Testimony: Senator Coons testifies before Finance Subcommittee on energy-finance legislation

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you and for holding today’s hearing on this timely and important subject.  As you consider principles for energy tax reform, I’m grateful for the chance to offer brief testimony on an element of the tax code that I believe could drive significant new investment in clean and renewable energy. Chairwoman Stabenow, I am particularly grateful to you, and to Senator Moran, for your collaboration and support of this effort.                                                                  

There is little debate about America’s potential to lead the world in clean energy development and deployment. We have unparalleled ingenuity. We are among the world’s leaders in advanced clean energy technologies. But we are struggling to deploy these innovations—and missing out on the very real economic and sustainability opportunities they represent—in part, because of the absence of a reliable source of financing. To advance, our technology needs a catalyst — the catalyst of a clear, stronger regulatory and statutory structure that allows efficient access to long-term financing.

Today’s energy market is broadly defined by narrow profit margins and established technologies supported by low-cost, long-term financing. If clean and renewable sources of energy are to grow and compete in the American energy marketplace, and around the world as well, we have to make sure they are given a level playing field on which to operate.

The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act of 2013, S.795, which I reintroduced in April with Senator Stabenow, Senator Moran, and Senator Murkowski would do just that. It is a strikingly simple, bipartisan bill that modernizes a section of our tax code, harmonizing it with the “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that so many of us have endorsed as the blueprint for energy independence and our energy future.

The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act would allow clean energy projects to utilize MLPs, a beneficial tax structure that taxes a project like a partnership — a pass through — but that trades its interests like a corporate stock, a C-corp. This allows access to the liquidity of equity markets, prevents double taxation, and leaves more cash available for distribution back to investors. For the last 30 years, MLPs have given the natural gas, oil, and coal industries access to private capital at a lower cost, something other capital-intensive projects badly need. It is a well-developed, well-established financing vehicle. There are roughly a hundred MLPs at a market cap of about $450 billion at the moment. 

The extension of access to this financing vehicle to a very wide range of renewable energy sources, energy storage, energy efficiency, and other options has the real potential to bring a significant wave of private capital off the sidelines and into the renewable energy marketplace. It would not only level the playing field, but would also increase access to low-cost capital for all energy sources in our marketplace.

Again, I am so thankful to Chairwoman Stabenow, to Senator Moran, and to Senator Murkowski for their tireless partnership in this effort and for working closely with me on this bill. Bipartisan companion legislation led by Congressmen Ted Poe, Mike Thompson, Peter Welch, Cory Gardener, and Chris Gibson—which is three Republicans and two Democrats—was reintroduced in the House at the same time as the Senate bill.

In summary, access to low-cost financing will define our nation’s energy future. It will determine how, when, and which energy sources emerge as the central players in the American energy marketplace in the long term. I believe it’s up to us to ensure that our vast supply of clean energy is a vital part of that equation. Thank you.

Opening Statement: Chairing Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations

I am pleased to chair this nomination hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for Linda Thomas-Greenfield to be Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Affairs, James Entwistle to be Ambassador to Nigeria, Patricia Haslach to be Ambassador to Ethiopia, Reuben Brigety, to be the U.S. Representative to the African Union, with the rank of Ambassador, Stephanie Sanders Sullivan to be Ambassador to the Republic of Congo, and Patrick Gaspard to be Ambassador to South Africa.  I welcome each of the nominees and their family members who are here to support them through this somewhat daunting confirmation process.  I also welcome my colleague and Africa sub-committee ranking member Senator Flake.

Today we are considering nominees for five diplomatic assignments, each with its own unique characteristics. At the same time, each nominee will grapple with many common, cross-cutting challenges and opportunities that face the United States in Africa, including vast economic potential, weak democratic institutions, poverty, and terrorism.  The choices made by African leaders, the U.S. government, and international partners in the coming years will help to chart not only the future course of many African countries, but the role and influence of the United States in Africa. 

In spite of, and in many ways because of, the complex and very real challenges present across Africa, I believe we must deepen U.S. engagement with the leaders and people of African nations.  President Obama’s trip to Africa was a positive, albeit long overdue, demonstration of U.S. commitment to Africa.  The President’s initiatives on trade, energy, young African leaders, and wildlife trafficking have the potential to deliver significant benefits for both Africans and Americans.  Our relationships must, however, extend well beyond the feel-good moment of a Presidential trip.  The United States must demonstrate sustained, multi-faceted commitment and attention to Africa. 

The nominees before us today bring a wealth of foreign policy and public service experience and have served in some of the most challenging diplomatic posts around the world.  I am interested in hearing their views on how they can help build strong, enduring partnerships in Africa in support of democracy, security, and prosperity.    

Linda Thomas-Greenfield has served as a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs and as Ambassador to Liberia during an exciting time of transition.  Importantly, she has shown a strong commitment to supporting the professional development of the people of the State Department, its most valuable asset.  

Ambassador James Entwistle, who I had the pleasure of meeting when I traveled to the Congo earlier this year, is an able and experienced diplomat who would bring lessons learned from places as diverse as Thailand, Kenya, and the Congo to the critically important but difficult task of managing our relations with Nigeria. 

Patricia Haslach has worked to promote development, stability and democracy around the world, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nigeria.  Her experience with the Feed the Future Program and her commitment to women’s empowerment would make important contributions to U.S. diplomacy in Ethiopia. 

Reuben Brigety has devoted his career to public service.  His unique blend of experience in the military, academia, civil society, USAID, and the State Department would be a valuable asset at our mission to the African Union. 

Stephanie Sullivan has shown a long commitment to Africa, from her time as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Democratic Republic of Congo to several Foreign Service assignments in the Africa Bureau.  She would also bring strong managerial skills and experience to Brazzaville.

Patrick Gaspard knows the rough and tumble world of labor relations, community organizing, school reform, and politics.  These are all issues critical to understanding South Africa, where he also had the honor of meeting Nelson Mandela in 1992 while serving in Mayor Dinkins’ office.

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 sequester and the courts

Good afternoon and please come to order.  Welcome to this hearing of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts.  I’m pleased today to be joined by my Ranking Member, Senator Jeff Sessions.  Senator Sessions has been either the Chairman or Ranking Member of this subcommittee since 2001, with the brief exception of the two years of the 111^th Congress, during which time he served as Ranking Member of the full committee.  His experience in overseeing the judiciary to ensure its effective, efficient operation is unequaled, and I look forward to working with him as we continue that work.

America’s judiciary stands as a shining example of the genius of our forefathers.  Vested with “the judicial power of the United States,” our federal courts act as a check upon executive or legislative overreach and as a neutral arbiter between parties of disputes. 

The limitations on government set by the Constitution, as well as the liberty interests reserved to the states and the people, ultimately rely on the judiciary to enforce them.  When an individual is wronged or when a business dispute arises, they can turn to the courts, get a fair hearing and a just resolution, and move forward with their lives.  When the federal government seeks to deprive any American of life or liberty, it is the courts — and often the federal public defenders that they employ — that make sure the government is forced to meet its burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When the sequester was conceived, the across-the-board federal budget cut was thought to be so dangerous, so reckless that it would force Congress to responsibly confront our nation’s spiraling deficits. Congress has not acted, however, and the result has been an erosion of the ability of our government to do the people’s business.  I fear that continued, sustained, indiscriminate cuts could push us to a point of crisis. 

The judiciary has looked at a variety of measures to address this new budgetary reality, and very few of them come without significant pain to the individuals and businesses that rely on them.  One proposal — to simply not schedule civil jury trials in the month of September — would effectively impose a 30-day uncertainty tax on every civil litigant before the courts.  A judge in Nebraska has threatened to dismiss so-called “low priority” immigration-status crimes because of a lack of adequate capacity.  In New York, deep furlough cuts to the public defender’s office caused the delay of the criminal trial for Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and former al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith.

In Delaware, the sequester has meant lengthy employee furloughs at the clerk’s office of the Bankruptcy court, resulting in reduced customer service hours and the postponement of IT upgrades that would aid the efficient resolution of bankruptcy cases.  The cuts have not been deeper only because that office is already working with 40 percent fewer staff despite an increasing caseload, including many time-intensive mega cases, which are so important for the country’s economic recovery. 

The Delaware federal public defender’s office has had to furlough its defenders 15 days this year, essentially cancelling the criminal docket every Friday for the rest of the year.  Every day the public defenders are furloughed is another day that criminal defendants spend in pre-trial incarceration, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than $100 per day.  The defender’s office has also had to sharply curtail expenditures for investigators and experts, which may be leading to a decrease in the quality of representation, leading to longer prison terms, and even more avoidable taxpayer expense. 

And if we don’t act, the picture looks still bleaker for next year, when Federal Public Defender’s offices nationwide are scheduled to take a 23 percent cut.  In Delaware, this means one-third of the office will be laid off, but even that won’t be enough, so the remaining employees will face between 26 and 60 furlough days, and funding for experts and investigations services will not be restored.

Fifty years ago this year, the Supreme Court gave real substance to the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases when, in Gideon v. Wainwright, it ruled that the government could not threaten indigent individuals with prison terms unless it also provided them with an attorney. The Federal Defender Services are the embodiment of that legacy. 

The sequester is slowing the pace, increasing the cost, and potentially eroding the quality of the delivery of justice in this country.  Congress’ disappointing inability to responsibly replace the sequester and save the courts from these draconian cuts is eroding our fundamental constitutional rights. Individuals depend on the courts to be there when they need them, to seek relief from discrimination, to resolve a complicated commercial dispute and enable the parties to stop fighting and get to work growing the economy, or to guarantee them fairness when the government wants to throw them in jail. 

The irony is that cuts to the Judicial Branch that undermine its ability to do its job don’t actually save taxpayers any money.  The cases will still be adjudicated, just at a slower pace and at a higher cost.  The Constitution still guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel, so courts will have to appoint a greater number of panel attorneys, who, studies suggest, do the job for 10- to 30- cents more on the dollar. Yes, the nation finds itself in a fiscal crisis, and every branch of government must do its part. The judiciary need not be exempted, and is already working to reduce expenses by selling or renting excess office space, or cancelling unnecessary training or conferences.  Any expenses beyond its core mission take second priority and need to be looked at closely.  

That said, we’re not going to be able to solve, or even noticeably mitigate, the national fiscal crisis on the backs of the courts.  For every hundred dollars spent by our federal government, just 19 cents goes to the courts. Nineteen cents for one branch of the government is a pretty good deal, if you ask me, particularly for a branch that does its job so well.  Indiscriminate cuts truly are penny-wise and pound-foolish. 

Dr. King said that, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” I worry that by delaying the delivery of justice, the sequester may be denying justice to too many Americans.

I look forward to the testimony today to shed greater light on what the judiciary has done, and what it would be forced to do, if Congress continues to neglect its duty to responsibly replace the sequester.

Opening Statement of Senator Chris Coons: Judiciary subcommittee hearing on sequestration and the courts

###

Testimony: Senator Coons testifies before Energy Subcommittee on energy efficiency bill

Before I talk about my bill, I just wanted to quickly say how much I’ve enjoyed and appreciated my time on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I’m genuinely going to miss it. Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski have both been enormously supportive, and I really appreciate their leadership, and the way they work together.

It continues to be my belief that energy efficiency is an area where this committee can make real progress, and can do it in a bipartisan way. I’ve been a believer in energy efficiency for a long time, and an enthusiastic advocate for it since my days as a county executive, so I leapt at the chance to support the work of Senators Shaheen and Portman during the last Congress. I’m proud to cosponsor it again during this Congress. 

Shaheen-Portman receives the bulk of the attention in the energy efficiency space, and with good cause, but I’m glad, Senator Franken — Chairman Franken — that you’re holding this hearing today on the other good ideas in this area. There are a lot of them.

One of them I just introduced with Senators Collins of Maine and Reed of Rhode Island. It’s bipartisan and it’s named the Weatherization Enhancement, and Local Energy Efficiency Investment and Accountability Act, or S. 1213. The bill reauthorizes two critical energy programs for five more years – the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program.

Both are programs that have been in place for decades and are at work daily in each and every one of our states. These programs link national, state and local interests together in a very critical way. They create highly effective public/private partnerships that have delivered real results.

For every dollar invested, the Weatherization Assistance Program returns $2.51 in household savings. The program has served more than 7 million families, including more than 1 million in the last four years.   

The results are even more impressive for the State Energy Program, where for every federal dollar invested, there is an annual energy cost savings of more than $7, and nearly $11 in non-federal funds is leveraged.

Our bill isn’t just about reauthorization, it is also about modernization.

First, we wanted make sure we approached the programs in a fiscally appropriate way, so we’ve actually cut the authorizations by more than half from their 2007 authorization levels.

Second, there was some criticism over how a few states used the significantly increased Weatherization Assistance Program funds awarded under the Recovery Act. The vast majority of states used their funds effectively, but a few, frankly, did not. There wasn’t a set of national standards in place, so it became apparent that new minimum efficiency standards and certifications would be needed going forward. The Department of Energy is already working on some, and this bill requires that they be in place no later than October 2015. This will make sure these federal dollars are being spent more wisely and more efficiently.

Third, we’re proposing a complementary competitive grant program in which a wide range of NGOs could compete for a piece of the funding. The goal is to bring in new partners, new approaches, new technologies, and new ideas to ensure that more homes can be weatherized given limited federal funding.

All told, S.1213 supports the base programs, enhances them with new ideas, and ultimately ensures their long-term viability so they can keep making a difference in each of our states. 

This bill has the support of 25 organizations that work day and night in the energy efficiency space, including some of the folks you’ll hear from on the next panel.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. Although no longer a member of this committee, I look forward to continuing to work with you on measures to strengthen energy efficiency, innovation, and independence. Thanks.

###

Opening Statement: Chairing SFRC Subcommittee hearing on Zimbabwe

Good morning. Today, the African Affairs Subcommittee will focus its attention on Zimbabwe, a country with abundant natural resources, fertile land, and a capable, enterprising population.  Zimbabwe should be driving growth and prosperity in southern Africa. Instead, in the 33 years since its independence, Zimbabweans’ prospects have become increasing bleak, reaching a low point in 2008 when the annual inflation rate spiraled to 489 billion percent and the economy had shrunk in half. That’s not an error — the inflation rate actually was 489 billion percent.

It is no coincidence that the economic collapse came in lockstep with decreasing respect for democratic principles and harsh crackdowns on free expression, civil society, and the news media. Zimbabweans will go to the polls later this year for the first elections under their new constitution, and the preparation and conduct of those elections will be an important indicator of whether Zimbabwe can and will realize its great economic promise and democratic potential.  

I would like to welcome my partner on the subcommittee, Ranking Member Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona. Senator Flake brings with him considerable personal expertise on Zimbabwe from his time in the country during the eighties, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to advance our shared interests in good governance, economic growth, and security throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

I would also like to welcome other members of the Committee, as well as our distinguished witnesses: Don Yamamoto, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Africa; Earl Gast, the Assistant Administrator for Africa at USAID; Dewa Mahvinga, a Senior Researcher at Human Rights Watch; Mark Schneider, the Senior Vice President at the International Crisis Group; and Todd Moss, the Vice President for Programs and Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development.  I look forward to hearing your insights and thank you all for being here.

Relations between the U.S. and Zimbabwe are guided by our shared aspiration for democratic and humanitarian values. The United States has been forced to place targeted travel and financial sanctions against individuals and businesses in Zimbabwe who are undermining democratic institutions, but we have remained a steadfast and committed partner to the people of Zimbabwe. We have provided some $1.5 billion in support since 2001, most of which has addressed the health and humanitarian needs of millions of regular Zimbabweans who have faced dire circumstances through no fault of their own. Although providing this aid has been the right thing to do, better governance and more respect for the rule of law in Zimbabwe would open the door to a stronger and different kind of partnership — a partnership that leverages our resources and expertise more strategically to expand trade and investment, and to cooperatively approach regional challenges. Zimbabweans need not be destined for prolonged dependence on foreign aid. 

The upcoming elections offer Zimbabwe a critical chance to show commitment to its new constitution — which limits executive power and protects civil rights — and to build on the stabilization of the economy ushered in under the coalition government. SADC members have a critical and challenging role to play in supporting the elections and holding Zimbabwe accountable to the standards it set for itself in the constitution.

I am concerned by recent reports that the Zimbabwean government is not working in good faith with SADC and other international partners to ensure these elections will be free and fair, especially considering the lengths to which President Mugabe and his ZANU-PF loyalists went to preserve power in 2008. 

I am also alarmed by the uptick in targeted harassment and intimidation of the civil society leaders and human rights defenders who are seeking to ensure a just contest. Activists such as human rights lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa have been harassed and arrested. Leaders of the security forces are openly partisan and using their positions to suppress democratic expression, and there are reports that diamond revenues are being diverted to the security forces for political purposes. 

Today’s hearing will look at the tools the United States could effectively deploy to support the upcoming elections as well as post-electoral reforms, increased respect for human rights and the rule of law, and mutually beneficial relations between our two countries. 

I look forward to continuing my own engagement with SADC members and the Administration to promote democratic reforms in Zimbabwe, and will make recommendations based on the advice we hear today.

With that, I turn it over to Senator Flake for his opening statement. 

Opening Statement of Senator Chris Coons: SFRC subcommittee hearing on Zimbabwe

Opening Statement: Senate Judiciary Committee on building an immigration system worth of American values

Good afternoon and please come to order.  Welcome to this hearing of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  I welcome especially our witnesses and look forward to their testimony today.

America earned its place in the world because of the immigrants that have come before us, bringing their culture, bringing their passion, and bringing their ideas to our shores.

When I ask Americans what they expect in our immigration system, they say they want a system that keeps us safe from foreign threats, terrorism, and from dangerous individuals.  They say they want a system that protects the American workforce and grows our economy.  They also want a system that is fair, transparent, and reflects our fundamental values.

I think our immigration system does a reasonably good job of enforcement.  We certainly spend enough – $15.7 billion in the last fiscal year alone, as compared to $11.3 billion on all other federal law enforcement combined, including FBI, ATF, DEA, and the U.S. Marshal Service.  There are 32,000 immigrants in detention right now in over 250 facilities, and there will be about 400,000 in detention throughout the course of a year.  ICE deported about the same number last year, and that number has been steadily climbing and now stands at about double the number of removals in 2001.

But when I tell people that our immigration system doesn’t allow immigration judges to consider circumstances – like risk of flight, ties to the community and dependent U.S. citizen children – they don’t think that is consistent with our national values.  And yet, immigrants in detention are denied any opportunity to make these arguments in 60% of the cases.  And they are surprised to learn that 23% of those deported have U.S. citizen children, who must face either a childhood without a parent or effective deportation themselves.

Those who are entitled to bond must wait weeks for an opportunity to present their case.  Our “civil” detention system is geared toward maintaining a minimum number of detainees rather than ensuring the safety of our community. 

Longtime legal permanent residents, with a U.S. family, a history of steady employment, and who have even served honorably in the armed forces, can be and are deported for any of a litany of relatively minor offenses that qualify as aggravated felonies under the immigration code. 

Immigrants, even children and those with mental disabilities, lack not just the right to appointed counsel, but also the ability to obtain documents from the government that may be necessary to prove their cases.  Even for immigrants entitled to relief under the law, the deck is stacked against them. 

While our Constitution prohibits ex post facto criminal laws, our immigration law does not respect this general principle of fairness.  Under 1996 revisions to the immigration code, the list of crimes and activities requiring mandatory deportation was expanded and given retroactive effect. As a result, the law now requires mandatory deportation for decades-old, non-violent offenses such as petty theft, simple drug possession, or failures to appear, all of which were not grounds for deportation before 1996.

We are a nation of immigrants, but our immigration law is inconsistent with America’s values. Our immigration system exacts a high cost on families, on civil liberties, and on human dignity.  This cost is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unfair.  

At $163 per day per bed, our current immigration detention system is also enormously expensive to maintain.  It could be cheaper while also better serving both our national security and our national commitment to civil rights.  To cite just one example, the Legal Orientation Program, which provides some immigrants with a basic overview of their legal rights, costs just $70 per participant.  Armed with knowledge of their rights and, in many cases, their ineligibility for any form of immigration relief, participants in the program spent 6-12 fewer days in detention.  Those who have a right to remain are able to make their case, and those who understand that they have no right to be present leave sooner.  According to the Department of Justice, these combined effects resulted in a $17.8 million savings last year alone. 

I understand that there are dangerous individuals in this country who should not be here, and I strongly support the work of the brave men and women who serve in ICE and CBP to find these individuals and take them off our streets.

My concern is that we must afford a minimum level of due process, consistent with our values, to those people who find themselves in an immigration system that looks in many ways like a criminal proceeding. 

Detention and deportation decisions should be made in the public interest and subject to independent review. Where appropriate for immigrants with no history of violence, less restrictive alternatives to detention ought to be used to guarantee enforcement of the court’s orders.  Immigrants ought to be advised of their legal rights and have meaningful access to discovery.  Where necessary to meaningfully participate in the process, particularly in cases involving children and those with mental disabilities, counsel ought to be provided.

These are not exceptional goals, but they do not describe our current system.

Under our system, Hiu Lui Ng, a Chinese national, was detained by ICE when he appeared for his green card interview with his U.S. citizen wife and their two U.S. citizen children.  Even though Mr. Ng had a good job as a computer programmer, and he was eligible for a green card based on a petition filed by his wife, ICE held him in detention for a past in-absentia removal order for over a year.  While in custody, Mr. Ng died due to lack of medical care. 

Under our system, R.C., an Irish native who came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1955 as a five year old, was detained by ICE for 10 months just a few years ago while he fought, and won, cancellation of removal for a single misdemeanor drug offense in 2006.

Comprehensive immigration reform cannot be truly “comprehensive,” if it does not address serious current flaws that deny immigrants minimum due process rights that are consistent with America’s values. 

It is worth noting that we are only a few days away from the start of Passover and Easter, when I and many of my colleagues here in the Senate will take time to reflect on our faith and religious traditions. 

The book of Exodus, chapter 23, verse 9 tells us: “you shall not oppress the stranger; you know how a stranger feels, for you lived as strangers in the land of Egypt.”  Pope Francis was equally clear in his inaugural homily, exhorting leaders of all nations to be protectors of the most vulnerable.

I want to thank Chairman Leahy for allowing me to hold this hearing today, as well as Ranking Member Grassley for his participation.  I also welcome our five witnesses today, who bring a broad range of experiences with the U.S. immigration system.  I look forward to their testimony and answers to our questions.

Opening Statement: Senate African Affairs Subcommittee hearing on Restoring Democracy in Mali

Good morning. I am pleased to convene this hearing of the Africa Subcommittee on Mali.  As we speak, there are three simultaneous crises occurring in Mali – security, political, and humanitarian – which threaten U.S. interests in Africa and require the attention of the U.S. government and the world.  That is why we have convened today’s hearing: to assess developments in Mali and discuss path forward to restore democracy, to reclaim the north, to stabilize the security situation, and to discuss ongoing humanitarian needs. I would like to welcome my friend and partner on the Subcommittee, Senator Isakson, and I thank our distinguished witnesses for sharing their insight and expertise. I look forward to hearing from both of our panels.

Earlier this year, a military coup deposed the democratically elected government of Mali, and an ethnic rebellion staked its claim on the northern two-thirds of this vast country. This left a security and political vacuum that was exploited by Islamic extremists. As of today, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb – more commonly known as AQIM – and two affiliated groups control the majority of northern Mali – an area the size of Texas – making it the largest territory controlled by Islamic extremists in the world.

I am concerned that the current U.S. approach toward Mali may not be comprehensive and forward-leaning enough to address all three of these difficult, complex, and interconnected crises – security, political and humanitarian – at the same time. So today, we will examine U.S. policy in all three areas with the goal of providing recommendations for a path forward. We will assess evolving plans for a regionally led, multilateral military intervention in northern Mali, and  consider the complementary goals of encouraging elections and restoring security by reclaiming the north. 

With growing ties between extremist and terrorist groups in Mali, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia, and beyond, there is growing concern that AQIM will leverage its new safe haven in Mali to carry out training and advance plans for regional or transnational terrorist attacks, making Mali – in the words of Secretary Clinton – a “powder keg” of instability in the region and beyond.

The U.N. Security Council will likely vote in the coming days or weeks on a resolution authorizing a military intervention by ECOWAS and the African Union. Similar African-led interventions in Cote d’Ivoire and Somalia have provided a model for effective multilateral and regionally led solutions that allow the United States, France, and others to provide operational support without putting boots on the ground.

This intervention will take time, and stability cannot be restored to Mali through military action alone. The situation in Mali is as much a crisis of governance as it is of security. The long-running grievances of the Tuaregs in the north and a political vacuum in the south must be addressed through diplomacy, rebuilding of democratic institutions, and the restoration of a democratically elected government. In addition, any agreement that aims to “peel off” groups currently aligned with AQIM will require a credible government to do so in Bamako. Elections are the key to not only restoring now-frozen U.S. bilateral assistance, but also for reclaiming government control of the north and restoring Mali’s  two decade history of democracy.

Mali’s political and security challenges cannot be addressed as separate issues.  As the UN Secretary General’s recent report on Mali suggested, the international community must work to address these multiple crises simultaneously, and consider the potential implications of moving forward with elections that exclude participation of northerners. Such an election could be viewed as a symbolic victory for AQIM and may further entrench those who aim to establish a permanent Islamic state in the north.

This conflict has displaced more than 400,000 people and exacerbated an ongoing food crisis in the Sahel, leaving more than four and half million people in need of emergency food aid. NGOs have also reported rampant human rights abuses in northern Mali – further adding to the instability and challenges – which include amputations, torture, executions, recruitment of child soldiers, as well as violations of women’s rights, children’s rights, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms such as speech and religion.

To provide insight on our path forward and to discuss these three strands, we have assembled two distinguished panels.  First, we will hear from Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador Johnnie Carson; USAID Assistant Administrator for Africa, Mr. Earl Gast; and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Africa, Ms. Amanda Dory. We are grateful for their presence.

On our second panel, we will hear from Senior Associate and Regional Director for Central and West Africa at the National Democratic Institute, Dr. Chris Fomunyoh; Senior Researcher in the Africa Division at Human Rights Watch, Ms. Corrine Dufka; independent policy researcher, Mr. Nii Akuetteh; and Vice President of the Lobbying Network for Peace, Security, and Development for Northern Mali, Mr. Mohamed Ould Mahmoud, who will be testifying via webcast in order to provide a first-hand perspective from Bamako.  

I look forward to hearing the testimony of all of our witnesses, and would like to turn to Senator Isakson for opening remarks.

###

Opening Statement: Chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee nominations hearing

I am honored to chair this hearing for the Ambassadorial nominees to South Sudan, Mali, Cape Verde, and Sweden. All four nominees have impressive records of accomplishment in international affairs and I look forward to hearing their priorities for advancing U.S. interests and goals. 

If confirmed, the three nominees for Africa will serve at an exciting and critical time as we seek to deepen our economic ties and investments, promote development and health initiatives, expand our security cooperation in counterterrorism and counternarcotics, and broaden our conversations about shared values and priorities in Africa. In Europe, we expect to continue our long tradition of close cooperation with Sweden as it works through the United Nations, the European Union, and NATO on shared international priorities.

Our first nominee is Susan Page to be the United States’ first Ambassador to the new country of South Sudan. This nomination recognizes the important role the U.S. played in the birth of that country and the importance of our longstanding relationship with the people of South Sudan. The excitement and jubilation surrounding the July 9 independence has been tempered somewhat by the sobering realities of the challenges facing the world’s newest country. 

Many issues with Sudan remain unresolved, including the status of Abyei, arrangements on oil transit and revenues, and demarcation of disputed border areas. Fierce fighting in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile has resulted in deaths, displacements, and a lack of access for humanitarian workers. South-South violence is also significant; poverty is endemic; health, education, and infrastructure are all woefully inadequate. Despite these challenges, South Sudan is a place of hope for the millions of residents who waited decades for their freedom. The South has significant oil reserves, and, with proper agricultural assistance, has the potential to be a regional breadbasket in a region facing food insecurity. 

Ms. Page is no newcomer to Sudan, having served from 2002-2005 as the legal advisor to the Sudan mediation process where she helped negotiate and draft key provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. She also served as the Director of the Rule of Law and Prison Advisory Unit at the UN Peacekeeping Mission to Sudan in Khartoum.  Ms. Page has worked previously for the State Department and USAID in Botswana, Rwanda and Kenya, and currently serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs at the State Department. 

Moving to West Africa, we consider the nomination of Mary Beth Leonard to be Ambassador to Mali, a poor, landlocked country that has emerged as a model of democratic governance in the past two decades and has developed vibrant economic sectors in gold mining and cotton production.  After decades of dictatorship following independence, Mali’s transition to democracy in the early ’90s led to unprecedented civil liberties for the people of Mali and resulted in its first democratically-elected president turning over power peacefully to his successor after serving his limit of two terms. 

The U.S. has had excellent relations with Mali and has found it a committed partner in fighting terrorism in the Sahel. We remain deeply concerned about the activities of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and possible spillover of arms from Libya. We also remain concerned about Mali’s low standards of living as evidenced by its rankings toward the bottom of the world on indicators of health and education. Many Malians expected more of an economic benefit from democracy and are disappointed that it has not resulted in more tangible improvements for them. The Tuareg people of northern Mali have been fighting for a share of the country’s development budget as well as a seat at the political table for many years. 

Ms. Leonard is well placed to answer those challenges, having served previously as the Deputy Chief of Mission at our Embassy in Mali, and currently serving as Director of West African Affairs at the State Department. Her other Foreign Service postings include Suriname, South Africa, Togo, Namibia, and Cameroon, as well as several tours in Washington. 

Adrienne O’Neal is the nominee to be Ambassador to Cape Verde, a small island nation off of Africa’s West Coast with historic ties to Portugal and an impressive record of economic growth in recent years.  With an average per capita income of more than $3,000, literacy rates of 84 percent, high rates of immunization, and relatively low rates of maternal death, Cape Verde’s average standard of living is higher than most of its neighbors in sub-Saharan Africa. 

In 2010, it successfully completed a 5-year Millennium Challenge Corporation compact focused on improving the investment climate and upgrading infrastructure. Cape Verde’s white, sandy beaches bring tourists to its shores, and its fishing industry provides important employment for its people as well as export revenue.  U.S. interests in Cape Verde include large Cape Verdean expatriate populations, particularly in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as maritime security and counter-narcotics cooperation with the government of Cape Verde. 

Ms. O’Neal brings to the position her experience as a Senior Foreign Service officer, currently serving as a Director in the Office of Career Development. She is a Portuguese-speaker who has served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Lisbon, and has held positions in our diplomatic missions in Mozambique, Rome, Rio de Janeiro, and Buenos Aires, and in the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs.

And, finally, we welcome a nominee to a country far from Africa, Mark Brzezinski, to be Ambassador to Sweden.  Sweden is a strong partner and ally of the United States, supporting NATO and the United Nations and participating in multilateral military missions in Libya and Afghanistan.  Sweden is well known in the developing world as a generous donor in the fields of humanitarian and development work. 

Sweden’s responsible management of its own economy spared it from the financial woes currently facing many of its European neighbors.  But even Sweden faces critical challenges.  The rise of the Sweden Democrats as a political party with white supremacist roots may signal wider discontent among the young and unemployed.

Mr. Brzezinski is an attorney at McGuire Woods focusing on international law who has made a name for himself as an expert in Russian affairs.  He worked at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration as Director of Southeast and European Affairs, he serves on the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, and he has worked taught at Columbia University’s School for International Affairs.

I welcome all of today’s distinguished nominees and look forward to hearing from them.  I will now turn over the floor to Senator Isakson for his opening statement.

###

Opening Statement: Chairing the Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Good morning.  It is my honor to call to order this hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  Today, we will hear from the Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.

It has been almost a year and a half since this Committee last conducted oversight of the Civil Rights Division. Among all of the important work done by the Department of Justice, the work of the Civil Rights Division is uniquely important. The Civil Rights Division is charged with enforcing our laws providing the rights of all citizens, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex or national origin, to participate in civic life.  It underpins our entire way of life because, where civil rights are not protected, equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are denied.

The preamble to the United States Constitution, our national charter, states that the first two purposes of our national government are “to form a more perfect union” and to “ensure justice.”  There is no better shorthand for the mission of the Civil Rights Division.

The Civil Rights Division is responsible for ensuring voting rights for every American. It protects equal access to housing, lending and employment, regardless of sex, race, religion, or national origin. It safeguards members of our armed services from discrimination based upon the hardships that accompany active duty. It provides that disabled Americans are not precluded from participation in civic life, from the marketplace, or from the workplace.  

Today, since the passage of the Mathew Shepard Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009, the Civil Rights Division also protects the rights of gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans to participate as full citizens in our country without fear of violence borne of bigotry.

So it should.  Equality for all is supposed to mean equality for all.

The struggle for civil rights for all Americans is a part of our national story.  The thirteenth,fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments established formal equality for all Americans by 1870.  Real-world equality, sadly, lagged behind.  It wasn’t until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that Congress took up its charge to turn the promise of those reconstruction amendments into real progress for African Americans and, frankly for Americans of many different backgrounds.  Since that time, we have made great progress, even as we have expanded the mission of the civil rights laws beyond state action and into the economic sphere.

Over the past 10 days, however, people in my state received a sad reminder that the battle against the sort of overt racism that marred this country so greatly in our past – a battle that many Americans hope and believe that we have won – still rages on.  Over the Labor Day weekend in Newark, Delaware, two teens placed a cross, which read, “burn in hell” among other racial epithets, on the lawn of an African American family.  Although police in New Castle County quickly arrested two young suspects, the homeowner was, understandably, not comforted.  He said, “I don’t want this to continue to happen, especially in this neighborhood, in this state or anywhere else. I want hate to go away.”

Like the homeowner, I was caught off guard.  Incidents like these are not supposed to happen in our country today.  But I was reminded that the vast majority of our country has moved beyond these acts and attitudes only due to the vigilant work of those who have come before us.

Without objection, I would enter into the record articles from the Delaware News Journal from September 5 and September 7, describing the incident in Newark.

Although the perpetrators appear to have been caught, we cannot letthat be the end of it.  Especially in the area of hate crimes, we need leaders and members of the community to stand up and say that these abhorrent acts do not represent us and they will not be tolerated.  That is why we are here today.

Congress has an important role to play in oversight of all Executive Branch activities, of course, but when it comes to civil rights, it is critical that both branches are on the same page — that we are working together, hand in hand, to fight for that perfect union.

We’ll work on eradicating discrimination from our laws.  We need you, Mr. Perez, to work on stopping it in our communities.

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Perez regarding the work that he has done at the Civil Rights Division since being confirmed to that office almost two years ago.  Mr. Perez inherited a division that had undergone significant upheaval.  I hope to hear that Mr. Perez has reinstituted hiring procedures at the Division strictly on the basis of merit.  I hope to hear about the work of the Division in fighting more insidious forms of institutional discrimination through disparate impact cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  I look forward to hearing what the Division has done to extend the promise of equality to all Americans, regardless of race or sex, but also regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.  

Finally, I would like to spend some time examining what the Division is doing to make sure that our service men and women, the people who risk their lives to defend our way of life, have the ability to vote without burden and are not discriminated against in housing, lending, employment or elsewhere.

###

Opening Statement: Chairing Senate Foreign Relations African Affairs Subcommittee hearing on responding to drought and famine in the Horn of Africa

I would like to call to order today’s hearing focusing on one of the most critical issues in the world today – responding to the drought and famine in the Horn of Africa.  As always, I am privileged to serve with my friend Senator Isakson and want thank him for staying in Washington after the Senate had adjourned in order to help convene today’s hearing. Senator Isakson is a true partner in highlighting a range of compelling issues, shared interests, and concerns in Africa, and I greatly appreciate his leadership on the subcommittee.

As everyone is well aware, Congress has been almost entirely focused on the debt crisis in recent weeks.  While that issue was rightfully at the top of the agenda in the United States, we must also consider other global issues, especially when millions of lives are at risk and tens of thousands have already died.  Today, we have displayed images of the crisis in the Horn of Africa in order to demonstrate the rising human toll of the drought and famine, including on children facing unspeakable depravation and hardship.  In today’s hearing, we will list numbers that quantify the impact of the drought, but it is the images that convey the true impact on human lives.  I want to thank UNICEF for its vital work on behalf of children worldwide and for providing the photographs displayed at today’s hearing.  UNICEF has submitted a statement detailing its efforts in the Horn of Africa that I request be submitted for the record.

The crisis in the Horn of Africa has been caused by the worst drought in the region in more than 60 years, resulting in severe malnutrition, acute hunger, rising levels of starvation, and famine in Somalia.  It is the most severe humanitarian crisis in a generation, affecting the food security of more than 12 million people across Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, and surrounding areas, as illustrated by this map.  According to UNICEF, an estimated 2.3 million children in the region are acutely malnourished, and half a million are at risk of imminent death.  Unfortunately, the crisis is expected to worsen in coming months, eclipsing the famine in Ethiopia in the mid-80’s that elicited a global public outcry and response as demonstrated by events such as Live Aid.

The broad public awareness of the crisis in the 80’s appears to be absent today despite the worsening humanitarian situation and increasing need for aid.  The situation is the most severe in Somalia, where rising food prices have exacerbated an already dire situation given ongoing conflict, poor governance, and obstructed humanitarian access by the terrorist group, al-Shabaab.  Aid organizations and U.S. government officials estimate that more than 1,500 refugees per day are leaving Somalia for Kenya, flooding the world’s largest refugee compound in Dadaab, which is well over capacity with nearly half a million refugees.  Hundreds of Somalis are fleeing each day for Dolo Ado and other camps in Ethiopia, also over capacity with more than 100,000 refugees.  The international community and United States are working closely with the governments of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti to address the massive transnational influx of refugees, and I praise their efforts to accommodate these refugees, especially as they help their own populations cope with severe drought.  

The countries impacted by the drought are among the world’s poorest, suffering from high rates of poverty and unemployment.  While the failure of two consecutive rainy seasons contributed to the scale of the disaster, the humanitarian crisis and famine that resulted highlights broader capacity, governance, infrastructure, and security problems and needs.  Of course, this drought was not a surprise.  USAID, through its Famine Early Warning System, FEWSNET, predicted an impending crisis last year and worked with the Kenyan and Ethiopian governments to enhance their ability to respond and preposition emergency relief supplies.  As the United States joins with partners in the international community to provide emergency assistance, we must also consider lessons learned in order to avert the next famine, improve food security globally, build sustainable capacity, and mitigate the impact of this crisis on future generations.

In response to the drought, the United States has been the largest international donor, providing $459 million in food aid, treatment for malnourished children, health care, and other assistance.  But the responsibility cannot rest on our shoulders alone.  Especially in a difficult budgetary environment, the humanitarian response to this crisis must be a shared international obligation.  According to the United Nations, more than $2 billion will be needed to provide emergency assistance, and only $1 billion has been committed thus far.  The international community must join the United States in providing this critical aid in the near term in order to save lives, especially those of malnourished children and others in desperate need.      

As we consider the international response to this crisis, we must also examine restrictions on access given the volatile security environment in Somalia, where the United Nations recently declared a famine in southern areas controlled by al-Shabaab.  Just yesterday, the U.S. government announced an easing of restrictions on humanitarian organizations operating in Somalia in order to facilitate the delivery of aid.  I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about this new policy, which aims to provide additional guidance and legal assurances to U.S. partner organizations operating Southern Somalia.

To hear more about the scope, impact, and response to the crisis, we are privileged to be joined by two distinguished panels.  First, we will hear from Nancy Lindborg, the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance for USAID and former President of Mercy Corps.  Ms. Lindborg will be followed by Ambassador Donald Yamamoto, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and former Ambassador to Ethiopia and Djibouti.  Finally, we will hear from Dr. Reuben E. Brigety, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration and former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who just returned from a visit to the region.

On the second panel, we will hear from Mr. Jeremy Konyndyk, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Mercy Corps who has led humanitarian and post-conflict recovery operations throughout the region.  Next will be Dr. J. Peter Pham, Director of the Michael S. Ansari Africa Center at the Atlantic Council and former associate professor of Justice Studies, Political Science, and Africana studies at James Madison University.  Finally, we will hear form Mr. Wouter Schaap, the Assistant Country Director for CARE International, Somalia who is based in Nairobi and recently returned from a visit to drought-affected areas of northern Somalia.

I am privileged to chair this hearing and to highlight the growing urgency of this increasingly grave humanitarian crisis.  Americans have demonstrated great leadership helping those in need both domestically and abroad, and I am confident we can continue to partner with the international community to save lives and protect future generations in the Horn of Africa.

###