Opening Statement: Chairing SFRC Subcommittee hearing on eastern Congo

Today, the African Affairs Subcommittee will focus on the deadly conflict in eastern Congo, which has forced millions of innocent people from their homes and contributed to decades of human rights violations, mass atrocities, horrific sexual and gender-based violence, and disputes over conflict minerals.

Before we begin, I would like to welcome Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona who recently joined the Subcommittee as Ranking Member.  Senator Flake brings with him great expertise on Africa-related issues, both from his time in the House and from his personal and business experience.  This is our first hearing of the 113th Congress, and I look forward to working in partnership with Senator Flake to advance our shared interests promoting good governance, economic engagement, and security throughout sub-Saharan Africa over the next two years.

I would also like to welcome other members of the Committee, as well as our distinguished witnesses: John Prendergast, Co-Founder of the Enough Project; Mr. Mvemba Dizolele, Strategy and Advocacy Fellow at the Eastern Congo Initiative; Mr. Federico Borello, a Director of the Investment Team at Humanity United; and Rev. Ferdinand Muhigirwa, Director of the Center of Study for Social Action, who has traveled here today from Kinshasa.  Thank you, Father, for being with us today to speak about conditions on the ground.

Since April 2012, more than 650,000 men, women and children have been displaced by fighting between the M23 rebel group and the Congolese army in the North Kivu province of eastern Congo. The M23 has reportedly benefitted from the illicit support of neighboring states, including Rwanda and – to a lesser extent – Uganda.  There has been some accountability for such actions in the form of sanctions against Rwanda imposed by the U.S. and UN last year.  I traveled to Kinshasa in February to learn more about the conflict, see the situation for myself and support the regional framework for moving regional negotiations forward.

The U.S. has made a significant financial investment addressing ongoing humanitarian needs in the DRC – more than $4 billion since 2008 – and we have a responsibility to ensure that money has been well spent and the gains we’ve made are sustainable.  It is essential that the U.S. government – in partnership with the international community and especially regional governments and organizations – continues to pursue an active policy to tackle the pervasive challenges endemic to eastern Congo.

Unfortunately, instability and conflict are not new to the DRC.  Estimates by the NGO community indicate that nearly five and a half million people died from war-related causes in the DRC between 1998-2007 alone, making it the world’s deadliest documented conflict since World War II.

The lack of effective governance has contributed to decades of sexual and gender-based violence and misuse and abuse of vast mineral wealth, both of which have been particularly concentrated in the East.  According to the UN, 160 women are raped per week in North and South Kivu, with members of the army as the most frequent perpetrators. Mineral extraction of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold has fueled armed conflict and human rights abuses in several eastern provinces of DRC, and robbed Congolese people of legitimate livelihoods.

Despite this bleak context, the past few months offer reasons for optimism and hope about the future.  Since the signing of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework in late February, negotiations have continued and the UN appointed a Special Envoy to the region to implement the framework.  The UN Security Council recently authorized the deployment of a regionally-led intervention force to engage in “targeted offensive operations” in the East and to augment the ongoing peacekeeping efforts led by MONUSCO.  If this new force is effective, it can help to usher in sustainable security gains that will contribute to long-term stability in the future.

Fighting perpetrated by the M23 has slowed since its withdrawal from Goma in November.  In mid-March, M23 commander and indicted war criminal Bosco Ntaganda surrendered at the U.S. Embassy in Kigali and was transferred to the ICC – a first in the history of the Court.  With the implementation of sanctions against supporters of the M23, there has been accountability for their actions, and the Dodd-Frank legislation, as well as reforms adopted by the EU, has helped to shift commercial incentives for mineral extraction from that of conflict to business activities that are both legal and peaceful.

This hearing will evaluate recent steps taken by the international community to mitigate conflict and examine root causes of instability in eastern Congo, as well as current U.S. and international efforts to counter support for the M23 from state actors.  We will hear from a distinguished group of witnesses about their view of U.S. policy and request their recommendations for the future.

Following today’s hearing, I will present the administration with a list of key recommendations for U.S. policy and introduce a resolution including calling for Secretary Kerry to appoint a Special Envoy to address the conflict in eastern Congo.  The resolution will also call on the administration, as well as international and regional partners, to do more to mobilize a comprehensive response toward regional peace and stability and address root causes of conflict in Congo.  I look forward to working with Senator Flake and other members of the Subcommittee to further these efforts.

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

Opening Statement of Senator Chris Coons: SFRC subcommittee hearing on eastern Congo

###

Opening Statement: Chairing a Senate Judiciary Committee nominations hearing

Today, the Committee will hear testimony from Sri Srinivasan, who is nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court which has not seen a nominee confirmed to it since President George W. Bush’s fourth nominee to that court was confirmed in 2006.  Today, 1541 days after President Obama has taken office, four of the 11 seats on the D.C. Circuit are open, putting the remaining judges under undue strain.

There are now 188 pending cases per active judge on the D.C. circuit, 50% higher than when the Senate confirmed Thomas Griffith to fill the 11th seat in 2005.  Although the cases handled by the D.C. Circuit are unusually complex, the caseload per judge on that court is higher than that of the 10th Circuit, to which the Senate recently confirmed Robert Bacharach.

The President has nominated talented nominees to help alleviate this pressure.  Caitlin Halligan waited 905 days for a simple up-or-down vote.  She came with the American Bar Association’s highest rating, glowing recommendations from bipartisan supporters, and a diverse legal career marked by distinctive service as New York’s Solicitor General.

Her nomination was filibustered, however, and judging from the discussion in Committee and on the floor, this was in large part because of positions that she had taken on behalf of the State of New York in litigation against gun manufacturers.

But as a Senator, I don’t believe that I have the right to ask that judicial nominees have advocated only positions that I think are correct.  As Chief Justice Roberts has said – quote – “It’s a tradition of the American Bar that goes back before the founding of our nation that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients.”  To do so is unfair to advocates.  It is unfair to unpopular clients.  And it is unfair to the American people.  Every time the Senate holds up a nominee for political reasons, we lose not only the contributions of that candidate but we also make it harder to find talented individuals who are willing to serve.

The nominee before us today appears from his qualifications, from my discussions with him, and from the many bipartisan recommendations his nomination has received, to possess and exceptionally talented legal mind.  He has served in the Solicitor General’s office for both Republican and Democratic administrations.  He has served with such distinction that 12 bipartisan, high-ranking officials in the Office of the Solicitor General have endorsed his nomination.

Mr. Srinivasan has also represented an astonishingly diverse group of clients, from criminal aliens to large corporations to the United States itself.  As a result, he has advocated legal positions that are sure to run counter to at least a few policy preferences of any politician.

But I will not judge him on a standard of ideological purity.

The D.C. Circuit is perhaps the most important appellate court in the nation.  It is called upon to decide questions of national importance, such as the legality of agency action and the tools employed as part of the struggle against terrorism.  The cases that come before it require sober consideration and legal acumen, not ideological purity.

In my view, when a President submits a qualified candidate, of good character and sound legal mind, absent exceptional circumstances, that candidate is entitled to a vote.  I look forward to the testimony today, which I suspect will confirm what is apparent from Mr. Srinivasan’s qualifications.  I hope that my colleagues will join with me to show the American people that the Senate is not broken and that regular order is capable of addressing the vacancy crisis on the D.C. Circuit.

###

Opening Statement: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Nominations Hearing

I am honored to chair this hearing for the ambassadorial nominees to Kenya and Lithuania, Ambassador Robert Godec and Ms. Deborah Ann McCarthy.  Both nominees have impressive records of accomplishment in the Foreign Service and I look forward to hearing their priorities for advancing U.S. policy and interests.  I am also pleased to be joined by my good friend and Ranking Member, Senator Isakson, as well as Senator Durbin.

Kenya has special meaning for me. The first time I ever set foot in Africa was as a college student studying at the University of Nairobi and later volunteering in the late ‘80s at an orphanage in Ngong Hills. My experience in Kenya was transformative, as it changed my perspective and gave me a new sense of purpose in the world.  This May, I returned to Kenya for the first time in twenty-five years, as Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee. 

In Nairobi, I had the opportunity to speak at the Kenyan National Prayer Breakfast with President Kibaki and others, where I affirmed that the U.S. is closely watching the upcoming elections with the sincere hope that the violence and chaos that accompanied the 2007 elections can be averted.  I also affirmed that the U.S. is closely watching the process surrounding this election, and will continue to work with Kenyan officials to ensure the elections are peaceful, credible, and transparent.  Finally, I emphasized that the United States does not favor any one outcome or candidate, and our primary interest is ensuring the process is free and fair.

Kenya has made remarkable progress in recent years reforming its constitution, building its democratic institutions, expanding press freedom, and improving its economy and infrastructure.  During my visit, I was particularly impressed with the younger generation of Kenyans and the great potential that exists among technological innovators and entrepreneurs.  Despite these very positive developments, I remain concerned about the many uncertainties surrounding the elections and the chance that violence surrounding the election could place Kenya on a difficult trajectory and present very really challenges for its future. 

Specifically, we are closely watching the process surrounding the new biometric voter registration, which just began last week and is scheduled to be completed on December 19.  We do not know how or when party nominations will be complete, or how campaign finance will be regulated.  International election monitoring has yet to be established, and it remains unclear which candidates will be eligible to run.  All of these questions are compounded by uncertainty surrounding devolution efforts mandated by the new constitution, which – while well intentioned – also have the potential to exacerbate conflict at the local level.

Several factors may influence the outcome and aftermath of the upcoming election, including public confidence in the results; ethnic tensions surrounding national and local balloting; the presence and behavior of police and security services; messaging of the candidates; and the determination of who is eligible to run pursuant to the new constitution, which has yet to be decided by the courts. 

Finally, Kenya’s military involvement in Somalia, including its recent incorporation into AMISOM and its taking of the port city of Kismayo, may have an impact on Kenya’s own security.  Concerns remain about the presence of Al Shabaab and affiliated extremists within Kenya’s borders, as well as increased instability and the potential for violence along the coast.  In addition, we take seriously reports raised by human rights groups about possible abuses committed by Kenyan security forces – sometimes in the name of counterterrorism – and encourage the Kenyan government to hold human rights violators accountable for their actions.

Kenya is home to the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in Africa, from which a host of U.S. government agencies oversee both bilateral and regional programs.  Kenya also serves as a base for regional humanitarian relief efforts and is a focal point for U.S. food security and global health initiatives.  Additionally, Kenya’s economy is one of Africa’s largest, and it remains a regional hub for finance and transportation, as well as focal point for U.S. trade and investment.

To serve as ambassador in this critical post, President Obama has chosen wisely in nominating Ambassador Godec, who has served as the Chargé in Nairobi since August, where he has been received very positively by the Kenyan government, civil society, and NGOs.  He has built a strong career as the former Ambassador to Tunisia from 2006 to 2009, and he has most recently served as the Principal Deputy Counterterrorism Coordinator in the State Counterterrorism Bureau.  Prior to serving in Tunisia, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from 2005 to 2006.  This is Ambassador Godec’s second time serving in Nairobi, following a posting from 1996-1999 as Economic Counselor.

As Kenya has worked to reform and improve its democracy, Lithuania serves as a model of democratic transition since the Cold War.  Lithuania was the first former Soviet Republic to declare its independence on March 11, 1990, but Moscow did not recognize this proclamation until the following year.  Since then, Lithuania experienced a smooth transition to democratic elections, restructured its economy, and joined both NATO and the EU.  Having just competed elections in October, our incoming ambassador must work with the new Lithuanian government to encourage economic growth and greater cooperation on energy security, as well as other issues presented by Lithuania’s complex relationship with Russia and other regional actors. 

Ms. McCarthy has a long and distinguished career, having served in the Foreign Service for more than 30 years.  She is currently serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs and previously served as Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States Embassy Athens, Special Coordinator for Venezuelan Affairs, Senior Advisor for Counter Terrorism and as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. 

I look forward to hearing from both our nominees and encourage them to introduce their families, who are the unsung heroes in terms of their sacrifice in support of service.  First, let me turn to Senator Isakson for his opening remarks. 

###

Statement for the Record: Senator Coons honors Congressman Castle’s leadership to develop the C&D Canal Trail

Mr. COONS.  Mr. President, yesterday we recognized the vision and tireless efforts of former Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware to develop a recreational trail along the Chesapeake and Delaware (or C&D) Canal, which yesterday we broke ground for construction.

The C&D Canal, managed by the Philadelphia District of the Army Corps of Engineers, has been in operation since 1829. Today, it is one of the busiest working waterways in the world, with over 25,000 vessels passing through it each year. The canal is a critical commercial waterway serving the Ports of Wilmington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. The C&D Canal is bordered by a 16-mile stretch of flat, uninterrupted land, perfect for a trail, and surrounded by more than 7,500 acres of public land, creating a unique and safe environment for recreationists. In 2004, Congressman Castle saw these assets as an ideal opportunity to enhance the canal’s existing resources by adding a recreational trail.

Under Congressman Castle’s leadership, a working group was formed in 2004 with representatives from the State of Delaware, New Castle County, the Army Corps, Delaware City, Chesapeake City, the State of Maryland, and recreation groups. In 2005 and 2006, public workshops were held to solicit ideas and comments from local residents regarding potential recreational uses along the C&D Canal. In March 2006, a concept plan was completed by the working group, recommending the creation of a recreational trail along the canal to be used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, and equestrians. In 2007, design work for the trail began and environmental assessments were completed, and in 2009 trail design was completed.

Congressman Castle was instrumental in obtaining resources for the trail. In addition to supporting efforts to acquire state and local funding, he also secured a total of $2.2 million in Public Lands Highways Discretionary awards in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 from the Federal Highway Administration to go toward planning and construction of the trail.

Congressman Castle’s vision and years of work to build a trail along the C&D Canal was not forgotten when he left office. Recognizing the tremendous benefits that could be realized by the trail, the delegation picked up the project where Castle left off. Since then, the delegation has worked with the Federal Highway Administration, the State of Delaware, New Castle County, the recreation community, and others to reinvigorate the working group and secure additional funding to build the first phase of the recreational trail along the banks of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.

The recreational trail along the C&D Canal will provide a common link to communities across the States of Delaware and Maryland from Chesapeake City to Delaware City. It will create a safe and inviting recreational opportunity along the canal and will bring families and other groups to hike, bicycle, jog, skate, or ride horseback along the trail. Local business, including restaurants and shops, will reap the benefits of this increased tourism to the area. The C&D Canal trail will also support healthy lifestyles through outdoor recreation. The trail will improve safety along the canal and increase the appeal and land value of residential developments in the area. The C&D canal recreation trail will be an attractive asset for the Middletown, Odessa and Townsend region that will draw new residents to the area.

Congressman Castle long ago embraced the notion that the C&D Canal is like an emerald necklace draped across the northern portion of our beautiful state, and we are so very pleased that this jewel will be named after our dear friend.

Yesterday, the Delaware Department of Transportation broke ground on Phase I of the recreational trail. This first phase will complete approximately nine miles of the trail from Delaware City to just beyond Summit Marina in Delaware, including the construction of two trail heads, parking areas, and comfort stations.

Honoring Congressman Mike Castle’s long-time support of recreational and commuter-oriented greenways and trails in Delaware and across the nation, as well as his vision, leadership, and steadfast support of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal trail, the Delaware delegation hereby dedicates the trail to him, and officially recognizes the name as the “Michael N. Castle Trail at the C&D Canal.”

Statement for the Record: The Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeship Extension Act of 2012

Mr. President, we have averted a crisis in the bankruptcy court system. It may have been a quiet crisis – one few Americans talked about – but it was real nonetheless. Although it is all too rare in Washington these days, on this issue, we found a way to work together and deliver a solution. I am proud to say that on May 25, President Obama signed into law legislation I authored to extend 29 expiring temporary bankruptcy judgeships in nineteen judicial districts. 

With this new law, some of our nation’s busiest bankruptcy courts, those in Nevada and Delaware and New York and Michigan and Florida and so many other states, will finally be able to replace a sitting bankruptcy judge if he or she resigns or dies in office.

Especially in times of economic recovery and uncertain growth, our bankruptcy courts perform a vital restorative role for our nation’s economy.  Bankruptcy courts can give individuals, many of whom are victims of our Great Recession, a clean slate to start fresh.  They give corporations that can’t pay their bills an opportunity to restructure their debts and continue in operation, rather than shuttering their offices and factories, multiplying the pain by putting Americans out of work.

Bankruptcy offers relief for creditors, as well, by providing an orderly distribution of the debtor’s estate.  Without bankruptcy, the debts of past mistakes, miscalculations, and misfortune will remain on the balance sheets, unpaid and yet unpayable.  

Over the past 20 years, Congress has created dozens of temporary bankruptcy judgeships to meet the needs of our growing population and occasional economic downturns.  Perhaps these judgeships were created on a temporary, rather than permanent, basis out of some sense of enduring optimism, optimism that we one day will have a significantly smaller need for our bankruptcy courts that we had when they were created.  In fact, the caseloads in several of the districts authorized in the past have declined and those judgeships have been allowed to expire.  This new law however, is about districts where the caseloads remain high and which cannot afford to lose even a single authorized judgeship. 

According to the judges I hear from, as well as from the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States, which is headed by Chief Justice Roberts, these judgeships simply must be reauthorized – and now that the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act is law, they have been.

This legislation passed the House and Senate unanimously because it is good policy.  It is pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-justice.  The CBO has scored it to be paid for and it is so bipartisan that it is nonpartisan.

I am grateful for the willingness of my colleagues to compromise and help find a mutually acceptable solution to head off a looming crisis in our bankruptcy courts.  The amendment that permitted passage of this legislation is a one-time accommodation that provides additional fee revenue to the Judiciary so that this bill will not lead to increased demands on appropriators.  It also reaffirms that Congress, in legislating on these temporary judgeships in the future, ought to do so only after carefully examining their continued need and our ability to pay for them.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle did not get everything that they wanted in this legislation, but my confidence in this institution has been buoyed by the ability of both sides to recognize the greater good at stake and find their way to this deal.

I want to thank Leader Reid, Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, Senator Coburn, the group of 12 bipartisan cosponsors, and all those who have worked constructively to help enact this very simple and very important law. 

In particular, I thank President Obama, for with his signature; we have taken an important step toward delivering to the American people the fair, speedy and accessible bankruptcy court system they deserve.

###

Opening Statement:Chairing SFRC hearing on the LRA

I am pleased to chair this hearing of the African Affairs Subcommittee examining U.S. policy to counter the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).   I would like to welcome my good friend, Senator Isakson, and other members of the Committee, as well as our distinguished witnesses: Principal Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs Donald Yamamoto; Assistant Administrator for Africa at USAID, Earl Gast; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, Amanda Dory; Ms. Jolly Okot, Regional Ambassador for Invisible Children; and Mr. Jacob Acaye, a former LRA abductee. 

For more than two decades, the LRA has committed brutal attacks against innocent civilians in Central Africa that have destabilized the region and resulted in systematic killing, displacement, kidnapping, mutilation, and rape.  Joseph Kony and his commanders have abducted tens of thousands of children to serve as child soldiers and sex slaves, forcing them to commit terrible acts, including the murder of their own families and communities.  We are privileged and humbled to hear today from two victims of the LRA – Jacob and Jolly – who have endured horrific experiences in Uganda, and survived to courageously tell their story. 

Joseph Kony epitomizes the worst of mankind and evil in the modern day.  He and his top lieutenants are responsible for leading a scourge of terror across Central Africa that has included war crimes and crimes against humanity.  While the LRA left Uganda in 2006, it continues to burn a path of destruction through the Central African Republic (CAR), Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and South Sudan.  As you can see from this chart, in the past four months alone, the LRA has committed 132 attacks in these three countries despite increased U.S. and regional efforts to counter the LRA.  

There has been, and continues to be, broad and bipartisan support for stopping Kony.  This was demonstrated in May 2010 with the overwhelming passage of the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, which made it U.S. policy to work with regional governments to remove Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield and protect civilians from the LRA.  There is also bipartisan support for the recent deployment of 100 U.S. military advisors, which just yesterday, President Obama announced would continue to train regional militaries. 

Bipartisan support for this issue is so strong that six of my colleagues – on both sides of the aisle – joined me last week in releasing a video about the Senate’s longstanding commitment to countering the LRA that I would like to make a part of these proceedings.

This video was motivated, in part, by the millions of Americans – especially young people – who recently became involved in this issue due to the effective advocacy of NGOs such as Resolve, Invisible Children, and the Enough Project.  There are moments in history, rare as they are, when millions of Americans galvanize around a crisis and try to find a way to act.  This is one of those once-in-a-generation moments, and I hope the unprecedented level of engagement for humanitarian efforts in Africa can be sustained over time.

In the Senate, we have heard the message of the American people, and have continued to support ongoing U.S. efforts to counter the LRA.  Along with Senators Inhofe, Isakson and 40 of our colleagues, I have sponsored a resolution condemning the LRA and supporting continued U.S. efforts to strengthen the capabilities of regional militaries, increase civilian protection, and provide assistance to populations affected by the LRA.

This hearing will examine U.S. policy to counter the LRA and assess the current status of ongoing military operations, including the U.S. “advise and assist” mission, regional military operations, and the recent announcement by the African Union (AU) to initiate a unified counter-offensive targeting the LRA.  With the first panel, we will assess the progress of U.S.-funded programs to provide assistance to LRA-affected communities, encourage defections, and assist vulnerable communities with early-warning systems and other protections.  On our second panel, we will hear from Jacob and Jolly about their experiences as young victims of the LRA who have dedicated their lives to advocacy.  I think I speak on behalf of all Americans – including my own children – who were moved by the footage of Jacob and Jolly in the Kony: 2012 video, in thanking them for their leadership, commitment, and strength.  We are especially grateful they have extended their visit from Uganda to be with us today.

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

###

Opening Statement: Chairing SFRC hearing on Nigeria

I am pleased to chair this hearing of the African Affairs Subcommittee, which will focus on Nigeria and issues of security, governance, and trade.  I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses – Ambassador Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; Sharon Cromer, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for Africa at USAID; and Paul Marin, Regional Director for Sub-Saharan Africa at the U.S. Trade and Development Agency – and thank them for joining us today.  Our witnesses have extensive experience and expertise in a range of issues relevant to Nigeria, and I look forward to their testimony.

I am especially pleased to be joined by my good friend and Ranking Member, Senator Isakson, with whom I traveled to Nigeria last June.  Our trip came on the heels of last year’s elections and President Goodluck Jonathan’s inauguration.  It was a time defined by uncertainty about Nigeria’s future and cautious optimism about President Jonathan’s leadership.  The elections – while far from perfect – marked a dramatic improvement from the violence and lack of transparency that marred past elections.  At the same time, there was post-election violence that killed hundreds and demonstrated lingering communal tensions that continues to this day.  During our visit, we were particularly impressed with the Commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Professor Attahiru Jega, for his leadership and commitment to electoral reform, which allowed Nigeria to hold the most transparent elections in its history.

One year later, Nigeria today faces serious challenges, including an increasingly sophisticated and deadly wave of extremism, pervasive corruption, and growing levels of income inequality and poverty.  With more than 155 million people, Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation and its second-largest economy after South Africa.  As Africa’s largest producer of oil and one of the top five suppliers of oil to the United States, Nigeria plays an important role in the global economy.  The maps (http://bit.ly/H47qVN) that I will refer to illustrate the underdevelopment of the North and the growing need for President Jonathan to bridge persistent geographic, sectarian, and economic divides between North and South.

The wealth in Nigeria is largely concentrated in the South, as demonstrated by the first map, which also indicates the southern concentration of oil resources.  Nigeria’s economy continues to rely disproportionately on oil, which accounts for 80 percent of government revenues and 95 percent of export earnings.  Poverty levels are rising, with more than 60 percent of the population living on less than a dollar a day, and indicators such as income distribution, health, and literacy indicate a sharp North-South divide. 

The second map (http://bit.ly/Ht6uN8) demonstrates the clear distinction between northern states, where less than 10% of children are typically vaccinated and southern states, where the percentage is significantly higher, often 30% or more.  And this map (http://bit.ly/Hku9gC) demonstrates a clear distinction between North and South when it comes to female literacy rates, which is less than 20% in a majority of northern states and more than 50% in a majority of southern states. 

Nigeria also faces nationwide problems including corruption, instability, and economic mismanagement which have hampered economic opportunity.  With its growing population and significant resources, Nigeria holds enormous economic potential and I believe the U.S. can play a critical role in helping to diversify the Nigerian economy beyond oil and gas, expand its power system infrastructure, address widespread transparency problems, and strengthen rule of law. 

In this regard, I was pleased that the State Department recently led a trade mission to Abuja and Lagos focused on expanding U.S. investment in Nigeria’s energy sector.  I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about prospects for deepening U.S. economic engagement in Nigeria and partnering with the public and private sectors to address problems with the electric grid, which remains one of the biggest obstacles to Nigeria’s economic expansion.

Nigeria’s growing population represents an important market for U.S. goods, but rising security concerns have hampered investment.  In the past two years, Boko Haram, a violent northern-based Islamic extremist group, has launched increasingly sophisticated attacks on civilians, government and police installations, and the United Nations headquarters building in Abuja.  In fact, only six months after Senator Isakson and I met with the Archbishop and Imam of Abuja, Boko Haram launched attacks on Catholic churches in and around Abuja, killing dozens of people after the celebration of Christmas mass.

This last graph (http://bit.ly/HmRWR8) demonstrates the sharp rise in the number of attacks perpetrated by Boko Haram in the past year.  As you can see, between 2003 and 2009, the number of attacks was minimal, averaging one or two annually.  In 2010, however, the number of attacks rose to 30.  Alarmingly, the number increased more than five-fold in the past year, with more than 150 attacks in 2011 alone, and this does not include the multiple coordinated bombings that led to hundreds of deaths in Kano in January of this year. 

The Nigerian security services and police have faced significant challenges addressing the growing threat posed by Boko Haram, elements of which may be affiliated with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and other transnational terrorist organizations.  The bulk of its followers, however, appear to be focused on domestic issues, primarily the lack of jobs and growing economic inequities that have disproportionately impacted northern states.

The essential component to addressing economic and security challenges is governance, and we have seen clear examples of the importance of democracy and good governance in West Africa just in the past week with developments in Mali and Senegal.  It is clear that Nigeria plays a critical role in the region, and there is more that could be done by President Jonathan to encourage meaningful reform to root out endemic corruption and strengthen transparency.

We are pleased to have with us three Administration witnesses who will consider these issues and assess the difficult questions surrounding governance, economics, and security in Nigeria and how they are interrelated.  We look forward to hearing from each of you, but first, let me turn to Senator Isakson for his opening remarks.

###

Statement for the Record: On the FY2012 National Department of Defense Authorization Act Detainee Provisions

Mr. President, today I rise to express my deep concern that the 2012 National Department of Defense Authorization Act provisions pertaining to detainee treatment fail to strike the appropriate, important balance between national security, due process, and civil liberties.  Sections 1021, 1022, and 1023 are the latest in a series of legislative proposals that provide ever-narrowing latitude for dealing with terrorism suspects, whether in the U.S. or abroad.

I am concerned, Mr. President, that these provisions take us one small, but significant, step down the road towards a state in which ordinary citizens live in fear of the military, rather than the free society that has marked this great nation since the Bill of Rights was ratified 220 years ago, in 1791.

The new detention authorities thrust upon our military in this bill are an assault on our civil liberties and do not belong on our books. They were not requested by the Pentagon, in fact they have been resisted by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the directors of National Intelligence and the FBI.  They do not make us safer and, to the contrary, they will create dangerous confusion within our national security community.

Under these sections, a terrorism suspect must be remanded to U.S. military custody, even when that suspect presents no imminent threat to public safety and is being held under suspicion of committing a U.S. crime.  The suspect may be held indefinitely.  Indeed, if the suspect is transferred to Guantanamo, it may be a practical reality that the suspect must be held indefinitely, thanks to the onerous certification requirements contained in Section 1023.  If not sent to Guantanamo, the suspect may be rendered to a foreign power, where he may be subject to coercive interrogation, torture, or death.  Or, the individual may simply remain in custody of our own military, waiting for the cessation of an endless conflict against an idea.

Mr. President, as my colleagues from Vermont and Oregon, from Colorado and California, have already said so eloquently, these provisions reflect an unfortunate and unwise shift away from the current law, in which the criminal justice system is presumed to be sufficient for those who commit crimes on U.S. soil.  No system is perfect, but the federal criminal justice system is considered by many around the world to be the gold standard for fairness, transparency and reliability.  Since 9/11, the civilian criminal process has been successful in securing convictions and lengthy sentences against hundreds of terrorism suspects. 

This is compared to just six convictions in military tribunals, and two of these individuals are walking free today.  A third, Ibrahim al Qosi, was convicted of being a Taliban fighter.  Under his sentence of two years, he would be due to be released next summer.  But when he serves his sentence, he likely will not be released.  Instead, he will be detained until our undefined hostilities against Islamic extremism and terrorism conclude.  In other words, he will be detained indefinitely.  Criminal process like this is little better than no process at all.  It ought to be reserved for the rarest cases where the civilian criminal justice system is not suitable.  It should not be made the new standard.

If we are going to short-circuit the criminal justice system, we ought to at least have good reason to do so.  At a minimum, I would expect the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of National Intelligence to make the case that military custody is the only way to appropriately handle terrorists.  But that’s not what happened here.  No one is calling for these new powers.  They are being thrust upon our military. 

President Obama has said that these provisions will hinder his ability to prosecute the campaign against terrorists.  The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have said that these provisions threaten to undermine the collection of intelligence from suspected terrorists. 

They don’t want these authorities, Mr. President.

The military doesn’t want them either. The Secretary of Defense has said that the provisions will unnecessarily complicate its core mission of protecting our nation and projecting military force abroad.  These provisions do not make sense as a matter of defense policy, and, because the meaning of some of the key terms is deliberately unclear, we can’t even predict the precise impact that they will have.

In the best-case scenario, we will end up in a situation with minor changes to an existing detainee policy that has already proven to inspire and sustain this and the next generation of extremists who wish to destroy this country. In the worst-case scenario, we make several significant changes that hinder our ability to find and destroy this current generation of extremists.

I do not accept the underlying assumption of these unnecessary new provisions that the threat the United States faces is one that can be defended by more guns, taller walls, and deeper holes that we “disappear” people into. In fact, defense from the threats of today and tomorrow — called “asymmetric” because they do not attempt to meet us on the battlefield with equal capabilities — requires a new paradigm, the concept of defense in depth. To address asymmetric threats, including networks of extremists determined to carry out act of terrorism, law enforcement and the Defense Department must work cooperatively to protect U.S. interests using their respective strengths in authorities and levels of response.

Instead of strengthening our ability to confront asymmetric threats, these unwelcome new authorities instead reinforce the philosophy that the military is the only preeminent institution of national security, with law enforcement relegated to a limited support role. That may have been an appropriate philosophy for the world in 1961, but it did not help us in 2001, and will not help us in 2021. These new authorities do nothing to change that and will not make us any safer. The only effective comprehensive model for national security is one that strengthens both our law enforcement and military to fight threats within their respective areas of expertise.

At the local level, it is often difficult to distinguish whether an individual in possession of bomb-making components is a hardened terrorist coordinating with al-Qaeda; is a troubled, dangerous, but affiliated teenager; or is completely innocent of any crime at all.  In the rush to “repel borders” at the early stages of investigations, mistakes will be made.  We need to make sure that these mistakes do not overrun the constitutional protections we all enjoy as Americans.

It is true, as supporters of these provisions have argued, that Section 1021 contains a limitation that the authorization of force does not include the right to hold citizens in violations of their constitutional rights.  That is some comfort, but not enough.  As I sat in the presiding chair during debate over this bill, I heard my colleagues argue that we are in a time of war and that, during times of war, U.S. citizens have no constitutional protections against being treated as a prisoner of war.  Even if there was broad agreement about the constitutional protections citizens enjoy against extrajudicial killing or indefinite detention, who will enforce them?  Under this bill, that task would seem to be left to the President and to the military.  Were my life or liberty at stake, I would want the benefit of an independent judiciary.  So, too, I think would the vast majority of my fellow citizens.

Mr. President, we are in conflict against terrorists.  I do not doubt or dispute that.  But this is not the first time that has been the case.  During the beginning part of the last century, anarchists committed a string of bombings, usually targeting police officers or civilians.  In 1901, an anarchist assassinated President McKinley.  In the First Red Scare during the early part of the century, a plot was uncovered to bomb 36 leaders of government and industry.  During the 1960s and 70s, the Weather Underground declared as its mission to overthrow the U.S. government. Members planted bombs in the Capitol, the Department of State and the Pentagon. 

Each of these threats, and others, has before placed an existential fear in the minds of Americans.  We have not always acted well.  The Sedition Act of 1918, the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, and the House Un-American Activities Committee and Hollywood blacklisting following the war are three notable examples of action, taken in the face of severe threat, which now the vast majority of Americans look back upon with deep regret. 

As technology has advanced, so has the ability of the government to reach into our lives, whether through unseen drones and hidden electronic surveillance, omnipresent cameras and advanced facial recognition programs, or unfettered access to our telephone and Internet records.  

The advance of technology, however, is not justification for the retreat of liberty — especially not when we have at our disposal a criminal justice system that is up to the task of keeping us safe. 

Mr. President, I plan to vote for the Conference Report of the National Defense Authorization Act because I agree with much of what is within it.  During a time of war, we cannot allow our military to go unauthorized.  We cannot allow our troops to go unpaid. The NDAA provides oversight of and spending limitations for the military.  It elevates the head of the National Guard to the Joint Chiefs level, which is necessary to ensure that military leadership adequately considers the unique reserve capacity role now filled by the Guard.  The bill will also begin to address the inability of Customs and Border Patrol agents to share information necessary to identify military and other counterfeits at our borders.

Though we weren’t able to remove the dangerous and counterproductive provisions contained in Sections 1021, 1022 and 1023 from the NDAA today, we are not done trying. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we maintain the balance between security and liberty.

Opening Statement: Chairing Senate Foreign Relations African Affairs Subcommittee hearing entitled, “Improving Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo”

I am pleased to convene today’s hearing of the African Affairs Subcommittee and am honored to serve with my friend andcolleague, Senator Isakson.  I would like to welcome members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and thank our distinguished witnesses: Ambassador Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President of the International Crisis Group; Mvemba Dizolele, Fellow at the Hoover Institution; and Anthony Gambino, Fellow at the Eastern Congo Initiative.   

Today’s hearing on governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is both timely and important.  Last month’s elections have been marred by reports of widespread irregularities that are symptomatic of greater challenges of governance.  Today, we’ll consider steps that can be taken to improve governance in the DRC, looking at U.S. policy toward this country plagued by decades of conflict, poverty, and insecurity.

The recent presidential and legislativeelections have become the subject of intense international scrutiny.  Election observers from the European Union (EU) and Carter Center have concluded that the results are lacking credibility.  Reports have detailed mismanagement of the tabulation process, restricted access for observers, missing ballots, and voter turnout allegedly greater than 100 percent in some polling districts.  This was clearly not a well-run election, and Congolese authorities must now engage in a thorough and transparent review of the results to address unanswered questions.

Now that the Congolese Independent National Election Commission (CENI) has released data from polling stations, there should be a thorough review of the results taking in account reports of irregularities from the observer missions.  As the State Department said last night, the United States stands ready to provide technical assistance for such a review that will shed light on whether irregularitieswere caused by a lack of organization or fraud. 

New questions surrounding the election are emerging each day, and I have received a steady flow of information from concerned Congolese Americans reporting fraud and post-election violence. Today, I call on President Kabila and Mr. Tshisekedi to urge their supporters to resolve their disagreements peacefully to avoid an escalation of violence. Unresolved issues surrounding the legitimacy of this election cannot be answered through violence in the streets.  Instead, all sides should engage in dialogue about next steps and consider establishing a formal mediation process with the support of the United States and international community.

It has been the hope of many in the DRC and around the world that these elections would help to move the Congo toward peace and stability after a civil war that left more than 5 million dead between 1998 and 2003.  The U.S. has invested significant resources and diplomatic capital into improving governance in the DRC, including nearly $13 million to support free and fair elections. 

A stable and democratic DRC is in America’s interest because of its critical role in the region, its large population, and vast minerals and natural resources.  It is also in America’s interest to promote fundamental values such as human rights, transparency, freedom of expression, and rule of law.  Those values we hold dear are routinely trampled on in the DRC, where rape has been used as a weapon of war to punish and silence civilians — especially women and children.

As I said earlier, the problems with the election are indicative of the greater problems facing the DRC, rooted in alack of strong, democratic, transparent governance.  Without government control over its territory and security forces, armed soldiers and militia members will continue to prey on civilians.  Weak institutions prevent the DRC from upholding human rights and the rule of law, and successfully addressing issues surrounding conflict minerals and sexual violence.  The recent elections presented an opportunity to build the foundation of a more effective and credible government, and I am concerned that this goal has not yet been achieved.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what concrete action the U.S. can take to help resolve pressing and difficult questions about the conduct of the election in order to improve governance, mitigate post-election violence, and strengthen the rule of law in the DRC.  We stand with the Congolese people in their attempt to advance democracy, and hope it can be achieved peacefully.  I would like to now turn to Senator Isakson for his opening statement. 

Opening Statement: Senator Coons supports Delawarean Michael Scuse’s nomination for USDA undersecretary

Poultry is really the beating heart of the Delaware agricultural sector, but there are lots of other components to it. I just want to start by saying that I am grateful, madam chairman, for the opportunity to introduce my friend and fellow Delawarean, Michael Scuse.  

It is a rare and good day when I see good people advance here, in Washington, and Michael is one of the best I have ever known. He and his wife, Patrice, have been good friends to my wife, Annie, and I for a long time. I first got to know him well in a public capacity when he was serving as the secretary of agriculture for the state of Delaware and we had an opportunity to get to know each other both personally and professionally. He is passionate about agriculture, he is hard working, he is smart, he is genuine, and he is a decent man. He and his brother continue to run a family farm in Smyrna. Like me, he commutes to and from Delaware.  His wife, Patrice, is with him today and I know that he remains a connected part of the tightknit farm families that are the backbone of rural Delaware.

I worked most closely with Michael when I was the New Castle county executive. The day I announced my candidacy for that position, promoting farm preservation and strengthening our partnership between the county and state was one of the things I was determined to do– and it was not easy. It required a state secretary of agriculture who was innovative, who was willing to find ways to adapt to program and who was willing to partner with me. And largely because of Michael’s leadership and the governor under whom he served, Delaware, today, has the highest percentage of preserved productive agriculture farmland of any state in the country.

We also worked together to promote agro-tourism and to promote on-farm income sources that where non-traditional, which in my county –which is rapidly becoming suburban– was one of the few ways we could save for the long term, productive agricultural properties.

I just wanted to share with you, if I could, by way of introduction, that I think Michael’s critical work in the state of Delaware and now here, in Washington, in the United States Department of Agriculture gives him the skills and the experience to build on his personal character and values to be a great undersecretary of agriculture. I also think he will contribute significant skills and experience to the Commodity Credit Corporation.

I think you could do no better than to take this great Delawarean and give him an opportunity to show everybody in the United States that Delaware doesn’t just have a great agriculture sector, it also grows great agricultural community leaders and Michael Scuse is one of the best.

Thank you. 

###