Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing on the Ebola epidemic

Meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs

This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs will come to order.

Good morning.

We’re going to do things a little differently than usual today because of a rare honor for the Subcommittee. Joining us from the Liberian capital of Monrovia today by video conference is President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who will share with us her observations on the Ebola outbreak in her country.

President Sirleaf is an extraordinary individual who has already once pulled her country back from the brink of collapse after Liberia’s civil war. Her certainty of purpose coupled with a vigorous commitment to reconciliation and recovery make her the single best person to be leading Liberia through this difficult time.

President Sirleaf has shown extraordinary leadership for her country in this time of grave crisis, and continues to be an example for all of us in public service.

Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and Africa’s first elected female head of state, President Sirleaf is an individual of exemplary character, fortitude, and compassion for her people.

President Sirleaf has volunteered to answer a few questions from members after her remarks. It is a rare honor and an extraordinary opportunity to be joined by a sitting head of state — one for which I am certain my colleagues are enormously grateful.

We’ll begin first with a meeting of the subcommittee for our discussion with President Sirleaf, and then I’ll gavel in the hearing with our distinguished panelists.

President Sirleaf?

Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs,
“The Ebola Epidemic: The Keys To Success For The International Response”

I’m now delighted to call this hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs — this final hearing of the subcommittee in the 113th Congress — to order.

Without objection, I request testimony from Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services be entered into the record. Additionally, I request that a statement from Chairman Menendez be entered into the record, without objection.

What we plan to focus on today are the factors that made it so easy for the Ebola virus to spread in West Africa, and so hard to contain. It’s by learning how we got here that we will be better able to prevent flare-ups and future outbreaks of Ebola and other highly infectious, deadly diseases, and reduce the likelihood that American intervention will again be necessary.

Ebola has claimed the lives of more than 6,000 men, women and children — that we know of — and infected nearly three times as many, mostly in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, since the first cases were initially discovered in March.

The international community has been slow to respond to the outbreak, and we are still working to catch up, but the United States government has already invested more than $782 million in the Ebola response effort — that’s almost twice the amount of the next largest donor, the United Kingdom.

Our contributions are having a marked impact: U.S. support for the establishment of safe burial teams and ETUs has contributed to a significant decrease in the number of new cases arising on a weekly basis. Back in October, the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response set a “70-70-60” goal to isolate and treat 70 percent of suspected Ebola cases in West Africa and safely bury 70 percent of the dead in 60 days — by December 1. These goals have been met in the vast majority of areas, contributing to the decline in cases and rate of transmission.

Our work, however, is far from done.

Sierra Leone has seen a sharp rise in cases over the past month. On November 2, Sierra Leone had 4,759 cumulative cases. By November 30, the number had risen to 7312, meaning cases had increased by about roughly 638 cases a week. Cases continue to grow, and in recent days, the number of cases Sierra Leone surpassed that in Liberia, which had for months experienced the highest caseload.

As we heard from President Sirleaf, Liberia is still wrestling with this virus. Mali saw its first Ebola cases in October, and currently has 8 reported cases.

Ebola is a volatile virus that has the potential to flare up at a moment’s notice, and we need to be able to react as quickly as possible to contain it – or any other comparable global public health threat that may emerge. The relative weakness of health systems and public infrastructure in West Africa is largely what allowed Ebola to spread so easily in the first place, so as we work with our partners to stop the outbreak, we’re also trying to ensure it won’t happen again.

In order to do this, we need to have the resources available to deploy volunteers, construction workers, medevac planes, and shipments of medical supplies in a swift and timely response.

The U.S. government was the first international government institution to step in when the NGO community and the Guinea, Liberian, and Sierra Leonean governments told us they did not have the resources and capacity to contain this outbreak.

It is because the United States stepped in — and stepped in at the scale that we did — that progress has been made in stopping the spread of this terrible disease.

Stopping Ebola is not only a matter of national security, it is a matter of humanity. We cannot go back to the sidelines and watch these already impoverished and unstable countries fall apart when we have the resources to truly turn this crisis around.

That’s why I’m elated that the Appropriations leadership included $5.4 billion in emergency funding out of a $1.1 trillion budget for next year. These emergency funds are crucial for continuing to fight Ebola at the pace and scale necessary for controlling the outbreak and preventing future flare-ups.

The witnesses joining us today represent organizations that were fighting this outbreak long before Ebola was making headlines here in the U.S.

They have done heroic work for which every American should be grateful.

Before I turn it over to my friend and distinguished ranking member, I wanted to note what a pleasure it’s been to chair this subcommittee these last four years. I’ve had the honor of sharing this dais with two wonderful ranking members, Senator Isakson and Senator Flake, who care deeply and passionately about Africa.

Jeff, it’s been a true pleasure to work with you, and I look forward to our continued partnership as you assume the chairmanship next month.

Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing on wildlife trafficking crisis

Today, we will consider the far-reaching ecological, economic, and national security threats arising from the escalating global wildlife trafficking crisis.

We will also examine the role of several key factors in fueling this crisis, including increased demand for illegal wildlife products in Asia, the involvement of illicit criminal networks and armed groups, and weak enforcement capacity in both source and demand countries in Africa and Asia. Finally, we will consider the scope and implementation path of the U.S. Government’s National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking, as well as other efforts to address this crisis.

I would like to recognize one of the Senate’s strongest leaders on conservation issues and the chair of the East Asia subcommittee, Senator Cardin, and my friend and partner on the Africa subcommittee, Senator Flake. I would also like to welcome our four witnesses. Thank you all for joining us today. I look forward to your insights and your testimony.

Over the last decade, wildlife trafficking has grown into an international crisis.

It is a multi-billion dollar industry, driven by dangerous and sophisticated transnational criminal syndicates used by some terrorist groups to fund their operations. These poachers and traffickers are organized, well financed, heavily armed, and extremely dangerous.

The scale at which poachers are operating is threatening the very survival of some of the world’s most iconic wildlife. Last year alone, roughly 35,000 elephants and 1,000 rhinos were killed in Africa.

The loss of these wildlife populations, coupled with the security and stability threats of poachers and traffickers, is having a serious impact on the economic development of many African communities that rely on tourism for revenue as well.

This is an issue that should move us to act for a wide range of reasons. It is a serious and complicated problem, but one in which the U.S. can play an important role in solving in partnership with Asian and African countries.

To facilitate the implementation of the Administration’s National Strategy, Congress last year provided dedicated funding to stop wildlife trafficking. In my view, Congress must continue to work with the Administration and other partners to stem the tide against this escalating crisis.

Senator Cardin, Senator Flake, and I decided it was important to hold a joint subcommittee hearing because the wildlife trafficking crisis is not constrained to one region, but involves source, transit, and demand countries across the globe. The trade of ivory and rhino horn, sourced in Africa, but fueled primarily by strong demand in Asia, today contributes to this ongoing challenge.  We’re interested in discussing everything that happens from the poaching of wildlife, to the purchasing of illegal animals and products, and everything in between.

While the focus of this hearing is primarily on the trade of elephant ivory and rhino horn between Africa and Asia, as demonstrated by the examples on the table before us, this issue is much broader than that. Trafficking includes illegal trade in live wildlife, fish, seafood, trees, plants, and many other threatened species from across the globe.

Dealing with this issue over the long run will require robust partnerships at every level – governments, NGOs, the private sector, and communities – throughout Africa, Asia, and the world.

I want to thank and recognize the very broad range of non-governmental organizations that work tirelessly to conserve vulnerable ecosystems and to secure the economic, social, and cultural benefits of wildlife for future generations. You are the first line of defense in this fight against wildlife trafficking. We are grateful for your input and thank you for your partnership as we strive together to address this issue.

Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing on kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls

One month ago today, extremists in northern Nigeria abducted nearly 300 schoolgirls in an unconscionable act of terror. The leaders of the group responsible, Boko Haram, are selling the girls into marriages, forcibly converting them to Islam, and using them as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Nigerian government. It is believed the girls are today being held in a dense forest roughly the size of the state of West Virginia that straddles a porous and ungoverned border with three other countries.

Despite being forewarned of a possible attack, reports now indicate that the local and central government did nothing to protect them when told an attack was imminent. Parents should not have to be afraid to send their children to school. No child should live the horror these girls have experienced, and no family should have to confront these threats alone.

Unfortunately, these are not the only families who have suffered at the hands of Boko Haram.  The same day as these abductions, 75 more people were killed and 100 wounded in a bombing of a bus station in the Nigerian capital city of Abuja. More than 300 people were murdered during a Boko Haram attack in Gamboru just last week. According to Amnesty International, Boko Haram has killed more than 4,000 people in the last three years, including 1,500 people in the last year alone.

I want to welcome my partner in the Africa Subcommittee, Senator Flake, as well as Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and other members of the Committee as we look at the response to the kidnappings and consider the grave and growing threat presented by Boko Haram. 

This subcommittee last met on Nigeria in 2012, when we considered the persistent divides between the north and south in economic potential, governance, education and social services, and the very real security challenges created by these differences. Nigeria is an important partner in the region, but Boko Haram has capitalized on pervasive corruption, poor governance, and growing levels of poverty in the North to undermine both domestic and regional stability. Boko Haram – whose name means “Western education is sin” – targets public institutions, churches, and schools, and children are the frequent victims of its vicious attacks.

As New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wrote just last weekend, “The greatest threat to extremism isn’t drones firing missiles, but girls reading books.” The schoolgirls from Chibok in Nigeria demonstrated great courage returning to school to take their final exams in the face of an explicit terrorist threat from a group that targeted them simply because they sought an education.

Boko Haram is trying to send a message, and the world – starting with the Nigerian Government – must respond by saying their crimes will not be tolerated and perpetrators held accountable. 

We’re holding this hearing, in part, because of the outpouring of concern from my constituents and millions of Americans. The “Bring Back Our Girls” hashtag, which some pundits have mocked on talk radio and cable television, has been mentioned more than 3 million times on Twitter. Those tweets — those posts on Facebook and Instagram — were from people trying to get our attention and trying to make sure the United States is doing everything it can to help the Nigerians bring these abducted girls home. Those people deserve to know: we hear you and we share your goals.

Every day that these girls are missing, it becomes less likely that they will be returned home safely.  It took too long for the Nigerian government to respond to the girls’ abduction. It took too long for the Nigerian government to accept offers of assistance from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and China, and once accepted, it took too long for that assistance to be implemented. I’m glad a U.S. team is on the ground now, and we need to make sure that not another day is wasted. 

We cannot stand by while Boko Haram viciously attacks Nigerian citizens, their freedom, their security, and their right to an education.

So in this hearing we will discuss the response of the Nigerian Government to Boko Haram, both before and after the abduction. We will discuss what the U.S. can do and is doing to help in response to the abductions and in confronting Boko Haram. Finally, we will consider the regional implications of this growing threat, and what action could be taken by Cameroon, Chad, and Niger to ensure the girls are not taken across the border and to minimize the growing regional threat.

Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations Committee hearing on ambassadorial nominations

I am pleased to chair this hearing for the ambassadorial nominees to Angola, Mauritania, Zambia, and Gabon, a post which also includes the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe. All four nominees have impressive records of accomplishment in the Foreign Service and I look forward to hearing their priorities for advancing U.S. interests and goals. If confirmed, the four nominees will serve at a particularly significant moment in which the United States seeks to strengthen its economic ties with Africa and as it engages even more deeply to combat regional challenges in security, development and health.  

Our first nominee is Ambassador Helen La Lime for Angola. While it is one of the largest oil producers and diamond exporters on the continent and an important regional power, Angola faces extreme socioeconomic inequality, with an astonishingly low ranking on the UN Human Development Index. It continues to struggle with the lasting ramifications of a 27-year civil war; political and economic dominance by a small, wealthy elite; lack of political will and capacity to achieve transparency and accountability in governance; and a poor human rights record. The U.S.-Angola relationship is not an easy one, and I am particularly interested in how we can promote improved governance, respect for human rights, and diversified trade while also exploring ways to strengthen ties with Angola’s relatively capable military.   

For this important post, the President has nominated Ambassador La Lime, who is no stranger to diplomacy and Angola. A career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State with the rank of Minister Counselor, Ambassador La Lime most recently served as Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d’ Affaires in South Africa. She also has served as Consul General in Cape Town, U.S. Ambassador to Mozambique, Deputy Chief of Mission to Morocco, and Director of the Office of Central African Affairs.  

Just north of Angola lies Gabon and the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe.  Thanks to its rich natural resources and small population, Gabon has the fourth highest per-capita income in sub-Saharan Africa.  However, a third of its population lives in poverty. While Ali Bongo, son of Gabon’s long-serving autocratic president Omar Bongo, has shown some reformist inclinations, political opposition has been suppressed and impunity for corruption continues. São Tomé and Príncipe are located off the coast in the Gulf of Guinea where maritime security cooperation has become a critically important issue that Senator Flake has championed with my strong support and partnership.

We are considering Cynthia Helen Akuetteh for both Gabon and the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. Ms. Akuetteh, a career member of the Foreign Service, has wide-ranging experience in Africa and strong mentoring skills. She most recently served as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs and has previously served as Director, Office of Europe, Middle East, and Africa in the Bureau of Energy Resources and as a Peace Corps staff member.  

Next we consider Mauritania, located on the Western edge of the Sahel, where regional security threats include AQIM and splinter organizations active in neighboring Mali, Algeria and Niger. In addition to challenges relating to transnational security threats, Mauritania faces pressing socioeconomic challenges with an impoverished society that continues to recover from a devastating regional drought in 2011. While Mauritania is one of our leading counterterror partners in the Sahel, bilateral relations are complicated by Mauritania’s problematic record relating to democracy and human rights, including the persistence of slavery. 

Larry André, the nominee for Mauritania, most recently served as Director of the Office of the Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan.  Given the long history of development, governance and human rights problems in Mauritania, Mr. André’s recent experience with Sudan will be especially relevant.  A two-time Deputy Chief of Mission, Mr. André will bring strong leadership, mentoring, and policy skills, as well as extensive regional knowledge, to this small isolated mission. 

Last but certainly not least, we consider Eric Schultz to be Ambassador to Zambia. Home to one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World, Victoria Falls, Zambia draws tourists not only because of its UNESCO World Heritage sites, but also for its peace and stability since independence.  Like the other three countries we are considering today, Zambia faces challenges, including some backsliding on democracy, widespread poverty, corruption, and poor health conditions, largely due to the prevalence of HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Schultz is a three-time Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) with regional experience and an extensive background in economics, security issues, and democratization.  At State, he has led interagency teams on coordinating extensive assistance programs.  He has broad experience in key Zambian economic sectors, especially finance, agriculture, mining and energy. 

I would like to welcome all of our nominees to today’s hearing and encourage you to take the time to introduce your families who are an essential part of your service in government.  We are grateful for their sacrifices and ongoing support.

Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing on crisis in the Central African Republic

Good afternoon. Today, the African Affairs Subcommittee will focus its attention on the Central African Republic, or “CAR.” CAR is a resource-rich but desperately poor country that seldom catches the attention of international policy makers, but today is in the midst of an appalling manmade crisis.   The violent crisis is a stark reminder of the very real human cost of fragile states, weak governance and corruption. 

To this sobering discussion, I would like to welcome my partner on the subcommittee, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona. Senator Flake brings a deep commitment to Africa and I look forward to working with him to promote lasting solutions to this multi-faceted crisis. 

I would also like to welcome other members of the Committee, as well as our distinguished witnesses: Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa; Earl Gast, Assistant Administrator for Africa at USAID; Alexis Arieff, Africa Analyst at the Congressional Research Service; Lisabeth List, Medical Coordinator, Medecin sans Frontieres; and Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President, International Crisis Group. I look forward to hearing your insights and thank you all for being here. 

The voices of the Central Africans must also inform our policy decisions, and I am grateful to have recently spoken with Central African officials for a firsthand account, which helped to inform my perspective.  While I regret that no Central Africans could join us today, I would like to enter into the record a joint statement from Archbishop Dieudonne NzapalaingaImam Omar Kabine Layama, and Rev. Nicolas Guerekoyame-Bgangou from Bangui. I would also like to enter into the record statements from Catholic Relief Services and Mercy Corps, which reflect recommendations from their experiences working in CAR.  

CAR has a long history of instability and conflict, and has been the focus of periodic United Nations and regional efforts to support peace and security, with little lasting effect.   As difficult as CAR’s history has been, the current crisis is far different in terms of brutality and scope.  Following a March 2013 coup by a loose coalition of rebels collectively known as Seleka, little more than a façade of a transitional government exists in CAR, and the already-weak national security forces have all but disintegrated.  The people of CAR have been left nearly powerless against a multitude of violent armed groups.  

Opportunists, many from Chad and Sudan and seemingly motivated by little more than greed, have swelled the ranks of Seleka factions from 4,000 to 20,000, engaging in horrific violence across the country.  In response to Seleka attacks, local defense groups, known as “anti-balaka,” have retaliated spurring a vicious cycle of murder, maiming, rape, and destruction of property and livelihoods.  More than 500,000 people, a tenth of CAR’s population have been displaced and at least half are in need of humanitarian assistance, but many are beyond the reach of help due to insecurity.

We lack reliable and comprehensive data on the deaths and injuries, but civil society groups on the ground have provided chilling evidence of entire families slashed to death by perpetrators wielding machetes, babies suffering gunshot wounds, and villages burned to the ground. 

Compounding the crisis is the growing interreligious nature of the violence. Seleka rebels are primarily Muslim and have reportedly targeted Christians, and the anti-balaka are primarily Christian and are reportedly targeting Muslims.  Civilians are seeking refuge around churches and mosques. While ethnic divisions are not new in CAR, open interreligious violence, significant participation of foreigners in attacks, and the large-scale targeting of civilians are unprecedented.  They increase the risk of regional spillover and may create deeper, long-lasting societal divisions.          

Today’s hearing will look at the how the United States and international partners can deepen their engagement in order to help stop the violence, prevent regional spillover, and begin the process of establishing sustainable democratic governance. 

There are clearly no easy solutions, but we cannot stand aside as innocent civilians are targeted for slaughter.  The recent UN Security Council decision to impose an arms embargo on CAR, create a commission to investigate human rights violations, and authorize France to provide military support to the African-led International Support Mission in CAR was a welcome and necessary step.  France has very helpfully moved quickly to bolster its troop presence in CAR. I am interested to hear from witnesses about what more the United States can do to support multilateral efforts to ensure the AU troops have the capacity necessary to end the violence and sustain security.  

I look forward to working with the Administration and civil society to ensure that we do everything we can to stop the suffering in CAR, hold perpetrators accountable for atrocities, and help CAR’s people build a stable and democratic future.  I strongly support ongoing efforts by the Administration to increase security assistance to MISCA troop contributing countries and look forward to hearing about next steps for the U.S. role, including the possibility of U.S. support for a UN peacekeeping operation.  

Opening Statement: Chairing Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on proposed limits to civil discovery

The purpose of this hearing today is to examine a suite of changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure proposed by the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. Under current rules, all relevant material is discoverable, but a party may seek court relief from an otherwise valid discovery request if the request is out of proportion to the needs of the case.  The proposed changes would invert this standard, allowing responding parties themselves to decide what is proportional and what is not. 

The changes are also designed to increase the frequency with which courts assign the costs of discovery to the requesting, rather than the producing, party.

The changes would also place stricter presumptive limits on depositions – from 10 to 5 and lasting no more than 6 hours, as compared to 7 under current rules; interrogatories – from 25 to 15; and requests for admission, currently not limited, would be limited to 25.

Although in service of an important goal—reducing unnecessary discovery costs—these proposed changes have sparked no small amount of controversy in the civil rights, consumer rights, antitrust and employment rights communities. These advocates worry that limitations on civil discovery will unduly hamper the ability of those who have been subject to discrimination and other violations to obtain the evidence that they need to prove their cases in court.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, it is the role of the judiciary to propose, and for Congress to review, changes to the rules that govern litigation in our courts.

Despite the mechanism for rules changes under the Rules Enabling Act, however, over the past 30 years courts have eschewed the role of Congress and used decisional law time and again to reinterpret the Federal Rules.  In nearly every case, the reinterpretation has narrowed the path for a citizen to have his case decided by a jury according to the facts and the law.  Most recently, a suite of decisions has sharply limited the availability of the class action, raised pleading standards, and foreclosed federal and state courts entirely for those who are unlucky enough to find their dispute subject to an arbitration clause.

Today, however, I am glad to report that the Judicial Conference is proposing that the rules be changed through the mechanisms set out in the Rules Enabling Act, which gives the public and Congress a valuable opportunity to be heard before any changes take effect.

In conducting my review of the proposals I am guided, as I hope is the Judicial Conference, by four critical considerations:

First, what specifically, are the reforms meant to accomplish? What problems or abuses are they hoping to remedy?

Second, how effectively would the reforms succeed in addressing the abuses?

Third, are there collateral costs to our system of justice?

And finally, if there are collateral costs, we must weigh the costs and benefits in light of the public’s interest in a fair, efficient, and effective court system.

As to the first question, what are these changes meant to accomplish, let me start with what I think is an unobjectionable statement:  Civil litigation in America can be very expensive.  As a former in-house counsel for a materials-based manufacturing company, I knew the challenges that corporate defendants face in controlling the cost of lawsuits, where even a meritless complaint could put settlement pressure on my client.

But, to the second question–are these rules likely to significantly reduce discovery costs that are unnecessary to resolve the case?  Studies cited by the Judicial Conference note that discovery costs are not a problem in the majority of cases, and that discovery is a problem in a, quote “worrisome” number of cases.  In those cases where discovery costs are a problem, which is to say that they are, quote “out of proportion,” to the needs of the case, it tends to be in cases that are high stakes, highly complex, or highly contentious.  

In these cases, presumptive discovery limits are likely to be of no impact at all.  In smaller cases, however, presumptive limits are likely to play a normative role, restricting the ability of the plaintiff in a small case to take needed depositions from a defendant who holds all of the information relevant to a fair lending or employment discrimination claim.

Without objection, I would submit for the record letters from Barry Dyller and the Delaware Trial Lawyers Association setting forth some of these concerns.

As to proposals to restrict the scope of discovery, the import and impact of these discovery changes is likely to be highly litigated.  Motions practice is not cheap and, when all is said and done, these changes would be implemented by the same judges who today, according to the Judicial Conference itself, are not doing a good enough job limiting discovery in the cases before them.

Five times since 1980, the Judicial Conference has tweaked civil discovery rules in an attempt to curb perceived abuses.  In 1980, a pretrial conference was added to reduce the burdens of discovery.  In 1983, proportionality was first added as a limitation on discovery.  In 1993, the rules were amended to add presumptive discovery limits.  In 2000, the scope of discovery was narrowed.  Finally, just a few years ago in 2006, the proportionality provision instituted in 1983 was revised in an attempt to reflect the increased burdens of electronic discovery. 

Today, we are faced with yet another incremental restriction on discovery.  Why would we expect these changes to work where others have failed?  And if discovery cost is not a problem in the majority of cases, is it appropriate to narrow the scope of discovery across the board?

Next, even if we are to assume that these changes would have some positive impact curbing discovery abuse, we must still consider the third question in my line of inquiry – what harms are risked if these changes are implemented? 

Discovery is, of course, a critical stage in litigation that allows parties to marshal evidence in support of their claims or defenses, as well as to evaluate the claims and defenses of the counterparty.  Without discovery, parties would ask judges and juries to decide cases based on incomplete information, which can only degrade the ability of the legal system to deliver justice under the law.

If discovery is important to the civil justice system, it is absolutely indispensable to many civil plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, not defendants, must bear the burden of persuasion in proving their claims, yet often, especially in employment, discrimination, and consumer fraud cases, most of the relevant evidence is in the possession of the defendant.  Less access to information could mean that responsible parties will remain unaccountable, not because the plaintiff’s allegations are untrue, but because the plaintiff lacks the evidence to prove them. 

If so, this would be a very real cost, and not just to the plaintiffs whose meritorious cases would be thrown out.  In many areas of the law, notably antitrust and discrimination, the law recognizes the societal value of so-called “private attorneys general.”  Recognizing the limitation of government resources, the law provides encouragement for civil plaintiffs to bring suit and help ensure compliance with the law.

Where we can cut costs without doing damage to our civil justice system, we should absolutely do so. 

When there is the possibility of collateral costs to our courts and the ability of Americans to enforce their substantive rights, however, we must tread more carefully. 

Before we amend the rules to limit the ability of litigants to marshal evidence to prove their cases, therefore, we must examine whether any of these potential harms are likely to come to pass.  We must also examine whether other reforms are more likely to achieve the goals of reducing unnecessary litigation costs and less likely to have the collateral consequence of reducing access to justice.

Commentators are in general agreement that judges could do more under the Rules than they are doing currently to narrow issues for discovery and reduce the burdens on producing parties.  Why aren’t they doing so?  

Are judges overworked? If so, perhaps the problem could be addressed by creating some or all of the 91 new Article III judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference, as would be accomplished by the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013 that I introduced with Chairman Leahy.  Would a greater investment in technical and support resources in the courts allow for more efficient management of cases, leading to significant savings to litigants?  Is judicial training a limiting factor, and how might we address that? 

Clients also have tremendous power to limit litigation costs incurred by their legal representation.  Clients can and do negotiate down hourly rates, the size of legal teams, and even the hourly-billing model that has created a divergence of incentives between attorney and client.  Do these paths, either in isolation or in concert, offer a more promising avenue for reform?

These are just a few of the questions we will explore with the witnesses today.

Opening Statement of Senator Chris Coons: Judiciary subcommittee hearing on proposed limits to civil discovery

Opening Statement: First meeting of budget conference committee

Thank you, Chairman Ryan. I would like to thank Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray for convening this budget committee conference and I can agree with Senator Johnson that we both worked in manufacturing, and that we both think that getting back to focusing on economic growth and jobs is a top priority. My hope is that as we work together in this conference committee, we will find ways to end the disagreements and differences that have recently shut the government and instead focus on the things that we all agree we want to do together, which are to grow the economy, create good jobs, and reduce our deficits. Now, the challenges facing us are well-documented and widely known, but if we’re going to get back to working together on creating jobs and reducing our deficits we have to start by figuring out what we do really agree on so we can find common ground and move forward; that’s the way Delawareans ask me everyday to work here in Washington.

So I would just like to just briefly outline what I think are the priorities that actually unite us. We can safely agree that we do all want to grow the economy, to grow good jobs, and grow federal revenue. After the collapse of 2008-2009 we have had 40 straight quarters of consecutive job growth, but our recovery is still fragile. The national unemployment rate, as several senators and congressmen have said, is far too high; we’ve got 32,000 unemployed in Delaware and more than 11 million nationwide, and we’ve got record rates of poverty and of income inequality that are serious challenges. In all of this, economic growth has to be our North Star. As many of us know, if we grow our economy just one percentage point more, we would not just reduce our deficit more than 500 billion over a decade, but we would grow 1 million new jobs.

So what are the things we could agree on to grow the economy? First, replacing the harmful effects of the sequester. The CBO estimates that the sequester will cost 750,000 jobs this year and even more damage next year. Second, invest in a skilled workforce, work in partnership with the private sector to deal with significant workforce skills deficits – there were 600,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs this past year – we need to work together to train our workers. Third, research and development, as several members have said, is absolutely critical to our long-term competitiveness. R&D generates new products, new ideas, and in some cases whole new industries, fueling our ability to compete successfully with other countries. Finally, we have a crumbling infrastructure – as we all know there are far too many highways, ports, tunnels, and bridges that are critical to economic growth, but are well below international standards. We have to invest in order to grow. But frankly, most importantly, we can all agree that coming to some agreement in a reasonable timeframe is probably the most important thing this committee can do to help grow our economy. And doing it on a timeline that then allows the Appropriations Committee to then deliver a result without shutting down the government or putting it at any risk is about the best thing we can do.

I will agree, though, that we can’t simply grow our way out of our problems. We do have to address the drivers of our debt and deficits. We have to continue to reduce our deficits, which we have cut in half over the last four years. If we don’t, interest expense is a very real threat for crowding out both public and private investment in education, in R&D, and in infrastructure. Over the last three years we have made real strides in reducing our deficit; we have saved more than 2.5 trillion dollars. Yet that has been really unbalanced, about 70 percent of it has been from spending cuts, while only about 30 percent from revenue. We need to do more, but I believe we have to do it in a balanced way. We have heard from several senators about the need to modernize the tax code and about the need to move towards real tax reform. And while this committee can’t get all of that done, we can move in that direction in a substantial way. Making a modest cut of only 5 percent of the trillion dollars a year we spend through the tax code would make a huge dent in our deficits. 

Last, we do have to continue to make some cuts in our direct spending, although I will note that is the area that has taken the hardest hit and I will insist on doing so in a way that places a circle of protection around the most vulnerable in our country, and that honors our promises to our seniors, to our veterans, and to those about to retire, to protect them from harmful cuts.

Chairman Ryan, Chairman Murray, I am glad we have come together. I think we need to focus, not on areas of disagreement, but on priorities we all share: focusing on growth, replacing sequester, reducing the deficit, and ensuring our long term prosperity. Thank you. 

Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing on Somalia

I am pleased to chair this hearing of the African Affairs Subcommittee on security and governance in Somalia.  Despite the government shutdown, it is critical that we fulfill our constitutional duty – in a bipartisan manner – to examine pressing national security issues.  We need all the tools at our disposal to implement a strong foreign policy, and the shutdown has limited our ability to execute effective diplomacy, provide assistance, and analyze intelligence in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere.  As we help Somalia chart a course that may lead to a more stable and secure future, it is helpful to provide a strong example of functioning democracy that we can be proud of here at home.  

I would like to welcome Ranking Member Flake and other members of the Committee, as well as our distinguished witnesses: Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Linda Thomas-Greenfield; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Africa, Amanda Dory; USAID Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, Nancy Lindborg; Andre Le Sage, Senior Research Fellow for Africa at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies; Abdi Aynte, founder and executive director of the Heritage Institute for Policy Studies in Mogadishu; and EJ Hogendoorn, Deputy Director for Africa at the International Crisis Group.

This hearing comes almost exactly two decades after the Battle of Mogadishu, in which 18 Americans were killed defending U.S. interests and providing vital humanitarian aid to Somalia. Following the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia and after twenty years of lawlessness, recent developments have finally given us reason for hope.  Progress is due in large part to the security gains made by the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) consisting of Kenyan, Ugandan, Burundian and other African national troops, in coordination with the Ethiopian military.  AMISOM has deprived al-Shabaab of territory and revenue, creating much needed space to begin building functioning state structures.  This stability has allowed Somalia to form a constituent assembly and elect a new government, which was officially recognized by the U.S. last year. 

While much progress has been made, significant challenges remain.  The Somali people are increasingly frustrated with the government’s failure to provide basic services – such as education and health care – and the humanitarian situation remains severe. This year, there were more than 2.3 million Somalis without adequate access to food and more than 160 confirmed cases of polio.  Recognizing that these matters cannot be addressed without a functioning state, the Somali people are impatient with the central government’s lack of leadership on the key task of forming federal states, as required by the provisional constitution.  The government now has just 36 months for the Somali government to complete a constitution, conduct a constitutional referendum, and hold national elections. 

Increased security has provided the foundation for stability and governance, but as the horrific attack in Kenya two weeks ago demonstrates, al-Shabaab still has the space to operate within and beyond Somalia’s borders. The unconscionable targeting of innocent civilians by al-Shabaab requires our attention and resources, as we consider what it means for Somalia, American interests in the Horn, and our allies in the region.  This is why Senator Flake and I will soon introduce a resolution condemning the Westgate tragedy and reaffirming U.S. support for regional efforts to counter extremism and combat terror.

This hearing is an opportunity to consider how U.S. support can help Somalis build on gains made in security and governance, while helping them confront the many challenges that remain.  Since 2006, the U.S. has provided nearly $700 million to AMISOM and the Somali National Army in its efforts to combat al-Shabaab.  This is in addition to the nearly $140 million in the past two years to support stabilization, democracy and economic growth.  Despite these considerable investments, I am concerned our strategy has not kept pace with changing realities on the ground, particularly the need for stronger governance, and I intend to introduce legislation requiring the Administration to present its Somalia strategy to Congress with clear benchmarks for measuring progress and a timeline for implementation. 

I am especially pleased to welcome Assistant Secretary Thomas-Greenfield for her first hearing before our committee since being confirmed to her post, and express our profound gratitude to Mr. Aynte for traveling from Mogadishu to be with us today.

Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations

I am pleased to chair this hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as we consider the following nominations: Dwight Bush to be Ambassador to Morocco; Mark Bradley Childress to be Ambassador to Tanzania; Thomas Daughton to be Ambassador to Namibia; Matthew Harrington to be Ambassador to Lesotho; Eunice Reddick to be Ambassador to Niger; John Hoover to be Ambassador to Sierra Leone; and Michael Hoza to be Ambassador to Cameroon.  

Before we begin more formally I want to address the horrific attacks in Kenya. My prayers are with those we have lost, the security forces, the people of Kenya, and with all who have been touched by this event. The United States stands firmly with the people of Kenya as they move forward from this unconscionable act of terror and we will continue to assist the Kenyon government in responding to this attack and ensuring that those who are responsible are brought to justice.

It is my hope that this incident will remind all of us of the value of our alliances around the world and of those who are willing to stand with us and take actions, and take risks, in the global effort against terrorism.

I welcome each of the nominees and their family members who are here to support them.  I also welcome my colleague and Africa sub-committee ranking member Senator Flake, and I expect we may see some other members of the committee this morning.

Today we consider nominees for seven different diplomatic assignments and I will briefly touch on the relevant countries.

Cameroon has a strong record of stability, but it has come at the cost of democracy and opportunity for its citizens that presents some challenges for long-term prospects.

Namibia has achieved upper income status, but works through the lingering legacy of apartheid.

Sierra Leone has made very significant strides since emerging from a brutal civil war, but remains challenged by poverty. 

Tanzania has shown a strong commitment to democratic principles and benefits from a wide array of U.S. assistance, but some weak institutions, poverty, and corruption remain persistent. 

Lesotho appears to have successfully embraced democracy after a tumultuous transition. It is an AGOA success story, especially in the textile sector, but that success has bypassed many Basotho, and more than a third of Lesotho’s children suffer from malnutrition. 

Niger has restored constitutional rule following the 2010 coup and its leadership has sought to include diverse voices, but it is vulnerable to a wide range of threats, both domestic and international. 

Morocco is a steady ally and has signed a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, but the unresolved status of Western Sahara continues to present some governance and human rights challenges.

As my colleagues on the Committee know, I am convinced that the United States must deepen and diversify U.S. engagement with the leaders and people of Africa. Some of these countries we are discussing today are most often seen through the lens of two-dimensional cartoons or clichés, both positive and negative. But countries are not simple clichés. Each deserves our attention, support and respect as we work to advance economic development, security, and democracy, both for their benefit and the benefit of U.S. interests. Investing in the success of African countries is good for both Africans and Americans. 

The nominees before us today bring a wealth of foreign policy and public service experience.  I am interested in hearing their views on how they can help build these partnerships.    

Dwight Bush has excelled in the world of business and finance and serves on the board of many nonprofits including the GAVI Alliance, which is reaching millions with lifesaving vaccines and immunizations. I am confident he will apply his expertise to managing U.S. bilateral relations with Morocco.

Mark Childress brings strong insights on law, health, labor, agriculture, and minority rights, all of which are important elements of Tanzania’s development and our enduring bilateral relationship.   

Thomas Daughton has most recently served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Beirut, during which he was immersed in sensitive security and development issues. These are important qualifications for any Chief of Mission charged with protecting American citizens abroad, but I imagine he may also be looking forward to the opportunity to handle the more diverse set of issues Namibia will present.    

Mathew Harrington has demonstrated a deep commitment to Africa, from his service as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Mauritania to serving as Deputy Chief of Mission in Windhoek and Lomé, and assignments focused on Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Ghana.  He is eminently qualified to represent our interests in Lesotho. 

Ambassador Eunice Reddick brings a deep understanding of the difficult and complex challenges and threats facing Niger and U.S. policy in the Sahel, having most recently served as Director for the Office of West African Affairs.  Her experience with the Sahel and previous service as ambassador in Gabon make her an excellent choice to lead our mission in Niamey.    

John Hoover has served around the globe, from Paris to Beijing to Nairobi, covering consular, economic, security, and political affairs. These skills would serve him well in the complex and dynamic environment of Sierra Leone as they seek to move sustainably and decisively past a history of conflict.

Michael Hoza has served as a Management Counselor in Nairobi and Moscow, two of our largest and most complex embassies in the world, and as Deputy Chief of Mission in smaller remote posts such as Mbabane, Swaziland.  In Yaounde, he would have the opportunity to apply these management skills and African experience in pursuit of our interests.     

With that broad overview of our remarkably qualified nominees, I look forward to hearing from each of the nominees and will now turn it over to Senator Flake. 

Opening Statement of Senator Chris Coons: Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations.

Opening Statement: Chairing Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Federal Judgeship Act of 2013

Good afternoon and please come to order.  Welcome to this hearing of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts. 

America’s federal courts serve as a model for courts around the world.  For a variety of reasons, our federal judiciary is without equal.  Presidential appointment and lifetime tenure insulate judges from political influence.  Senate advice and consent helps guarantee minimum competence and is itself strengthened by the work of key institutional players, such as the American Bar Association, which publishes non-partisan opinions as to the qualifications of nominees.  And, fortunately, a federal judicial appointment carries with it sufficient prestige to lure away many talented nominees who could earn more money in the private sector or in academic work.

It is because of the quality of our judiciary that John Adams’ vision that the United States be “a government of laws and not men” still holds true today.  It is the role of the judiciary to determine each case according to the law, not according to popularity, political influence, money, or the whims of the public.  It is the federal judiciary that protects the least of us against abuse of our civil rights and liberties, whether by the government or another private party.

We must not, however, take our federal judiciary for granted.  As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his 2010 year end report on the judiciary, “the judiciary depends not only on funding, but on its judges, to carry out [its] mission.” Unfilled vacancies have led judges in many districts to be “burdened with extraordinary caseloads.” 

So, too, does insufficient statutory authorization for judgeships burden our courts. 

Judges on the Eastern District of California, however, which has long been recognized as one of the most overburdened in the nation, would still face over 1000 weighted case filings per judge even if the vacancy on that court were filled immediately.  In my own home in the District of Delaware, judges face weighted filings of over 1500 per judge and there are no vacancies left to fill on that court.  As a point of reference, the Judicial Conference generally believes that additional judicial resources are necessary when weighted filings approach 500 per judgeship. 

Senior judges, who are eligible for their pensions but agree to forego potentially lucrative outside employment opportunities or more time with their families, continue to hear cases, and are vital in filling the current gaps.  But senior judges are in effect providing charity to our government out of their commitment to public service and their colleagues, and cannot be the foundation of a responsible long-term judicial staffing model. 

Overburdened judges, almost by definition, cannot provide the level of time, and care, and reflection they would like to for each case before them. Moreover, and especially in a time of stagnant judicial compensation, they reduce the esprit de corps of the judiciary and make it marginally more difficult to attract the best and the brightest to serve.

Congress has not comprehensively addressed judicial staffing levels since 1990, 23 years ago.  Over that time, caseloads have risen nearly 40% yet authorized staffing levels have risen by just 4%.  Put another way, trial court weighted filings per judgeship have risen from 386 in 1991 to roughly 520 today.  Those national figures mask the dire circumstances faced by the most burdened districts, such as the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, and the Eastern District of California.

That is why Senator Leahy and I have introduced the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013.  This bill is based on the recommendations of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.  It would create six new judgeships in two courts of appeals and 85 new judgeships in 29 district courts, for 91 judgeships overall. 

This bill would provide much-needed relief to our overburdened courts, ensuring that they are better prepared to administer justice quickly and efficiently.  Increasing the number of judgeships will help cases move more quickly, reduce uncertainty that prevents businesses from creating jobs, and permit every American who has been wronged to get his or her day in court on a reasonable timeline.

I look forward to the testimony today of our eminently qualified panel which will shed greater light on what the judiciary’s need for additional resources is, and what it would do if forced to go without.

Opening Statement of Senator Chris Coons: Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Federal Judgeships Act of 2013

###