forward to the COI's interim report to the Human Rights Council in 
September and its full report of its findings to the HRC in March 2014.
    Ensuring the well-being of North Korean refugees and asylum seekers 
is also very important. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure that 
we continue to work with other countries in the region and our 
international organizations, including the U.N. Human Rights Council 
and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to raise attention to the 
deplorable human rights conditions in the DPRK and to cooperate in the 
protection of partners, especially South Korea, on the issue of North 
Korean refugees and asylum seekers. We will continue to urge all 
countries in the region to act in conformity with the 1951 U.N. 
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1976 Protocol.
    I would welcome any additional ideas you have on how we might raise 
the profile of the human rights crisis in the DPRK.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                     by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin

    Question. Thank you for your thoughtful answers to the many 
questions my colleagues and I have raised regarding Israel today and 
during our private meeting. As you know, U.S. support for Israel within 
the United Nations is critically important to our foreign policy and 
national security priorities. As I mentioned during our private meeting 
a few weeks ago, I greatly appreciate the constant efforts by you and 
the President to defend Israel at the United Nations and other 
international bodies. Yet I am discouraged that, as you noted during 
your testimony, Israel continues to be singled out at every opportunity 
by U.N. member states. As you stated, many close allies and aid 
recipients blindly support anti-Israel resolutions in the General 
Assembly and various U.N. bodies.

   If confirmed, how would you leverage our bilateral 
        relationships with specific countries, particularly African and 
        Asian partner countries and U.S. aid recipients, to reduce 
        hostile activities aimed at delegitimizing Israel at the United 
        Nations?
   In your opinion, how can the United States promote Israel's 
        fair treatment with the professional staff of the U.N., the 
        Secretary General and the heads of individual agencies? Do you 
        believe such engagement is necessary?
   What can be done to more effectively push for structural 
        changes to eliminate the institutional bias against Israel?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the administration's efforts 
to normalize Israel's status at the United Nations, including 
vigorously opposing one-sided, biased resolutions, fighting any efforts 
to delegitimize Israel, and supporting Israel's positive engagement 
with the United Nations.
    In addition, I will make clear the administration's position that 
one-sided actions in international fora will not advance the 
aspirations of the Palestinian people. I believe that such actions at 
the U.N. will make it harder to achieve progress toward Middle East 
peace, possibly driving the parties further apart, heightening the risk 
of violence on the ground that could claim innocent lives on both 
sides, and risking hard-won progress in building Palestinian 
institutions.
    U.S. officials meet regularly with host governments and U.N. 
officials to make known our opposition to unfair and biased resolutions 
that directly or indirectly target Israel. I will engage with my 
counterparts in New York from all regions, including Africa and Asia, 
and urge them to put a stop to efforts to delegitimize Israel in the 
U.N. system. The United States consistently opposes any texts or 
actions that criticize Israel unfairly in any U.N. body or specialized 
agency, and I will maintain that position.
    If confirmed, I will also explore new opportunities for Israel to 
engage in the U.N., whether it is supporting the participation and 
selection of Israelis for leadership roles in U.N. programs and 
agencies, or backing Israeli initiatives at the General Assembly, like 
this year's entrepreneurship resolution. Israel was elected to the 
Executive Board of the U.N. Development Programme in 2012 and will 
serve on the board of UNICEF in 2013. The United States will continue 
to support efforts to expand Israel's participation in an important 
negotiating group in New York and Geneva (WEOG) to enhance Israeli 
participation in the U.N. system. Israel's candidacy for a seat on the 
U.N. Security Council for the 2019-2020 term--which the United States 
strongly supports--is based on its membership in WEOG.

    Question. Maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas have 
caused 
 increased tensions and considerable friction among East Asian 
countries. Secretaries Hagel and Kerry have both emphasized the need 
for bilateral and multilateral dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution 
mechanisms within ASEAN.

   If confirmed, would you be willing to facilitate a meeting 
        of the relevant East Asian country representatives, and Members 
        of Congress, in New York to discuss options for the peaceful 
        resolution of maritime disputes in the East China Sea and South 
        China Sea?

    Answer. I agree that the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes 
in the East China Sea and South China Sea must be a priority. U.S. 
officials regularly discuss this issue with relevant countries, and if 
confirmed, I would support those efforts in my meetings with 
representatives from other diplomatic missions. I would also look 
forward to having Members of Congress visit the U.N. to participate in 
discussions on this topic or any other topic of interest and concern.

    Question. During your long and distinguished career as a human 
rights champion, you served on the Board of the U.S. Committee for 
Human Rights in North Korea. The issue of North Korea's nuclear program 
is rightfully on the U.N. Security Council's agenda. The country's 
atrocious record of human rights abuse and crimes against humanity, 
however, are rarely addressed or invoked there.

   If confirmed, do you pledge to publicly raise the North 
        Korean regime's human rights violations?
   Do you believe that in addition to demands on the nuclear 
        program, the United States should routinely make demands to 
        North Korea that it undertakes reform, close its gulags, and 
        end the systematic repression and starvation of its population?

    Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up 
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as 
Ambassador to the United Nations. The human rights situation in the 
DPRK remains deplorable. The DPRK is one of the world's most systematic 
abusers of human rights. The State Department's annual ``Country 
Reports on Human Rights Practices'' details the breadth and depth of 
the government's human rights abuses. The human rights situation in the 
DPRK is addressed every year at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) and 
in the U.N. General Assembly Third Committee and U.S. officials use 
their voice in these venues and beyond to highlight the horrible 
conditions in the DPRK. The United States calls on the DPRK to close 
its gulags, and end systematic repression and the starvation of its 
population. At the March 2013 HRC session, the United States worked 
closely with Japan, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea 
(ROK), among others, to cosponsor a resolution that established a 
Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and 
systematic human rights violations in North Korea. The resolution was 
adopted by consensus, illustrating the extent to which the 
international community shares the concerns voiced repeatedly by the 
United States and others on the Council. The COI, led by Michael Kirby 
(Australia), and including Sonja Biserko (Serbia) and Marzuki Darusman 
(Indonesia), began its work on July 1.
    The COI will build on the important work by the Special Rapporteur 
on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, who has 
provided insightful and detailed reporting on the human rights 
situation despite the DPRK Government's refusal to grant him access to 
the country. The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate the United States 
has consistently supported, has provided an important monitoring 
function, reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council every March as 
well as to the U.N. General Assembly every fall. The United States 
takes the opportunity of the interactive dialogue with the Special 
Rapporteur to express our concerns about human rights in North Korea.
    The United States will continue to work with partners at the Human 
Rights Council to support the COI in its important work, and looks 
forward to the COI's interim report to the Human Rights Council in 
September and its full report of its findings to the HRC in March 2014.
    Ensuring the well-being of North Korean refugees and asylum seekers 
is also very important. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure that 
we continue to work with other countries in the region and our 
international organizations, including the U.N. Human Rights Council 
and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to raise attention to the 
deplorable human rights conditions in the DPRK and to cooperate in the 
protection of partners, especially South Korea, on the issue of North 
Korean refugees and asylum seekers. If confirmed, I would continue to 
urge all countries in the region to act in conformity with the 1951 
U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1976 
Protocol.
    I would welcome any additional ideas you have on how we might raise 
the profile of the human rights crisis in the DPRK.

    Question. In your last position, one of your main responsibilities 
was promoting human rights as part of U.S. foreign policy. Highlighting 
human rights issues in China is one of the most contentious parts of 
the United States-China relationship; many critics have said that the 
U.S. Government soft pedals on human rights in China at the expense of 
other political and economic concerns.

   If confirmed, how will you use your position to promote 
        human rights in China? Will you ensure that China's human 
        rights problems are not made secondary to other issues?
   How will you use China's candidacy to the U.N. Human Rights 
        Council in Geneva--which requires a U.N. General Assembly 
        vote--to highlight and raise international concerns with 
        China's human rights record?

    Answer. Promoting human rights--including the fundamental freedoms 
of religion, expression, assembly, and association--is a central 
objective of U.S. foreign policy around the world, including with 
China. In my opening statement, I highlighted standing up for human 
rights and human dignity as one my priorities, if I am confirmed as 
Ambassador to the United Nations. The United States has consistently 
pressed the Chinese Government in senior-level meetings and dialogues, 
including during the Human Rights Dialogue, to improve its human rights 
record. If confirmed, I will emphasize to the Chinese that the 
deterioration of the human rights situation in China inevitably affects 
the overall bilateral relationship and harms China's own pursuit of 
stability and prosperity I will raise publicly and privately human 
rights concerns, while pursuing practical engagement with China on a 
range of human rights-related issues, such as the benefits of legal 
reform and a more robust rule of law. I would welcome additional ideas 
from you as to how to advance the case of human rights in China.
    The Obama administration has consistently urged the Chinese 
leadership to address the counterproductive policies that contribute to 
tensions and violence in Tibet and the Uighur areas, and pressed for a 
substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives, 
without preconditions.
    In addition to high-level bilateral dialogues, the United States 
uses every appropriate opportunity to highlight China's human rights 
record in multilateral fora, including regularly raising China's human 
rights abuses during the Item 4 intervention the United States delivers 
at the Human Rights Council (HRC).
    One useful vehicle for taking up this case is the Universal 
Periodic Review (UPR) process of the Human Rights Council. In China's 
previous UPR in 2009, participants highlighted repression of religious 
and other minorities, harassment and detention of human rights 
defenders, and the use of ``re-education through labor.'' As it does 
for all states undergoing review, the United States will make a 
statement highlighting key human rights concerns and recommendations 
for improvement during China's upcoming review in October, ahead of the 
elections for the Human Rights Council, expected in November.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                         by Senator Marco Rubio

    Question. On July 16, Panamanian authorities intercepted an illegal 
arms shipment from Cuba to North Korea. Cuba's actions violate at least 
three United Nations Security Resolutions.

   Given North Korea's record of proliferation of weapons 
        technologies to other state sponsors of terrorism such as Syria 
        and Iran, doesn't this latest case make clear once again that 
        North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism?
   What actions will the United States take at the United 
        Nations as a result of Cuba's violation of U.N. Security 
        Council resolutions regarding trade of prohibited items with 
        North Korea?

    Answer. As a matter of law, in order for any country to be 
designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must 
determine that the government of that country has repeatedly provided 
support for acts of international terrorism. The administration makes 
these designations after careful review of all available evidence to 
determine if a country meets the statutory criteria for designation.
    Even without being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, 
North Korea remains among the most heavily sanctioned of any country in 
the world based on its announced nuclear detonations, ballistic missile 
activity, proliferation activities, human rights violations, and status 
as a Communist state. North Korea has also been subject to sanctions 
under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions for its ongoing 
nuclear and ballistic-missile related activities, which constitute a 
clear threat to international peace. In January 2013, the U.N. Security 
Council adopted UNSCR 2087 (2013), condemning North Korea's December 
2012 satellite launch, which used prohibited ballistic missile 
technology, and on March 7, 2013, the U.N. Security Council unanimously 
adopted UNSCR 2094, condemning North Korea's February 12, 2013, nuclear 
test and imposing significant new sanctions under Chapter VII of the 
U.N. Charter.
    The administration has commended Panama for the recent actions it 
has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions with 
regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The United States will 
work closely with the Government of Panama, which has requested our 
assistance and the administration intends to provide assistance as best 
it can.
    North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation-related 
activities constitute a serious threat to international peace and 
security and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Shipments of 
arms or related material to or from North Korea, and services related 
to such items, would violate U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 
1874, as reaffirmed this year in Resolutions 2087 and 2094. These 
Security Council resolutions generally provide that all states shall 
prevent the direct or indirect transfer of weapons from their territory 
or by their nationals to North Korea and shall prohibit procurement of 
such weapons from North Korea.
    Panama has informed the U.N. Security Council DPRK Sanctions 
Committee of the incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which 
assists the United Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions 
Committee, to conduct an investigation.
    Panama's actions regarding the Sanctions Committee as well as 
requesting the involvement of the Panel of Experts will help clarify 
the involvement of the Government of Cuba with this issue. The 
administration hopes that the Sanctions Committee, with the support of 
the Panel of Experts, will investigate this case thoroughly, identify 
parties responsible and recommend actions to be taken in response. The 
administration notes that the Sanctions Committee has the ability to 
impose targeted sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals and 
entities found to have contributed to prohibited activities or to 
evasion of the sanctions. The administration will look at all 
possibilities regarding appropriate actions once the Committee and 
Panel complete their work. The administration will keep you and your 
staff informed of progress and would welcome your recommendations on 
next steps.
    The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N. 
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N. 
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it 
harder for DPRK to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds to 
develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the 
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration 
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and 
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and 
proliferation-related 
activities.

    Question. The National Security Staff at the White House is 
reportedly looking at ways to delist Cuba as a state sponsor of 
terrorism. Reports from July 16, 2013, clearly show Cuba's collusion 
with North Korea on weapons transfers. Additionally we already know 
that Cuba continues to provide safe haven to terrorist groups such as 
ELN and the FARC.

   Do you agree that it only makes sense to retain Cuba on the 
        list of state sponsors of terrorism?

    Answer. The Reagan administration designated Cuba as a state 
sponsor of terrorism in 1982 due to its repeated provision of support 
for acts of international terrorism. After a designation is made, it 
remains in place until rescinded in accordance with the relevant 
statutes. The Department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the 
state sponsors of terrorism list. I support Department policy.
    The administration has commended Panama for the recent actions it 
has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions with 
regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The United States will 
work closely with the Government of Panama, which has requested our 
assistance and the administration intends to provide assistance as best 
it can. Panama has informed the U.N. Security Council DPRK Sanctions 
Committee of the incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which 
assists the United Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions 
Committee, to conduct an investigation. Panama's actions regarding the 
Sanctions Committee as well as requesting the involvement of the Panel 
of Experts will help clarify the involvement of the Government of Cuba 
with this issue.

    Question. I believe that we should immediately cease granting 
people-to-people 
licenses for travel to Cuba because of this latest evidence of 
collusion with North Korea. How can this administration advocate for 
relaxing policies with regard to the Cuban regime considering their 
support for illegal weapons transfers to North Korea? Is the President 
prepared to immediately halt all people-to-people programs to Cuba?

    Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador to the United Nations, I will 
stand up for human rights and human dignity. As I indicated in my 
opening statement, I intend to draw attention to the crackdown on civil 
society in several countries, including Cuba.
    The administration believes U.S. citizens are the best ambassadors 
of American values and that well-defined, purposeful travel that 
appropriately expands religious, cultural, and educational connections 
between Cubans and Americans allows Cubans to experience the freedom of 
association and expression they have too long been denied.
    Regulations regarding such travel have been intentionally 
structured to maximize the benefits to, and contact with, the Cuban 
people.

    Question. Will you support efforts to get the United Nations to 
increasingly rely on voluntary contributions to fund its regular 
budget?

    Answer. In these tough times, when American taxpayers are 
scrutinizing their budgets, we need to do the same. I share your 
concern about the historical growth in the U.N. budget and increase in 
our share of the peacekeeping assessment. We have to be zealous in our 
scrutiny of every program and every initiative that the American people 
are helping to support through their generosity.
    We have had significant success over the last 4 years on a U.N. 
reform agenda--building on some of the work done by our predecessors. 
We have sought reductions in the peacekeeping budget of over $500 
million.
    The United States and other major contributors to the United 
Nations have been working very hard to limit growth in the U.N. regular 
budget. The administration has been successful in keeping the 2012-2013 
budget level below the level of the 2010-2011 budget, marking only the 
second time in 50 years that the U.N. regular budget decreased from the 
previous biennium.
    Assessed contributions ensure a shared financial responsibility 
among all U.N. member states and provide a stable and predictable 
funding source needed to enable the United Nations to address a wide 
array of global challenges.
    A voluntary approach to funding would undercut U.S. arguments for 
burden-sharing in areas where the United States has strong national 
interests, such as peacekeeping and the special political missions in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to this, a voluntary approach would 
likely result in an overreliance on a handful of member states with the 
United States paying a greater share of the costs.

    Question. Do you agree that the most effective tool we have in 
getting the United Nations to become more effective and transparent is 
to condition our financial contributions on specific reform metrics?

    Answer. We must seek reforms across the U.N. system to guarantee 
our financial contributions are spent effectively. The best metric is a 
well-run cost-efficient United Nations. By contrast, successive 
administrations--Republican and Democratic--have argued against 
conditioning U.S. contributions to the U.N., because the U.S. 
Government experience has been that the United States has diminished 
our leverage for reform when we are not inside. For example, when we 
were in arrears, even our closest allies were less willing to cooperate 
with us, including on reform issues. In 1996, our candidate to the 
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ)--
an important body that scrubs U.N. budgets and advises on management 
issues--suffered an embarrassing defeat (receiving only 55 of 173 
votes) in a rebuke over U.S. arrears.
    By contrast, we have seen significant reforms achieved by robust, 
long-term, sustained engagement. These include: the establishment of 
the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the U.N. Independent Audit 
Advisory Committee, and the U.N. Ethics Office; advancement in U.N. 
transparency efforts by making the Office of Internal Oversight 
Services' internal audit reports publicly available; reforms to the 
current U.N. air travel policy that put in place common sense 
restrictions on use of business class travel and abolishment of several 
unnecessary and costly reimbursement practices; and improvements to 
U.N. human resources policies, including a pay freeze and right-sizing 
exercise pending the outcome of comprehensive reviews of staff needs 
and compensation and enhancements to performance management and 
management accountability.

    Question. Given that several notorious human rights abusers (as is 
the case with Iran and Syria currently), perennially try to run for 
seats on the Council, do you agree that the United States should make 
its participation in the Council contingent upon certain standards for 
membership?

    Answer. United States engagement in the U.N. Human Rights Council 
(HRC) has resulted in real progress in promoting and protecting human 
rights globally. U.S. reelection to the HRC last year--with the highest 
number of votes among its five Western competitors--was a clear 
indication that the rest of the world views U.S. leadership on the HRC 
as crucial. Though hard to measure, we also believe the good will 
generated by our principled engagements has enhanced U.S. standing as a 
human rights leader beyond the Council.
    The United States remains concerned that countries with poor human 
rights records continue to be elected to seats on the HRC. The U.N. 
General Assembly, which elects members of the HRC by secret ballot, is 
supposed to elect only members that ``uphold the highest standards in 
the promotion and protection of human rights.'' The United States 
actively seeks to positively influence the elections both by 
encouraging countries with strong human rights records to seek seats 
and by encouraging competitive elections for the HRC.
    The United States has also worked behind the scenes with other 
countries to oppose the election of some of the worst human rights 
violators to the Human Rights Council and other important global bodies 
and will continue to do so. As you may know, a relentless diplomatic 
campaign by the United States helped keep Syria, Iran, and Sudan from 
becoming members in the recent past.
    We agree it should not take this kind of effort to keep countries 
in regional blocs from voting for bad actors. But we pledge to fight 
aggressively such disturbing campaigns which undermine the Council and 
the broader human rights agenda.
    U.S. membership and leadership are critical to improving the 
Council's performance, and we recognize that a lot of hard work lies 
ahead.

    Question. In the last session of the United Nations General 
Assembly, 131 countries--out of 193 member states--voted against the 
United States position on more than 50 percent of the rollcall votes. 
Among these 131 countries are several recipients of considerable 
amounts of U.S. foreign assistance.

   Do you agree that a country's voting pattern at the United 
        Nations should be a factor in determining levels of U.S. 
        foreign assistance?

    Answer. A country's voting record at the United Nations is always 
relevant to its bilateral relationship with the United States. The 
administration references U.N. voting in our bilateral discussions at 
all levels, and we believe that member states should be held 
accountable for votes we deem problematic.
    Obviously, there are a range of factors that go into our assessment 
of the bilateral relationship and divergent votes are just one 
dimension of a country's relations with the United States. We should 
consider the full range of economic, strategic, and political factors 
when considering how to utilize our foreign assistance.

    Question. In late 2000, the U.N. agreed to lower the U.S. 
peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent of its total budget. However, in 
the most recent U.N. Budget (2013-2015) the U.S. share of the 
peacekeeping budget will rise to 28.4 percent.

   Do you agree that the United States should seek to reverse 
        this trend and lower the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget 
        to 27 percent?
   What specific steps can you pledge to take to reverse this 
        increase in the U.S. share of the U.N. peacekeeping budget?

    Answer. The United States will work over the next 2 years to try to 
achieve reforms in the U.N. scales of assessment methodology to more 
equitably distribute the U.N. budget, in advance of the General 
Assembly's next review of the scales of assessment in 2015. The United 
States believes that emerging power--including China, India, Brazil, 
and Turkey--need to pay their fair share of the U.N. budget.
    Although the latest scale of assessments included notable increases 
for several countries, including China and Russia, the methodology used 
to calculate each country's share needs to be streamlined and updated. 
If confirmed, I will work to address the scales in the context of a 
broader U.N. reform agenda, identify alternative methodologies for the 
scales of assessments that properly reflect capacity to pay, and work 
closely with other major financial contributors to ensure their support 
for our efforts.

    Question. Do you support the creation of an inspector general to 
investigate and audit the use of U.S. contributions to the United 
Nations?

    Answer. Strong oversight is important, which is why the United 
States has consistently pushed for credible external and internal audit 
functions at all U.N. organizations. The United States has great 
confidence in the quality and integrity of the National Audit Offices 
serving as the external auditors of U.N. organizations, which functions 
like a U.S. Government IG. The external auditors examine the financial 
statements and accounts of U.N. organizations. This arrangement avoids 
duplication of effort and assures that the external auditors are 
accountable to the entire membership.
    If confirmed, I would support efforts to assure that U.N. internal 
auditors have adequate resources and independence to carry out their 
oversight responsibilities.

    Question. Do you agree that the United States should condition its 
contributions to the United Nations on certification that no U.N. 
agency or affiliated agencies grants any official status, 
accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes or 
condones anti-Semitism?

    Answer. Anti-Semitism is a scourge that cannot be tolerated. Our 
special envoy to combat anti-Semitism uses all means and venues to make 
sure it is stamped out. The United States is steadfast in combating all 
forms of anti-Semitism, and actively works to prevent the United 
Nations from being used as a platform for any hate speech. For example, 
the United States has continued its opposition to the Durban 
Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) in all U.N. venues given 
concern about anti-Israel references, as well as language that calls 
for undue restrictions on freedom of expression. Our diplomats have 
staged walkout during the presentations by Iranian President 
Ahmadinejad or other leaders who spew anti-Semitic hate. At the U.N. 
Human Rights Council (HRC), the U.S. delegation calls points of order 
if any delegations use anti-Semitic language, including terms such as 
``blood libel.'' Senior government officials, including now-National 
Security Advisor Ambassador Susan E. Rice and Ambassador Eileen Donahoe 
(HRC) have stated publicly several times that Richard Falk is not fit 
to serve as a U.N. special rapporteur given his past anti-Semitic 
remarks.
    If confirmed, I will join these public condemnations. If confirmed 
as Ambassador to the United Nations, I would continue to stand up to 
every effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine its 
security.

    Question. Last year, 19 out of 78 rollcall votes at the General 
Assembly, involved the condemnation of Israel. Do you agree that this 
represents a disproportionate focus on Israel? If so, what practical 
measures would you, if confirmed, take to significantly reduce or end 
this practice?

    Answer. I agree that the U.N. General Assembly disproportionately 
focuses on Israel. As I said in my testimony, ``Israel's legitimacy 
should be beyond dispute, and its security must be beyond doubt. Just 
as I have done the last 4 years as President Obama's U.N. adviser at 
the White House, I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to 
defend it.''
    If confirmed, I will continue the administration's efforts to 
normalize Israel's status at the United Nations, including vigorously 
opposing one-sided, biased resolutions, fighting any efforts to 
delegitimize Israel, and supporting Israel's positive engagement with 
the United Nations.
    U.S. officials meet regularly with host governments and U.N. 
officials to make known our opposition to unfair and biased resolutions 
that directly or indirectly target Israel. We repeat this message in 
capitals and in Geneva. The United States consistently opposes any 
texts or actions that criticize Israel unfairly in any U.N. body or 
specialized agency, and I will maintain that position.
    If confirmed, just as I did as President Obama's U.N. adviser, I 
would take every opportunity to make clear the administration's 
position that one-sided actions in international fora will not advance 
the aspirations of the Palestinian people. We make the costs of 
unilateral action clear to the Palestinians and to those who have 
supported counterproductive unilateral action in the United Nations. I 
believe that such actions at the U.N. will make it harder to achieve 
progress toward Middle East peace, possibly driving the parties further 
apart, heightening the risk of violence on the ground that could claim 
innocent lives on both sides, and risking hard-won progress in building 
Palestinian institutions.
    U.S. officials meet regularly with host governments and U.N. 
officials to make known our opposition to unfair and biased resolutions 
that directly or indirectly target Israel. The United States 
consistently opposes any texts or actions that criticize Israel 
unfairly in any U.N. body or specialized agency, and I will maintain 
that position.
    If confirmed, I will also explore new opportunities for Israel to 
engage in the United Nations, whether it is supporting the 
participation and selection of Israelis for leadership roles in U.N. 
programs and agencies, or backing Israeli initiatives at the General 
Assembly, like this year's entrepreneurship resolution. Israel was 
elected to the Executive Board of the U.N. Development Programme in 
2012 and will serve on the board of UNICEF in 2013. The United States 
will continue to support efforts to expand Israel's participation in an 
important negotiating group in New York and Geneva (WEOG) to enhance 
Israeli participation in the U.N. system. Israel's candidacy for a seat 
on the U.N. Security Council for the 2019-2020 term--which the United 
States strongly supports--is based on its membership in WEOG.

    Question. If confirmed, would you advocate for the United Nations 
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 
to harmonize its definition of ``refugee'' with that of the U.N. 
Refugee Agency (UNHCR)?

    Answer. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 
defines a refugee under the terms of the 1951 United Nations Convention 
Relating to the Status of Refugees as a person who, ``owing to a well-
founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, 
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political 
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to 
or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection 
of that country or return there because there is a fear of persecution 
. . . ''.
    The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees 
in the Near East (UNRWA), which predates the creation of UNHCR, defines 
a refugee for purposes of its operation as any person whose ``normal 
place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 
May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of 
the 1948 conflict,'' and descendants of fathers fulfilling those 
criteria.
    In protracted situations of displacement, groups experience natural 
population growth over time. UNHCR and UNRWA both generally recognize 
descendants of refugees as refugees for purposes of their operations; 
this approach is not unique to the Palestinian context. For example, 
UNHCR recognizes descendants of refugees as refugees in populations 
including, but not limited to, the Burmese refugee population in 
Thailand, the Bhutanese refugee population in Nepal, the Afghan 
population in Pakistan, and the Somali population seeking refuge in 
neighboring countries.
    The United States acceptance of UNRWA's method of recognizing 
refugees is unrelated to the final status issue of Palestinian 
refugees, which can only resolved in negotiations between the parties.

    Question. July 22 will mark the first anniversary of the death of 
Oswaldo Paya Sardinas in a car crash Cuba. Mr. Paya was an 
internationally respected member of Cuba's beleaguered democracy 
movement, and newly available evidence by a survivor of the crash has 
raised questions about the possible involvement of the Cuban regime in 
the crash.

   If confirmed, what measures would you take to seek a 
        credible U.N. investigation of the circumstances surrounding 
        Mr. Paya's death?
   Would you commit to give Mr. Paya's surviving daughter (Rosa 
        Maria Paya) a forum at the United Nations to ask for such 
        investigation?

    Answer. I understand and agree strongly with the call the 
Department of State has already made for an independent investigation, 
with independent, international observers, into the circumstances 
leading to the deaths of Oswaldo Paya and Harold Cepero, and if 
confirmed I will continue to support such calls and encourage other 
U.N. delegations to do the same. Additionally, I understand the 
Department of State also called for an independent investigation at the 
June 2013 session of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
    At both the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and the U.N. 
Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, civil society representatives 
play a crucial part in highlighting human rights issues of concern. In 
March 2013, Ms. Paya came before the HRC to call the Council's 
attention to her father's tragic and untimely death.
    As you know, if I am confirmed as Permanent Representative to the 
United Nations, I have agreed to reach out to Rosa Maria Paya to speak 
with her directly. I would also reach out to Assistant Secretary 
General for Human Rights, Ivan Simonovic, to encourage the Office of 
the High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct a thorough 
investigation. I would like to explore any and all appropriate venues 
for raising the profile of this case and of the broader human rights 
plight of the Cuban people.

    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to raise 
international attention about Cuba's poor human rights record at the 
General Assembly?

    Answer. As I stated in my opening testimony, the United Nations 
must stand up for human rights and human dignity, which are American 
and universal values. I also spoke about the need to contest the 
crackdown on civil society being carried out in Cuba. If confirmed, I 
intend to continue to speak about this issue, including at the U.N. 
General Assembly and at any other appropriate venue that we identify. 
As it stands now, the United States uses every appropriate opportunity 
to highlight Cuba's human rights record in multilateral fora, including 
at the U.N. General Assembly. If confirmed, I will redouble these 
efforts. This will include diplomacy to strongly make the case to 
increase votes against the annual Cuban embargo resolution at the U.N. 
General Assembly. It will also include consulting with you, other 
interested Members of Congress, and Cuban advocates to come up with 
fresh venues and approaches to drawing attention to the dire human 
rights conditions inside Cuba.

    Question. Has the United States response to events such as the 2009 
protests in Iran after the fraudulent election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 
or to the revolutions of the Arab Spring been adequate and timely? Have 
we capitalized on the opportunity for fundamental change to occur in 
these countries that would advance U.S. interests in the long term?

    Answer. The uprisings in the Arab Spring grew out of the deep 
longings of the people of the region for freedom, dignity, and 
opportunity, after decades of oppression and an illusory stability 
where citizen aspirations were suppressed but never addressed. Today we 
see many countries in the region struggling on the long, very bumpy 
road to democracy and stability, and the administration is deploying a 
range of diplomatic, economic, and other tools to support the peoples 
and governments of the region, as it is in the U.S. interest to see a 
more peaceful, democratic Middle East. Through this period the United 
States policy has been defined by support for three principles: 
nonviolence, respect for universal human rights, and meaningful 
political and economic reform on the road to democracy.
    As you note, the first match was lit in Tehran in 2009, when 
millions rose up to demand democracy and protest Iran's stolen 
election. The United States stood with the Iranian people, voicing 
strong American support for those seeking to exercise their universal 
rights. However, the Iranian regime--terrified of the implications of a 
democratic movement within its borders--crushed that inspiring 
movement, arresting, beating, and killing peaceful oppositionists, 
political activists, and average Iranians who refused to have their 
voices ignored. This was an outrage, and the administration said so. On 
June 23, the President said, ``The United States and the international 
community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, 
and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust 
actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every 
innocent life that is lost.'' Over the past several years, the 
administration has worked in Geneva to establish and support the first-
ever country-specific Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, for Iran; we 
have established ever-wider margins for the annual Iran human rights 
resolution in the General Assembly; and we continue to impose sanctions 
against human rights abusers, including those who use technology to 
commit human rights abuse. I would welcome the opportunity to consult 
about any additional steps we might take to support human rights in 
Iran.
    In Libya President Obama mobilized broad international support and 
led a coalition to help the Libyan people rid their country of a tyrant 
who had made clear his intention to murder all those who opposed him 
and stood up for democracy. He was also a dictator who had brought 
great harm to American and other innocent families. With Ghadaffi gone, 
the Libyan people have the opportunity to chart a new direction for 
their country and build their democracy. They face significant 
challenges in light both of the evisceration of institutions under 
Ghadaffi and the growth of militias and the vast quantities of arms in 
Libya. These challenges cannot be overstated. And it will surely take 
time--and support from the broader international community--for the 
Libyan people to build a peaceful democratic Libya, but U.S. leadership 
made it possible for the brave Libyan people to embark upon that 
journey. The United States now stands as a partner to Libyans who are 
investing their lives in building that future.
    Egyptians, too, stand at another crossroads in their journey toward 
peace and democracy. There is a tremendous yearning for change and yet 
enormous challenges remain for the Egyptian people to move in an 
inclusive, rights-respecting fashion toward stability and justice. In 
response to the original uprising, President Obama made it clear to the 
Egyptian people that he respected their universal rights of protest; 
the administration worked behind the scenes through political and 
military channels to urge nonviolence against the protesters; and, with 
congressional support, the United States stepped in with a variety of 
forms of technical, democracy, and other assistance to help support 
Egypt as it planned and executed its first democratic elections. In a 
country of such strategic importance to the broader region, this 
support was important. Unfortunately, while the Muslim Brotherhood won 
Egypt's elections, millions of Egyptians had legitimate grievances with 
the way the Morsi government was governing, prompting large-scale 
popular protests. There was considerable unrest, and the potential for 
greater violence. U.S. officials at all levels engaged the Muslim 
Brotherhood in an effort to convince them to address the people's 
legitimate concerns, make compromises, govern in a more inclusive 
manner, respect human rights, and promote minority rights. Today, in 
the wake of recent events, it is critical that those attempting to 
shepherd the transition back to democracy change that dynamic by 
attempting to govern on behalf of all Egyptians, including those with 
whom they disagree. This is a message the administration is sending 
through all channels, including, most recently, through the very public 
comments by Deputy Secretary Burns in Cairo. The administration is 
eager to stand with the Egyptian people as they rebuild their economy 
and their political system so that it is truly democratic and respects 
human rights. Our assistance and longstanding ties with the government, 
the military, and the people give us a platform from which to urge them 
to promptly and responsibly get back on a path toward an inclusive and 
sustainable democracy.
    Syria is the most complex and tragic of the issues confronting us, 
our allies and the entire Middle East. The President has put in place a 
multifaceted approach designed, with our international partners, to 
strengthen moderate elements of the opposition and bring about the too-
long-awaited political transition to democracy. In addition to imposing 
crippling sanctions against the Assad regime, we have contributed 
nearly a billion dollars' worth of humanitarian aid, and critical 
nonlethal assistance to strengthen opposition capabilities and 
institutions. In addition, the President announced recently that--in 
response to Assad's chemical weapons use--we would provide additional 
forms of support to vetted units in the opposition military. We have 
encouraged the opposition, which has been woefully fractured, to unite 
so the people in Syria view them as a viable alternative. This is very 
much a work in progress, and nobody is satisfied with the state of 
events on the ground, especially as more than 100,000 Syrians have been 
killed and the conflict continues to destabilize the broader region.
    These are just a few examples of a region in flux and tumult. The 
best way for us to capitalize is to continue to be engaged, 
understanding that the path will not be smooth nor without setbacks. We 
need to work with the governments and groups who represent democratic 
values and respect for human rights, and who understand the need to 
create jobs and economic opportunity. The President is committed to 
seeing that happen, and I am committed to supporting his efforts 
throughout the region.
    As with all of these issues, if confirmed, I will need to rely on 
your thoughts and advice. As I said in my meetings and at my hearing, I 
cannot do this job without you.

    Question. The administration has been criticized for not speaking 
out frequently and forcefully enough in support of democratic movements 
and freedom fighters over the last 5 years. How do you judge the 
administration's record in this area? If confirmed, how would you use 
your platform at the United Nations to highlight the plight of those 
oppressed by their governments?

    Answer. Support for democracy and human rights defenders is a core 
American value, and the Obama administration has not shied away from 
speaking out for those who are seeking their universal fundamental 
freedoms. As I said in my opening statement, if confirmed, standing up 
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as 
Ambassador to the United Nations. I believe peoples suffering human 
rights violations look to the United States for leadership. And often 
in our history the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has raised a loud voice 
on behalf of American values and fundamental freedoms.
    In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly in 2009, 
President Obama stated, ``there are basic principles that are 
universal; there are certain truths which are self evident. And the 
United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up 
for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.''
    President Obama firmly supported the international effort to ensure 
the emergence of an independent South Sudan. Likewise, U.S. leadership 
was key in building an international coalition to prevent a massacre of 
civilians in eastern Libya, and to support the Libyan people to 
overthrow the Qadhafi regime and begin a transition to democracy after 
four decades of brutal dictatorship. More broadly, in response to the 
Arab Spring, the United States has spoken out strongly for political 
change that gives citizens a greater voice in their government, for the 
rights of 
free speech and peaceful protest, and for the political participation 
of women and minorities.
    Obviously, when fewer than half the countries in the United Nations 
are fully free, we cannot be satisfied. When men, women, and children 
are being slaughtered in Syria we cannot be satisfied. When individuals 
are routinely jailed, harassed, and abused for advocating for their 
freedoms, and when governments are cracking down on civil society 
around the world, we have to find fresh ways to influence governments 
and support freedom and those who struggle to promote it. I would 
welcome any further ideas you have to achieve our shared ends.
    As a means to highlight their struggles and improve their 
situations, the United States joined more than 60 other countries in 
2011 to cosponsor a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council 
renewing the mandate for the Special Rapporteur on the situation of 
human rights defenders. Additionally, in March 2012, the U.S. 
cosponsored a resolution on the promotion and protection of human 
rights in the context of peaceful protests.

    Question. If confirmed, as a member of the Principals Committee, 
what unexplored options for influencing the outcome in Syria and 
achieving the fall of Assad would you advocate?

    Answer. I agree with the premise of your question, which is that 
the administration should leave no stone unturned and no option 
unexplored. The administration has said repeatedly that the President 
continues to review all options for addressing the crisis in Syria, as 
the situation changes on the ground. If confirmed, it will be my 
responsibility to contribute to that constant assessment and review of 
the situation and potential options for U.S. policy, given the truly 
outrageous situation on the ground in Syria. If confirmed, I will work 
with my colleagues to explore, evaluate, and reevaluate every means we 
might use to bring about the day when the Syrian people can be rid of 
Assad's tyranny, and begin to rebuild their country with a government 
that respects their rights and gives them the opportunity for a better 
future. I would also like to consult very closely with Members of the 
Congress who care deeply about this issue, to be sure that we are 
considering all variables and all options that could help influence 
outcomes in Syria in a manner that advances our national security 
interests.

    Question. In an essay titled ``Full Force'' published by the New 
Republic on March 2003 you recommended ``a historical reckoning with 
crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States.'' These 
views strike me as outside the mainstream American view of our Nation's 
role in the world, and I would like to give you an opportunity to 
clarify them.

   Which crimes do you believe have been committed by the 
        United States that need reckoning?
   Which crimes do you believe have been sponsored by the 
        United States that need reckoning?
   Which crimes do you believe have been permitted by the 
        United States that need reckoning?

    Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to expand on my response to 
your question regarding language in the 2003 New Republic article. The 
passage you cite does not accurately reflect my view of the United 
States. If I had it to do over, I would have used very different 
language, especially because the article itself is an extended and 
passionate call for America's moral leadership in the world. Promoting 
American values as a pillar of our foreign policy has been the 
objective of everything I have written about American foreign policy. 
There have been times when we have failed to live up to our high 
standards and when American leaders of both parties have acknowledged 
error and changed course, often after vigorous domestic policy 
disagreements and sometimes at the behest of Congress. This ability of 
the United States to honestly explore areas of policy disagreement and 
move forward is a hallmark of our strength. In my testimony I cited 
President Clinton's discussion of his feelings about the genocide in 
Rwanda. I might also have cited President Reagan, who in 1988 in 
signing the Civil Liberties Act memorably said, ``We must recognize 
that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake.'' 
Such statements help set us apart from those countries that tolerate no 
criticism, trample on checks and balances, and deny their people the 
fundamental freedoms that Americans enjoy.
    If I have the privilege of representing this country at the United 
Nations, I will work tirelessly to protect the interests and values of 
the American people.
    I will defend America because I am proud of America.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                    by Senator Christopher A. Coons

    Question. Mali.--The events in both Mali and Libya show how 
instability in one country can destabilize an entire region, and create 
attractive targets for extremist groups intent on harming local and 
American interests.

   In the case of Mali, do you think it is important for the 
        international community to deploy U.N. peacekeepers to the 
        north in an effort to secure the gains made by the French 
        earlier this year?
   What effect do you think greater stability in northern Mali 
        will have on the 
         region as a whole?

    Answer. The United States believes it is vitally important for the 
international community to deploy U.N. peacekeepers to consolidate the 
gains achieved by French forces earlier this year and to make progress 
in addressing the underlying causes of instability in northern Mali. 
Bert Koenders, Special Representative of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon 
and Head of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated 
Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), said: ``The establishment of 
MINUSMA is the result of a unanimous decision of the United Nations 
Security Council and has reaffirmed the engagement of the international 
community to accompany the people of Mali in their quest for stability, 
peace, and prosperity.''
    MINUSMA has a comprehensive mandate to stabilize key northern 
population centers, support the political process, and contribute to 
strengthening Mali's institutions, which are crucial to ensuring that 
northern Mali is no longer hospitable to extremist and terrorist 
forces, whose protracted entrenchment contributed to state collapse in 
Bamako last March. The United Nations envisions that MINUSMA will 
maintain a relatively light presence in Bamako, while deploying to key 
northern cities, including Gao, Timbuktu, Kidal, Tessalit, and 
Douentza.
    Greater stability in northern Mali is critical to international 
peace and security, and particularly, the stability of the Sahel 
region, which faces complex and interrelated security and governance 
challenges, including from al-Qaeda. If confirmed, I will work with 
colleagues in the United States Government, as well as the United 
Nations and our allies and partners, to support and implement an 
integrated strategy for peace and security in the Sahel.

    Question. Mali.--With more than 12,600 uniformed personnel deployed 
to a vast and extremely difficult operating environment, it will be 
critical for MINUSMA to possess the resources and equipment necessary 
to be effective. Because of the timing of the crisis, this mission was 
not included in the administration's budget request.

   How would a lack of adequate U.S. funding affect MINUSMA's 
        ability to operate and carry out its mandate?

    Answer. It is essential that all U.N. peacekeeping operations have 
the resources they need to fulfill their mandates, which are critical 
to the maintenance of international peace and security.
    Insufficient funding may lead to personnel and capability 
shortfalls in U.N. peacekeeping operations that negatively impact their 
ability to fulfill their mandates, undermining the effectiveness of 
peacekeepers and threatening the lives of both the peacekeepers and the 
civilians they are mandated to protect.
    In the case of Mali in particular, the consequences of insufficient 
funding to the U.N. Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission 
in Mali (MINUSMA) could undermine the recent progress and fragile peace 
and endanger stability in the region, which would directly damage our 
own national security interests.
    The administration will continue to explore all available options 
to meet President Obama's commitment to pay our dues on time and in 
full, consulting closely with Congress on the appropriate way forward.

    Question. Peacekeeping operations are now being termed 
``stabilization operations'' in DRC and Mali, and being asked to use 
force and undertake roles and responsibilities that far outstrip 
existing U.N. military doctrine, training, capacity (e.g., intelligence 
and command and control), not to mention civilian capacity. The United 
States authorized these mandates.

   How will you ensure that new iterations of peace operations 
        do not make the United Nations more vulnerable to belligerent 
        threats or increase risks to civilians that peacekeepers are 
        mandated to protect?
   How do you view this new mandate, and the supply of unmanned 
        aerial vehicles, impacting the situation in the DRC 
        specifically?

    Answer. The world is more dangerous, and the challenges and threats 
to peacekeepers more acute than they were 30 or 40 years ago. While the 
fundamentals of U.N. peacekeeping remain unchanged--such as the use of 
force only in self-defense or in defense of the mandate--the 
circumstances in which peacekeepers are needed today are often far more 
complex and challenging than traditional operations implementing a 
peace agreement between two warring states. Instead, they are often 
needed to help protect civilians and build peace in fragile states 
facing armed groups and other spoilers to the peace, as in Mali and 
Congo. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have also targeted U.N. personnel on 
numerous occasions. To operate in such challenging environments, U.N. 
personnel require a wide range of military, police, and civilian skills 
and capacity, as well as adequate security.
    The United States helps to build this capacity by actively 
supporting the U.N.'s development of modern doctrine, guidance, and 
training, and by providing training and equipment. This includes the 
new infantry battalion manual the United Nations recently released, and 
the development of similar manuals currently being drafted for other 
peacekeeping units, as well as work on issues such as command and 
control, protection of civilians, gender, and child protection. State 
and Defense offices work in very close cooperation on these issues, 
including through the Global Peace Operations Initiative which helps 
troop-contributing countries prepare their contingents to serve in U.N. 
missions, including through the provision of personal protective 
equipment.
    The administration has been very engaged for several years in 
reforms to the U.N.'s process for recruiting, hiring, and retention of 
staff with the necessary skills, including addressing the incentives 
and working conditions necessary to keep good people in the field. The 
United States commissioned a study on the reasons for the shortage of 
helicopter assets, which is a key step toward finding solutions. The 
administration is actively encouraging and supporting the 
implementation of recommendations from that study. The administration 
is also a lead proponent of contingency planning for crises, including 
support to the U.N.'s new Operations and Crisis Center and mission-
specific plans, in particular related to protection of civilians.
    As for the U.N. mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it 
has long had the authority to use force to protect civilians from the 
predations of armed groups. Security Council Resolution 2098 of March 
2013 did not change that authority or the mission; it only made it more 
explicit, by adding a brigade that is trained, organized, and equipped 
to deal with armed groups and other threats to civilians. We will 
encourage the troop contributors to enforce the critical mandate. 
Similarly, the introduction of unarmed, unmanned aerial systems in 
Congo will permit the U.N. mission to detect and react more rapidly to 
threats to the civilian population and to the mission itself.

    Question. President Obama announced the creation of an interagency 
Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) during a speech last year at the U.S. 
Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Atrocities Prevention Board, previously 
under your leadership, has been tasked with creating new tools to 
prevent wide-scale violence against civilians, in addition to 
identifying countries at risk of such crimes. Over the past year, the 
APB has sparked preventive action in places like Burma and Kenya, in 
addition to crafting important bureaucratic reforms to mainstream 
atrocities prevention training and early warning. However, the United 
States has yet to meaningfully engage diplomatically with other 
countries' on strengthening their own atrocities prevention capacities.

   In your new role at the United Nations, should you be 
        confirmed, how will you engage with U.N. members states on 
        atrocities prevention and challenge them to create structures 
        similar to the APB?

    Answer. As President Obama said in his August 2011 Directive on 
Mass Atrocities, ``preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core 
national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the 
United States.'' In the same directive, the President also sent a 
strong signal on the importance of sharing that responsibility with 
other countries. Just as the United States is committed to 
strengthening our own capabilities to focus on preventing and 
responding to mass atrocities, this administration is committed to 
working with a wide range of partners to ensure that the international 
community is well-positioned to be effective in this regard.
    While many of our partners already have strong commitments to 
civilian protection and conflict prevention, the administration 
believes that the process we have undertaken in formulating our 
comprehensive atrocity prevention strategy and standing up the 
Atrocities Prevention Board has generated new and useful insights into 
how governments can do more to position themselves to prevent and 
respond to the worst crimes known to humankind. For more than a year, 
we have sought opportunities to share our experience and insights with 
our partners in a range of settings.
    For example, the administration regularly discusses our efforts on 
atrocity prevention with those who join the U.N. Security Council in 
order to see how we can learn from each other, develop stronger tools, 
and enhance cooperation.
    Given the important role of regional organizations, the United 
States has held technical discussions at the regional level on 
strengthening our joint capabilities for conflict prevention, which can 
help protect civilian populations vulnerable to the threat of violence 
and atrocities.
    A significant part of the administration's effort is its 
partnership with the United Nations. The United States is working to 
build the capacity of the United Nations for atrocity prevention by 
advocating for better coordinated crisis planning and response across 
U.N. bodies; deepening our partnership with the Office of the Special 
Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide; urging all U.N. field missions 
to enhance their early warning capacity; and contributing voluntary 
funding to U.N. preventive diplomacy.
    To bolster the administration's diplomatic engagement with 
countries on atrocity prevention matters, the United States has also 
joined with other member states in fora dedicated to the discussion of 
atrocity prevention and to promoting the use of mediation as a tool for 
conflict prevention.
    If confirmed, I will work to deepen this cooperation, look for new 
ways to share the lessons the administration has learned, and foster 
new and enhanced partnerships that will advance our efforts to prevent 
atrocities.

    Question. Great Lakes.--Despite the passage of a U.N. resolution, 
the creation of a multilateral Peace, Security and Cooperation 
Framework for negotiations, and the appointment of an envoy to the 
Great Lakes, the crisis in eastern Congo continues.

   If you are confirmed, what steps will you take up in New 
        York to support implementation of the Framework and cessation 
        of external support to militias, which has been documented by 
        the United Nations, that continue to destabilize the DRC and 
        create human misery.

    Answer. The administration's overarching goal is to help stop the 
cycle of violence that has plagued eastern DRC for nearly two decades 
and to allow political stability and economic development to take root. 
The United States welcomed the signing of the Peace, Security, and 
Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the Region. The administration is 
also encouraged by the appointment of former Irish President Mary 
Robinson as the U.N. Special Envoy to the region and supports her 
mandate to lead the implementation of the Framework. If confirmed, I 
will work with U.N. Special Envoy Robinson, as well as U.S. Special 
Envoy Feingold, and partners on the Security Council, to encourage the 
Framework's signatories to fully and quickly implement their 
commitments, including prioritizing the regional commitments to not 
support armed groups and to respect the territorial integrity of 
neighboring states. As the President recently said, all the parties 
concerned need to follow through on their commitments in order to bring 
about a lasting solution in the DRC and Great Lakes Region. There is no 
question that civilians in this region have suffered far too long, and 
we must find a way collectively to forge a path that better secures 
their physical security and human rights.
    The administration believes that its diplomatic engagement over the 
past 6 months has had an impact. However, the United States is deeply 
concerned by recent reports that external support to armed groups 
within the DRC--while limited--continues. There are also reports of 
collusion between state forces and armed groups. All such support, as 
well as any government collusion, must end.
    The administration will continue to closely monitor the role of the 
U.N. peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, which must be a critical part of 
the effort to stabilize the DRC and needs to help provide political and 
security conditions space for a lasting settlement under the PSC 
Framework. In March, the Security Council approved an Intervention 
Brigade (IB) within MONUSCO tasked with neutralizing and disarming 
armed groups. The United States strongly supports the IB and the larger 
mission, but we recognize that we and other Security Council countries 
who supported this deployment must stay vigilant about the mission and 
the broader security challenges, seeking to ensure that it makes a 
meaningful difference on the ground.

    Question. The United Nations plays a significant role in South 
Sudan. Since its independence, there have been a number of worrisome 
developments that indicate the country may be moving in the wrong 
direction. In fact, earlier this month the U.N. Representative to the 
Secretary General noted that ``[t]he deterioration in the security 
situation in parts of South Sudan has been accompanied by human rights 
violations by both armed groups and national security institutions.

   What steps will you take, if confirmed, to help address the 
        challenges in South Sudan and what aspects of the U.N. system 
        do you think will be most useful to such an effort?

    Answer. I am deeply disturbed by mounting reports of abuse of 
civilians, including ongoing killings, beatings, and looting and 
destruction of homes and humanitarian facilities in Jonglei State. I am 
extremely concerned about the detrimental impact that these ongoing 
clashes have on the physical security and humanitarian situation of 
tens of thousands of affected South Sudanese. The rainy season, 
currently in progress, makes travel difficult or impossible across vast 
swathes of South Sudan, and this--combined with SPLA restrictions on 
U.N. movement into active conflict areas--greatly complicates 
international efforts to gather firsthand information about the extent 
of the conflicts, deliver humanitarian assistance, or to respond to the 
violence that the United States believes to be underway.
    The administration continues to strongly advocate for the U.N. 
Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), U.N. humanitarian agencies, and NGOs 
to have full, unfettered access to all areas in order to protect 
civilians. This access would allow UNMISS to conduct timely patrols and 
air reconnaissance and by permit humanitarian workers and U.N. 
representatives to provide assistance and protection to all affected 
populations. The United States has also called on the Government of 
South Sudan to meet its obligations to ensure the safety and security 
of all civilians regardless of their background or ethnicity. The 
United States has reiterated that the Government is responsible for 
preventing SPLA attacks on UNMISS or humanitarian staff and assets.
    If confirmed, I will also continue to press the Government to hold 
accountable those individuals who are responsible for the violence and 
who have committed abuses--including members of the security forces--
through transparent judicial processes that respect the rule of law. I 
am also keenly aware of the mobility issues facing UNMISS, particularly 
restrictions affecting the use of helicopters, and will work vigorously 
with the United Nations and other stakeholders to fill these gaps. I am 
also interested in obtaining the views of Congress and advocates with 
long histories of working on South Sudan as we think through what 
additional steps may be taken.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                         by Senator Jeff Flake

    Question. Over the past several years, the Palestinian Authority 
has successfully sought end-runs around direct negotiations with Israel 
by getting votes in various U.N. bodies to upgrade its status. Such 
attempts undermine the long-held belief that peace between Israel and 
the Palestinian Authority can only come about as a direct result of 
direct negotiations.

   What is your plan to stop initiatives like this from even 
        coming before U.N. entities, or the General Assembly, for a 
        vote?
   How will you address future attempts by the Palestinian 
        Authority to achieve statehood through the United Nations?
   Will you support current U.S. law that requires the 
        cessation of U.S. assistance to U.N. entities which recognize 
        Palestinian statehood?

    Answer. There are no shortcuts to Palestinian statehood, and I and 
other U.S. officials have long made that clear. As I said in my 
testimony on July 17, the administration has been absolutely clear that 
it 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, including Palestinian statehood. 
As President Obama's U.N. adviser, I helped coordinate and lead the 
delivery of this message. If confirmed, I will strongly support this 
effort, and I will work tirelessly to contest any effort that seeks to 
delegitimize Israel or undermine its security.
    The administration will continue to stress, both with the parties 
and with international partners, that the only path for the 
Palestinians to realize their aspiration of statehood is through 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 administration remains vigilant 
on this matter and works in close coordination with the Israeli 
Government and our other international partners to firmly oppose one-
sided action in international fora and to reinforce the importance of 
resumed direct negotiations between the parties as the only way to 
address their differences and achieve lasting peace. There is simply no 
substitute for the difficult give-and-take of direct negotiations.
    The administration has requested a waiver to allow the President to 
continue to provide contributions to U.N. specialized agencies when he 
determines it is in the national interest. The waiver would allow the 
United States to maintain our vote and influence within the United 
Nations and its specialized agencies, and to remove from the 
Palestinians or their allies any ability to force a contribution cutoff 
and diminish our influence within these agencies.
    Without a national interest waiver the administration's ability to 
conduct multilateral diplomacy and pursue U.S. objectives will be 
eroded, and the United States standing and position in critical U.N. 
agencies will be harmed. As a result, the United States ability to 
defend Israel from unfair and biased attacks in the United Nations will 
also be greatly damaged.
    Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States 
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of 
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed 
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if 
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the 
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the 
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a 
state in a U.N. specialized agency going forward. These requirements 
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they 
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the 
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United 
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum 
of the U.N. system.
    The proposed waiver, if enacted, will not diminish the 
administration's commitment to supporting Israel and defending our 
interests at the United Nations. It will not alter the administration's 
conviction that Palestinian status issues can be appropriately resolved 
only on a bilateral basis in direct negotiations with the Israeli 
Government, and that seeking to do otherwise undermines prospects for 
securing long-term peace. We prove our commitment and our conviction 
day in and day out, as we have over the past 4 years at the U.N. The 
waiver will allow the administration to continue to wage that fight 
more intelligently and more successfully, and at the same time better 
protect U.S. interests across multilateral organizations--including 
halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, defending intellectual 
property rights, and preventing and tracking potential pandemics.

    Question. Elections in Zimbabwe are slated to occur on July 31, 
even though it is widely believed that that date is far too soon to 
accommodate free, fair, and credible elections.

   Many believe that the election results have already been 
        determined due to a large-scale effort to intimidate voters in 
        Zimbabwe which began with elections in 2008 and has gone on 
        since. If this is the case, and Mugabe pulls out a reelection, 
        what role do you see the United Nations playing in the wake of 
        those elections? What sort of cooperation--or opposition--would 
        the United States have in the Security Council?
   Regardless of the elections, there will come a point when 
        there is a transition to democratic governance in Zimbabwe. 
        What role do you see the United Nations playing in Zimbabwe as 
        that transition takes place?

    Answer. The July 31 Presidential election is a critical moment for 
the people of Zimbabwe that will build on progress since the Global 
Political Agreement was agreed in 2008. Zimbabwe's economy has begun to 
recover from devastating economic mismanagement and hyperinflation, and 
the people of Zimbabwe peacefully approved a new constitution in March.
    Nevertheless, the administration remains deeply concerned about the 
lack of transparency in preparations for the upcoming Presidential 
elections, as well as continued partisan behavior by state security 
institutions and the technical and the logistical issues hampering the 
administration of a credible and transparent election. The 
administration is troubled by reports of targeted harassment against 
civil society groups and other individuals in the weeks leading up to 
the elections and has stressed that civil society organizations, 
independent media, political parties, and regular citizens in Zimbabwe 
must be afforded the right to operate without harassment, detention, 
and intimidation.
    To date, the United Nations has implemented humanitarian aid 
programs for children and women, economic growth and empowerment 
projects, and social service expansion programming. While these efforts 
must be commended, it is worthwhile for the United Nations to explore 
and encourage opportunities to expand their programmatic footprint in 
Zimbabwe.
    At present, the United Nations supports the continued efforts by 
the South African Development Community (SADC) to encourage all parties 
in Zimbabwe to work together in completing the critical reforms 
outlined in the Global Political Agreement (GPA), SADC electoral 
roadmap, and Zimbabwe's new constitution, including media, security 
sector, and other reforms. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, 
the U.N. Country Team in Zimbabwe must continue to provide the high 
level of humanitarian and development aid assistance that it offers 
despite operating in a difficult environment.
    As it has shown through critical ongoing support to democratic 
transitions from authoritarian regimes in countries such as Tunisia, 
Yemen, Libya and Iraq, the United Nations could play a constructive 
role in supporting a democratic transition in Zimbabwe. Depending on 
the particular circumstances and dynamics of such a transition, the 
United Nations has an array of expertise that it could provide to a 
transition in Zimbabwe, including electoral assistance, mediation among 
stakeholders as well as support for national reconciliation and 
transitional justice processes, strengthening human rights, and 
providing humanitarian aid. The U.N. could also provide political 
support to the efforts of Zimbabweans, the Southern African Development 
Community, and other international partners to promote long-term peace 
and development. I would strongly advocate for the U.N. to utilize all 
its tools and capabilities, as appropriate, to support a peaceful 
democratic transition for the people of Zimbabwe.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                          by Senator Tom Udall

    Question. I have been increasingly concerned by the 
administration's attempts to circumvent the Congress and arm Syrian 
rebels, whom we know little about. I am especially concerned about 
plans to arm rebels with heavier weapons. From what we know, the 
motivation of rebels is diverse, ranging from individuals who truly 
want a free and secular society, to those who are intent on 
establishing an intolerant theocracy and who are allied or sympathetic 
with al-Qaeda. Some of these elements were reportedly active in Iraq 
attacking U.S. and coalition forces.
    I believe that until we know more about the rebels, until we can 
trust the Syrian opposition to control their weapons, the Congress 
should not allow the President to have the authority to transfer heavy 
weapons. There is too high of a chance that those weapons could be used 
against the United States or our friends and allies.

   At the United Nations, will you actively work to pursue a 
        diplomatic solution to the conflict or will you pursue arming 
        of Syrian rebels?
   You supported air strikes in Libya. The situation, and the 
        players in Syria are much different, do you or the President 
        plan on advocating for an international military response to 
        the situation in Syria as some on this committee have called 
        for?

    Answer. Thank you for your question. I share the concern expressed 
by the administration and by so many members of this committee 
regarding the ongoing crisis in Syria, and the brutal atrocities 
committed by Bashar al-Assad's forces against the Syrian people in a 
conflict that has left more than 100,000 Syrians dead and has 
destabilized the broader region. As I said in my testimony, Syria is 
one of the most critical issues facing us today, and one of the most 
devastating cases of mass atrocity that I have ever seen. I also share 
your assessment of the rebels and agree that the presence of those 
allied or sympathetic with al-Qaeda has further complicated a complex 
situation that has brought such horrible suffering to the Syrian 
people.
    The President has put in place a multifaceted approach designed, 
with our international partners, to strengthen moderate elements of the 
opposition and bring about the too-long-awaited political transition to 
democracy. In addition to imposing crippling sanctions against the 
Assad regime, we have contributed nearly a billion dollars' worth of 
humanitarian aid, and critical nonlethal assistance to strengthen 
opposition capabilities and institutions. In addition, as you mention, 
the administration announced recently that--in response to Assad's 
chemical weapons use--we would provide additional forms of support to 
vetted units in the opposition military. We have encouraged the 
opposition, which has been woefully fractured, to unite so the people 
in Syria view them as a viable alternative. Nobody in the 
administration is satisfied with the conditions on the ground in Syria,
    To your question, our priority remains achieving a political 
settlement that achieves Assad's departure and that leads to a 
transitional governing body with full Executive power. If confirmed, I 
will work with other members of the administration to continue to 
explore the prospects of convening, under the U.N.'s auspices and 
working with our partners as well as Russia, diplomatic negotiations to 
achieve this political transition. The administration and I agree that 
it is a top priority to prevent the emergence of terrorist safe havens 
in Syria that al-Qaeda and other extremists could exploit to threaten 
the United States and our interests.
    As you know, the U.N. Security Council should be supporting these 
efforts at achieving a political solution. But Russia's obstruction has 
consistently prevented the Council from taking appropriate action to 
address the Syria crisis. This is a disgrace that history will judge 
harshly. The administration has worked through other parts of the U.N. 
system to galvanize international support for political transition. The 
United States has backed resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly that 
have highlighted the regime's overwhelming political isolation; for the 
most recent resolution in May, Syria could only muster 11 other 
countries in opposition. The administration also has worked through the 
U.N. Human Rights Council to promote accountability for the atrocities 
the regime has committed, establishing a commission of inquiry to 
investigate and document these violations. And the administration has 
supported and provided information to the U.N.'s chemical weapons 
investigation team as they work to gain access to the sites where we 
and others believe Assad has used chemical weapons against the Syrian 
people.
    Separate from the actions of these U.N. bodies comprised of member 
states, U.N. officials have also shown important leadership during this 
crisis. U.N. Secretary General Ban and other senior U.N. officials have 
been vocal and consistent in demanding an end to atrocities and attacks 
on civilians. And in the field, U.N. humanitarian workers put their own 
lives at risk every day to bring assistance to more than 1.8 million 
Syrian refugees, and nearly 7 million more Syrians displaced within the 
country. The United States remains by far the largest donor to the 
U.N.'s humanitarian appeal for Syria.
    Recognizing your very legitimate concerns about some of those who 
comprise the opposition, the administration's view is that the 
political solution we all seek does not appear to be immediately within 
reach. In providing direct assistance to the Syrian Military Council 
the administration is working with General Idris and the SMC to channel 
U.S. assistance to moderate, vetted recipients. The assistance is 
designed to strengthen the effectiveness of the opposition, as it 
resists continued vicious assaults from the regime, and to help 
coordinate the provision of assistance from U.S. partners and allies, 
from where we would seek to reduce the risk that materiel the 
opposition is receiving from others falls into the wrong hands. The 
administration has encouraged moderate opposition partners to distance 
themselves from extremists who are also fighting against the Assad 
regime, and minimized the risk of U.S. assistance being diverted. The 
administration also has sanctioned the anti-Assad extremist group and 
al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front, both under U.S. domestic sanctions 
and through our support for the sanctions the U.N. Security Council 
adopted in June.
    The administration has said repeatedly that the President continues 
to review all options for addressing the crisis in Syria, as the 
situation changes on the ground. If confirmed, it will be my 
responsibility to contribute to that constant assessment and review of 
the situation and potential options for U.S. policy, given the truly 
outrageous situation on the ground in Syria. If confirmed, I will work 
with my colleagues to explore, evaluate, and reevaluate every means we 
might use to bring about the day when the Syrian people can be rid of 
Assad's tyranny, and begin to rebuild their country with a government 
that respects their rights and gives them the opportunity for a better 
future.

    Question. New Mexico and other Western States have begun to 
experience the impact of climate change. NASA, the United Nations, our 
national labs, and the overwhelming majority of scientists have noted . 
. . our climate is changing. And in some areas, such as the arid West, 
this is contributing to record temperatures, a drought that is 
crippling agriculture, and catastrophic wildfires. While climate change 
is a global problem, it is also a local problem that is hitting the 
Western United States hard.

   Will we have your commitment to continue to address the 
        issue of climate change in the United Nations, and how do you 
        intend to use your office to pursue the climate goals of the 
        administration and to work with other nations ahead of the 
        COP20 summit which will be held next December in Peru?
   Would you agree that much more can be done internationally 
        to address climate change prevention and mitigation?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the strong commitment of the 
Obama administration to engage on climate change. Addressing climate 
change at home and abroad is a priority for President Obama and for 
Secretary Kerry, and the administration is working actively across the 
U.N. system and through complementary initiatives to address this 
global challenge. This includes continued active engagement in the U.N. 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce emissions. 
The administration is already working closely with the hosts of UNFCCC 
COP19 (Poland), COP20 (Peru), and COP21 (France) to ensure that those 
meetings are successful and continue to move the issue forward.
    This is a global challenge that requires a global solution. In 
addition taking leadership at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas 
pollution, the United States has been working internationally to craft 
an approach in which all countries reduce emissions. This includes not 
only negotiations around the UNFCCC but also work to reduce emissions 
in concrete and ambitious ways through the Major Economies Forum and 
the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and greater bilateral cooperation 
with countries critical to solving this challenge. We have made great 
strides, but I agree that much work remains.

    Question. This week the Panamanian Government held a ship bound 
from Cuba to North Korea due to the discovery of missiles and missile 
components hidden inside a sugar shipment. While many of us are still 
waiting for a full briefing on this seizure, I am first, grateful to 
the Panamanian authorities who made the seizure, and concerned about 
other attempts to circumspect U.N. Security Council resolutions and 
sanctions which prohibit countries from providing North Korea with 
advanced weaponry.

   I would like to know what your thoughts are regarding how 
        the United States should address this situation, and what in 
        your opinion, can be done to ensure that future shipments are 
        not actually attempts to arm the North Koreans?

    Answer. The administration has commended Panama for the recent 
actions it has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council 
resolutions with regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The 
United States will work closely with the Government of Panama, which 
has requested our assistance and the administration intends to provide 
assistance as best it can.
    North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation-related 
activities constitute a serious threat to international peace and 
security and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Shipments of 
arms or related material to or from North Korea, and services related 
to such items, would violate U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 
1874, as reaffirmed this year in Resolutions 2087 and 2094. These 
Security Council resolutions generally provide that all states shall 
prevent the direct or indirect transfer of weapons from their territory 
or by their nationals to North Korea and shall prohibit procurement of 
such weapons from North Korea.
    Panama has informed the U.N. Security Council DPRK Sanctions 
Committee of the incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which 
assists the United Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions 
Committee, to conduct an investigation.
    Panama's actions regarding the Sanctions Committee as well as 
requesting the involvement of the Panel of Experts will help clarify 
the involvement of the Government of Cuba with this issue. The 
administration hopes that the Sanctions Committee, with the support of 
the Panel of Experts, will investigate this case thoroughly, identify 
parties responsible and recommend actions to be taken in response. The 
administration notes that the Sanctions Committee has the ability to 
impose targeted sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals and 
entities found to have contributed to prohibited activities or to 
evasion of the sanctions.
    The administration will look at all possibilities regarding 
appropriate actions once the Committee and Panel complete their work. 
The administration will keep you and your staff informed of progress 
and would welcome your recommendations on next steps.
    The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N. 
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N. 
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it 
harder for North Korea to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds 
to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the 
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration 
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and 
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and 
proliferation-related activities.

    Question. I was greatly disappointed that the Senate did not ratify 
the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well 
as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. I believe that both of 
these treaties advance U.S. interests and ideals, and also work to 
create a more just and equitable world.

   In light of our failure to ratify these important treaties, 
        how will you work to ensure that U.S. interests are represented 
        in these bodies?

    Answer. The administration continues to work with a bipartisan 
Senate coalition, disability groups, veterans groups, and others in 
pursuit of ratification of the Disabilities Convention. The 
administration understands that some Senators have concerns about the 
treaty, and we are working with Democratic and Republican Senate 
sponsors to address those concerns, so that the United States is in a 
position to join the over 130 countries that are party to the 
Disabilities Treaty. We are eager to establish a foundation for more 
impactful leadership on these issues--leadership designed to ensure 
that protections for persons with disabilities does not end at the 
Nation's shores.
    In advance of progress on the treaty, U.S. diplomats continue to 
encourage governments to eliminate discrimination on the basis of 
disability and to develop and enforce laws and policies to protect the 
rights of persons with disabilities. Ratification of the Disabilities 
Treaty will ultimately make a difference to the millions of disabled 
Americans, including our wounded warriors, who often face severe 
challenges and indignities when abroad.
    Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention also remains a priority 
for this administration. As a non-Party, the United States must rely on 
customary international law for the navigational rights and freedoms 
reflected in the convention.
    U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention will protect and 
advance a broad range of U.S economic and national security interests, 
will secure as treaty law highly favorable provisions that guarantee 
our military and commercial vessels worldwide navigational rights, and 
will accord to the United States the ability to assert expansive 
sovereign rights over offshore resources, including oil and gas on the 
Continental Shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from shore.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                          by Senator Rand Paul

    Question. As you know, I have been an outspoken critic of the 
administration's perceived unwillingness to leverage our aid to 
Pakistan for the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi. During the July 16, 
2013, meeting in my office, you stated that it was your assumption that 
the administration was working behind the scenes to secure his release.

   What do you think is holding up the release of Shakil 
        Afridi? In your estimation, will his continued incarceration 
        have a chilling effect on our ability to access human 
        intelligence around the world? If confirmed, will you work with 
        me to advocate for the freedom of Dr. Afridi?

    Answer. Dr. Afridi remains in prison awaiting a hearing on his 
appeal. The administration continues to raise Dr. Afridi's case with 
the Government of Pakistan and have repeatedly said he should be 
released. If confirmed as Ambassador to the United Nations, I will 
eagerly join these efforts. The administration believes that the impact 
of Dr. Afridi's case on intelligence activities is unclear. The 
administration has also made clear to Pakistan that Dr. Afridi's 
prosecution and conviction sends the wrong message about the importance 
of our shared interests and the value of our cooperation.

    Question. As you may know, I have been a critic of the United 
Nations, both because I feel it jeopardizes our sovereignty, but also 
because it is an organization rife with corruption. If confirmed, 
please outline specific steps you will take to improve the performance 
of the United Nations.

    Answer. The United Nations is a valuable partner for advancing U.S. 
interests, but as I said in my testimony, there is much we need to do 
to improve its effectiveness and performance and to hold Secretariat 
staff accountable. Therefore, the United States has been actively 
working to make the U.N. a more effective and accountable organization 
that is capable of addressing complex global challenges. If confirmed, 
I will continue the administration's push for strong management, sound 
budgeting, increased accountability, and greater transparency.
    As a result of intense U.S. engagement and leadership across 
administrations the U.N. has adopted reforms to promote accountability, 
including: the establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight 
Services, the U.N. Independent Audit Advisory Committee, and the U.N. 
Ethics Office; advancement in U.N. transparency by making the Office of 
Internal Oversight Services' internal audit reports publicly available; 
reforms to the current U.N. air travel policy that put in place common 
sense restrictions on use of business class travel and abolishment of 
several unnecessary and costly reimbursement practices; and 
improvements to U.N. human resources policies, including a pay freeze 
and right-sizing exercise pending the outcome of comprehensive reviews 
of staff needs and compensation and enhancements to performance 
management and management accountability.
    In addition, the State Department's U.N. Transparency and 
Accountability Initiative (UNTAI) allows the United States to verify 
that concrete improvements in management and accountability are being 
made in the U.N. system.
    If confirmed, I will continue to work diligently across the U.N. 
system with other likeminded member states to ensure that U.S. tax 
dollars are well spent and that the U.N. lives up to both its ideals 
and potential. As I said in my testimony, improving the U.N.'s 
effectiveness and efficiency is a priority. ``In these difficult budget 
times, when the American people are facing tough cuts and scrutinizing 
every expense, the United Nations must do the same. This means 
eliminating waste and improving accounting and internal management. 
This means strengthening whistleblower protections and ending any 
tolerance for corruption. It means getting other countries to pay their 
fair share. And it means closing down those missions and programs that 
no longer make sense. As both the U.N.'s principal founding member and 
its largest contributor, the United States has the right and the duty 
to insist on reform. I will aggressively pursue this cause.''
    On peacekeeping, we must continue to closely review mandates to 
ensure that the missions have the means to accomplish their assigned 
tasks. Peacekeeping is not immune from the need to do more with less, 
and when a mission has outlived its usefulness it should close. To 
drive down the cost of peacekeeping, we should continue to eliminate 
redundant back-office operations, continue moving to longer 12-month 
deployments, and strengthen oversight of peacekeeping operations to 
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
    If confirmed, I will continue to work with the United Nations and 
member states to strengthen the U.N.'s response to sexual exploitation 
and abuse. I view pressing for ending impunity for U.N. personnel as 
particularly important, as well as taking the steps needed to ensure 
that the U.N.'s database can effectively prevent previous offenders 
from serving again in the U.N. system, in any capacity.
    The United States remains concerned that countries with poor human 
rights records continue to be elected to seats on the Human Rights 
Council. The United States actively seeks to positively influence the 
elections both by encouraging countries with strong human rights 
records to seek seats and by encouraging competitive elections for the 
HRC. The United States has also worked behind the scenes with other 
countries to oppose the election of some of the worst human rights 
violators to the Human Rights Council and other important global bodies 
and will continue to do so. A relentless diplomatic campaign by the 
United States helped keep Syria, Iran, and Sudan from becoming members 
in the recent past. We agree it should not take this kind of effort to 
keep countries in regional blocs from voting for bad actors. But we 
pledge to fight aggressively such disturbing campaigns which undermine 
the Council and the broader human rights agenda.
                                 ______
                                 

          Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted 
                        by Senator John Barrasso

    Question. During your testimony before the committee, you expressed 
your support for transparency of U.S. funding to the United Nations.

   What is the total annual U.S. contribution to the United 
        Nations from all U.S. agencies, including in kind support?

    Answer. The total amount of U.S. assessed and voluntary 
contributions to the United Nations System in 2012 were approximately 
$6.7 billion. These funds support a wide array of activities such as 
U.N. peacekeeping and special political missions, nonproliferation 
activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency, heath programs 
provided by the World Health Organization, food aid provided by the 
World Food Programme, and humanitarian assistance provided by the U.N. 
Offices of the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Coordinator for 
Humanitarian Affairs. Many of these programs and activities are 
described in detail in the Department's annual congressional budget 
justifications.

    Question. What percentage of the U.N. budget is directed to the 
day-to-day administrative and personnel costs?

    Answer. The United States and other major contributors to the 
United Nations have been working very hard to limit growth in the U.N. 
regular budget. The administration has been successful in keeping the 
2012-2013 budget level below the level of the 2010-2011 budget, marking 
only the second time in 50 years that the U.N. regular budget decreased 
from the previous biennium.
    Approximately 75 percent of the U.N. regular budget goes to 
personnel costs, including salaries and benefits. The United Nations 
employs a wide array of personnel that work in the areas of peace and 
security, human rights, humanitarian assistance, development, the 
environment, and drug control and crime prevention. However, as the 
United Nations becomes a target and continues to operate in countries 
such as Afghanistan and Iraq, security costs must also be considered.
    Rising U.N. personnel costs are a significant concern. The United 
States and other member states have been striving to rein in these 
costs, including through a 6-month pay freeze that the United States 
was instrumental in achieving last fall.

    Question. How much has the budget of the United Nations grown over 
the past 10 years?

    Answer. The U.N. regular budget has grown from $3 billion in 2002-
2003 to $5.4 billion in 2012-2013. The primary drivers of the growth 
are increased personnel costs and the costs of new and expanded special 
political missions, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United 
States and other major contributors to the United Nations have been 
working very hard to limit growth in the U.N. regular budget, and have 
been successful thus far in keeping the 2012-2013 budget below the 
level of the 2010-2011 budget.
    The limitation in growth up to this point was only possible because 
of U.S. efforts to ensure that the initial approved budget for 2012-
2013 was $5.15 billion, marking only the second time in 50 years that 
the U.N. regular budget decreased significantly from the previous 
biennium. The annual U.N. peacekeeping budgets has grown from $2.6 
billion in 2003-2004 to approximately $7.3 billion for the U.N. 
peacekeeping fiscal year 2012-2013, with the number of U.N. 
peacekeepers deployed nearly tripling over that period. Many of the 
peacekeeping missions that the U.N. Security Council has authorized 
over the past decade have been larger and deployed to more dangerous 
and logistically demanding environments than before, as new missions 
were established in the Congo, Darfur, South Sudan, and Mali, and 
al-Qaeda has made no secret of its aim of targeting the U.N., 
successfully killing U.N. humanitarian workers and personnel in places 
like Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
    With this budget the United Nations is able to field more than 
100,000 troops, police, and civilians in some of the most austere, 
dangerous, and demanding places on earth. If confirmed, I will continue 
to further U.S. efforts to improve the performance, efficiency, and 
accountability of U.N. operations through initiatives such as the 
Global Field Support Strategy and the reforms proposed by the Senior 
Advisory Group on peacekeeping issues, which have already yielded 
significant savings of $560 million in the peacekeeping budget that 
help keep peacekeeping costs down.

    Question. Do you support Congress and the American people receiving 
an annual report from the Office of Management and Budget listing the 
total U.S. contributions to the United Nations from the State 
Department as well as all other U.S. departments and agencies?

    Answer. Yes.

    Question. I would like to follow up on my questions regarding the 
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. You testified that you do not support 
a United Nations gun registry that includes law abiding U.S. citizens. 
There has been speculation that President Obama will sign onto the U.N. 
Arms Trade Treaty in the near future.

   As you familiarize yourself with the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty 
        over the weekend, can you please describe in detail how the 
        United States will comply with Articles 12 and 13?

    Answer. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) addresses international trade 
in conventional arms. It does not require or impose controls on 
domestic transfers of conventional arms, or the rights of U.S. citizens 
to possess firearms. Nothing in the treaty violates or is inconsistent 
with the rights of U.S. citizens including those conferred by the 
second amendment. In fact, the treaty includes an explicit 
reaffirmation of ``the sovereign right of any State to regulate and 
control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to 
its own legal or constitutional system.'' The ATT does not require or 
in any way reference the creation of a gun registry of any kind, U.N. 
or domestic.
    As Secretary Kerry said on June 3 when the treaty was opened for 
signature, the United States fully supports the ATT and looks forward 
to signing it as soon as the remaining translation issues have been 
satisfactorily resolved. The United States looks forward to all 
countries having and implementing effective national systems to control 
the international transfer of conventional arms, as the United States 
does already. Progress in other countries in raising their standards 
nearer to the level we already set would advance U.S. and global 
security by curbing illicit arms transfers and potentially reducing the 
access of wrong-doers to the arms that they employ to commit gross 
violations of human rights.
    U.S. recordkeeping practices with respect to international 
transfers of conventional arms are already consistent with Article 12 
of the treaty. Article 13 requires States Parties to report on measures 
undertaken to implement their obligations under the treaty as well as 
an annual report concerning the authorized or actual exports and 
imports of conventional arms covered under the treaty. The 
administration notes that the reporting requirement does not address 
purely domestic transactions in any way.
    If the United States were to become a Party to the treaty, the 
first reporting requirement could be fulfilled by providing a summary 
of existing U.S. export and import controls, along with references to 
existing U.S. law and regulations, such as the Arms Export Control Act. 
For the annual report, the United States already reports much of this 
information to the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, the Wassenaar 
Arrangement, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 
(OSCE), and to Congress.

    Question. What is your evaluation of the effectiveness of the U.N. 
Security Council in addressing the situations in Iran and Syria?

    Answer. On Iran, the United States led a global coalition to create 
the toughest, most comprehensive international sanctions on the Iranian 
regime, and effective multilateral diplomacy at the U.N. Security 
Council has been critical to this effort. U.S. diplomacy led to the 
adoption of four rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran 
since 2006, underscoring international consensus against its 
acquisition of a nuclear weapon and demanding Iran address 
international concerns over the nature of its nuclear program. U.N. 
Security Council sanctions on Iran have impeded Iran's ability to 
procure items necessary to expand its nuclear program, and have 
provided the international community with the basis to counter Iran's 
illicit activities, including restricting its access to technology and 
funding for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. As the 
President has said repeatedly, the administration is committed to 
preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and we will continue 
working with all of our partners at the United Nations and more broadly 
to demand that Iran fulfill its international obligations. Because Iran 
has not halted its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, we cannot be satisfied, 
and, if confirmed, we will look for additional ways to increase the 
pressure on Iran to halt its activities in violation of UNSC 
resolutions.
    Russia's obstruction has consistently prevented the Council from 
taking appropriate action to address the Syria crisis. This is a 
disgrace that history will judge harshly. The administration has worked 
through other parts of the U.N. system to galvanize international 
support for a political solution to the crisis in Syria. The United 
States has backed resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly that have 
highlighted the regime's overwhelming political isolation; for the most 
recent resolution in May, Syria could only muster 11 other countries in 
opposition. The administration also has worked through the U.N. Human 
Rights Council to promote accountability for the atrocities the regime 
has committed, establishing a commission of inquiry to investigate and 
document these violations. And the administration has supported and 
provided information to the U.N.'s chemical weapons investigation team 
as they work to gain access to the sites where we and others believe 
Assad has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
    Separate from the actions of these U.N. bodies comprised of member 
states, U.N. officials have also shown important leadership during this 
crisis. U.N. Secretary General Ban and other senior U.N. officials have 
been vocal and consistent in demanding an end to atrocities and attacks 
on civilians. And in the field, U.N. humanitarian workers put their own 
lives at risk every day to bring assistance to more than 1.8 million 
Syrian refugees, and nearly 7 million Syrians more displaced within the 
country. The United States remains by far the largest donor to the 
U.N.'s humanitarian appeal for Syria.

    Question. What type of cooperation does the United States currently 
expect from Russia at the U.N. Security Council?

    Answer. Both at the U.N. Security Council and more broadly, the 
administration has cooperated with Russia where we can advance our 
mutual interests, engaged Russia in a frank discussion of our policy 
differences, and firmly stood by our principles, our partners, and our 
allies. The United States has worked with Russia and other members of 
the Security Council on several issues of paramount concern to the 
United States, including imposing strong sanctions on both Iran and 
North Korea, building robust peacekeeping missions in the Sahel and 
Central Africa, and helping strengthen fragile states from Afghanistan 
to Somalia.
    However, as I stated in my testimony, we need to be clear-eyed 
about the prospects for cooperation with Russia on Syria. The 
administration believes that Russia and the United States should share 
an interest in preventing the further growth of extremism in Syria. The 
administration believes that Russia and the United States should share 
an interest in preventing chemical weapons use. And we believe Russia 
should share the desire to achieve a political settlement so that state 
institutions can be preserved and state failure prevented. However, the 
three vetoes Russia has cast on draft resolutions aimed at addressing 
the crisis in Syria does not bode well for Russia's willingness to use 
the Security Council to maintain international peace and security in 
Syria and the broader region.

    Question. How do you plan on addressing Russia's continued 
insistence on supplying arms to the Assad regime?

    Answer. The administration has made it absolutely clear that we 
oppose Russian arms transfers to the regime. We have also sought to 
enlist other countries in delivering this message. Russia's continued 
support to the Assad regime--military and otherwise--is prolonging the 
conflict and the suffering of the Syrian people. Since the conflict in 
Syria began, the administration has advocated publicly and privately 
against Russian support to the Syrian regime, including arms transfers, 
and ongoing Russian obstruction of Security Council action.
    At the same time, the administration recognizes that it is in 
everyone's interest that Russia uses its influence to help bring the 
regime to the negotiating table in a serious manner. Despite grave 
differences with Russia concerning this conflict, the administration 
continues to stress to the Russians that the transition to a post-Assad 
future is inevitable, and that the United States and Russia share an 
interest in a stable and inclusive Syria that neither harbors 
extremists and terrorists nor uses or proliferates chemical weapons.

    Question. I am very concerned that the Obama administration's 
budget request provides $77.8 million for the U.N. Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Last year, the United 
States terminated its funding for UNESCO as a result of the Palestinian 
Liberation Organization (PLO) being admitted as a full member. The 
administration's budget proposal shows the Palestinians that the United 
States is not serious about our concerns with their disregard for the 
peace process and unilaterally seeking a change in status through the 
United Nations. The United States needs to continue to send the message 
that we will not fund international institutions that make these types 
of decisions.

   Do you unequivocally oppose the Palestinians' efforts to 
        circumvent the peace process and seek state recognition and 
        membership in the United Nations?

    Answer. There are no short cuts to Palestinian statehood, and I and 
other U.S. officials have long made that clear. As I said in my 
testimony on July 17, the administration has been absolutely clear that 
it 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, including Palestinian statehood. 
If confirmed, I will strongly support this effort, and I will continue 
to stand up to any effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or 
undermine its security.
    The administration will continue to stress, both with the parties 
and with international partners, that the only path for the 
Palestinians to realize their aspiration of statehood is through 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 administration remains vigilant 
on this matter and works in close coordination with the Israeli 
Government and our other international partners to firmly oppose one-
sided action in international fora and to reinforce the importance of 
resumed direct negotiations between the parties as the only way to 
address their differences and achieve lasting peace. There is simply no 
substitute for the difficult give and take of direct negotiations.
    Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States 
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of 
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed 
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if 
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the 
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the 
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a 
state in a U.N. specialized agency in the future. These requirements 
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they 
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the 
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United 
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum 
of the U.N. system.

    Question. How would restoring funding to UNESCO send that message 
to the Palestinians?

    Answer. We agree with the critical importance of sending the 
message to the Palestinians that there are no shortcuts to statehood 
and that we will contest any effort to delegitimize Israel in the 
international system. The administration has requested a waiver to 
allow the President to continue to provide contributions to U.N. 
specialized agencies when he determines it is in the national interest. 
The waiver would allow the United States to maintain our vote and 
influence within the United Nations and its specialized agencies. This 
would, remove from the Palestinians or their allies any ability to 
force a contribution cutoff and diminish our influence within these 
agencies, which, given our vocal leadership would present spoilers with 
a double victory.
    Without a national interest waiver the administration's ability to 
conduct multilateral diplomacy and pursue U.S. objectives will be 
eroded, and the United States standing and position in critical U.N. 
agencies will be harmed. As a result, the United States ability to 
defend Israel from unfair and biased attacks in the United Nations will 
also be greatly damaged.
    Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States 
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of 
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed 
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if 
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the 
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the 
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a 
state in a U.N. specialized agency in the future. These requirements 
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they 
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the 
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United 
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum 
of the U.N. system.
    The proposed waiver, if enacted, will not diminish the 
administration's commitment to supporting Israel and defending our 
interests at the United Nations. It will not alter the administration's 
conviction that Palestinian status issues can be appropriately resolved 
only on a bilateral basis in direct negotiations with the Israeli 
Government, and that seeking to do otherwise undermines prospects for 
securing long-term peace. We prove our commitment and our conviction 
day in and day out, as we have over the past 4 years at the United 
Nations. The waiver will allow the administration to continue to wage 
that fight more intelligently and more successfully, and at the same 
time better protect U.S. interests across multilateral organizations--
including halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, defending 
intellectual property rights, and preventing and tracking potential 
pandemics.

    Question. The Palestinians continue to unilaterally circumvent the 
peace process by attempting to seek statehood recognition at the United 
Nations. In November, the United Nations General Assembly voted to 
allow the Palestinians to change their status. The best path to peace 
is through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians--not through manipulations at the United Nations.

   What additional efforts do you recommend the United States 
        take in order to persuade the Palestinians to cease their 
        efforts to upgrade their status within the U.N. system?
   How can the United States build opposition among member 
        states to these types of efforts?

    Answer. If confirmed, just as I did as President Obama's U.N. 
adviser, I would take every opportunity to make clear the 
administration's position that one-sided actions in international fora 
will not advance the aspirations of the Palestinian people. The only 
path for the Palestinians to realize their aspiration of statehood is 
through direct negotiations, and Palestinian efforts to pursue 
endorsements of statehood claims through the U.N. system outside of a 
negotiated settlement are counterproductive. We make the costs of 
unilateral action clear to the Palestinians and 
to those who have supported counterproductive unilateral action in the 
United Nations.
    If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to oppose firmly unilateral 
actions in international bodies or treaties that circumvent or prejudge 
the very outcomes that can only be negotiated, including Palestinian 
statehood. If confirmed, I will also continue to stand up to every 
effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine its security. I 
will also build on this administration's extensive coordination with 
Israel and our outreach efforts to combat any further action by the 
Palestinians.
    Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States 
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of 
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed 
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if 
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the 
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the 
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a 
state in a U.N. specialized agency in the future. These requirements 
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they 
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the 
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United 
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum 
of the U.N. system.
    The message from the United States to the Palestinians and in 
capitals around the world is consistent. The only way to establish a 
Palestinian state and resolve all permanent-status issues is through 
the crucial work of direct negotiations between the parties. There is 
simply no substitute for the difficult give and take of direct 
negotiations.


                   NOMINATION OF CATHERINE M. RUSSELL

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                              ----------                              

Catherine M. Russell, of the District of Columbia, to be 
        Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues
                              ----------                              

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:28 p.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Boxer, Kaine, and Paul.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

    Senator Boxer. Good afternoon. Today, we meet to consider 
the nomination of Catherine Russell to be the United States 
Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues.
    I want to welcome Ms. Russell, and congratulations on your 
nomination.
    If confirmed, Ms. Russell will play an important role as 
our country's second Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's 
Issues. This position and the office created by President Obama 
in 2009 is strongly supported by Hillary Clinton, our former 
Secretary of State, has elevated the status of women's issues 
in U.S. foreign policy, and has helped ensure that the United 
States stands as a powerful advocate for the rights and 
empowerment of women and girls all over the world.
    But as we know, despite the tremendous efforts of Secretary 
Clinton and our first Ambassador at Large, Melanne Verveer, 
much work remains to be done. This important work ranges from 
ending the devastating scourge of violence against women and 
girls to ensuring that young girls have the opportunity to 
avoid child marriage and, instead, receive an education, to 
providing women and girls the opportunity to own and inherit 
property, to hold elected office, and to start small 
businesses.
    Ms. Russell's distinguished resume indicates that she is up 
to the task. Most recently, she served as chief of staff to the 
second lady of the United States, Dr. Jill Biden, another 
tireless advocate for women's empowerment. Prior to her time in 
the White House, Ms. Russell served as senior advisor on 
international women's issues to our former chairman and current 
Vice President, Joe Biden.
    Ms. Russell also served as an Associate Deputy Attorney 
General at the Department of Justice and as the staff director 
for the Senate Judiciary Committee. She attended Boston 
College, where she received her B.A. in philosophy, and George 
Washington University Law School, where she received her juris 
doctorate.
    And I am so pleased that Senator Leahy is here. You could 
not have a finer Senator to introduce you. He is so respected 
and well loved here.
    And Senator Leahy, the floor is yours.

               STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK LEAHY, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT

    Senator Leahy. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    I apologize for bursting in at the last moment. We have 
been doing hearings on the Voting Rights Act with----
    Senator Boxer. Good.
    Senator Leahy [continuing]. Congressman Lewis and 
Congressman Sensenbrenner, a bipartisan panel.
    But I really wanted to be here to introduce Cathy Russell, 
and you talked about all of the amazing things that she has 
done. I cannot think of anybody better for the President to 
pick to be U.S. Ambassador at Large for Women's Issues.
    If I could just on a personal note, I do not want to take 
from something she is going to say, but she has a note from her 
two children here saying the fact that, ``Mommy, we love you.'' 
So I knew when both those children were born because we have 
known Cathy and her husband, Tom, for so many years, known them 
for more than 25 years.
    And I went back over the compilation like that, and I said 
this had to be the first 10-year-old we ever hired in here----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Leahy [continuing]. When she served as senior 
counsel on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and 
the Law. Brilliant mind. Uncanny ability, though, to take the 
most complex issues, get them down to where even a Senator like 
myself and others could understand it, but to make sure that 
Senators on both sides of the aisle knew that what she gave 
them was the best knowledge possible.
    She wanted to serve as staff director to the full Senate 
Judiciary Committee several years later. Again, the women's 
issues in the Judiciary Committee, she worked on the bedrock of 
her qualifications for this role.
    Then she became senior advisor to the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. She specialized in international women's 
issues. She helped draft the International Violence Against 
Women Act of 2007. And I know, Madam Chair, how hard you worked 
on the Violence Against Women Act here in the Senate and the 
House, and Cathy Russell worked to expand that worldwide.
    I know that Dr. Biden, Jill Biden, has found Cathy to have 
been an invaluable chief of staff over the past 4 years. She 
assisted both Dr. Biden and the first lady to support women in 
military families through the Joining Forces Program.
    She oversaw a governmental interagency process to develop 
the first United States strategy to prevent and respond to 
gender-based violence globally. I mean, I could go on and on 
with all of these things about her.
    If I could just close with this. She is able to handle the 
most complex issues and seeking the truth and being totally 
honest in it. But I have known her as a lawyer, as a person, as 
a mother, spouse of one of my best friends. And throughout all 
that time, I have been constantly impressed with her, thinking 
here is a person any one of us could rely on on any issue she 
took and know that she would be totally honest, totally loyal 
to this country.
    And I think that it is wonderful she is willing to take 
this position.
    Senator Boxer. Senator Leahy, let me say your words mean a 
lot to us. We are so pleased, and I am sure Ms. Russell is 
eternally pleased and grateful to you for this, all that you 
have to do. And we thank you for coming over here. We know you 
have a lot to do. So thank you so much.
    And I have a hunch it is going to be smooth sailing. I do 
not see a lot of people here, which is an indication of that. 
We have a vote coming up soon. So we are going to hear from Ms. 
Russell, and if things go the way I plan, you will be out of 
here in time to take your wonderful husband for a celebratory 
cup of coffee. [Laughter.]
    And I know that Tom Donilon is here. We are so grateful to 
you, sir, for your amazing contribution to this country.
    And are there any other members of your family you wish to 
introduce?
    Ms. Russell. Senator, I think my brother-in-law, Mike 
Donilon, is here, and my cousin, Susie Saraf, is here.
    Senator Boxer. Welcome.
    Ms. Russell. My children are not here today. One is at 
camp, and one is in school. So neither one of them is here 
today.
    Senator Boxer. Well, that makes a lot of sense. So here is 
the deal. We would love you to synthesize your remarks to 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Russell. OK.
    Senator Boxer. I have some questions. If no one else shows 
up, that will be it.
    Ms. Russell. OK. Great.
    Senator Boxer. This might go well. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE M. RUSSELL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 
      TO BE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES

    Ms. Russell. Senator Boxer, members of the committee, it is 
a privilege to appear before you today.
    I would like to thank Senator Leahy so very much for coming 
here to speak on my behalf.
    I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Kerry for 
asking me to serve as the next Ambassador at Large for Global 
Women's Issues. I am humbled by their trust and by the prospect 
of following in the footsteps of Melanne Verveer, who served in 
this position so extraordinarily during the President's first 
term.
    Finally, I am grateful to share this day with my husband 
and my children, at least in spirit, Sarah and Teddy.
    As Senator Leahy mentioned, I started my career in the 
Senate, first as a lawyer on the Judiciary subcommittee he 
chaired and then as staff director of the full committee when 
Senator Biden was the chairman. I saw firsthand not only the 
vital work of the Senate, but also the expertise and careful 
deliberation that Senators and their staffs bring to the issues 
before them.
    During my tenure as staff director of the committee, in 
1994, Congress came together to pass the Violence Against Women 
Act. That legislation was important for many reasons, not least 
of which it made clear to all Americans that domestic violence 
was not a private family member--private family matter, but a 
crime. I am proud that landmark law has, indeed, made a 
difference in the lives of so many women in this country.
    When I joined the Foreign Relations Committee staff more 
than a decade later, we sought to apply some of the same 
principles of the Violence Against Women Act to our global 
efforts against gender-based violence. We drafted the first 
International Violence Against Women Act legislation, which 
then-Senator Biden introduced in 2007.
    My work on that legislation was informed in part by my 
experience with Women for Women International, an organization 
that helps women survivors of conflict rebuild their lives. I 
realize that while women are often targets in conflicts, they 
also have tremendous capacity not only to survive, but to 
thrive, to make better lives for themselves and their families, 
and to rebuild their communities and their countries.
    While chief of staff to Dr. Jill Biden, I spearheaded an 
administration-wide effort to develop the U.S. strategy to 
prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally. It is my 
hope that this strategy and accompanying Executive order from 
President Obama will make a significant difference in efforts 
to ensure that all persons can live free from violence.
    America's leadership in advancing the rights of women is 
vital not just to women themselves, but to our national 
security and economic stability. None of the world's most 
pressing economic, social, and political problems can be solved 
without the full participation of women.
    As Secretary Kerry has said, gender equality is critical to 
our shared goals of prosperity, stability, and peace, and 
investing in women and girls worldwide is critical to advancing 
U.S. foreign policy.
    Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer made unprecedented 
progress not only in promoting gender equality and advancing 
the status of women and girls abroad, but also in elevating 
women's issues in our foreign policy. They worked to integrate 
these issues into high-profile multilateral forums and 
bilateral dialogues and into the duties of our foreign and 
civil service.
    If you grant me the privilege, I will work with Secretary 
Kerry to build upon this progress. I will continue to advocate 
at home and abroad that investing in women, advancing and 
protecting their rights, is not just the right thing to do 
morally, it is the smart thing to do economically and 
strategically.
    I will focus my energies in six main areas. First, I will 
carry on with the critical work of moving the State Department 
to implement fully the Department's gender guidance, which 
requires that gender issues be incorporated into all aspects of 
diplomacy. I will ensure that the Secretary's Office of Global 
Women's Issues remains a resource for the diplomats who will be 
advancing this work at our posts abroad.
    Second, I will support efforts to expand women's 
entrepreneurship and economic participation. We know that 
women's potential to help grow economies is vast, yet still 
largely untapped. I will continue the Department's leadership 
in supporting women entrepreneurs in every region.
    Next, I will provide strong leadership in implementing the 
United States first-ever National Action Plan on Women, Peace, 
and Security. Today, with conflicts and transitions affecting 
millions, women must not only be protected from violence, but 
also be empowered to shape the futures of their countries.
    I will work with global partners to expand women's 
political participation, ensuring that their voices are heard 
everywhere, especially in emerging democracies.
    Next, the United States must be at the forefront of global 
efforts to address gender-based violence. The continuing 
reports of horrific violence against women and girls are simply 
unacceptable. I will work to help more women live in greater 
safety and gain access to health care, protection, and justice.
    Finally, investing in women and girls is one of the most 
powerful forces for international development. We have seen 
that when a girl has a chance to go to school, has access to 
health care, and is kept free from violence, she will marry 
later, have healthier children, and earn income that she will 
invest back into her family and community, breaking the cycle 
of poverty.
    I look forward to working with colleagues at USAID and 
PEPFAR to ensure strong investments in women and girls' health 
and education, in agriculture, child survival, nutrition, and 
preventing child marriage.
    I am humbled by the task ahead, but eager to get to work. 
If confirmed, I am looking forward to the privilege of working 
with talented foreign and civil service members throughout the 
State Department to promote gender equality and advance the 
status of women around the world.
    Most of all, I hope to work with each of you to advance our 
shared goals of global peace, prosperity, and security.
    Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Russell follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Catherine M. Russell

    Madame Chairwoman, Senator Paul, members of the committee, it is a 
privilege to appear before you today. I would like to thank Senator 
Leahy for coming here to speak on my behalf.
    I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Kerry for asking me 
to serve as the next Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues. I 
am humbled by their trust and by the prospect of following in the 
footsteps of Melanne Verveer, who served in this position so 
extraordinarily during the President's first term.
    Finally, I am very grateful to share this day with my husband, Tom, 
and our children, Sarah and Teddy.
    As Senator Leahy mentioned, I started my career in the Senate, 
first as a lawyer on the Judiciary Subcommittee he chaired and then as 
the staff director for the full committee when Senator Biden was the 
chairman. I saw firsthand not only the vital work of the Senate, but 
also the expertise and careful deliberation Senators and their staffs 
bring to the issues before them.
    During my tenure as staff director of the committee in 1994, 
Congress came together to pass the Violence Against Women Act. That 
legislation was important for many reasons, not least of which it made 
clear to all Americans that domestic violence was not a private family 
matter, but a crime. I am proud that landmark law has indeed made a 
difference in the lives of so many women in this country.
    When I joined the Foreign Relations Committee staff more than a 
decade later, we sought to apply some of the same principles of the 
Violence Against Women Act to our global efforts against gender-based 
violence. We drafted the first International Violence Against Women Act 
legislation, which then-Senator Biden introduced in 2007.
    My work on that legislation was informed, in part, by my experience 
with Women for Women International, an organization that helps women 
survivors of conflict rebuild their lives. I realized that while women 
are often targets in conflicts, they also have tremendous capacity not 
only to survive but to thrive, to make better lives for themselves and 
their families, and to build their communities and countries.
    While chief of staff to Dr. Jill Biden, I spearheaded an 
administration-wide effort to develop the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and 
Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally.It is my hope that this 
strategy, and accompanying Executive order from President Obama, will 
make a significant difference in efforts to ensure that all persons can 
live free from violence.
    America's leadership in advancing the rights of women is vital not 
just to women themselves, but to our national security and economic 
stability. None of the world's most pressing economic, social, and 
political problems can be solved without the full participation of 
women. As Secretary Kerry has said, ``Gender equality is critical to 
our shared goals of prosperity, stability, and peace, and investing in 
women and girls worldwide is critical to advancing U.S. foreign 
policy.''
    Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer made unprecedented 
progress not only in promoting gender equality and advancing the status 
of women and girls abroad, but also in elevating women's issues in our 
foreign policy. They worked to integrate these issues into high-profile 
multilateral forums and bilateral dialogues and into the duties of our 
foreign and civil service.
    If you grant me the privilege, I will work with Secretary Kerry to 
build upon this progress. I will continue to advocate at home and 
abroad that investing in women--advancing and protecting their rights--
is not just the right thing to do morally; it is the smart thing to do 
economically and strategically.
    I will focus my energies on six main areas.
    First, I will carry on with the critical work of moving the State 
Department to implement fully the Department's gender guidance, which 
requires that gender issues be incorporated into all aspects of 
diplomacy. I will ensure the Secretary's Office of Global Women's 
Issues remains a resource for the diplomats who will be advancing this 
work at our posts abroad.
    Second, I will support efforts to expand women's entrepreneurship 
and economic participation. We know that women's potential to help grow 
economies is vast, yet still largely untapped. I will continue the 
Department's leadership in supporting women entrepreneurs in every 
region.
    Next, I will provide strong leadership in implementing the United 
States first-ever National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. 
Today, with conflicts and transitions affecting millions, women must 
not only be protected from violence, but also be empowered to shape the 
futures of their countries.
    I will work with global partners to expand women's political 
participation, ensuring that their voices are heard everywhere, 
especially in emerging democracies.
    Next, the United States must be at the forefront of global efforts 
to address gender-based violence. The continuing reports of horrific 
violence against young women and girls are simply unacceptable. I will 
work to help more women live in greater safety, and gain access to 
health care, protection, and justice.
    Finally, investing in women and girls is one of the most powerful 
forces for international development. We've seen that when a girl has 
the chance to go to school, has access to health care, and is kept safe 
from violence, she will marry later, have healthier children, and earn 
an income that she will invest back into her family and community--
breaking the cycle of poverty. I look forward to working with 
colleagues at USAID and PEPFAR to ensure strong investments in women 
and girls' health and education, in agriculture, child survival, 
nutrition, and preventing child marriage.
    I am humbled by the task ahead, but eager to get to work. If 
confirmed, I am looking forward to the privilege of working with 
talented foreign and civil service members throughout the State 
Department to promote gender equality and advance the status of women 
around the world. Most of all, I hope to work with each of you to 
advance our shared goals of global peace, prosperity, and security.
    Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your questions.

    Senator Boxer. Well, I must say that everything you said 
resonates mightily with me and just speaks to why this office 
is so important. And why, when I went to then-Chairman Kerry 
and asked that we have our first-ever subcommittee looking at 
the status of women throughout the world and he said yes, I 
knew it was a real breakthrough.
    And there are many people out there in the audience who 
supported that, and I think it is critical. And I have to say 
the most conservative-thinking historians have said that the 
reason so much of the world is lagging is because they do not 
give women a fair chance. So, as you point out, it is a huge 
economic issue.
    And of course, the tragedy of violence against women, we 
see it all over, in our own military, I might say.
    Ms. Russell. I know.
    Senator Boxer. And we have to keep on pushing because if we 
do not, it is going to continue.
    And I have to say we have a heroine in the world named 
Malala Yousafzai. And I introduced a bill earlier this year 
with Senator Landrieu, and we all know that incredible story. 
Shot in the head by the Taliban because she spoke out bravely 
for girls' education in Pakistan and around the world.
    So the fact that she survived this is definitely God-given 
blessing to the world, and she is continuing her crusade. So, 
as you know, she spoke before the United Nations. I was just 
riveted listening to her words, but more than her words, her 
passion, and her power.
    And so, this bill pays tribute to Malala's vision for her 
country by reinforcing the U.S. commitment to girls' education 
in Pakistan. It is a very simple bill. It expands an existing 
USAID program. So we are not adding more money.
    It awards university scholarships to economically 
disadvantaged Pakistani students. It requires that new 
scholarships be awarded to women because, to date, only 25 
percent of the scholarships awarded through the program have 
been for women. The women are the ones who need it. For them to 
be getting just 25 percent is just wrong on its face.
    So I know we are going to take up this bill, and I know the 
State Department does not have an official position. So I am 
not asking you that. But I am asking if you would work with me, 
as we move forward, because I think you could be a great 
resource to me in just getting the facts out. Would you work 
with me to get the facts out surrounding this legislation?
    Ms. Russell. Well, Senator, first let me say that I think--
I completely agree with you that girls' education is a critical 
issue for us to be working on. I think that the case of Malala 
was so horrifying for so many reasons. But first of all, it was 
such a cowardly act for them to go after her, and I think that 
the reason that they are so threatened by a young girl going to 
school is precisely why we need to be so supportive of girls' 
education.
    It is a horrifying thing to imagine that girls on their way 
to a class are such a threat that they are going to shoot a 
young woman in the head. And I think it just reinforces the 
importance for us of really coming back and saying this is 
absolutely unacceptable, and we need to do everything we can to 
make sure that these girls can get an education to make their 
lives better, to make their children's lives better.
    Because I think one thing we know for sure, that girls 
getting an education is really one of the most--I mean, I think 
there are so many things that we need to do for women's 
empowerment. Education is one of them. Health care. Making sure 
legal protections are in place. But I think one of the first 
and most important is certainly education.
    And I think we need to do everything we can to make sure 
that these girls have that opportunity, and so, yes, I will 
certainly work with you. I commend you for your leadership on 
that. I just think it is sort of first, one of the first 
principles, that girls' education is critically important.
    Senator Boxer. Well, clearly, what the terrorists do, they 
rule by fear. And they know if people have confidence in 
themselves and they are educated and they can stand up for 
themselves, that is a threat to them.
    Ms. Russell. Exactly.
    Senator Boxer. So, you know, they go after the women and 
terrorize. But I think what we saw with Malala's speech at the 
United Nations is if they thought they were going to stop the 
conversation, they certainly have another think coming.
    Ms. Russell. Yes.
    Senator Boxer. And in this committee, we are going to work 
together, and we are going to see that the girls have that 
opportunity.
    Ms. Russell. That opportunity.
    Senator Boxer. I see I have been joined by my ranking 
member. Senator Kaine, do you have time to just wait for his 
opening statement? All right, we will call on Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Actually, I am fine. I do not have an opening 
statement.
    Senator Boxer. You are OK? OK. We will call on Senator 
Kaine.
    Senator Paul. That will be fine.
    Senator Boxer. And then we will go back to you for 
questions. Go ahead.
    Senator Paul. Sure.
    Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Congratulations.
    Ms. Russell. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Kaine. I cannot think of somebody more qualified to 
do this important job.
    Just in terms of--I have two questions, really. One about 
partnership and one about the U.N. convention and the current 
status of it not being ratified in the United States.
    Partnership. A lot of the success, I think, of the office 
is the partnership that you create with other entities within 
State that have a human rights portfolio, as well as 
partnerships beyond State. And I would like you to just talk 
about your sort of philosophy about such partnerships, 
partnerships that are already working between the office and 
other entities within or around State. I would love to hear 
that.
    Ms. Russell. OK. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
    It is interesting. When I worked on the strategy on 
violence against women globally, one of the things that became 
very clear to me was that there are lots of entities around the 
Government who are working on different pieces of the violence 
portfolio.
    We brought all of these pieces, all of the organizations 
together, many of them in State, AID, and then across the 
Government--Justice Department folks, people from Labor, people 
from CDC, OPIC. I mean, lots of people had a lot of interest in 
this.
    I think that everybody was looking. I think sort of one of 
the things that happen anywhere across the Government is there 
is a lot of stove-piping that goes on. But everybody is looking 
for opportunities to work together, and I think that it is 
important--this is a fairly small office, but I think that what 
we can do is really--we have the opportunity to look for people 
who are interested in working on these issues and really look 
for partnerships and ways to kind of bring people together in a 
way that will benefit all of us.
    I mean, everybody has some interest in gender, right? 
Because women sort of cross lots of different portfolios here. 
But I think what we are looking for are places where we can be 
particularly effective in using kind of the bully pulpit and 
also making sure that with the limited resources we have in the 
Government that we are all doing things that are the most 
effective way to help women kind of across portfolios.
    And everybody--you know, obviously, I am not in the job. 
So----
    Senator Kaine. Right.
    Ms. Russell. But everybody has been very interested in sort 
of reaching out to me and looking for opportunities, saying if 
you are confirmed, we would be interested in working together. 
So I think it is going to be a very effective way to do 
business.
    Senator Kaine. What is your sense of--one worry I would 
have is that issues dealing with women's empowerment could be 
kind of an add-on issue rather than a central issue in 
bilateral foreign policy, whether it is bilateral or 
multilateral. What are your thoughts about the ways to take 
women's empowerment issues and not make them an add-on, but 
make them really central to the daily work of diplomacy that 
the Nation does?
    Ms. Russell. I think that was one of the things that 
Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer were very good about. 
And I think it is the purpose of the gender integration that is 
going on at the State Department, where Secretary Clinton 
issued a policy saying you need to make sure that gender is 
integrated in the work of the Department.
    It is an ongoing process, frankly. But I think that there 
are places where there are efforts underway now, but I think, 
obviously, we would need to continue to look for places to do 
that. There are probably places where it makes more sense than 
others to focus. But I do think that that is an ongoing 
process.
    Senator Kaine. Finally, I just would like to get your 
thoughts about the convention. I am really struck and 
discouraged by the fact that we are a signator but haven't 
ratified the U.N. Convention on Elimination of Discrimination 
Against Women.
    And do you know whether the administration has plans to 
promote that issue before this Congress? And I would just like 
to have your sense of the convention and what it requires and 
its validity.
    Ms. Russell. Well, the administration supports the 
ratification certainly, and I would support it as well. What I 
understand is that certainly in the United States, we kind of 
have the gold standard in terms of nondiscrimination laws. And 
so, it really, I think, is more of an issue when we are 
overseas.
    And my understanding is that what diplomats have expressed 
is that it would be very helpful as kind of a tool in our 
arsenal to say to countries where they are not abiding by 
nondiscrimination laws, where their laws and their practices 
are not favorable toward women--where ours are, but where 
countries are not as favorable--to say--and they are 
signatories to CEDAW, to say that--you know, to try to get them 
to abide by their obligations under CEDAW.
    I understand that there are people in this country and in 
this Congress who have concerns about it. I know that those are 
not people who believe in discrimination against women. So I 
would like to think that there may be a way forward here, and 
certainly if I could be helpful doing that, I would be 
interested in doing that. Because I have to think that there is 
a way we can do this.
    Because I am sure that it is not, as I say, that folks who 
have concerns about it, I have to believe that there is a way 
we can----
    Senator Kaine. Their concern is probably more the 
sovereignty concern than the discrimination concern.
    Ms. Russell. Yes. And just given that it would be such an 
effective tool for us to use overseas, and I think as it is 
now, we are kind of lumped in with Sudan and Somalia and Iran 
as people who are not signatories to this treaty, it does put 
us in a bad place. And again, it is not really as much an issue 
in the United States. We do have great laws here.
    But in other places, it would be very helpful for us to be 
able to say we, too, are signatories. And now they use it and 
say, well, the United States cannot even sign onto this. So why 
do we need to worry about whether we abide by our obligations 
under it? And that is kind of an unfortunate place for us to be 
at this point.
    Senator Kaine. Well, I would love to be involved in an 
effort to get the United States Senate to ratify, and your 
advice about how it might be perceived and how it might help us 
internationally could be very valuable. I think the 
nonratification of that convention and the one on the rights of 
citizens with disabilities are just out of character with who 
we are.
    Ms. Russell. Yes.
    Senator Kaine. I think we--in both the antidiscrimination 
areas and in the areas of treatment of citizens with 
disabilities, while every day we can wake up and we can and 
should do more, I think we have a lot of examples to offer the 
world about the things that we have done. And I think the 
absence of ratification of both of these conventions gets in 
the way of us presenting the best case that we can.
    And I would look forward to you helping us maybe figuring 
out a way to make that happen.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Russell. Thanks.
    Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Congratulations on your nomination, and 
thanks for coming.
    There is a Pakistani poet by the name of Parveen Shakir, 
and she has a poem that makes me think of Malala. It says, 
``The children of our age have grown clever. They insist on 
examining the firefly in the daylight.''
    I remember seeing the speeches of Malala before she was 
injured. Her speech is still incredible, even with the massive 
injury that she sustained. But what I would say is that there 
is such a mixture in so many of these worlds of allowing women 
to advance. I mean, there have been Prime Ministers of 
Pakistan. I have met the Ambassador from Pakistan, who is a 
woman.
    But then there are strains, and not insignificant strains, 
I think maybe as much as a third of the population of Pakistan, 
maybe half, said they would vote for bin Laden, which basically 
means they are voting for the Taliban, voting for a repressive 
culture that would shoot a little girl. I mean, I think we 
should speak out on these things, and we should condemn these 
things.
    I think there has been too much hesitancy sometimes in our 
society that we are going to offend all of Islam. I do think 
there need to be more voices within Islam saying this is not 
and does not represent Islam, and it is harder for a Christian 
because it looks as if I am just criticizing another religion. 
But someone should speak out, and our country, I think, should 
not be shy about speaking out about this.
    Among the great human rights abuses I think is putting 
people to death for their speech. In Pakistan, there is a 
woman, and I do not know if this is a women's rights issue. But 
she is a woman, and she is in prison on death row, basically 
for speaking out. Well, she thinks, actually, for drinking out 
of the same glass as Muslim workers is why she thinks she is on 
death row.
    She is officially charged with blasphemy and saying 
something about the prophet. She denies this. And in our 
country, gossip like that or any kind of accusation of 
religious speech would not be considered to be any kind of 
crime.
    But I think it is important as we speak out that we not try 
to be so politically correct that we excuse behavior because we 
say, oh, we are afraid of offending an entire religion. I do 
think it would be easier if it were someone who were from the 
same religion saying this doesn't represent it. But at the very 
least, I think we need to not be afraid to speak out on issues 
where people are misusing religion, but it really is a human 
rights abuse and, in this case, the abuse of a woman.
    I would appreciate your comments.
    Ms. Russell. Well, Senator, you raise a critical issue. I 
am not familiar with that specific case, but I do think that 
that is certainly a really important----
    Senator Paul. Her name is Asia Bibi, if you want to have 
your staff look into it.
    Ms. Russell. OK.
    Senator Paul. She has been, I think, in prison for 2 years 
or more. They say it may take another 2 years for her trial to 
come up, if it comes up. They say she may be pardoned 
ultimately. But for goodness sakes, to spend 5 years in prison, 
even if that is all. But she is under the threat of the death 
penalty the entire time.
    And it is the blasphemy laws. But almost every country 
through the Middle East has these laws. They do not always 
enforce them. But having them on the books is a great human 
rights abuse.
    Ms. Russell. Yes. No, I appreciate you raising that, and I 
will have somebody take a look at it, and I will look at it. 
And I appreciate your raising it, and then if I am confirmed in 
this position, I would be interested in continuing 
conversations with you about that. I appreciate that.
    Thank you.
    Senator Boxer. Anything else, Rand?
    Senator Paul. No, thank you.
    Senator Boxer. I have just one more question. I was deeply 
disappointed by recent attempts by the Government of Bangladesh 
to fundamentally alter the future of Bangladesh's Nobel Prize-
winning Grameen Bank, which was founded by Muhammad Yunus.
    As you know, Grameen Bank provides lifesaving microfinanced 
loans to its shareholders, and the majority of them are very 
poor women. And what makes the bank unique is it is owned by 
the very women who borrow from it.
    I had the privilege of speaking with Muhammad Yunus, and 
what an amazing man he is. And this idea, just getting a few 
hundred dollars, sometimes even less, and how that grows. So I 
have joined a number of my colleagues, including every female 
member of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, in urging 
Bangladesh to allow Grameen Bank to continue to operate with 
autonomy and without government influence.
    Most recently, I joined Senator Durbin in an op-ed in which 
we wrote, ``Any effort to restructure the bank is the wrong 
decision and one that threatens the most vulnerable and the 
tremendous strides the country has made toward poverty 
reduction and growing civil society.''
    Could you speak to this issue of the bank, and if 
confirmed, would you commit to working for the protection of 
this vitally important institution?
    Ms. Russell. Yes, Senator. I am not familiar specifically 
with what the Bangladeshi Government is doing, but I am 
certainly familiar with the Grameen Bank and with microfinance 
programs in general.
    Senator Boxer. Well, they have basically taken it away, 
taken it over.
    Ms. Russell. Yes, which is a terrible thing. The 
microfinance programs are especially important for women 
because they provide such small loans that are often critically 
important for women to get started in business.
    I saw a great program in Bosnia where the women were 
borrowing small bits of money, starting sewing businesses, milk 
businesses. It was amazing to see. And the women came together 
and made decisions about who in the community would get the 
loans. They all backed each other in the loans.
    I mean, it was an amazing process, and it was interesting 
especially because the women finally had the kind of say in the 
family about what was happening with the money because it was 
they, rather than the husbands, who were earning the money. And 
it changed the dynamic.
    And initially, it was interesting because there were some 
kind of flareups of violence where the husbands resented the 
fact that the women were making decisions about the money. But 
ultimately, the men kind of got the hang of it. Sometimes the 
women were then employing their husbands in their businesses. 
And so, it changed kind of the family dynamic.
    So I am a big believer in microfinance, and I cannot 
imagine why the--well, I actually can imagine why they would, 
but certainly I can see that this is a problem, and I would----
    Senator Boxer. Well, we can work together on it.
    Ms. Russell. We definitely can work together on that, yes.
    Senator Boxer. OK.
    Ms. Russell. And thank you for raising that. I appreciate 
your question.
    Senator Boxer. Senator Kaine, have any more questions? Any 
more questions from----
    Well, I told you this would be easy.
    Ms. Russell. You did. I did not believe you, but you did 
tell me that.
    Senator Boxer. Well, we are all very happy that you are 
willing to do this. You will have to fill very giant shoes, but 
I know that you are up to it.
    And we thank you, and we stand adjourned.
    Ms. Russell. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
    [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


       Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record


         Responses of Catherine Russell to Questions Submitted 
                       by Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. The Office of Global Women's Issues is a critically 
important tool in 
advancing the rights of women around the world. Our values, and U.S. 
policy, call for preserving and advancing the role women have in 
society, improving access to health and education, and alleviating the 
impact violence has on women. These measures are necessary, not only 
for promoting essential rights for women, but for economic growth and 
global security.

   What advances have been made with regard to women's health 
        and education since the office's installment in 2009? How can 
        we improve access in conflict-ridden areas like Afghanistan?

    Answer. Investing in women and girls is one of the most powerful 
forces for international development. Improving the health and 
education of women and girls also enhances their productivity and 
social and economic participation, and acts as a positive multiplier, 
benefiting the development and health of future generations.
    Since 2009, the United States and partners around the world have 
made remarkable progress in advancing women's health--including in 
reducing maternal mortality, increasing access to contraception, and 
increasing access to HIV prevention, care, and treatment services. In 
2010, for example, the U.N. Secretary General launched his ``Every 
Woman Every Child'' strategy, an initiative to reduce maternal and 
child mortality worldwide.
    President Obama's Global Health Initiative (GHI), launched in 2009, 
recognizes that the health and rights of women and girls have a 
significant impact on the success--or failure--of our global health 
programs. In 2011, the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues (S/
GWI) led an interagency working group to develop ``Supplemental 
Guidance on Women, Girls and Gender Equality'' to help countries 
integrate gender issues and priorities into their health strategies. 
Today, every country-level global health initiative strategy has 
incorporated this gender guidance.
    The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) promotes 
the integration of gender throughout its prevention, care, and 
treatment programs. Furthermore, S/GWI and PEPFAR jointly support 
approximately $3 million in small grants to grassroots organizations in 
over 25 countries working to prevent and respond to gender-based 
violence, with a link to HIV prevention, treatment, and care.
    The world has also seen significant progress in girls' access to 
education; and in many countries across the developing world gender 
parity in primary school enrollment has been reached. In FY 2012, 
around 9.5 million girls were enrolled in primary and secondary schools 
(or equivalent non-school-based settings) with USG support. USAID, 
which directs the United States global education investments in 
developing countries, focuses on the following three goals: (1) 
improving reading skills for primary school children; (2) improving 
workforce training programs; and (3) increasing equitable access to 
education in conflict and crisis environments. Efforts to promote 
gender equality within USAID's education activities include: creating 
safe spaces for women and girls pursuing education in fragile 
environments; ensuring teacher training and education materials reflect 
equitable gender norms; engaging communities to ensure girls have equal 
access to education. USAID also supports programs that target girls' 
access to education in countries such as Ethiopia, Liberia, South 
Sudan, and Tanzania. The recently concluded Ambassador Girls 
Scholarship Program provided more than 500,000 scholarships to girls in 
40 African countries between 2004 and 2011.
    In 2012, S/GWI brought USAID and PEPFAR together to support 
``Empowering Adolescent Girls to Lead through Education (EAGLE),'' a 5-
year, $15 million program to ensure that more adolescent girls in the 
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) make successful transitions to 
secondary school. Just 11 percent of Congolese women over age 25 have 
completed secondary education, and studies show that keeping girls in 
school dramatically reduces their vulnerability to HIV and improves 
overall health outcomes. EAGLE seeks to raise this rate by tackling 
many of the barriers keeping girls from continuing their post-primary 
educations--including cost and school safety.
    The State Department also seeks to support girls' education through 
its exchange programs. Beginning in 2013, all teachers who come to the 
United States under the auspices of Department-sponsored Teaching 
Excellence and Achievement and International Leaders in Education 
exchange programs will take courses on addressing the unique challenges 
girls face in the classroom. Hundreds of teachers per year come to the 
United States through these programs, most from the developing world, 
where a lack of such training and awareness is considered a serious 
barrier to girls' success in school.
    The United States also recognizes the critical importance of 
ensuring women's and girls' access to health care and education in 
conflict and post-conflict areas.
    For example, U.S. efforts in Afghanistan to increase and improve 
primary health care, increase safe childbirth, support healthier 
adolescent girls and women, and build training and job opportunities in 
health for women have all contributed to the improved status of women. 
Maternal mortality has fallen from 1,600 per 100,000 births to 327. 
Life expectancy for women has risen from 44 years in 2001 to 64 years 
today. USAID will continue to help address urgent problems by providing 
basic health and essential hospital services to women in 13 provinces 
and supporting midwifery training programs.
    Additionally, USAID's education programs in Afghanistan--whether 
focused on basic or higher education or on technical and vocational 
education and training (TVET)--have had a significant impact over the 
last 10 years. Today, 37 percent of the 8 million Afghan students in 
primary school are girls. Since 2001, more than 120,000 Afghan women 
have finished secondary school and 40,000 are working on university 
degrees. Earlier this week, USAID launched a new initiative, Promoting 
Gender Equality in National Priority Programs (PROMOTE), which will 
invest in opportunities to enable educated women to enter and advance 
into decisionmaking positions in Afghanistan's public, private, and 
civil society sectors. USAID will further our commitment to Afghan 
women in education by providing an international scholarship program 
for Afghan women pursuing careers in highly technical professions and 
through the establishment of an Institute for Gender and Development 
Studies at an Afghan university.
    If confirmed, I will seek to strengthen all these efforts and 
continue to be a strong voice for increased access to health care and 
education for women and girls worldwide.

    Question. What efforts are being made to encourage women's 
participation in the political process in nascent democracies?

    Answer. The U.S. Government supports the aspirations of women 
around the world, especially those in nascent democracies, who seek to 
participate fully in the political lives of their nations. U.S. 
officials regularly convey to foreign officials and civil society 
representatives that security, stability, and economic prosperity 
cannot be achieved without the participation of women.
    U.S. officials regularly meet with women's rights activists to 
support their efforts. They also encourage governments, political 
parties, police and security forces, religious leaders and other civil 
society groups to include more women in their organizations, and to 
listen to and act on the concerns of women's rights advocates.
    Around the world, the United States is actively supporting women's 
political empowerment. For example, the Middle East Partnership 
Initiative (MEPI) funds initiatives to support emerging women leaders, 
including the Arab Women's Leadership Institute (AWLI). AWLI trains 
female elected officials and women leaders to support their efforts to 
lead constituent-driven reforms. AWLI trainees have gone on to win 
public office and play active roles in developing advocacy efforts. The 
Women in Public Service Project, an initiative launched by the State 
Department and several leading women's colleges, identifies, trains, 
and mentors young women leaders from countries in transition.
    The United States and Tunisia cohosted the ninth Forum for the 
Future in 2012, which brought together government officials from 21 
Middle East and North African countries (including Tunisia, Egypt, 
Libya, and Yemen) and G8 countries, and civil society and private 
sector representatives. Ministers agreed by consensus to the Tunis 
Declaration, recognizing that the full and equal participation of all 
people regardless of race, sex, or religion, is critical for political 
and economic development. Ministers, in particular, publicly recognized 
the critical role women play in the transformations underway in the 
Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) region, and underscored 
the importance of making progress on longstanding BMENA objectives 
related to gender equality, with a view to achieving women's full 
political, social, and economic empowerment.
    In Egypt, the President, the Secretary of State, and other senior 
officials have made clear to Egyptian leadership the need for a 
transparent, inclusive, democratic government in Egypt that respects 
universal human rights, including the political rights of women. Along 
with USAID, the State Department has programs on the ground that work 
in partnership with local civil society organizations to reinforce 
these values.
    I understand the U.S. Government is watching closely how the 
Egyptian Government drafts and implements the new constitution. Human 
rights activists have raised concerns about provisions in the 
constitution that could limit women's rights. If confirmed, I will 
continue to highlight the importance of equal protection under the law 
and urge the Egyptian Government to include women in the ongoing 
transition process. The interim President of Egypt recently swore in 
three women ministers in his new Cabinet.
    In Syria, U.S. officials continue to reiterate that no transition 
can be considered inclusive and democratic if it does not include the 
concerns and participation of Syrian women.
    In the Balkans, the Office of Global Women's Issues is working with 
our Embassy and mission in Pristina and the Government of Kosovo to 
implement an ongoing initiative to highlight the work and build the 
capacity of women leaders in government, politics, and civil society in 
fighting corruption and to advance key elements of the rule of law in 
their societies.
    In Afghanistan, the United States provides extensive support to 
bolster women's participation in the political process and support 
advocacy efforts through equal voter registration outreach, assistance 
to women candidates, gender equality in political parties, and support 
of female Parliamentarians and diplomats.


    NOMINATIONS OF MORRELL JOHN BERRY, DANIEL CLUNE, AND JOSEPH YUN

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                              ----------                              

Hon. Morrell John Berry, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to 
        Australia
Daniel Clune, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to Laos
Joseph Yun, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to Malaysia
                              ----------                              

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room 
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. 
Cardin, presiding.
    Present: Senators Cardin, Kaine, and Rubio.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. As I was explaining to our distinguished 
panel of nominees, there is a Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee meeting at 10:15 this morning. So we are going to 
start on time.
    I know that Congressman Hoyer will be here, and we will 
interrupt when my colleague arrives. He has indicated he is 
probably about 5 to 10 minutes out. So I expect he may be here 
before I finish my opening comments.
    I want to acknowledge Ambassador Beasley, the Ambassador 
from Australia to the United States. It is a real pleasure to 
have you in our committee room, and thank you very much for 
your representation of a close friend and ally of the United 
States.
    Let me also first acknowledge that Senator Corker, I 
expect, will be by sometime during the hearing.
    And I thank Chairman Menendez for allowing me to chair 
today's hearing. As the subcommittee chair for East Asia and 
Pacific, I am particularly pleased with the three nominees that 
are present today: John Berry, the nominee to be Ambassador to 
Australia; Dan Clune, to be Ambassador to Laos; and Joseph Yun, 
to be Ambassador to Malaysia, all three critically important 
countries to the United States.
    I deeply respect all three of you, but two of you have the 
distinct good sense to be Marylanders, and I thank the two 
Marylanders that are here. Nothing against Oregon, but we do 
take care of our own State's people first. So the order of 
presentation, we will have Mr. Yun go third. [Laughter.]
    Let me also just point out that all three of these 
countries are very important to our rebalance to Asia, 
President Obama's commitment to focus on the importance of Asia 
to the United States.
    John Berry brings a wealth of experience, OPM leadership, 
in an extremely challenging time, and we thank you for the work 
that you have done there, a Deputy Assistant Secretary at 
Treasury, your environmental record, which is particularly 
important for Australia and United States, having been involved 
in the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and National Zoo 
director and extraordinary work that you did there, and then 
surviving working for Congressman Hoyer. If you can survive 
Congressman Hoyer, you should do very well in Australia. So we 
welcome you, a personal friend, and I thank you for your 
continued commitment to public service.
    Dan Clune. The good news about Dan, his wife is a Terp. 
Congressman Hoyer will appreciate that very much. And I am very 
happy that your son and daughter-in-law are alumni of the 
University of Maryland Law School. So that also shows good 
judgment. A career diplomat, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans and Environment and 
Scientific Affairs, served in the Embassies of Nassau, Lima, 
Jakarta, and Canberra. So you certainly bring a great 
experience to this post.
    And Joseph Yun, who has been an advisor to me as chair of 
the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, helped me 
prepare for my first visit to that region, testified before our 
subcommittee on two previous occasions. We are going to miss 
you tomorrow at the hearing. A career diplomat, acting 
Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, has 
served in the Embassies of Bangkok, Thailand, Seoul, Paris, and 
Hong Kong. We are not going to ask you which one you enjoyed 
the most out of all those assignments. But you bring a wealth 
of experience.
    I particularly want to thank not just the nominees for your 
willingness to continue in public service but your families. I 
said it privately, but let me just put it on the record. It is 
an incredible sacrifice that the families share in the public 
service that you all have undertaken, and we very much 
appreciate that and want to acknowledge that. And we welcome 
the family participation in the responsibilities of your 
office.
    Each of these countries are very important to the 
rebalanced Asia. Asia is very important to the United States 
for many reasons: for military reasons, for strategic issues, 
economic issues, environmental issues. Australia is a strategic 
ally of the United States. We rely on Australia's cooperation 
with us on military issues since World War I. A key TPP 
negotiator, and one of our key environmental partners.
    Laos is a member of the ASEAN group, is very important on 
environmental issues, particularly the Lower Mekong Initiative. 
We still have the problems of healing the problems of the war. 
I am particularly concerned about demining unexploded 
ordnances. It is my understanding about 100 casualties a year, 
many of whom are children. That should be of great interest to 
our relationship with Laos. It presents real challenges on 
human rights, the human trafficking issues, the freedom of 
expression. So it is a challenging post and a very important 
post.
    Malaysia is a moderate Muslim majority democratic nation, a 
key partner in ASEAN. It recently entered into with Maryland's 
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in helping to build 
Malaysia's first fully integrated private medical school. That 
is certainly a connection that we want to encourage. It is a 
TPP aspirant, but has challenges, challenges in the rights of 
its opposition, the freedom of expression, the freedom of the 
press. These are issues that we will certainly want to hear 
from the nominees as to how you will represent the United 
States in advancing all of these goals.
    So, again, welcome to the hearing. Your full statements 
will be made part of the record. You may proceed as you see 
fit. As soon as Senator Corker or Congressman Hoyer arrives--
look at that. Right on cue. I am telling you, he has been 
waiting outside for this moment. [Laughter.]
    But it is always a pleasure to have my friend come over to 
the Senate side of the Congress and acknowledge that there is 
the United States Senate and that we do work----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. And that there is a relevancy 
to the United States Senate. But we very much admire and 
appreciate Congressman Hoyer's incredible role in not only 
leadership in our State of Maryland but his national 
leadership. We are very proud of the bridges that he has built 
to move forward on issues and bring this Nation and make it 
stronger. As I have already indicated before, it is an honor 
for him to be here to introduce to our committee his friend and 
former staff person, John Berry.
    Congressman Hoyer.

                STATEMENT OF HON. STENY HOYER, 
               U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND

    Mr. Hoyer. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is 
always a privilege to visit with my dear friend. For those who 
are in audience, I am not objective. Ben Cardin and I went to 
the General Assembly together in 1966 before many of you were 
born, and we have served together for all those years in 
government. Ben Cardin, I think, is one of the finest 
legislators and human beings with whom I have had the 
opportunity to work ever. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Senator Kaine, good to be with you, sir, as well.
    Mr. Chairman, we do not have a ranking member here right 
now, but Senator Kaine, members of the committee, I want to 
thank you for this opportunity to voice my strong support for 
John Berry to serve as our next Ambassador to Australia.
    I have known John Berry since 1986 when a former staffer of 
mine called me up and said do you have a vacancy on your staff. 
And I said, well, not right now. He said, well, you need to 
fire somebody. [Laughter.]
    I said, what do you mean? He said, you need to hire John 
Berry. He is one of the most extraordinarily talented human 
beings you are ever going to meet.
    Well, it just so happens that somebody you know, Senator 
Cardin, John Moag, decided to leave just a month later, and I 
had the opportunity of asking John Berry to come on my staff 
and he worked from 1985 to 1994.
    Throughout that time, John was instrumental in helping me 
serve the people of Maryland and the people of our country. 
After leaving my staff, John served in senior executive roles 
in the Treasury Department, the Smithsonian Institution, the 
Department of the Interior in the Clinton administration, and 
served in every one of those positions, as he did with me, with 
great distinction.
    In 2000, he became the director of the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation where he worked diligently, which is an 
understatement when you refer to John Berry's work ethic, to 
improve conservation through innovation, public/private 
partnerships.
    His commitment to our Nation's natural wildlife and habitat 
preservation was recognized further when John was appointed to 
serve as director of the National Zoo, and how he loved that 
job and the employees for every institution for whom he has 
worked, including my office, loved him. He was so successful at 
turning around the institution that had been faltering, that 
the zoo named a lion cub after him. I am not sure exactly what 
the significance of that is. [Laughter.]
    But it is a recognition of the affection and respect with 
which he is held by everybody who has worked with him.
    In 2009, President Obama selected John as director of the 
Office of Personnel Management. He got right to work making 
improvements in the way we recruit and retain a top notch 
Federal workforce, something that is important, of course, to 
all of us but important to every American. As OPM Director, 
John became one of our Nation's fiercest defenders of public 
service and the role Federal employees play in keeping our 
Nation safe and our economy strong. Even in the face of COLA 
freezes and cuts to the retirement benefits, John made a strong 
case for Federal employees to be recognized for their hard work 
with a pay comparable to the private sector. And he has made it 
a hallmark of his career to make sure that employees no longer 
face discrimination in the workplace based upon age, race, 
gender, religion, or sexual orientation. No one with whom I 
have worked has a greater commitment to individual liberty and 
fairness and justice than John Berry.
    In every position in which he has served, he has elevated 
that office through his thoughtful approach to management, his 
natural ability to lead, and his commitment to achieving 
results.
    Senator Kaine, I may have told this to Ben Cardin, but I 
called up the Secretary of the Interior. There was a vacancy in 
the Assistant Secretary for Planning, Management, and Budget. 
And I told him that he needed to hire John Berry, sort of like 
the guy who called me. I said, and if you hire him, you are 
going to find him to be the most capable, able, focused, and 
upbeat person you have ever worked with. And the Secretary said 
OK, well, yes. I have to touch base with the White House. He 
was not too enthusiastic, just another Congressman calling him 
to beat on him about something.
    About a year later, he had hired John Berry, and a year 
later, I saw him in the airport. He came up to me. He said, 
Steny, you know that guy you talked to me about, John Berry? I 
said, of course. You undersold him. [Laughter.]
    I could not have been more generous in describing John 
Berry, and I undersold him according to the Secretary. He was 
right.
    In every position in which he has served, he has elevated 
that office through his thoughtful approach to management. I 
already said that. John is someone who leads by example, which 
is an enormously important quality in someone who will be 
representing our Nation abroad.
    In John Berry, the Australians will see the best of America 
because they will see a man committed to promoting our values 
of justice, quality, and opportunity. They will also come to 
know him as someone dedicated to preserving the earth's natural 
resources and wildlife, an issue, of course, that like so many 
Americans, Australians hold dear.
    As the administration continues its strategic pivot toward 
Asia and the Pacific, Australia continues to be an instrumental 
partner to the United States in both security and trade. 
Australia remains one of America's closest and most important 
strategic allies, and our ties are based not only on common 
interests but on a shared heritage and a history of fighting 
side by side to defend democracy in two world wars.
    I congratulate the Obama administration, for in that 
context, they have elected to send someone to Australia who the 
Australians will see as the perfect example of the good 
American, of the positive American, of the American who shares 
their values and respects them as a sovereign nation and dear 
friend. I am confident that John will continue to work to bring 
our countries even closer as Americans and Australians pursue 
our shared goals of peace, stability, and economic prosperity.
    It says here I am going to urge you to support. I have no 
doubt that you are going to support John Berry. But I want all 
of you to know how fortunate America is that we have somebody 
of John Berry's skill and judgment and personality who has 
dedicated so much of his life to public service.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear on 
his behalf.
    Senator Cardin. Well, Congressman Hoyer, thank you for 
coming over and sharing those thoughts on John Berry.
    On OPM, I had the opportunity to sit there and introduce 
him to the committee. So your observations about my support is 
very accurate.
    You are absolutely right about the upbeat nature. Sometimes 
it is just not fair.
    Mr. Hoyer. It drives you crazy, does it not?
    Senator Cardin. It does. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hoyer. John, things are bad. Do you not understand? 
Things are bad. [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. Well, I cannot think of a more appropriate 
ambassadorship than Australia where he will, I think, create 
the type of relationship between two friends who are leaders on 
economic and environmental and military issues that will help 
us in the rebalance to Asia.
    So thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us 
today. I appreciate it.
    Now, Mr. Berry, if you dare, you can now try to follow Mr. 
Hoyer. [Laughter.]

   STATEMENT OF HON. MORRELL JOHN BERRY, OF MARYLAND, TO BE 
                    AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA

    Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and again, 
thanks to Mr. Hoyer. It is always extremely humbling for his 
generosity. I never realized, when I started working for him in 
the 1980s, in the mid-1980s, was that I was also getting a 
second father, and he has been an amazing force in my life. And 
I am eternally grateful for his participation in my life.
    Mr. Chairman, I am also extremely honored. As you 
mentioned, Ambassador Beasley is with us today from Australia. 
Ambassador Beasley is one of the most distinguished statesmen 
from Australia. I think in American history, you would have to 
go all the way back to Ben Franklin to find someone of such 
stature. And I am very honored and humbled that he would be 
here today.
    My brother, Joseph, his wife, Jodi, and their son, Thomas, 
are here. Both my nephews, James Ramo and Kate London, are 
here. And my partner of 17 years, Curtis Yee, is here as well, 
and I am very grateful for the committee's allowing them to 
join us.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, America is a Pacific nation, and 
if confirmed, I will be the second generation of Berry's to 
serve our country in the Pacific. My father served in the First 
Marine Division at Guadalanal. He then moved on to fight in 
Papua New Guinea at Cape Gloucester, and then served aboard the 
USS Bon Homme Richard toward the end of World War II. I am 
named for my uncle, his younger brother, who was a Marine 
fighter pilot who was shot down and killed in action over 
Mindanao in the Philippines.
    My partner, Curtis Yee, is a fourth generation Chinese 
American from Hawaii, and his uncle, Hiram Fong, was Hawaii's 
first United States Senator and America's first Chinese 
American Senator. And as a result, the President's nomination, 
for which I am extremely grateful and humbled to serve as a 
U.S. Ambassador in the Asia-Pacific region, has deep and 
personal meaning both to my family and to me.
    If the Senate confirms me, my overarching goal as 
Ambassador to Australia will be threefold.
    First, I will work to strengthen our alliance with 
Australia, which has served as an anchor of peace and stability 
in the Asia-Pacific region for more than 60 years.
    America could not ask for a better friend, partner, and 
ally than Australia. Our relationship is built on a solid 
foundation of trust. It has been proven under fire and it is 
steeled by deeply held values. From World War I to the present 
day, America has not entered any major battle without 
Australians at our side. Thousands of Australians have made the 
ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives.
    America is profoundly grateful for Australia's sacrifices 
in pursuit of our common purposes. But our country is 
especially grateful that after 9/11 Australia stepped forward 
to help us counter terrorism in Afghanistan, and we honor the 
contribution of their nation and most deeply the 40 proud 
Australians who have given their lives in combat there. And I 
would ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could, as part of the record to 
include the 40 names of those Australians.
    Senator Cardin. Without objection, they will be included in 
the record.
    Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Second, if confirmed, I will endeavor to increase our 
mutual trade and investment.
    The United States has $136 billion in direct investment in 
Australia, more than any other country in the Asia-Pacific and 
twice the value of our investments in China. Our bilateral free 
trade agreement has already resulted in impressive returns, 
increasing our trade by 98 percent since 2004 and last year 
topping $64 billion. And we are working today on trying to 
conclude a successful Trans-Pacific Partnership which will open 
up huge opportunities.
    Finally, if confirmed, I will strive to further deepen our 
cultural, scientific, and conservation cooperation.
    The United States and Australia share common objectives, a 
world that respects human rights and the rule of law, that 
benefits from transparent, free, fair, and open trade, and that 
settles our differences peacefully. We share a deep and abiding 
love of liberty and freedom, and we draw strength from our rich 
diversity and pride ourselves on providing opportunity or, as 
Australians say, a ``fair go'' for all. Our bonds with 
Australia are truly unbreakable.
    At the Australian Parliament House in 2011, President Obama 
delivered his clarion message on the Asia-Pacific region and 
the United States commitment there. He stressed that the United 
States and Australia ``alliance continues to be indispensable 
to our future,'' and that, ``in the Asia-Pacific in the 21st 
century, the United States of America is all in.''
    Mr. Chairman, I am honored for the opportunity to appear 
before you today and happy to answer any questions that you 
might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Morrell John Berry

    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you 
for the opportunity to appear before you today, it is a great honor. I 
am deeply grateful to President Obama for his confidence in nominating 
me to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Australia. If confirmed, I 
promise that I will work tirelessly in service to our country.
    For the past 4 years, I have had the distinct privilege of serving 
as the President's Chief People Person as head of the Office of 
Personnel Management. OPM is a relatively small agency, but it has a 
broad reach and a tremendously important mission--to recruit, retain, 
and honor a world-class workforce. In my role at OPM, I traveled 
throughout the country meeting with students and universities, 
veterans, employee groups, tribal communities, Fortune 500 companies, 
affinity groups, and civil servants. Every day, across our government 
and private sector, I witnessed remarkable innovations and 
accomplishments. I saw first-hand the dedication and hard work of men 
and women committed to making our Nation and our world a better place.
    Along the way, I was reminded again and again of the tremendous 
diversity of our great country, building lasting relationships with 
fellow Americans from all backgrounds as we worked together to address 
shared challenges. If confirmed, I will carry with me these many voices 
of America, along with a profound commitment to strengthening the 
shared values that lie at the heart of our strategic relationship with 
Australia.
    America is a Pacific nation, and, if confirmed, I would be the 
second generation of Berrys to serve our country in the Pacific. My 
father, Morrell Berry, fought in the First Marine Division at 
Guadalcanal, at Cape Gloucester in Papua New Guinea, and as a Marine 
gunnery sergeant aboard the USS Bon Homme Richard. My uncle Jack, for 
whom I am named, served as a U.S. Marine fighter pilot during World War 
II and was killed in action over the Philippines. My partner, Curtis 
Yee, is a fourth generation Chinese American from Hawaii, and his uncle 
Hiram Fong was Hawaii's first U.S. Senator and the first Chinese 
American Senator. As a result, the nomination to serve as a U.S. 
Ambassador in the Asia-Pacific region has deep meaning to my family and 
to me.
    As proud as America's past has been in the Pacific, our future 
promises only to be brighter. President Obama and both Secretaries 
Clinton and Kerry have made clear that America will remain fully 
engaged in the Asia-Pacific region in the 21st century, using our 
alliances for mutual good. Without question, one of the United States 
greatest alliances is with Australia.
    If confirmed, my overarching goals as Ambassador to Australia are 
threefold.
    First, I will work to strengthen our strategic alliance with 
Australia, which has served as an anchor of peace and stability in the 
Asia-Pacific region and the world for more than 60 years.
    America could not ask for a better friend, partner, and ally than 
Australia. Our relationship is built on a solid foundation of trust, 
proven under fire, and steeled by deeply held shared values. From World 
War I to the present day, America has never entered a major battle 
without Australians firmly by our side. Thousands of Australians have 
made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives alongside our own 
brave service men and women in pursuit of freedom and a better world.
    America is profoundly grateful for Australia's sacrifices in 
pursuit of our common purposes. We are especially appreciative that 
after 9/11, Australia stepped forward to help us counter terrorism in 
Afghanistan, and we honor the 40 proud Australians who have fallen in 
combat there. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that I be allowed to enter the 
names of those brave soldiers in the official record of this hearing.
    The U.S.-Australia defense and security relationship is rock solid. 
Right now in northern Australia, more than 30,000 U.S. and Australian 
service members are taking to the sea, land, and sky as part of 
Exercise TALISMAN SABER 2013--a biennial combined training activity 
designed to improve the combat readiness and interoperability of our 
forces.
    As part of the force posture initiatives announced by President 
Obama in November 2011, U.S. Marines are also conducting exercises and 
training on a rotational basis with the Australian Defence Force in 
Darwin and Northern Australia, which will enable both countries to join 
with other partners to respond in a timely and effective manner to a 
range of contingencies in the Asia-Pacific, including humanitarian 
assistance and disaster relief in the region. The President summed it 
up succinctly: ``The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here 
to stay.''
    If confirmed, I pledge to do everything in my power to strengthen 
our strategic alliance and to ensure that we are fully prepared to work 
together to respond to the challenges of tomorrow, whether they are on 
land or at sea, in space or in cyberspace.
    Second, if confirmed, I will endeavor to increase our mutual trade 
and investment.
    The United States has $136 billion in direct investments in 
Australia, more than in any other country in the Asia-Pacific and more 
than twice the value of our investments in China. Our bilateral Free 
Trade Agreement has resulted in impressive returns benefiting both 
countries--bilateral trade in goods and services has increased by 
nearly 98 percent since 2004, topping $64 billion in 2012. Australia is 
a key center of operations for many U.S. companies, and their work 
there brings technology and capital into Australia, and creates jobs 
and enhances our exports sector here at home.
    Today, we are also working with Australia to conclude the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, the ambitious, next-generation, trade agreement 
that reflects our shared economic priorities and values and whose 
members span the Asia-Pacific.
    If confirmed, I will work to strengthen our economic relationship 
with Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.
    Finally, if confirmed, I will strive to further deepen our 
cultural, scientific, and conservation cooperation.
    The United States and Australia share strong people-to-people ties, 
with some 400,000 Americans visiting Australia and around 1 million 
Australians visiting the United States last year alone. Academic 
exchanges are a critical part of our relationship with Australia. From 
food security and linguistics to oncology and renewable energy, 
students and scholars are bringing our countries ever closer together 
through cooperative innovations in the service of all humankind.
    The United States and Australia share common objectives--a world 
that respects human rights and the rule of law; benefits from 
transparent, free, fair and open trade; and settles differences 
peacefully. We share a deep and abiding love of liberty and freedom. We 
both draw strength from our rich diversity and pride ourselves on 
providing opportunity or a ``fair go'' for all. Our bonds with 
Australia are truly unbreakable.
    At the Australian Parliament House in 2011, President Obama 
delivered his clarion message on the Asia-Pacific region and the United 
States commitments there. He stressed that the U.S.-Australia 
``alliance continues to be indispensable to our future,'' and that, 
``[i]n the Asia Pacific in the 21st century, the United States of 
America is all in.''
    To conclude, I am deeply honored to be nominated for the position 
of U.S. Ambassador to Australia, and welcome the opportunity to lend my 
experience, passion, and dedication to enhancing our relationship with 
one of our strongest allies and partners, and to cementing the United 
States commitment to the Asia Pacific.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 
today and stand ready to answer any questions that you and other 
members may have.

    Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Berry.
    We have been joined by Senator Rubio who is the ranking 
Republican on the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee. He is 
willing to defer an opening statement due to the time issues 
that I mentioned at the beginning of this hearing. Thank you, 
Senator Rubio. I appreciate your cooperation.
    Of course, Senator Kaine has been here. I appreciate both 
my colleagues being here.
    Mr. Clune.

            STATEMENT OF DANIEL CLUNE, OF MARYLAND, 
                    TO BE AMBASSADOR TO LAOS

    Mr. Clune. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank 
you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. 
And thank you, Senator Cardin, for your kind introduction.
    With your permission, I would like to briefly highlight 
five priorities outlined in the statement that has already been 
included in the record.
    But, first, I would like to introduce the members of my 
family who are here today who have shared the adventures and 
the hardships of a 28-year career in the Foreign Service with 
me: my wife, Judy, and two of our daughters, Sarah and Katie.
    Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I would focus on five broad 
priorities.
    First, the issues arising from the war in Vietnam, that is, 
the accounting for U.S. personnel missing in action and the 
removal of unexploded ordnance, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. 
And I welcome the cooperation of the Lao Government in both of 
these efforts. We have made great progress in accounting for 
missing personnel, locating and returning the remains of 266 
missing to their loved ones, and will continue to search for 
the 309 still missing.
    We have also made good progress in clearing unexploded 
ordnance, educating affected communities, and assisting the 
victims. Last year, casualties were reduced to 56, down from an 
annual average of 300, and we have increased annual funding for 
the program from $5 million to $9 million.
    Another high priority for me will be promotion of human 
rights and the rule of law, a central pillar of the 
administration's foreign policy. If confirmed, I will continue 
our efforts to help Laos reform its legal and regulatory 
systems and to speak forthrightly about incidents such as the 
recent disappearance of Lao civil society leader, Sombath 
Somphone, and the return of nine young asylum seekers to North 
Korea.
    Continued cooperation in the areas of health, 
counternarcotics, and the environment will also be a priority 
for me, including existing efforts to control infectious 
diseases, new efforts to address very high rates of child and 
maternal mortality, and support of Laos and other countries in 
the region on plans to construct dams on the main stem of the 
Mekong River. The Mekong underpins the livelihood of nearly 70 
million people, and if confirmed, I will encourage cooperation 
between U.S. and Lao experts to minimize the impact of dams on 
local populations, habitat, and wildlife.
    I will also work to strengthen people-to-people ties. With 
70 percent of the Lao population under the age of 30, I intend 
to focus on building ties with students, young professionals, 
and government officials.
    Finally, increasing U.S. trade and investment will also be 
a priority for me. The United States ranks 13th on the list of 
foreign investors in Laos and accounts for just 1 percent of 
its foreign trade. Laos joined the World Trade Organization 
earlier this year, and we are helping it to implement the 
reforms necessary to meet its WTO obligations. And I will work 
to acquaint U.S. businesses with the new opportunities this 
offers and encourage them to do more business in Laos.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I 
look forward to working with the committee and other interested 
Members of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Laos.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 
today, and I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Clune follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Dan Clune

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before the committee today. I am deeply honored 
to have been nominated by President Obama to be the U.S. Ambassador to 
the Lao People's Democratic Republic. I am grateful for the President's 
confidence and to Secretary Kerry for his support of my nomination. If 
confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee and other 
interested members of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Laos.
    I have served our country as a Foreign Service officer since 1985 
and have led large interagency teams at two embassies and here in 
Washington. In my most recent position I served as the Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Oceans and International 
Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Previously, I was Deputy Chief of 
Mission and Charge d'Affaires at the U.S Embassy in Australia. I have 
served previously in Southeast Asia, as the Finance and Development 
Officer at our Embassy in Jakarta.
    If confirmed, I would be greatly honored to move our foreign policy 
goals forward as Ambassador to Laos. Among my priorities would be 
promotion of human rights, removal of Vietnam war era unexploded 
ordnance, accounting for U.S. personnel missing in Laos from the 
Vietnam war, and continued improvement of people-to-people ties.
    With the resumption of full diplomatic relations in 1992, U.S.-Lao 
cooperation has improved significantly, but there have been ups and 
downs along the way. Former Secretary Clinton, during her historic 
visit in July 2012, became the first U.S. Secretary of State to set 
foot in the country since John Foster Dulles in 1955. Her visit 
reaffirmed the United States commitment to working with the Lao people 
to promote sustainable economic development and redoubling our efforts 
to remove unexploded ordnance, also known as UXO.
    The cornerstone of our bilateral cooperation with Laos since 1985 
has been the close cooperation in accounting for U.S. servicemen and 
civilians still missing in Laos from the Vietnam war. I am committed to 
returning these patriots to their loved ones. I see this mission as a 
humanitarian one and welcome the Government of Laos' cooperation.
    Continued cooperation between Laos and the United States in UXO 
removal has helped to reduce the number of unexploded ordnance 
casualties in 2012 to 56, down from an annual average of 300. If 
confirmed, I will continue to advance our efforts to not only clear the 
unexploded ordnance, but also to educate the affected communities on 
the dangers of UXO and assist the victims.
    Earlier this year, Laos officially joined the World Trade 
Organization, which opened new avenues to integrate the country into 
the regional and global economies. The Department of State and USAID 
played an integral role in helping Laos reform its legal and regulatory 
infrastructure to be able to comply with WTO rules. A follow-on project 
will help them implement these reforms and move toward integration in 
the ASEAN Economic Community.
    We will also continue our longstanding work with Laos to counter 
illicit drug cultivation, trafficking and addiction. Our assistance 
helped contribute to a sharp drop in illicit opium poppy cultivation 
from 1998 to 2007, and we are currently working to build support for 
science-based drug addiction treatment in Laos. Along with 
international partners, we are assisting the Lao Government in 
implementing its Legal Sector Master Plan framework for justice sector 
reform.
    We have worked closely with Laos and other countries in the region 
to support improved decision making on plans to construct dams on the 
mainstream of the Mekong River. Managed poorly, dams can displace local 
inhabitants, irreparably alter the natural habitat, and threaten 
fragile aquatic life. The Mekong River underpins the livelihoods and 
food security for nearly 70 million people. If confirmed, I will 
encourage cooperation between U.S. and Lao experts on smart hydropower 
development to sustainably develop energy resources and reduce negative 
impacts to local populations, habitat, and wildlife.
    The United States and Laos have cooperated very closely on health-
related issues like the control of infectious diseases. If confirmed, I 
hope to devote more attention and resources to the issues of 
undernutrition and the high rates of infant, child, and maternal 
mortality. Malnutrition is the single largest cause of child mortality 
in Laos with 59 percent of all child deaths related to nutritional 
deficiencies.
    This problem will affect Laos' social and economic development in 
the future and urgently needs to be addressed.
    Despite the progress in our relationship, recent incidents have 
raised serious questions regarding the Lao Government's adherence to 
its international human rights obligations. The December 15, 2012, 
disappearance of Lao civil society leader, Sombath Somphone, from a 
police post in downtown Vientiane continues to have a chilling effect 
on civil society. The failure of Lao authorities to conduct a 
transparent investigation and account for Mr. Sombath's disappearance 
calls into question the government's commitment to uphold human rights 
and the rule of law. I am also concerned about the Lao Government's 
decision on May 27 to return nine young North Korean asylum seekers to 
North Korea. I hope this action does not signal a trend of sending 
future asylum seekers back to their home country against their will.
    The increasing openness of the economy, growing access to the 
Internet, and the recognition by the Lao Government of the importance 
of English language skills presents an opportunity to engage the Lao 
public through cultural and educational exchanges. With 70 percent of 
the Lao population under the age of 30, I intend to redouble mission 
efforts to build ties with students, young professionals, and young 
government officials.
    The U.S. mission in Laos is small but growing; with approximately 
36 direct hire Americans and 230 local staff. I am pleased to inform 
the committee that construction of the New Embassy Compound should be 
completed in September 2014. The new facility will provide a safe 
working environment for the dedicated and highly capable American and 
Lao staff members of the U.S. mission. I look forward to the mission 
moving to this new facility, and if confirmed, to advancing the goals 
of the American people. Of course, I would also welcome visits by you 
or members of your staff.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this 
opportunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to answer any 
questions you may have.

    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much for your 
testimony.
    Mr. Yun.

              STATEMENT OF JOSEPH YUN, OF OREGON, 
                  TO BE AMBASSADOR TO MALAYSIA

    Mr. Yun. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, and Senator Kaine, it 
is an honor for me to appear before you today as President 
Obama's nominee to be the next Ambassador to Malaysia.
    Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to take 
this opportunity to introduce to you and the committee my wife 
of 35 years, Melanie, who has been with me in all our foreign 
and domestic assignments. Our son, Matthew, could not be here 
today because he is working in Oregon. He grew up as a Foreign 
Service brat, moving from country to country, school to school. 
Melanie and Matt really do exemplify our Foreign Service 
families. We ask a lot from them, and I cannot thank them 
enough.
    Mr. Chairman, this nomination is very meaningful to me. As 
a career member of the Foreign Service, I have devoted 27 years 
of service to promoting American interests abroad. My main 
motivations for joining the Foreign Service in 1985 were 
twofold.
    The first was the example of my father, who was a medical 
doctor devoting most of his professional life in Africa, 
working for the World Health Organization, establishing 
hospitals and clinics. He exemplified for me the concept of 
public service, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps.
    The second was the searing impression left on me by the 
1979-1980 Iran Embassy hostage crisis, especially the courage 
shown by men and women of our Embassy in Tehran. I wanted to 
belong to such a community that exemplifies honor and loyalty.
    If confirmed, I will have an opportunity to lead such a 
community, and I cannot think of a higher honor. The men and 
women who work in our missions overseas, whether they are 
Americans or locally engaged staff, whether they are from the 
State Department or from other USG agencies, are our greatest 
assets. If confirmed, I pledge to maintain high ethical and 
managerial standards. I will insist on the best possible 
security for our personnel, property, and national security 
information. I will also insist on full, clear, and transparent 
communications between the Embassy and Washington, including 
with you, members and staff of this committee.
    Mr. Chairman, over the past 4 years, I have worked as 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, and the last 6 months as Acting Assistant Secretary 
for the East Asian and Pacific Bureau. In that capacity, I have 
testified in front of your committee, as you mentioned, on 
several occasions, and I have discussed various aspects of the 
administration's Asia policy with you and committee staff on 
many occasions.
    Much of our discussions have focused on the 
administration's strategic commitment to rebalance our policy 
toward the Asia-Pacific. I want to take this opportunity to 
thank you and members of the committee and staff for your 
support and counsel, which I have greatly valued.
    The administration's policy in Malaysia is very much 
consistent, indeed, a part of our Asia rebalance policy. This 
policy is founded upon expanding trust and understanding, 
growing mutual prosperity, and ensuring peace and security in 
the broader region. Malaysia has become an important supporter 
of the U.S. rebalance to Asia-Pacific. If confirmed, I will 
work to make the United States-Malaysia relationship stronger 
still because I firmly believe that we have much to gain 
through expanded trade and investment, people-to-people 
exchanges, and deeper cooperation on issues such as climate 
change, energy security, counterterrorism, and 
nonproliferation.
    Mr. Chairman, on the political side, while we were very 
pleased--I think you did mention in your opening statement 
about the election--to see a very large turnout in a very hotly 
contested election earlier this year. However, we did note with 
concern allegations of voter fraud and arrest of opposition 
members.
    Mr. Chairman, advocacy for democratic freedoms is an 
essential pillar of what we do abroad. Throughout my 27-year 
career, I have worked toward this end, most recently as the 
point man for the State Department for reforms in Burma. If 
confirmed, I will strongly uphold this objective in Malaysia.
    Malaysia is an important partner for the United States, and 
if confirmed, I look forward to representing the United States 
as our Ambassador, leading our Embassy and enhancing our 
relationship with Malaysia.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I 
welcome any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Yun follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Joseph Yun

    Chairman Cardin, Senator Rubio