[Senate Hearing 117-728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-728
NOMINATIONS OF MARIA L. PAGAN,
BRENT NEIMAN, JOSHUA FROST, SAMUEL R.
BAGENSTOS, AND CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON THE
NOMINATIONS OF
MARIA L. PAGAN, TO BE DEPUTY UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, GENEVA
OFFICE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT;
BRENT NEIMAN, TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL FINANCE
AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; JOSHUA FROST, TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES; AND CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON, TO BE CHIEF INNOVATION AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE
REPRESENTATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT
__________
OCTOBER 26, 2021
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-192-PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts BEN SASSE, Nebraska
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Gregg Richard, Republican Staff Director
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee
on Finance..................................................... 2
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho...................... 3
ADMINISTRATION NOMINEES
Pagan, Maria L., nominated to be Deputy United States Trade
Representative, Geneva Office, with the rank of Ambassador,
Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC.............. 5
Neiman, Brent, Ph.D., nominated to be Deputy Under Secretary for
International Finance and Development, Department of the
Treasury, Washington, DC....................................... 6
Frost, Joshua, nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Financial
Markets, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC............ 7
Bagenstos, Samuel R., nominated to be General Counsel, Department
of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC................... 8
Wilson, Christopher S., nominated to be Chief Innovation and
Intellectual Property Negotiator, Office of the United States
Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador, Executive
Office of the President, Washington, DC........................ 9
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL
Bagenstos, Samuel R.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Biographical information..................................... 42
Responses to questions from committee members................ 61
Crapo, Hon. Mike:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Frost, Joshua:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Biographical information..................................... 67
Responses to questions from committee members................ 71
Neiman, Brent, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Biographical information..................................... 79
Responses to questions from committee members................ 86
Pagan, Maria L.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Biographical information..................................... 102
Responses to questions from committee members................ 106
Wilson, Christopher S.:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Biographical information..................................... 116
Responses to questions from committee members................ 120
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening statement............................................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Communications
Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents.................. 129
Underwood, Rebecca............................................... 131
U.S. Chamber of Commerce......................................... 133
NOMINATIONS OF
MARIA L. PAGAN, TO BE DEPUTY UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
GENEVA OFFICE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT; BRENT NEIMAN,TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; JOSHUA FROST, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL
MARKETS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, TO BE
GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND
CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON, TO BE CHIEF INNOVATION AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENT-
ATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.,
via Webex, in Room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon.
Ron Wyden (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Cantwell, Menendez, Carper, Cardin,
Brown, Casey, Whitehouse, Cortez Masto, Warren, Crapo,
Grassley, Thune, Portman, Cassidy, Lankford, Daines, and
Barrasso.
Also present: Democratic staff: Sally Laing, Chief
International Trade Counsel; Ian Nicholson, Investigator and
Nominations Advisor; and Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director.
Republican staff: Lincoln Foran, Policy Advisor; John O'Hara,
Trade Policy Director and Counsel; Mayur Patel, Chief
International Trade Counsel; Gregg Richard, Staff Director; and
Jeffrey Wrase, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Economist.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The Chairman. The Finance Committee meets this morning to
discuss an important set of nominations that span three Federal
agencies and at least two continents.
Maria Pagan is President Biden's nominee to serve as a
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and our envoy to the WTO in
Geneva. Ms. Pagan brings to her nomination nearly 3 decades of
experience in international trade law. She currently serves as
USTR's Deputy General Counsel, which puts her right at the
heart of just about every effort to ensure that our trade laws
are protecting American workers and businesses and giving them
a shot to get ahead. She has valuable experience litigating
disputes before the WTO, which makes her the right choice for
this job.
Chris Wilson is President Biden's nominee to serve as
USTR's Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator.
It is the first time a nominee for this role has come before
the Finance Committee since the committee created this position
in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015--
and it was long overdue. We all take as a bedrock principle
that we want to get trade done right, and getting trade done
right in the modern economy means going to bat for
manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers, and fighting for the
high-wage, high-skill jobs and businesses of the modern
economy. It also means ensuring that our policies balance the
interests of IP owners, innovators, technology users, and the
public at large. Mr. Wilson brings to his nomination 20 years
of experience at USTR, during which he has represented American
workers and businesses in negotiations across the globe. All
that experience makes him an ideal choice to be the first-ever
Chief Innovation and IP Negotiator.
Joshua Frost is President Biden's nominee to serve as
Assistant Treasury Secretary for Financial Markets. It is a
challenging job that deals with a variety of subjects that
include debt management, the housing market, and the health of
our financial system. Mr. Frost has more than 20 years of
experience in a variety of roles at the Federal Reserve,
including more than 12 years at the open markets desk. He has
overseen programs aimed at preventing another financial crisis
and responding to the COVID-19 crash. He is a natural fit for
the position, because it is all about protecting the integrity
and the stability of our financial system.
Dr. Brent Neiman is President Biden's nominee to serve as
the Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury for International
Finance and Development. This job deals with the most tangled,
complicated policy questions having to do with the global
economy. One of the big challenges Dr. Neiman will be working
on, if and when he is confirmed, is how to help solve the
interruptions of global supply chains that are continuing to
pop up as the pandemic continues to infect people around the
world. And I know Dr. Neiman has considerable experience on
these issues, and we look forward to his testimony. He will
also work on the issue of currency manipulation, which is a
subject this committee takes very seriously. Dr. Neiman will
have a leading role in the effort to make sure that
multinational corporations can no longer hide their profits in
shadowy tax shelters around the globe instead of paying a fair
share. Dr. Neiman is currently the Edward Eagle Brown professor
of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth School of
Business, and, as I indicated, his decades of research have
contributed to his expertise on international macroeconomics,
finance, and trade. My view is, he is an excellent choice for a
difficult job.
And finally, Sam Bagenstos is President Biden's nominee to
serve as General Counsel to the Department of Health and Human
Services. He has worn a lot of hats in public service.
Currently he serves as General Counsel to the Office of
Management and Budget. From 2009 to 2011, he was Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, and there
he argued cases before the Supreme Court dealing with
protections for pregnant workers and Americans with
disabilities. He is an expert in civil rights law, and he is
currently on leave from his position as the Frank G. Millard
professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. At
Health and Human Services, he will work closely with Secretary
Becerra and his team and provide legal advice on all of the
Department's efforts to make health care more affordable,
strengthen Medicaid, uphold the Medicare guarantee, and ensure
that vulnerable people in our country are protected and cared
for.
Congratulations to all five nominees. We have heard a lot
of comments, from those who have followed these issues over the
years, about each of you, and we look forward to your
testimony.
And, after Senator Crapo makes his opening remarks, I will
have a few routine questions that we ask of all nominees, and
then we will have, I know, a very positive discussion.
Let me recognize my friend, Senator Crapo.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the
appendix.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, as you have
indicated, today we will hear from a panel of nominees who will
influence and implement a broad range of the administration's
priorities.
Dr. Neiman, the United States is the best place in the
world to do business. Not surprisingly, that has drawn foreign
investment, which has benefited our citizens immensely. And I
look forward to hearing your views on how the United States can
remain a prized destination for foreign investment. I fear that
uncontrolled spending, burdensome regulations, and potential
tax increases--including on the middle class--will make America
less competitive and less attractive for foreign investment.
The administration's international tax negotiations are
concerning, given the lack of detailed consultation with
Congress as a whole. I am also concerned about how some of our
overseas rivals are manipulating international organizations
the U.S. helped found, like the World Bank. The U.S. and other
countries established these institutions to promote global
prosperity, not to further parochial interests.
Mr. Frost, I look forward to hearing about your thoughts on
the administration's fiscal policy, the debt ceiling, and
proposed financial market reforms, including the United States
Treasury securities market and the replacement of LIBOR. The
debt limit provides an important check on both the President's
and Congress's policies. And if fiscal decisions that will
influence debt accumulation moving forward are willfully made
by one party alone, then the accompanying obligation to change
the debt limit to accommodate those fiscal choices must also be
made by the party making unilateral choices. Tools and time are
available to unilaterally accomplish such a change in the debt
limit. Along the way, Mr. Frost, I look forward to your
commitment to ensure that Treasury keeps members of this
committee fully and timely informed on the Nation's debt, cash
balances, and debt management.
Turning to LIBOR, while recent administrations, the Federal
Reserve, and market participants have worked successfully to
establish the Secured Overnight Financing Right as an
alternative reference rate, nearly $2 trillion in LIBOR-linked
exposures are expected to remain outstanding after the
termination of LIBOR in June 2023. It is important to
understand how the administration plans to address this looming
challenge.
Ms. Pagan, the World Trade Organization is critical to our
trading interests, but is in need of reform. I look forward to
hearing your views on how to make the institution more
effective.
Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, you will be the first Deputy U.S.
Trade Representative for Innovation and Intellectual Property.
Strong intellectual property protections are critical to
America's economic prosperity, and this is especially true
today. Mr. Wilson, I want to know your priorities for the
position, and how we can combat unfair practices by our global
competitors like theft and forced technology transfers, and how
we can protect intellectual property and private intellectual
property rights. Additionally, the severity of the COVID-19
pandemic has been lessened, thanks to innovations borne out of
the partnership between the American Government and American
industry. It is critical that we not undermine the American
people's ability to respond to future challenges with
intelligence and agility.
Mr. Bagenstos, as the nominee for General Counsel at HHS,
you will have a key role in opining on the legality of new
regulations. I am interested in your perspective on providing
legal opinions to Congress so that we can understand and
discuss policymaking effectively with the administration.
Already, this administration has shown a disturbing tendency to
push through its policy preferences despite clear indications
of the intent of Congress.
Finally, I again emphasize the importance of responsiveness
to this committee. While there have been noteworthy exceptions,
several nominees before this committee have provided late,
incomplete, and evasive responses to questions from the members
of this panel. This makes it harder for the Finance Committee
and its members to work constructively with the administration.
I strongly urge the nominees here today to commit to timely
and thorough communication with this committee. I congratulate
the nominees here before us today, and I look forward to our
discussion with you today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
What we will do now is, we will have the opening
statements, and then we have some obligatory questions that we
have to ask. But let us just proceed to make your complete
statements a part of the record in their entirety, and let us
start with Ms. Pagan.
STATEMENT OF MARIA L. PAGAN, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY UNITED
STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, GENEVA OFFICE, WITH THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Pagan. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo,
members of the committee, good morning. It is an honor to be
here today as the nominee for Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
in Geneva. I am grateful to President Biden for this
nomination, and to Ambassador Tai for her support. I am also
grateful to my family--my parents, my two brothers and their
wives, and my son--for their support, love, and inspiration. My
parents are doctors and dedicated their professional lives to
advancing public health in Puerto Rico. I learned from them the
value of public service and of taking pride in what you do.
They could not be here with me, but I am sure they are
watching. My son could not be here either, as he is a first-
year law student on the west coast, but his support is
enormously important to me.
I come here before you today having spent nearly 30 years
as a civil servant, first at the Department of Commerce, and
for the last 18 years at the USTR, representing our country in
trade negotiations and litigation. I want to underscore
Ambassador Tai's recent speech, where she reaffirmed the United
States' commitment to the WTO. However, there is a growing
recognition that after 25 years, the institution needs to be
reformed in order to be effective and relevant for the next 25
years. If confirmed, it would be an honor to represent the
United States in Geneva at this critical juncture.
Ambassador Tai emphasized the Biden-Harris administration's
belief that trade--and the WTO--can be a force for good, and
she laid out her vision to help the organization reorient its
mission to better serve and advance the interests of regular
people. Taking steps to address the COVID-19 pandemic would be
a good start. It also means finding a way to incorporate the
interests and priorities of workers into the WTO's work.
Ambassador Tai also spoke about the need for dispute
settlement reform to help empower members to secure actual
resolutions and provide confidence that the system is fair.
These challenges are central to the WTO's ability to operate as
it was envisioned at its founding.
I know this will not be easy. As Deputy General Counsel at
USTR, my job is to get things done, and I will bring that can-
do approach and attitude to Geneva. We need to be creative; not
just focus on the areas where we disagree, but find the areas
where we can agree. We need to listen to each other and not
just talk at one another. And we need to listen to voices
outside of Geneva and Washington, DC in order to broaden our
perspectives. It includes working with this committee and
members of Congress. Action, or inaction, at the WTO directly
affects communities, workers, farmers, and small businesses in
your States.
If confirmed, I commit to maintain open lines of
communication with all of you, and represent the interests of
your constituents in Geneva.
As a long-time member of the USTR family, I know I will be
able to count on a fantastic career staff's excellence, hard
work, and creativity. It is reassuring to know they will be
there to support me.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pagan appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Next will be Dr. Neiman.
Excuse us. We are juggling a lot with Build Back Better,
and I apologize.
STATEMENT OF BRENT NEIMAN, Ph.D., NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Neiman. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member
Crapo, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear here before you today as nominee
to be Deputy Under Secretary for International Finance and
Development at the Treasury. I am also deeply grateful to
President Biden and to Secretary Yellen for placing their
confidence in me.
My amazing wife Yael is here, and we are both so proud of
our wonderful kids, our 11-year-old daughter Tal and our 8-
year-old son Lev. My parents, Bill and Gail, have always been
encouraging and are watching from home right now. I am very
appreciative of my entire family's support.
My grandparents are also in my thoughts. My grandmother
Margot, who fled from Germany in 1939 to Decatur, IL, always
encouraged an awareness of world affairs and an understanding
of other people, places, and cultures. My grandfather Julie,
who ran a small manufacturer, hired me for summer jobs and
taught me about entrepreneurship and small business. I am
grateful for what they shared with me and imagine that all four
of my grandparents would be very proud today.
My interest in international economics started early in
high school, when I gave a speech about the ECU--the euro's
predecessor--for the final project of my sophomore year speech
class. My teacher criticized the topic as hopelessly dry, but I
stuck with it. And since then, I have worked as a staff
economist at the Council of Economic Advisers, written a
doctoral dissertation at Harvard, consulted to the IMF, and
presented to central banks all around the world.
For the past 13 years, I've taught a course at the
University of Chicago's Booth School of Business called
``International Financial Policy.'' I hope I have been able to
prove my high school teacher wrong and instill some excitement
about international macroeconomics into the next generation of
leaders.
My research has uniquely prepared me to serve in this
position at this time. I have published papers exploring the
changing international role of the U.S. dollar and analyzing
financial exposures of U.S. investors to emerging market
borrowers. My work has evaluated the impact of exchange rate
movements on productivity during a sudden stop crisis and
measured the price responses of U.S. importers and exporters to
trade policies. I have developed models of how economic
activity transmits across borders and used them to understand
the formation and resolution of external imbalances.
The pandemic has underscored how interconnected the world
economy is. Continuing hardship in foreign countries spurs
foreign families to leave, seeking opportunities elsewhere.
Disruptions in the global supply chain keep our workers waiting
for equipment and our consumers waiting for goods that both
need.
Slow growth abroad restricts markets for American
businesses, large and small. Helping to alleviate suffering and
restore financial and physical health to the rest of the world
is worthy in its own right, but also benefits the U.S. economy
and our national security.
Thank you again for the privilege of appearing here today,
and for your consideration of my nomination. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Neiman appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Next we will have Mr. Frost.
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA FROST, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo,
and members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today. I am honored to be President
Biden's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Financial Markets, and I am grateful to Secretary Yellen for
her confidence in me.
Before proceeding, I would like to take a moment to
acknowledge my family, without whom I would not be sitting here
today: my wife Emily, my daughter Lily, and my brother Andy. I
would also like to thank my parents, Robert and Nikki, who
instilled in me the importance of public service via the
example that they set as dedicated public school teachers.
It was this early example of contributing to the greater
good that led me to begin my career at the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York. I have spent over 23 years at the New York Fed in
a number of roles, and in each of those jobs I saw firsthand
the dedication of this committed group of public servants who
selflessly helped me to develop my understanding of how
different corners of financial markets operate, and how the
financial system can better serve the American people.
If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue
to serve our Nation by supporting the President's and Secretary
Yellen's priorities in leading the Office of Financial Markets.
Among other responsibilities, this office helps formulate
policy on debt management at the Federal, State, and local
levels; serves to assess the capital markets implications of
various policy choices; and serves as the Treasury's eyes and
ears in financial markets. This set of responsibilities aligns
well with my interests and experience, and having spent my
entire career focused on these issues, I look forward to taking
a data-driven, taxpayer-centric approach to policymaking.
Finally, I would note that managing the Nation's debt is an
awesome responsibility, and if confirmed, I would be sure to
ground any debt management decisions in an assessment of what
provides for the lowest cost of funding over time for the
taxpayer. I believe that it is also critical to have a
resilient and well-functioning Treasury market, and I would
look forward to working with other agencies to continue to
ensure that the Treasury market is structured so that it
remains the deepest, most liquid market in the world.
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the
committee, thank you for considering my nomination. If
confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and your
staff, and I appreciate the important oversight role of this
committee. I would be happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frost appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Frost.
Mr. Bagenstos?
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member
Crapo, and members of the committee. I very much appreciate you
considering my nomination to be General Counsel at the
Department of Health and Human Services. I am humbled and
honored by President Biden's decision to nominate me, and I am
excited, if confirmed, to serve under the leadership of
Secretary Xavier Becerra.
I would like to begin by thanking my family for their love
and support. Here with me today is my wife, Margo Schlanger,
who is a terrific and accomplished attorney in her own right.
Watching me remotely are my children, Harry and Leila--who are
twins in their senior year of college--and my mother, Naida
Tushnet--who is nominally retired but works tirelessly to
improve her community every day. I would also like to thank my
supervisors in my former government and current government
positions: Governor Deval Patrick, former Secretary of Labor
Tom Perez, and Acting Director of the OMB Shalanda Young. And I
would like to thank the two great, and now-departed jurists for
whom I clerked, Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, whose memories are a blessing for me.
In the more than 28 years since I graduated law school, my
work has sought to advance the paired principles that should
always inform the application of the law: no person, no matter
how high their position, should be above the law's constraints,
nor should anyone be beneath its protections.
Perhaps no case illustrates those principles better than
that of George Lane. George had paraplegia and was a bit down
on his luck. And when he was accused of a minor criminal
violation, his hearing was held on the second floor of a
courthouse with no elevator. And when he could not make it into
the courtroom because his disability kept him from climbing
stairs, he was arrested for failure to appear in court. I
worked with George to take his case to the Supreme Court, and
with the very welcome help of the President George W. Bush
administration's Solicitor General, we prevailed.
George's case showed that, at its best, the law must be
open and responsive to even the humblest members of the
community. I am very proud to have achieved this result and to
have worked with congressional and administration allies across
partisan divides to build support for George's case.
Should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will
approach the General Counsel role in the same spirit. I will
work to ensure that the actions of the Department conform to
the substantive and procedural requirements that Congress has
established, as well as the fundamental principles and
protections of the Constitution. And I will work to ensure that
the Department advances its critical mission of enhancing the
health and well-being of all Americans.
During the Obama-Biden administration, I was the Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the
Department of Justice. In addition to supervising 200 attorneys
across three sections of the Civil Rights Division, I led the
Department's enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Much of my disability rights work has required me to engage
with State Medicaid programs to defend the rights of people
with disabilities to receive services in their own homes and
communities. I have worked with Governors, Sheriffs, and other
State and local officials across party lines who were committed
to providing quality services to individuals with disabilities.
Through this work, I learned a lot about the particular needs
of different States and regions, including how important tools
such as telehealth can be in serving rural and other
communities without access to specialized providers. And that,
of course, is a lesson that the COVID-19 pandemic has
underscored for all of us yet again.
More than a year into that pandemic, the laws that HHS
administers are essential to the Department's mission and to
the health and well-being of Americans. Should I be confirmed,
I will seek to uphold the law with commitment to equity,
transparency, and accountability.
Thank you again for considering my nomination, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bagenstos appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. I would just note, Mr. Bagenstos, that you
said your children were watching remotely. I will tell you, my
children discussed watching some of our hearings remotely, my
older children, and they just said, ``Seems a little boring,''
but you all have been very interesting.
All right; Mr. Wilson?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON, NOMINATED TO BE CHIEF
INNOVATION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Wilson. Chairman Wyden, Senator Crapo, members of the
committee, good morning.
In 1982, as a college junior, I spent a semester interning
for my distinguished home State Senator, Bob Dole. At the time,
Senator Dole was serving as chairman of this committee. To now
find myself sitting at this table, in this room, is an honor
that is made maybe a little bit more special by virtue of that
personal history. I am honored that President Biden nominated
me to serve as the first-ever Chief Innovation and Intellectual
Property Negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative. And I am grateful to you, Senators, for your
consideration.
I want to acknowledge the many friends and colleagues who
have enriched my career at USTR over the past 2 decades. I have
had great teachers and excellent examples among both my fellow
civil servants and the agency's political leaders over the
years.
I am glad that my husband, Mark Hegedus, is here this
morning, and I am grateful for his love and support. I am also
thinking of my mom and my dad, who passed away earlier this
year.
If confirmed for this position, I would be the first person
to hold the title. To do a job for the first time is both
exciting and a little daunting. Fortunately, Congress has
provided a very clear expectation of what the position is
about, namely to be a, quote, ``vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests,''
end quote. If I am confirmed, those words will be prominently
displayed on my desk at USTR.
I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic
success. This principle has been woven through every position I
have held during my years at USTR. In addition to serving
directly in USTR's IP office from 2006 to 2008, I have worked
on important IP issues in my engagements with trading partners
in Central America, Europe and the Middle East, South and
Central Asia, and in the context of the World Trade
Organization. This work has reinforced my belief that trade
policy must protect American innovation and creative endeavors,
and that rules governing that protection should be effectively
enforced. I look forward to your input--today and going
forward--on how best to advance those objectives.
Senators, one of my early mentors at USTR taught me that,
in any negotiation as well as in the process of policy
development, listening is as important as talking. I intend to
apply that lesson every day that I am in this position. My
experience has taught me that, perhaps more than in many other
areas of trade policy, IP is the subject of strongly held and
often widely divergent views among a broad spectrum of
stakeholders. If confirmed, my door will be open to all, and I
will listen carefully. I assure you that this committee and its
staff would be prominent among those by whom I expect to be
guided.
Ambassador Tai has laid out a worker-centered trade policy
that ensures, as President Biden often says, that our economy
grows from the bottom up and the middle out. If confirmed, I
will always be thinking about how we can defend U.S. innovation
and intellectual property in order to help workers and generate
broad-based, durable prosperity.
Finally, Senators, it will be important to me to ensure
that the relationship between this new Chief Negotiator
function and the dedicated career professionals in USTR's IP
office is placed on a sound, sustainable, and respectful
footing.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning. I look forward to your questions and your advice.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Obviously
you are someone who takes family very seriously, and it is sad
to hear about the loss of both your parents so recently.
We now have some obligatory questions we have to ask of all
of you. First, is there anything you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office to which you have been nominated? We will
start with you, Ms. Pagan.
Ms. Pagan. No.
Dr. Neiman. No.
Mr. Frost. No.
Mr. Bagenstos. No.
Mr. Wilson. No.
The Chairman. Do you know of any reason, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated? Ms. Pagan?
Ms. Pagan. No.
Dr. Neiman. No.
Mr. Frost. No.
Mr. Bagenstos. No.
Mr. Wilson. No.
The Chairman. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond
to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress, if you are confirmed?
Ms. Pagan. Yes.
Dr. Neiman. Yes.
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Mr. Bagenstos. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
The Chairman. Finally, do you commit to provide a prompt
response in writing to any questions addressed to you by any
Senator of the committee?
Ms. Pagan. Yes.
Dr. Neiman. Yes.
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Mr. Bagenstos. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
The Chairman. Very good. We will begin now. I will have
some questions, then Senator Crapo will have some questions.
Ms. Pagan, let me start with you. I have been following the
WTO fishing subsidies negotiations for quite some time. And I
have to tell you, from the perspective of Oregon fishing
families, they are getting ripped off by Chinese fishing
fleets. These families are competing regularly with slave
labor, and they are subsidizing long-
distance Chinese fishing fleets. It is absolutely critical for
the health of the oceans and the survival of the family-owned
businesses, that we crack down on this behavior with strong,
enforceable rules.
What would be your message this morning, Ms. Pagan, to
those fishing families in Oregon that are hurting, that believe
they are just getting exploited by unfair rules? What would be
your message to them about your first action in Geneva to close
out these negotiations in a way that would allow our fishing
families to get a fair shake and have the full fruits of
competition?
Ms. Pagan. Well, thank you for that question. My answer is,
we do want to have an agreement, but we want an agreement that
is effective in cracking down on fish subsidies so we can save
the fish and save the fishers. So, while we want an agreement,
we want an agreement that is high-standard and meaningful. Our
challenge is to make sure that we achieve those rules, but that
we do not also have them riddled with loopholes. The United
States has been playing a leadership role in this negotiation
for a long time and, if confirmed, I will continue to play that
role. And hopefully we can get to an agreement that changes the
status quo and does not just continue the situation the way it
is. And if confirmed, I look forward to working with you on
this.
The Chairman. I appreciate that. I am going to hold the
record open to give you a chance to give a more complete
answer. I am not sure that you are aware that this is something
I feel very strongly about, and our trading opponents on these
issues have been playing stall-ball on fairness in fishing for
too long, and I am just committed to getting a change. And the
Ambassador, to her credit, has been candid with me. So, we will
hold the record open for, I will say 72 hours for a more
complete answer on that. Okay?
Ms. Pagan. Thank you.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. Bagenstos, let us talk about mental health. Mental
health is one of the aspects of the pandemic that saw the most
dramatic changes. The number of claims is now in the
stratosphere, and we see folks who suffered new mental health
challenges due to isolation. Families were stressed. There were
challenges of distance learning.
Senator Crapo and I are working in a bipartisan way to try
to respond to this. But I want to ask you specifically, as a
lawyer--my brother was a schizophrenic, and every night the
Wydens went to bed at night realizing he might be on the
street, and he could hurt himself or somebody else. So the day
when we got the bipartisan parity law in place, I said, ``This
means new hope for Jeff Wyden and millions of others.''
But I am concered that the legal right to parity, parity
for access to mental health services, parity between mental
health and physical health, is honored as much in the breach as
it is in the observance. And I would like to hear, what
specifically are you going to do to get tough with these
insurance companies that, in my view, are not really complying
with that tough law for parity between mental health and
physical health?
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for that question.
It is, as you know, an area I have worked in quite a lot in the
past, and I very much appreciate your leadership on mental
health issues. Mental health parity is, as you say, Senator,
something that is in the law, but we have great concerns about
ensuring that the law is actually complied with. One of the
issues, of course, is the fragmentation of the enforcement of
mental health parity across different agencies of the Federal
Government, not just HHS but also Labor, also Treasury--and not
just the Federal Government, but also the States, because of
the way we structure our regulation of insurance in the United
States.
I can commit, if confirmed, to doing whatever I can to
ensure that the laws are fully enforced and complied with, and
working with you and this committee if there are additional
tools that are necessary.
The Chairman. You know, this is another area where I am
going to want to see more specifics. The question of our
economics and our health policy are both important to me. So
within the next 72 hours, I would like to see more specifics.
This is so outrageous. You may have heard, at the Oregon
Health Sciences Center they could not get their bills paid for
mental health services. And then we said we were going to open
an investigation in an article in the newspaper, and suddenly
all the bills were paid. That is not parity policy for America.
So I would like to have, within 72 hours, what, again in more
detail, you all are going to actually do to make sure that we
are able to carry out a real parity policy, not just one that
is in name only.
One last question, if I could, very quickly for Chris
Wilson. On this issue of balancing innovation and protecting
lives, our hearts say we need to get lifesaving technology out
as fast as possible, while our heads caution the need to
protect important innovations. How do you strike the balance?
Mr. Wilson. Chairman Wyden, I think you have put your
finger on what is, and has been for 20 years or more, the great
challenge of intellectual property trade policy. There is this
tension between the need to reward innovation through
intellectual property, and the equally important objective of
being able to ensure access to the products of that innovation.
It is a struggle. It has been a struggle for as long as I
have worked on these issues at USTR. I expect it to continue to
be a struggle. We have to keep at it to try to get the balance
right. And if confirmed, I would work very closely with you and
others on the committee to make sure that we are getting as
close to that balance line as we can.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I go to
questions, I wanted to just note that Senator Wyden and I have
worked together on a lot of issues on a bipartisan basis, and
we have had a lot of big successes. He mentioned the mental
health issue in his questions. But you did not even realize
this, because we have not talked about it, Senator Wyden, but
you just raised in your first question to Ms. Pagan another
important issue that I think we can work on together, and that
is, the Chinese fishing fleets. Idaho is not a coastal State,
but we are as concerned about this as is Oregon and are the
rest of Americans and, frankly, Washington.
The Chairman. You bet.
Senator Crapo. But you know, this goes beyond just the
United States. The Chinese fishing fleets are aggressively
damaging fisheries around the globe and creating, not only
damage economically, but they are also creating damage to some
of the great traders in our oceans. And I think it is really
important for us to focus on that. So again, this is not an
issue that I realized would be in my questions, but I
appreciate your good questions on that, Senator Wyden.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Let me go to Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost, this
summer the Congressional Budget Office estimated that under
baseline spending projections, by 2031 the national debt held
by the public would go to $35.8 trillion, over 106.4 percent of
GDP. Net interest would grow to $910 billion, more than 2.6
times what it was in 2020, and would account for 11.6 percent
of Federal outlays. Relatively minor increases of interest
rates will force our interest obligations even higher, choking
off fiscal space necessary for domestic programs that help
American families.
How much debt can the United States incur before that
affects the Federal Government's ability to borrow affordably
while still providing for essential services and our Nation's
security?
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Ranking Member Crapo. So you are
raising an important issue. The level of debt is critically
important. I would note, in the role to which I have been
nominated, my principal responsibilities would be to manage the
Nation's debt in a prudent fashion, overseeing the team that
keeps the government running and keeps the government funded.
Much of the recent run-up in the debt and the deficit has
been the result of helping the Nation weather the shock posed
from the recent pandemic. And I would flag that decisions on
the level of debt are ultimately left to Congress. The level of
spending and the level of taxation ultimately, it is that
leftover that needs to be funded, and that is what my role
would be, to ensure that the amount that needs to get funded is
funded in the most efficient manner.
If I could talk just for a moment about what financial
markets are telling us about the issue you have raised?
Senator Crapo. Yes.
Mr. Frost. Debt service costs, as you flagged, are at
historically low levels now. If I look at what the yield curve
is telling us, it is at historically low levels and it is quite
flat, which would tell me that financial markets are not
immediately focused on the issue that you are raising. It is
not that it is not a critically important issue, but it is not
showing through in asset prices today.
Finally, I would note that the administration's plans are
intended to bring down the level of debt to GDP in the longer
run, while still, in response to the pandemic, there would
likely be a modest increase in the medium term.
Senator Crapo. Well, let me follow up on that. How would
your answer to the question be affected by literally trillions
of dollars of new and permanent spending? Or do you believe the
rhetoric that the reckless fiscal plans being considered for
reconciliation have zero cost? Do you accept that there is zero
cost to the spending proposals before Congress right now?
Mr. Frost. So, Senator, I do not think anything has zero
cost. I think it is about managing risks and tradeoffs. And so,
I still think we are in a place where we are thinking about how
best to respond to the pandemic and, from the additional plan,
how best to position the economy for growth going forward.
As I mentioned, I think the projections are that this will
ultimately result in a lower debt burden in the future if we
take care of the issues today, and have a strong potential for
growth in the future.
Senator Crapo. Well, I appreciate your acknowledgment about
the issue of zero cost.
Dr. Neiman, to you: this year the administration is
contemplating massive increases in taxes and spending through
reconciliation. While the size and indeed the contents of this
fiscal agenda are still unclear, I am concerned about the
possibility that they will exacerbate inflation trends, which
even former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has described as
disturbing.
What risks do higher domestic taxes and substantial
inflation pose to the reputation of the United States as a good
destination for foreign investment?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Crapo. When thinking about the destination of the United States
for investment, the same things presumably that make it a
better destination for foreign investment make it a better
place to do domestic investment. And it is of course very
important that we take steps to make it as productive as
possible to invest capital here, regardless of who is doing the
investment.
And you know of course, taxes are one element of the
calculation. On the other side, balancing out the effect of
taxes, of course, are things like the quality of our
infrastructure, the investments that we make in our workforce.
Are we the best place to build businesses? Are we the best
place to hire people?
And so you know, there is obviously a tradeoff. As you
raise taxes, the question is, are you raising them in a way
that then contributes to the productivity of the workforce,
that makes the country's infrastructure better, and that
invites investment, whether it is domestic-sourced or foreign-
sourced?
And so, thinking about that balance is, I think, very
important, and hopefully, we are going to get it right.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you.
And just one more really quick question, again for you, Mr.
Frost.
I commend the efforts by recent administrations, the
Federal Reserve, and the market participants to plan for the
elimination of LIBOR. Despite these best efforts, there remains
$2 trillion of LIBOR-linked exposure that market observers
believe will remain outstanding after June 2023. Treasury
Secretary Yellen and Fed Chair Powell have stated their belief
that a Federal legislative solution is necessary to transition
those exposures from LIBOR to SOFR. How do you believe the
administration should address this challenge? And is
legislation the answer? And, if that is what you believe, do
you think that something like the S.B. 297B law passed by New
York this year is a model we should look at?
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Ranking Member. You are raising
another critically important issue to me. I have spent a good
deal of my career focused on the transition from LIBOR. One
conclusion I have come to is, it is costly. And this is
something you want to do once, and you want to do it right, and
we would not want to see a move to a rate that has the same
underlying flaws and vulnerabilities that LIBOR had.
While I would not want to comment on specific legislation,
I do think that a legislative fix is likely going to be needed
here for these so-called tough legacy contracts where there is
no clear fallback, or an otherwise unworkable fallback in
language.
Senator Crapo. We will hear from you on this as we move
forward.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Congratulations to all the
nominees.
Ms. Pagan, once I heard then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown
say he was Secretary of all of Commerce, but if he was getting
a call from a member of Congress, he guaranteed it was about
fish. And that just shows you here how important fisheries are
to all our States, to the United States, and now to the globe.
Why? Because we see warmer climates affecting fisheries. We see
the Arctic being opened and probably claims to fisheries. We
have our history about illegal fishing in our waters and
setting up those boundaries. So I hope that you will be very
serious about keeping your foot on these negotiations. And a
growing world is looking for more protein sources, and people
are looking at fisheries.
So, we have good fisheries management in the United States.
I would hope that that would be something in the debate, that
sustainable fisheries should be part of the requirements in
trying to create more of a market. And I believe we should be
in the business of exporting what those sustainable fisheries
practices look like, because we are, at least in parts of our
country, very good at it and very successful. So I may submit
something for the record for you.
Mr. Frost, you are going to be in the office overseeing the
capital markets. And one of the issues is housing policy. And I
am very interested. Our committee here has done great work on
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, but we still have a
tremendous way to go. We have 7 million units that we need to
have built, and over 10 million people who live in rent-
burdened conditions. Fifty percent of their income is spent on
rent. We have just not kept pace with supply.
So I want to make sure that the administration, now that we
are talking about proposals here--they are doing a lot to put
vouchers into people's hands. I appreciate that. The grants or
programs that help individuals--even with the HOME grant
program that the administration is pushing, 53 percent of those
get built with the affordable housing tax credit. It is a
partnership between the HOME grant program and LIHTC.
So, if you do not increase LIHTC, you are not going to be
increasing the supply of affordable housing. So I just want to
hear from you that you believe that we need a robust response
here, and that you are going to work within the administration
to try to get that.
Mr. Frost. Absolutely, Senator. The supply of affordable
housing is a key issue now, as you flagged. LIHTC is a
principal venue by which affordable housing supply is created.
There is no magic-bullet solution here. I wish there was. I
wish there was a simple resolution. As you said, things that
focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing, targeted
programs that help with down payment supports and help folks
build wealth more quickly, are all critical to the success----
Senator Cantwell. But if we just did those, and we did not
do the supply side, that would be a problem. Correct?
Mr. Frost. I completely agree.
Senator Cantwell. That is the point I am trying to get out,
particularly today, that this is the debate in front of us;
that you can spend a lot of money on those issues, but if you
are not increasing supply, then you are not going to have a
place for these individuals to go.
And so we have to make sure that we are putting in a solid
number. We proposed, in a bipartisan fashion with our
colleagues here--Senator Young, Senator Portman--$29 billion in
the affordable housing tax credit--well, a proposal to increase
it by 50 percent. So there is good bipartisan support, and the
reason is, people know how unique the program is; that you can
do lots of different things within your own States and
jurisdictions. I mean, you can build something just for
veterans. You can build something just for a workforce. You can
do all sorts of things. So the flexibility of it is pretty
supported. And frankly, I just hope we put this money there
right now that is needed.
So, Mr. Wilson, I just want you and Ms. Pagan, on the
innovation side--you know, we worked hard to give USTR the
resources of more lawyers so we can dispute our claims
internationally, and obviously build capacity internationally
for those countries that do not have quite the same capacity we
do to judge these cases.
But on this issue of technology, don't we need to be, first
of all, getting the world community behind us on these
telecommunications issues, that the only way you are going to
have acceptable frameworks is if you have a rule of law. If you
basically have a court system and a government that does not
own the technology, or has a back door to it, don't we need to
speak loudly on this point, Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. Thanks, Senator Cantwell. I agree completely
with you. I think that capacity building and emphasis on
respect for the rule of law has to be a critical part of our
promotion of innovation through trade policy generally, and
specifically in the areas of emerging technology. And I look
forward to working with you on it.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
Next is Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. My first question would be to Mr.
Bagenstos in regard to the 340B program. Listen while I lead
into the question. Many Iowa hospitals and pharmacists have
talked to me about the 340B program, how these drug companies
are harming access to it. The 340B drug program is an important
program to keep drug costs low and maintain access for
patients. Iowa pharmacists and hospitals have communicated to
me the administrative burdens that the drug companies have
placed on the 340B program. Last year I pressed the Trump
administration to do something. They put out some advisories
that were withdrawn. The administration has written to at least
six companies about what they have to do, and they have not
heard back from the companies.
The IG is investigating this. While the Biden
administration has taken a different approach from the Trump
administration--I want you to know that I appreciate the
efforts of the Biden administration. However, timely resolution
is needed or this will have financial impact on hospitals and
pharmacies, and could even hurt patient access. So I want more
transparency in the 340B program. The status quo is not
sustainable. So, if confirmed, what additional steps could HHS
take to protect the program? I hope that HHS has all the tools
they need. And if not, do you have recommendations for Congress
to act?
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator Grassley, for that
question. The 340B program is an incredibly important safety
net program to ensure that folks in rural areas and other
underserved areas have access to affordable prescription drugs.
It matters a lot to me personally. My father actually was from
a very small town in rural Iowa--my late father, who died about
10 years ago. He was from a small town called Holstein in
northwest Iowa, where I am sure you have been. So I take this
matter very seriously and personally.
I can tell you, in this administration the drug companies
that have not been complying with 340B requirements to work
with contract pharmacies, as you said, Senator, have been
referred for enforcement. One of the important jobs of the
General Counsel, should I be confirmed for this position, will
be to ensure that those enforcement actions proceed as
effectively as they can. There is also quite a lot of other
litigation involving 340B which as General Counsel, should I be
confirmed, I will be required to address. I think it is
exceptionally important that this administration confirm its
commitment to the 340B program. And, Senator, if there are
additional tools that are necessary, I can commit to working
with you on what those tools might be.
Senator Grassley. I assume you grew up in Ida Grove or
Holstein?
Mr. Bagenstos. So, I grew up--I was born in St. Louis, MO,
actually. So the big city, by comparison.
Senator Grassley. Okay.
Now, Mr. Frost, some economists and politicians have
contended that due to the historically low interest rates, we
should not worry about financing new spending. Some even claim
that it would be foolish not to spend more money, and not to
worry about it. However, with our national debt now exceeding
the entire size of our economy, even small increases in the
interest rates would mean trillions of dollars more spent to
service that debt.
Given the sensitivity of our debt to future interest rate
increases, do you agree it would be fiscally foolish to run up
our national debt, betting on a wing and a prayer that interest
rates would remain historically low?
Mr. Frost. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, in the
role that I have been nominated for, my fiscal responsibilities
will be to ensure that for any given level of debt, that that
is funded in the most efficient manner possible. If I look at
what signal we are getting here from financial markets about
what concern is out there about the level of debt and the
prospective future level of debt, there is not a lot coming
through at this point.
The yield curve--or in other words, the levels of interest
rates to borrow for a shorter term or for a longer term, are
both quite low. The yield curve is also quite flat, suggesting
that the markets are not terribly concerned by an increase in
interest rates in the intermediate to longer term.
I believe that if the plans that are being proposed are
adopted, I think the administration's proposals would likely
result in a modest uptick in the level of debt to GDP over the
medium term, but bring it down in the longer run.
The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
Next is Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Pagan, is human trafficking a violation of the USMCA?
Ms. Pagan. Senator Menendez, thank you for that question. I
am going to have to think about that. Honestly, I wasn't
prepared for that question.
Senator Menendez. Okay. Well, from my perspective, it is.
And the question, what I would ask you, as you are reviewing
that, is I would like to get your commitment that if human
trafficking in general is a violation of the USMCA, which I
believe it is, then I would like your commitment to look at
what is happening in Mexico with Cuban doctors who are being
trafficked. They are sent there by the Cuban regime. Their
passports are taken away. The payment for their services is
sent to the Cuban regime. They get a subsistence wage. That is
trafficking.
And so I would like a commitment from you that you will
review it and get back to me upon your confirmation.
Ms. Pagan. Yes, you have my commitment that we will look at
the issue; thank you. And if there is any more information that
we can get from you----
Senator Menendez. We have tons, so I am happy to give it
all to the department.
Ms. Pagan. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. And I know that Ambassador Tai is going
to be with the committee later today, so we will raise it with
her as well.
Mr. Neiman, if confirmed you will be responsible for U.S.
actions at the international financial institutions. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, which I chair, has considerable
oversight over these institutions. So I want to explore one or
two items with you in that regard.
As part of our efforts to counter and compete with China
globally, the Senate passed my legislation authorizing a tenth
general capital increase for the Inter-American Development
Bank as part of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act.
During the pandemic, countries in the hemisphere suffered
the greatest economic contraction of any region in the world.
Add to that the enduring challenges of poverty and inequality,
massive migration flows, the damages caused by natural
disasters, and we are seeing a region facing widespread
difficulties. It matters to us not only in being a good
neighbor but when we see migration flows coming to the United
States in bulk. It is because of the uncertainty these
countries are facing, not to mention that China is all over the
hemisphere in terms of its debt trap diplomacy.
So, if we are serious about addressing these challenges, we
need the IDB to have robust resources, and a tenth general
capital increase is part of that process. If confirmed, do you
commit to working with me and other congressional stakeholders
to ensure that the IDB has the resources to address challenges
in our hemisphere and to advance a tenth general capital
increase for the bank?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And if I
could start--thank you for your leadership and work on issues
in that region, in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is
the focus of the IDB. That is a region that is also of personal
importance to me. My wife, for example, was born in South
America. It is also a region, as you noted, that has been
particularly hard hit during the recent pandemic, something
that oftentimes is not fully appreciated. And of course, it is
a neighboring region.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. Does that mean, yes,
you are going to go to work with me to get to where we need to
be?
Dr. Neiman. It does mean--thank you, Senator--it does mean
that, of course, it would be a very important area and set of
issues for me. And if confirmed, I would absolutely fully
engage with you and your staff on all those issues.
I understand that Treasury, together with IDB management
and stakeholders, is evaluating opportunities for development
financing in the region, understanding the current portfolio
and limitations of development funding.
Senator Menendez. What I would hope is that you would
commit to working with Congress to put in place a policy
framework for the IDB's tenth capital increase that addresses
U.S. priorities, including democratic governance, climate
issues, and the need to counter Chinas predatory economic
practices in the region. Can I get you to agree at least to
that?
Dr. Neiman. I absolutely will, if confirmed, commit to work
with you on those issues.
Senator Menendez. Now, one other question, in the 45
seconds I have. I have a real challenge with what is happening
at the IMF, and the--oh, I should say, the World Bank and the
IMF--with Kristalina Georgieva, who currently serves as the
Managing Director of the IMF. She was involved in pressuring
staff to make specific changes to China's 2018 score in the
World Bank's annual Doing Business report in an effort to
increase their ranking.
That is incredibly disturbing. It damages the integrity and
reputation of the World Bank and the IMF, and confirms the
growing trend of the international financial institutions
bowing to Chinese pressure. The ranking member and I both wrote
to the Biden administration calling for full transparency and
accountability at the World Bank, the IMF, and with Ms.
Georgieva.
Can you tell me that you will work to provide that
transparency?
Dr. Nieman. Senator, if confirmed, I commit to support
Treasury's efforts to get the IMF to renew their commitment to
data transparency and other measures like whistleblower
protections that would safeguard the integrity of the
international financial institutions.
Senator Menendez. She has lost my confidence, and I want to
see how she actually can operate under these circumstances.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez. I believe we
have Senator Carper on the web, and then Senator Carper would
be followed by Senator Cassidy, who is here.
Senator Carper, are you out there in cyberspace?
Senator Carper. Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning. Can you hear me?
The Chairman. Good morning.
Senator Carper. To our nominees, congratulations on your
nominations. Thank you for appearing today, and for all your
families across the world who are listening as well.
I would like to start off with a question, if I could, for
Ms. Pagan dealing with the WTO reform. I always thought it was
imperfect, and we ought to work to make it better. And there
has been a great deal of conversation, really on both sides of
the aisle and across the globe, about the need for reforms in
the WTO. And we know that the WTO has an important role to play
in combating unfair trade practices that persist in nonmarket
economies like China. Unfortunately, the organization continues
to face challenges with its dispute settlement system,
including the lack of quorum on the Appellate Board, a body
that has weakened the WTO's enforcements.
My question is this, Ms. Pagan. In your opinion, what
strategy should our country take, the U.S. take, to reforming
the WTO and addressing the inoperability of the WTO's Appellate
Body? Please, go right ahead.
Ms. Pagan. Thank you, Senator Carper.
The good thing is that we all agree. I think there is
consensus that the WTO and the Appellate Body need to be
reformed. I guess, on the other hand, we all have different
views of what ``reform'' means, and particularly with respect
to the Appellate Body.
What we want--and if confirmed, what I will work hard to
do--is to have conversations so that we can restore the
Appellate Body and restore the system to what we thought we had
agreed to. We never intended the Appellate Body to be a rule-
making body. We believe that rules have to be enforced, but it
has to be the rules as they were negotiated and agreed to by
the members.
So, we need to--the USTR has been having this conversation,
and we will continue to have this conversation, and I suspect I
will spend a lot of time having conversations with our
counterparts at the WTO to make sure that we can restore the
Appellate Body and the system to the way that we envisioned it
at the beginning. I do not think it is going to be an easy
conversation, but it is something that I look forward to doing
while I am there.
Senator Carper. All right; thanks, Ms. Pagan.
My second question would be for Dr. Neiman, Mr. Wilson, and
also for you, Ms. Pagan--for each of you. But let us start off
with Dr. Neiman.
I want to begin by again thanking you for joining us and
for your willingness to serve our country. These are important
roles. We know that and appreciate it. But one of the biggest
questions facing our country, I think facing our planet, is how
to work collectively to address our shared problems. And you
may have heard the old African proverb, ``If you want to go
fast, travel alone; if you want to go far, travel together.''
And goals like tackling climate change, tackling this pandemic,
and expanding economic prosperity require global cooperation.
Unfortunately, the previous administration all too often turned
away from multilateral engagement, and ultimately ceded U.S.
leadership on the global stage in a number of instances.
So here is my question, starting with Dr. Neiman. Should
you be confirmed, you will represent the U.S. before
international organizations, and within multilateral
negotiations. How do you view your role within the broader
effort to rebuild U.S. leadership on the global stage? Dr.
Neiman, would you lead us off, please, and then Mr. Wilson, and
then Ms. Pagan. Thank you.
Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator, for your question. The role
for which I have been nominated I view as playing a key role in
Treasury's macroeconomic engagement with the rest of the world,
whether bilaterally, country by country, or through
multilateral institutions like the international financial
institutions, the G7, the G20. And I am very supportive of the
President's goal of restoring America's global standing and
leadership in these institutions.
One good example I think that you mentioned in your
question is our efforts, including for example, with the
multilateral development banks, to encourage decarbonization
efforts, since that is a good example of a problem that, of
course, only really has a global solution. So that is an
example of one way in which I would think about your question.
And if confirmed, Senator, I would be happy to work with you
and your staff and hear about other ideas you have on asserting
U.S. leadership in these organizations.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Neiman.
Mr. Wilson, please: the same question.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Carper. I have been
privileged during my years at USTR to serve in a couple of
roles that have been diplomatic in character. I worked as a
diplomat representing USTR in Brussels, and then more recently
at the WTO in Geneva.
I am a believer in diplomacy, and I am a very strong
believer in the power of building personal relationships to be
able to advance policy objectives. And if confirmed, I look
forward to applying those skills to the task of rebuilding U.S.
leadership. Thanks.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, do I have
a few seconds for Ms. Pagan to briefly respond?
The Chairman. Sure. Sure.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Ms. Pagan, just briefly, please.
Ms. Pagan. Thank you. As Ambassador Tai recently said, the
United States is committed to the WTO. If confirmed, it
certainly would be an honor for me to represent the United
States there. There are a lot of challenges, like climate
change and many other things, that need to be collectively
addressed, and I will do my best to represent the U.S.
interests at the WTO.
Senator Carper. All right; thanks for those responses. And
thanks for your answers here. Good luck.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Cassidy?
Senator Cassidy. Mr. Bagenstos, I am a gastroenterologist.
You are a learned law school professor. It is with trepidation
that I shall engage in this conversation, okay?
My colleagues and I worked about 2\1/2\ years to pass no
surprise billings legislation. And we finally got, on a
bipartisan, bicameral basis last year, signed into law, the No
Surprises Act. And through that, through these 2\1/2\ years, we
debated many approaches. And we got all the stakeholders
together, and we finally--and among these approaches were a
straight benchmark payment, an independent dispute resolution
process with the median in-network as the primary factor, and
finally a more open and robust independent dispute resolution
framework directing the arbiter to consider a variety of
factors. That was ultimately what got the stakeholders, both
parties, and both committees together. Okay? That is the
prologue, if you will.
And so, now I apologize for the legalese, but you will
immediately get this, and if I lose those who are not
attorneys, I apologize, but this is important. This is how it
is read: ``In determining which offer is the payment to be
applied pursuant to this paragraph, the certified independent
dispute resolution entity with respect to the determination for
a qualified IDR item or service shall consider: the qualifying
payment amounts, or QPA, also known as the median in-network
rate, and subject to subparagraph D, information on any
circumstance described in clause II, such information as
requested in subparagraph B, roman numeral two, and any
additional information provided in subparagraph B, roman
numeral two.''
What is in clause II? I will read some of it. ``The
provider's training and experience, the patient's acuity and
complexity, the demonstration of good faith efforts or lack
thereof to enter into a network contract.'' I could go on.
Clearly it is an ``and.'' You shall consider the median in-
network rate ``and this.'' Now this is how the interim rule
reads, and imagine the steam coming out of my ears:
``Accordingly, the certified IDR entity must begin with the
presumption that the QPA, the Qualified Payment Amount, is the
appropriate out-of-network rate for the qualified independent
resolution item or service under consideration.''
It goes on to say: ``The certified IDR entity must select
the offer closest to the QPA,'' et cetera. Now I am a
gastroenterologist, but when I read that--intuitively I
understand that the statute states that the arbiter shall
consider the qualified payment along with everything else, and
this interim rule states the arbiter shall presume that the QPA
is correct, leaving out the reference to the other items in the
other paragraph, in direct opposition of a plain reading of the
text.
Do you think it is right that HHS has rewritten a law that
it took 2\1/2\ years for Congress to come to, balancing the
needs of various stakeholders, and now it seems as if one
stakeholder has gotten their wishes? Is that a correct thing
for HHS to do?
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And I
will say, I hesitate, because it is clear that you are perhaps
a better lawyer than me, but certainly a better lawyer than I
am a gastroenterologist. [Laughter.]
And what I--I would say a couple of things. I mean, the No
Surprises Act is an incredibly important piece of legislation
that was agreed to on, as you say, a bipartisan basis. I think
that is very important. It is a compromise.
The Department of HHS, as well as the Department of Labor,
the Department of the Treasury, OPM, have under that statute
been required to act under a very aggressive timeline set by
Congress to put out interim final rules to implement the
statute by the deadline of January. One very important aspect
of these interim final rules is, they are interim final rules
with a request for public comment----
Senator Cassidy. Now I am told, though, that that is almost
like, this is going to be it. Yes, you are going to get public
comment, but this is a ship with inertia pushing it, and it is
not going to be stopped by somebody saying, ``Hey, wait a
second, you are not going the way the law actually reads.''
So, I say that just to challenge, because again if I
thought it would make a difference, I would be less frustrated.
And here it seems that it is not going to make a difference; it
is merely a show.
Mr. Bagenstos. Well, Senator, I can assure you that, should
I be confirmed as General Counsel, we will take extremely
seriously the comments that are filed for these interim final
rules----
Senator Cassidy. Can I ask, though, really quickly, since
you will be a counsel, is there a difference between ``shall
consider'' and ``shall presume''? Because the interim final
rule says ``shall presume,'' and the way we wrote it was
``shall consider.''
Mr. Bagenstos. Senator, so that is, I think, one of the
very important kind of interpretive questions that the interim
final rule does address by saying that the other factors should
be considered as well. But I understand your point, Senator,
and I think----
Senator Cassidy. In all seriousness, I am saying this not
as a ``gotcha,'' because I do not know. You are the professor.
Is there a difference between ``shall consider'' and ``shall
presume''?
Mr. Bagenstos. So I think, in the context of a presumption,
you would necessarily consider other factors, unless--unless it
is a conclusive presumption, which it is not in this rule. But
I think the important point, Senator, that I would like to make
to you is that I would commit that, should I be confirmed to
this position, we will definitely take a look at this as the
comments come in and take very seriously the arguments that are
made about whether this is consistent with the statute.
Senator Cassidy. And therefore, because there seems to be
an equivalency between the two phrases in your mind, could I
just ask that you would change ``shall presume'' to ``shall
consider''?
Mr. Bagenstos. So, as I say, Senator, I would very much
commit to considering any of the comments that come in----
The Chairman. We are going to have to move on. I thank
Senator Cassidy.
The next two will be Senator Whitehouse, and then Senator
Lankford.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Let me start with Ms. Pagan. There are two issues we have
been working on that involve the World Trade Organization. One
is pirate fishing, and in particular the use of forced labor,
in fact slavery, in pirate fishing. This matters a lot to
American fisheries because it is really hard to compete with
foreign fishermen who use slavery to their advantage. And the
second is ocean plastics. We are headed for a world in which,
by 2050, there will be more ocean plastic waste than there are
living ocean fish, if we do not get around this.
Could you let me know where those two issues will fall in
your priorities?
Ms. Pagan. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
On forced labor and fisheries, as you probably know, the
United States has made a proposal for the fish subsidies
negotiations that we obviously continue to push and we hope
will be part of the final outcome. So that is one way of trying
to get at that issue, which is very important. And it is
definitely tied to the issue of illegal fishing and harmful
subsidies that we are trying to curb through the agreement. So
that is certainly a priority for us.
On ocean plastics, I know this is another issue that is
very important to you. I believe there are various--or at least
one stream of work that is going on at the WTO on this issue,
and related issues. And so, if confirmed, I will definitely
work on this and continue to advance these issues in the WTO,
and hope to work with you and your office on this issue.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. This was a very strong
bipartisan issue in the Senate. Senator Sullivan of Alaska did
really terrific work as my main compadre on this. The previous
President, Secretary of State, and Trade Representative
actually all talked a good game on this issue, but once it got
down into the weeds we always collapsed and were outed in the
world press as being the country that was holding back progress
on ocean plastics.
So, something needs to be fixed in the weeds where you will
be, and I hope you will help fix it.
Ms. Pagan. If confirmed, I commit to working with you on
this issue.
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Neiman, the Pandora Papers have
shed new light on the role of kleptocracy and corruption. The
President, I think, has correctly defined kleptocracy and
corruption as national security hazards for America. How do you
propose to prioritize anti-kleptocracy efforts in your proposed
role?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is, of
course, a very important issue. Anti-corruption is a real
priority for the Biden administration. And in my role, one way
in which I could make progress against this priority is via the
international financial institutions. And so, I would commit to
work with the executive directors, for example, of the MDBs, to
promote good governance reforms, anticorruption efforts in the
lending programs around issues like debt transparency, revenue
administration, public contracting. There also are instances
and reasons that we would want to be vigilant about making sure
there is no corruption within the international financial
institutions, and I would also keep an eye toward those issues.
Senator Whitehouse. So you view this as a national security
issue?
Dr. Neiman. Absolutely. It is a matter of projecting our
values to the world. I agree, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. And stopping the subsidy and the aiding
and abetting of our enemies?
Dr. Neiman. I agree, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Frost, anti-money laundering
requirements are really no more effective than money
launderers' ability to get around them. Our banking
institutions operate under robust anti-money laundering rules.
But if you move over into private equity firms, hedge funds,
venture capital firms, and other entities, the same rules do
not apply. So it becomes super easy for somebody who wants to
launder money to simply go through another gate.
If we really want to fight money laundering, we actually
have to make sure it does not get through the various gates, as
opposed to just closing one gate and leaving other gates wide
open.
If you are confirmed, what do you intend to do about anti-
money laundering requirements for private equity hedge funds
and venture capital?
Mr. Frost. Thank you for the question, Senator. I would
like to maybe start by acknowledging your leadership in this
area on anti-money laundering, and more generally on shining a
light on abuses of our financial system.
For financial markets to work and perform well, they need
to be transparent. And investors need to have confidence that
they are not being manipulated. If confirmed, I would be happy
to work with you and your staff, and with other offices of the
Treasury, including the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence, to ensure that AML obligations are being met, and
that there is a level and fair playing field.
Senator Whitehouse. Is there nothing that you could do by
regulation?
Mr. Frost. That is something, if confirmed, I would be
happy to work with you and your staff----
Senator Whitehouse. The reason you would be working with me
and my staff is to do legislative stuff. You do not need to
work with me and my staff to do regulatory stuff. You can do
regulatory stuff. Is there not regulatory stuff that you could
do?
Mr. Frost. Well, Senator, I would need to circle up with
the relevant offices at Treasury that are a little bit more
focused on these issues, but I would be happy to engage with
them.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
We will have Senator Lankford, and then we will have
Senator Warren.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I am slightly frustrated by just the diversity of opinions
here, Mr. Chairman. At some point I would like to be able to
have more time, because we have such a wide variety of
different folks who are here, but thanks to you all for your
service and for being here in the process.
Let me run quickly through several questions on this. Mr.
Wilson, let me first start with you in this. In dealing with
the role you have in protecting intellectual property and its
unique task on this, the Biden administration so far, one of
the leading features they have had on intellectual property was
trying to be able to give away intellectual property dealing
with the TRIPS waiver. Obviously multiple entities have pushed
back on that. Other countries are saying, ``Yes, release
intellectual property. We will try to figure out how to be able
to manufacture this.''
What would be your role in trying to be able to protect
intellectual property of all American companies?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Lankford. As I mentioned in
my opening statement, I think the law that creates this
position gives me a very clear direction to be a vigorous
advocate for U.S. intellectual property and innovation and is
the core of the function. And I take that to heart and would
follow that guidance, if confirmed.
It is useful for me to have your perspective on the TRIPS
waiver issue. As somebody inside the walls of USTR but not yet
confirmed to this position, I have taken care to remove myself
from active policy deliberations on that issue. But if I am
confirmed, obviously I will prioritize getting up to speed on
that issue and the state of play in Geneva, and I will be happy
to come back to you.
Senator Lankford. There are quite a few other areas of
research, and if we get into a point where we say, you know
what, the whole world needs this, so let's just release this
intellectual property, then we are going to have a cascading
effect on other intellectual property. Finding ways to
accelerate its usefulness and its accessibility is very
different than just ``that is a great invention you had, and we
are going to take it away from you.'' That does not encourage
innovation in the days ahead. So we will count on your
leadership to protect that, both in China and what they
actively do, but around the world as well.
Dr. Neiman, let me ask you about this, about Afghanistan in
particular. There are $9.5 billion that have been set aside and
frozen out from the Taliban government at this point. Do you
see a need to be able to unfreeze that $9.5 billion and release
it to the Taliban?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you for your question, Senator Lankford.
The situation in Afghanistan is, of course, really terrible,
and my heart goes out to the Afghan people. There is a real
humanitarian crisis there, and we should do all that we can to
try to help the Afghan people, for example working with our
partners in the UN and trying to get funding to people on the
ground.
At this point, without having that funding flow through the
Taliban, right now my understanding is that the U.S. Government
is taking a strategic pause, or a pause in not granting access
to those reserves to the Taliban while the international
community waits and sees how they respond to our concerns on
treatment of women, treatment of girls, and I do find that
appropriate at this point.
Senator Lankford. It would be entirely appropriate,
actually. Would you favor special drawing rights of the
International Monetary Fund if they actually get to the
Taliban?
Dr. Neiman. I similarly, at this stage, think that the
paused relationship between the IMF membership and the Taliban,
so they do not currently have access to the SDR allocation at
the IMF, is appropriate.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. I agree.
Mr. Bagenstos, as you walk into the role as counsel with
HHS--it is an extremely important role for all of our counsels.
There is no way you could know at this point, unless someone
had told you at this point. We have sent some letters to
Secretary Becerra asking some very specific questions. In fact,
we outlined 22 questions. He sent us a very nice letter back
saying thanks for writing, but he has not answered any of the
22 questions. As we have gone through even some things that he
stated in the actual nomination hearing when he came through
here, things like are you going to recuse yourself from cases
that you were named in as a California AG, but now you are on
the other side of it, when he was literally suing HHS, now he
is on the other side of it. He said, ``Nope; not going to do
that.''
So we asked just, ``Can you give us a list of the cases you
are going to recuse yourself from?'' He has not even turned
over that list of cases that he will recuse himself from, even
though he said it during his testimony time sitting at that
same table.
So are you aware of that? Has that been brought to your
attention at this point? Is there a need to be able to get that
kind of list when he has filed so many suits against HHS and
now he is on the other side of it?
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator. I very much appreciate
the question and take very seriously the responsibility to be
responsive to Congress and this committee. And I can tell you,
should I be confirmed to the position of General Counsel, one
of the functions of the General Counsel's Office is the ethics
function at HHS, including monitoring appropriate recusals, and
I will certainly take seriously the ethics rules in that regard
and responsiveness to this committee.
Senator Lankford. We will count on that, because one of the
very first things that happened then from HHS was when they
dropped the lawsuit that HHS had against the State of
California. It was one of the early statements, but we have yet
to be able to get any clarity whether the Secretary was
actually involved in dropping the case against his own State
right after he got into office. We need to be able to clear
that up, or to be able to deal with the University of Vermont
Medical Center that had a clear conscience protection issue
that was placed against them, that then the administration came
in and dropped immediately and said, ``No, we are not going to
prosecute that.''
And we also do not know about the University of Pittsburgh.
There have been some real questions there about how they have
handled some of the abortion issues that they have dealt with
where they are literally harvesting and changing the procedures
for an abortion, which is against Federal law to be able to
harvest those organs. The written statements we have seen seem
to show they have, but we cannot seem to get any information to
be able to determine whether there is a violation of Federal
law.
Those are things that we are going to want to ask in the
days ahead and to be able to get clarity on.
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
Senator Warren?
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nearly 5 million people have died from COVID-19 worldwide.
And although over 6 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have
now been administered globally, less than 1 percent of them
have been administered in low-income countries. This inequity
is disgraceful, and it also prolongs the pandemic's
consequences here in the United States. The Biden
administration has shown real global leadership in responding
to the pandemic, but we must continue to use every tool
available in the fight against COVID worldwide. And I would
like to discuss some of those tools today.
Mr. Neiman, let me start with you. The first tool would
fall under your purview. In August, the IMF approved a historic
$650 billion in global financial assistance in the form of
special drawing rights. These SDRs are a lifeline for
developing countries as they continue to struggle with the
fallout from the pandemic.
Mr. Neiman, do you agree that SDRs are a critical tool for
combating the COVID crisis both globally and at home?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. The
increased SDR allocation to lower-income countries represented
a very meaningful increase in their reserves, and therefore
helped countries that otherwise might have been liquidity-
constrained in their vaccination efforts and their ongoing
preparedness for public health investments that are much
needed.
Senator Warren. Good. So I take it that is a strong
``yes''?
Dr. Neiman. That is a strong ``yes.''
Senator Warren. Good. I appreciate it, and I agree. The
$650 billion that the Biden administration helped secure is a
good first step. But the IMF has made clear that the total need
is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2\1/2\ trillion.
The House has authorized additional SDRs to meet this
urgent need. It is time for the Senate to do the same. Of
course, to respond to the COVID-19 crisis we also need enough
vaccines, PPE, tests, and treatments for everyone. And this
brings us to tool number two.
I was glad to see the Biden administration put people's
lives over pharma profits by supporting a waiver of
international intellectual property rules to help ramp up
global vaccine production in a crisis. But almost 2 years into
this pandemic, countries still have not reached a deal to get
it done. So, Ms. Pagan and Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, you would
both have key roles to play in securing this critical tool for
global vaccine access. So let me just ask each of you, will you
commit to making this a priority, and using American leadership
to secure a TRIPS waiver as soon as possible? Ms. Pagan?
Ms. Pagan. Senator Warren, thank you for the question. As
you know, we have been working at the WTO since Ambassador
Tai's announcement that we support a waiver of intellectual
property protections for vaccines----
Senator Warren. I just want to hear a ``yes'' that you are
committed to this, and that you are going to make it a
priority.
Ms. Pagan. We have been working, and we will continue to
work on securing a successful outcome.
Senator Warren. Good. Thank you.
And, Mr. Wilson, can I hear a ``yes'' from you?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, you can. Ambassador Tai spoke to this
issue of U.S. leadership in Geneva a week ago, 2 weeks ago. Her
answer was ``yes'' and so is mine.
Senator Warren. Good. I like these yeses. Yeses backed up
by ``I am already working on it.'' Best kind. This is really
important, and I appreciate your commitments here.
So, while the U.S. works with partners to approve a TRIPS
waiver, we still have other tools to accelerate the COVID
vaccine manufacturing and distribution without depending on an
international agreement. And that brings me to the third tool
in the box.
Mr. Bagenstos, if confirmed will you commit to conducting a
thorough examination of all of the regulatory authorities at
the Department's disposal, including the DPA and any
contractual rights in which HHS is entitled to dramatically
expand global access to COVID vaccines, including through
vaccine technology transfer?
Mr. Bagenstos. Absolutely, Senator. As both the President
and the Secretary have made clear, we need to do what we can to
get out of this crisis. And that means considering all of the
available legal tools--obviously, running them through the
appropriate processes to make sure we have the authority, but I
think we have to leave no stone unturned in looking for those
authorities.
Senator Warren. I very much like that approach. We have to
use all of the tools. We are in a crisis, and it puts everyone
at risk around the world. It puts us at risk here at home.
This is a global emergency, and we must use all of our
tools to fight this virus. The pandemic will not end anywhere
until it ends everywhere, and now is the time for using all our
tools.
So, thank you all. I look forward to your speedy
confirmation and getting you even more tools to work with.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Daines?
Senator Daines. Senator Crapo, thank you.
I want to talk about intellectual property for a moment.
Somebody who spent much of my career in global operations--I
spent 6 years actually living in China working for an American
corporation, launching American brands to compete against
Chinese brands there in China--I believe protecting U.S.
intellectual property has to be a top priority for the U.S.
Trade Rep.
As you know, the United States and China signed a Phase One
trade deal that includes major advancements in the protection
of U.S. IP. But despite this agreement, China has not lived up
to their end of the deal, and its forced technology transfers
and IP violations continue.
I have sponsored this bipartisan bill--it is the PROTECT IP
Act--which recently passed the Senate as part of Senate Bill
1260, that would help boost enforcement in that Phase One China
deal. In fact, I was over in China meeting face to face with
Liu He back at the end of that whole negotiation process in
Beijing, so I have a lot of hands-on personal experience, and
hence my passion on this issue.
Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, what actions will you take to
ensure that IP created in America is protected?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Daines. It is great to hear
about your personal experience on these issues. And, as you
point out, the issue, particularly of China's living up to the
commitments that it made bilaterally to us in that earlier
agreement, is critical.
Ambassador Tai spoke to this recently, and she herself is
engaging directly with the Chinese. I would expect to do
likewise, if confirmed, to make sure they are living up to
those commitments.
Senator Daines. Thank you. I appreciate that, truly.
Furthermore, would you support taking more aggressive actions
against international IP abusers?
Mr. Wilson. Senator, I think--again, if I am confirmed--one
of my first priorities would be to open up the toolbox that we
have at USTR, evaluate the tools, consider where they can be
used most effectively, and consult with the committee on how we
do that.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
I want to talk for a moment about expanding market access
for ag producers. Ms. Pagan, a question for you. As you know,
with 95 percent of the world's consumers outside the United
States, ensuring that our farmers and ranchers in places like
Montana and across the U.S. are able to compete on a level
playing field, is absolutely critical.
If confirmed, would you commit to ensuring that expanding
market access for Montana and U.S. ag in foreign markets would
be a priority and on the agenda in any WTO ag negotiation?
Ms. Pagan. Thank you for that question. Absolutely,
leveling the playing field and making sure that our farmers and
ranchers have access to foreign markets is very important, and
it will be a priority while I am there.
Senator Daines. And it really is the future in many ways
for agriculture, where you see--as I think old Wayne Gretzky
said, he was successful because he skated where the puck was
headed, not where it was at. Where it is all going here--again
95 percent of the world's consumers are outside the United
States. It continues to be a great opportunity for us, for ag
producers here in the United States.
While multilateralism can play an important role in
achieving global policy objectives, we need to make sure that
all of our partners operate in a transparent manner. That is
why I am upset at findings that the current head of the IMF,
Kristalina Georgieva, who was then head of the World Bank,
pressured staffers to boost China's ranking in the World Bank's
annual Doing Business report for 2018.
Dr. Neiman, I know Senator Menendez brought this issue up
earlier. Are you concerned by this scandal? And would you agree
that this episode raises some fundamental questions about
whether politics plays a role in other decisions being made by
the IMF as well as the World Bank?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. You know,
I agree with the Secretary that the WilmerHale report raised
serious and legitimate issues and concerns. And as an academic
myself, I understand very viscerally the importance of
confidence and trust in data, and confidence that analyses are
conducted not with an eye toward generating any particular
outcome.
And so, if confirmed, I would absolutely commit to taking
strong action to encourage the IMF to make sure that they renew
their commitments to things like data transparency, safeguards,
whistleblower protections, at both international financial
institutions.
Senator Daines. What is your sense in looking at it so far?
Do you think politics played a role?
Dr. Neiman. Do I think politics played a role? I read the
WilmerHale report and think that the right way to approach
their findings is to follow the recommendations that they made,
such that whether politics mattered or not, we maintain the
integrity and confidence in the international financial
institutions. That seems to be the critical interest that, if
confirmed, I would have in my role at Treasury: maintaining
confidence in the international financial architecture.
Senator Daines. Dr. Neiman, thank you.
Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto?
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the
nominees, congratulations. I look forward to working with all
of you. I do not have time to ask all of you questions, so I
will submit most of those for the record. But there is one
issue that really is pertinent on my mind right now.
Mr. Bagenstos, you are going to be critical to addressing
this. I understand you are familiar with the case of Stanley
Weber. For those who do not know, he is a former pediatrician
with Indian Health Service who has been convicted of more than
13 felony counts relating to the sexual abuse of young boys.
These assaults began in the early 1990s. They continued for
more than 20 years.
Dr. Weber practiced pediatrics through 2015 and did not
leave the service until May of 2016. In the time since Weber
was charged and arrested, there have been several
investigations into his conduct and the systemic failures at
IHS that enabled this behavior. I would like to focus on one of
those investigations. It was commissioned by IHS and conducted
by an independent contractor called Integritas. And that report
was delivered to the IHS in January of 2020, but it was
withheld from both members of Congress and the public in what
the courts have since found to be a violation of the Freedom of
Information Act.
The report was made public just 2 weeks ago, and it
detailed a pattern of failures by IHS management to act upon
years of credible accusations of assault. Here are my concerns
when it comes to the involvement of the Office of General
Counsel. There are two of them. One is this: the Office of
General Counsel made several critical missteps in the handling
of the report by refusing to make its counselors available to
Integris for the investigation, and then by withholding the
report itself from congressional oversight bodies and the
public. That is one.
Two, the report makes clear that, in several instances, the
HHS General Counsel failed to act in the best interests of IHS
patients by making oversight recommendations to IHS managers
that fell far short of the urgency and seriousness that this
case required. So, my question to you is, I want to know how
you would handle a similar situation. Are there circumstances
under which you would direct counselors not to cooperate with
investigations commissioned by HHS agencies?
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And it
is an absolutely tragic case that you are talking about. As you
know, I am not at HHS and so have not had the benefit of being
able to review the file of this case, but I have certainly read
the many news reports about this. And I can say this is a
case--and cases like this, should a case like this occur in the
future--that really comes at the intersection of three of the
most sensitive relationships, and most important
responsibilities that the Department has: to safeguard the
health of the people who deal with HHS programs, the health and
welfare of children, and the trust relationship that the U.S.
Government has with Indian Tribes.
To fail in all three of those responsibilities, I think is
just something that is unfathomable, and beyond unfortunate.
And to think that folks in the office to which I have been
nominated to head and will lead, if confirmed, actually failed
to address it is not something that I would want to have
happen, should I be confirmed.
So what does that mean? So one thing that I will want to
do, as soon as I get confirmed, should I be confirmed, is
actually to review the decisions that were made in this context
to make sure that--there are always decisions that are made
about investigative questions. Were these decisions made
appropriately, and do we need to have new policies for the
future--not just for IHS, but in general--in dealing with these
sorts of sensitive relationships?
And, Senator, I can commit to you that if I am confirmed, I
will take extremely seriously both the need to protect those in
the charge of HHS, and the need to be responsive to
investigators who are duly appointed, as well as to this
committee and to the Congress.
Senator Cortez Masto. And do you have any problems
referring alleged criminal activity to law enforcement for them
to investigate?
Mr. Bagenstos. So I think--you know, I have had to do this
in many government jobs--when one comes across criminal
conduct, you know, there are procedures for referring that. And
I think those procedures need to be followed.
Senator Cortez Masto. Do you think it is appropriate to put
together some sort of investigative committee that is made up
of people who are supervised by the individual they are asked
to investigate?
Mr. Bagenstos. You know, I would want to look into the
particular case here because, as I say, I do not really know
much about the facts. But in general, that would be very much a
red flag. We want people to be independent of those they are
investigating.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. It is a serious matter,
and that is why I have taken up most of my time on it. Listen,
I get the job that you are doing runs the intersection of
administration, personnel, and criminal allegations, if that
happens and that has to be referred. And I understand the nexus
between all three.
We failed. IHS failed in this instance in all three of
those. And that is on the General Counsel's shoulders. And that
is why your job is so important, because these are the
consequences if you fail. And so, I am looking for somebody who
understands that and is willing to step up and do the right
thing, particularly by the individuals and these young boys who
suffered at the hands of this doctor for too long. Too long.
And so, thank you for your comments. And again, thank you, all
three, for your willingness to serve.
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Brown?
Senator Brown. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Thanks to Chair
Wyden. And, Ms. Pagan, thank you for your help drafting the
Brown-Wyden rapid response mechanism in USMCA. You took another
corporate trade agreement and turned it into an agreement that
will actually help workers in all three countries. So thank you
for that.
I want to start by saying that China's entry into the WTO
has been devastating for Ohio workers and Ohio companies. The
Chinese Government cheats the global system using forced
technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and chronic
state-subsidized overcapacity in key industries like steel and
solar to undermine U.S. industries.
The WTO can be a tool by which China bullies its
competitors. If China continues to make a mockery of the World
Trade Organization, Americans and the rest of the rule-
following world are going to lose faith both in the WTO and
their own leaders to appeal for relief. That is the lesson that
is so important for us to understand.
So, Ms. Pagan, detail for me how you think we should reform
the WTO so it actually works to address China's abuses, which
harm American workers and businesses?
Ms. Pagan. Thank you, Senator Brown. There are a number of
ways. You know, one important area is transparency. One of the
areas where China fails is lack of transparency in its
measures, and we want to improve transparency in terms of
making sure that members are meeting their current obligations
and bringing more transparency also to the WTO so we can have
more conversations.
The dispute settlement system has to be reformed because it
has contributed to some of the difficulties for us to combat
some of the unfair practices, and that is going to be a
priority, if I am confirmed, in my work forward at the WTO.
I also--I know this is an important issue, and it is an
important angle to bring to everything that we do at the WTO,
which is to bring the worker-centric focus to remind ourselves
that, after all, we are there to do trade and to facilitate
trade, but it also means that you have to protect the workers
that the trade comes from. So there are any number of ways that
we can address this issue, and, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with you on this.
Senator Brown. Thanks, Ms. Pagan. The U.S., thanks to the
chair, Chair Wyden's efforts and his staff's efforts, has
changed its approach to trade policy. The WTO must act
similarly. I have confidence from our conversations, from
talking to the Ambassador about your work yesterday, that you
will work toward that goal at the WTO and with other member
countries. So I know you have committed to that. I know you
have committed to that over and over, and we count on that.
Mr. Wilson, I appreciate our conversation the other day,
how you plan to put workers at the center of our economic
policy in terms of protecting intellectual property and
innovation, especially in digital trade agreements. Thank you
for your private commitment and your public commitment to do
that.
And last, Mr. Frost, I want to switch to your work with
GSEs. I chair the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Committee. It used to be the Wall Street Committee. Now it is
much more about housing.
We have an affordable housing crisis. We know that. We will
need our entire housing system, including the GSEs, to work
together to address it. We have heard from both consumer
advocates and leaders about the importance of putting GSEs on a
path to long-term stability so they can carry out their mission
of providing all Americans with access to affordable housing.
Would you commit to working with me on strengthening the
housing system, expanding access to affordable housing?
Mr. Frost. Absolutely, Senator. I know this is an area that
you feel passionate about. I do as well. You have provided
tremendous leadership here.
The administration is deeply committed to affordable
housing, and has a number of efforts underway, as you know, to
lower the cost of housing for American families. If confirmed,
I am committed to working with Congress to establish a housing
finance system that works better than the system worked prior
to the global financial crisis and the entrance into
conservatorship.
I think it is important that we have GSEs that work for the
American people and do not have the too-big-to-fail issues that
we saw pre-financial crisis. But, if confirmed, I would love to
work with this committee and you and your staff on making it a
priority--making GSE reform a priority.
Senator Brown. We count on that. Thank you, Mr. Frost.
Thank you, Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Crapo.
Dr. Neiman, China is the world's largest economy, has
access to capital, and sizeable reserves in meeting its own
domestic development needs. Yet China continues to borrow
billions of dollars from multilateral development banks.
In 2016, China met the criteria for graduation from the
World Bank. Since then, China has received $9 billion from the
World Bank, $7.6 billion from the Asian Development Bank, and
China obtains sizeable loans. It is engaging in predatory
lending, likely using that money in developing countries across
the world.
So China is now the world's largest official creditor, even
though it continues to get all of this money, a lot of which
the United States has been putting into these organizations.
The United States, I think, has a duty to make sure that U.S.
taxpayer resources are going to countries that need them most,
not China. A dollar lent to China is a dollar not available for
a project to eliminate poverty in the developing world. The
multilateral development banks need to focus on their
development mission.
So what is your strategy to end lending to China at
multilateral development banks?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do agree
that our MDB efforts and development finance should be
targeting the lowest-income countries that need that
assistance, and China has, as you said, by that standard
graduated years ago now.
If confirmed, I would be committed to working with the
executive directors to understand the best way forward to
achieve that outcome, which I agree with, Senator. I also, if
confirmed, would be happy to discuss these efforts with you and
your staff.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Another question, Dr. Neiman. There are currently 840
million people across the globe with no electricity, none,
right now, today. People who live in poor and developing
nations want and need a stable energy supply to grow their
economy, to improve their lives. Energy is, I believe, a single
critical tool to help countries alleviate poverty.
The United States should be working to promote an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. But the World Bank, and many of the
multilateral development banks, are restricting lending for
traditional energy projects. No modern economy can run on only
renewable power, which we know is variable. A country needs
continuous, abundant energy to run a manufacturing plant, a
data center, or a hospital. And I think in some of my travel to
Africa where we were talking to hospital staff, their biggest
issue was lack of power when it comes to maternal death, and
the death of the baby as well, during delivery.
So I think these restrictions in the lending only
exacerbate the global inequities of energy. In fact, all of
Africa, with a population of 1.3 billion people, accounts for a
little more than 3 percent of the total global electricity
generation. If Africa tripled its electricity consumption based
on only natural gas, it would still be less than 1 percent of
the annual global emissions footprint.
So, if you care about people in developing countries, and
we all do, we attempt to turn the lights on. So, if confirmed,
will you commit to ensuring that multilateral development banks
are promoting all forms of energy projects across the globe,
including oil, gas, and coal?
Dr. Neiman. Senator, the President and the Secretary have
both described climate change as an existential threat, and
that is an assessment that I wholeheartedly agree with. I think
the way to think of the cost in terms of energy and
infrastructure that burns carbon, emits carbon, is not just the
cost today, but also the cost to the future. And so I think it
is appropriate and important for our efforts with multilateral
development banks, development financing, per se, to emphasize
infrastructures that support our goals on climate change.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I will take that as a direct attack
against these people who are desperately looking for energy to
survive today, because that is a decision, this administration;
I know it is not your position, but it is the administration's
position. For the existence of those alive today in these
communities--if you take a look at the number one cause of
death, environmental death, it is household, indoor smoke for
cooking, period. No questions asked that that is a concern, and
I believe it is an affront to these people and an insult for
the administration to have such a position.
So, at the U.N., President Biden announced he would once
again double the U.S. contributions to international climate
change. In April he pledged to increase contributions for
global climate financing to $5.7 billion. So this means that,
since he just said he was going to double it, that is $11.4
billion a year. This is happening at a time when the American
people are facing significant challenges at home. Communities
across the Nation are just emerging from a deadly pandemic. We
are dealing with stifled economies, soaring debt, declining
infrastructure.
In a front-page story in The New York Times today, people,
under inflation, are looking at the largest increase in prices
and costs for Thanksgiving dinner. This is The New York Times
front page today. But whether it is the Green New Deal, the
U.N. green climate change slush fund, the American people
cannot afford these disastrous policies.
So please explain why American taxpayers should support
borrowing more from countries like China in order to send it
overseas to international bureaucrats in the name of climate
change? And I hope to hear more about that than it is an
existential threat.
Dr. Neiman. Senator, this is not an easy situation. I just
want to acknowledge, of course it is a difficult issue, but we
have tradeoffs that we have to consider. And I agree with the
assessment that time is running out. It is really important
that we do all that we can to decarbonize the planet, and I
think, as such, it is appropriate to emphasize sustainable
infrastructure projects through our development financing
policies.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso.
At this point, Senator Portman, who is on the web, is next.
But we are not sure that he is back from his vote. Senator
Portman, are you there?
[No response.]
Senator Crapo. Is there any Senator who is on the web who
is ready to ask questions?
[No response.]
Senator Crapo. Well, if not, while we are waiting for the
chairman to return from voting, I have a couple of questions
that I might just jump into. The first is for you, Ms. Pagan,
and also for Chris Wilson, and that is with regard to the TRIPS
waiver. Ambassador Tai committed at the trade agenda hearing to
brief this committee on negotiations to waive the U.S. rights
under the WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property
rights, or TRIPS.
This has not happened. The briefing has not happened.
Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned about this
issue, particularly about allowing China and Russia to use our
intellectual property for vaccines with impunity. My question
for both of you is the same. Would you commit to opposing a
waiver or a peace clause for the TRIPS agreement that extends
to Russia and China? Ms. Pagan?
Ms. Pagan. Thank you. I know this is a very important
issue. I would just say that the conversations seem to me to be
ongoing and are sort of stuck. So, you know, we are trying to
be constructive over there.
I will say that, on the issue of China and Russia over
there--people who should not be getting access to our
innovations--we will be very clear-eyed, whatever the outcome
is, to ensure that does not happen. You know, the devil is
always in the details, and with respect to consulting with you
and the committees, we will do that.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Crapo. As my colleague has
said, there are lots of ins and outs of this discussion in
Geneva that still need to take place. It is very helpful for me
to understand your particular concern about technology being
shared with two WTO members in particular. I think it is
incumbent on us, as we continue to be involved in the
discussions, to ensure that we are managing the risks as
effectively as we can.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. And neither of you were
willing to commit to oppose a waiver of TRIPS for Russia and
China. I understand that you are working with the
administration that has already said that it is considering
doing that. So I would just say, I would encourage you to take
back advocacy of protecting Americans and American industry and
technology, rather than yielding access to that technology to
Russia and China, where the case has not been made that there
is an emergency that somehow justifies this.
Next, another question for you, Mr. Wilson, is on
intellectual property. Actually, I think you answered this
earlier, but I had to step out, or I got my attention pulled
away. But, if confirmed, you will be responsible for helping to
lead the new administration's policy on trade-related
intellectual property rights, and your leadership will be very
important for the effort to address acts, policies, and
practices of foreign governments that have a significant
adverse impact on the value of U.S. innovation. It will also be
important in helping to ensure that private intellectual
property rights are enforced and maintained in the face of
increased calls to socialize private property and information.
How will you approach solving the increasingly thorny
intellectual property disputes, particularly disputes in spaces
like digital and pharmaceutical industries?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator. As a nominee for this
position, I take very seriously the responsibility that I would
have to essentially build and create this new position to
develop the appropriate priorities, both for myself in the
position and for the future.
I think you have pointed correctly to the complex
intersections between intellectual properly policy and emerging
technologies, especially in the digital space. I understand
that those are going to pose particular challenges. It will be
very important to me, as I work with my colleagues at USTR to
build the position, to stay in close touch with you, your
staff, other members of the committee, to make sure that we are
meeting your expectations.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
And, Mr. Bagenstos, a question for you on advisory
opinions. The HHS Office of General Counsel has the ability to
issue advisory opinions which, although they lack the force of
law, can direct policymaking efforts very powerfully. Where
members of Congress and the administration disagree on policy
choices, the administration's rationale can be important for
Congress to understand why the administration has decided to
move in a particular way.
If confirmed, will you be willing to make your advisory
opinions available to Congress at their request?
Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator. I know this is a very
important matter, and I will say I take very seriously
Congress's responsibility to exercise oversight. The
legislative branch of government passes the laws under which
the departments operate, and it appropriates the money that the
departments spend. And so, it obviously has a very significant
oversight responsibility. And part of that responsibility, I
think, imposes a correlative responsibility on the executive
branch to let Congress know what the executive branch is doing,
and why the executive branch thinks they have the authority to
do it.
And, if I am confirmed to this position, I can commit to
you that we will engage in that conversation. And, if there is
a question about what HHS is doing, and why we think we have
the authority to do it, should I be confirmed, that will be
communicated to you.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you.
Okay, I think we may have one more member almost here, and
I have one more question, so I am going to go ahead with that.
This one is for you, Dr. Neiman. I am deeply concerned by
the reporting that senior officials at the World Bank
manipulated data to improve China's ranking in its Doing
Business report at the behest of Chinese officials, at a time
when the World Bank was deep into negotiations with countries,
including China, for a share capital increase.
I am even more concerned that since this story was
reported, one of those officials has been promoted to the
leadership of the IMF, and, even more egregiously, since the
story was confirmed in an investigation by an independent law
firm, the IMF retained that official as its leader.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that foreign
powers do not undermine or manipulate the international
institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and the OECD, that
are tasked with promoting economic growth and financial
stability?
Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator, for the question. If
confirmed, one very important part of my role would be to
ensure that global confidence remains and we preserve the
integrity of the international financial institutions. We have
worked very hard to build them up and make them a particularly
important tool in the international financial landscape, and we
would need to work hard to continue safeguarding them.
And I agree that the reports could reduce confidence if we
do not take strong action to boost things like accountability,
and protect the data integrity. The WilmerHale report that you
are referring to included a number of recommendations. And, for
example, together with the executive directors, I would review
those recommendations and strongly consider adding things like
the possibility--you know, considering possibilities like
potentially making the analyses more broadly available, doing
things to protect the actual analysis from any sort of
involvement of people outside of the team on the political side
of the institutions.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. And in light of the facts
of this situation, do you still think it appropriate that the
administration seeks an increase in SDRs for the IMF?
Dr. Neiman. I am not aware--I do not believe that Treasury
is currently considering any additional SDR allocations.
Senator Crapo. All right; thank you. I am glad to hear
that. I would just like to let you know that I do not believe
the United States should support the allocation of any
additional SDRs to the IMF while the official at issue here
remains the managing director. And so, I just give you that bit
of opinion of my own as we approach these kinds of issues.
With that, is Senator Thune with us?
[No response.]
Senator Crapo. Okay. If Senator Thune is not available,
then that means that you are all done with your questions, with
the interrogation. I would like to thank each of you for being
willing to take upon yourself these commitments to serve our
country, and for being here today, and for your responses, even
though I did not agree with all of them.
You will get additional questions in writing. Regarding the
questions for the record, the deadline for members to submit
the QFRs will be next Tuesday, November 2nd, at 5 p.m. And for
our members, that 5 p.m. deadline is firm.
We also--do we have a time frame for responses? Okay, we do
not have a specific time frame for responses, but quickly,
please. We appreciate prompt responses.
We do thank you all for your cooperation and your
attendance here. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Samuel R. Bagenstos, Nominated to be
General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, members of the committee,
thank you for considering my nomination to be General Counsel at the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). I am humbled and honored
by President Biden's decision to nominate me, and I am excited, if
confirmed, to serve under the leadership of Secretary Xavier Becerra.
I would like to thank my family for their love and support. Here
with me today is my wife, Margo Schlanger, who is a terrific and
accomplished attorney in her own right. Watching from afar are my
children, Harry and Leila--twins who are in their senior year of
college--and my mother, Naida Tushnet--who is nominally retired but
keeps up a full schedule fighting to improve her own community. I would
also like to thank my supervisors in my government positions: former
Governor Deval Patrick, former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, and Acting
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Shalanda Young.
And I would like to thank the two great, now-departed jurists for whom
I clerked, Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
whose memories are a blessing.
In the more than 28 years since I graduated law school, my work has
sought to advance the paired principles that should always inform the
application of the law: no person, no matter how high their position,
should be above the law's constraints, nor should anyone be beneath its
protections.
Perhaps no case illustrates those principles better than that of
George Lane. George had paraplegia and was a bit down on his luck. When
he was accused of a minor criminal violation, his hearing was held on
the second floor of a courthouse with no elevator. And when he couldn't
make it to the courtroom because his disability kept him from climbing
stairs, he was arrested for failure to appear in court. I worked with
George to take his case to the Supreme Court, and--with the help of
President George W. Bush's Solicitor General--we prevailed. George's
case showed that, at its best, the law must be open and responsive to
even the humblest members of our community. I was very proud to have
achieved this result--and to have worked with congressional and
administration allies across partisan divides to build support for
George's case.
Should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will approach the
General Counsel role in the same spirit. I will work to ensure that the
actions of the Department conform to the substantive and procedural
requirements that Congress has established--as well as the fundamental
principles and protections of the Constitution. And I will work to
ensure that the Department advances its critical mission of enhancing
the health and well-being of all Americans.
During the Obama-Biden administration, I was the Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of
Justice. In addition to supervising 200 attorneys across three sections
of the Civil Rights Division, I led the Department's enforcement of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Much of my disability rights work has required me to engage with
State Medicaid programs--to defend the rights of people with
disabilities to receive services in their own homes and communities. I
worked with Governors, Sheriffs, and other State and local officials
across party lines who were committed to providing quality services to
individuals with disabilities. Through this work, I learned a lot about
the particular needs of different States and regions. I am especially
proud of work I did to reach a historic agreement with then-Governor
Sonny Perdue in Georgia to expand that State's community-based services
system. In the course of that work, I saw how important tools such as
telehealth can be in serving rural and other communities without access
to specialized providers--a lesson that the COVID-19 pandemic has
underscored for all of us.
More than a year into that pandemic, the laws that HHS administers
are essential to the Department's mission. Should I be confirmed, I
will seek to uphold the law with a commitment to equity, transparency,
and accountability.
Thank you, again, for considering my nomination. I look forward to
your questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Samuel Robert Bagenstos.
2. Position to which nominated: General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
3. Date of nomination: August 10, 2021.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: January 5, 1970; St. Louis, MO.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Harvard Law School.
Dates attended: September 1990-June 1993.
Degree received: juris doctor.
Date degree granted: June 1993.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dates attended: September 1987-May 1990.
Degree received: bachelor of arts.
Date degree granted: May 1990.
Princeton High School (Princeton, NJ).
Dates attended: September 1983-June 1987.
Degree received: high school diploma.
Date degree granted: June 1987.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
Office of Management and Budget.
General Counsel (January 2021-present).
Washington, DC.
University of Michigan Law School.
Frank G. Millard professor of law (October 2014-present; on
leave since January 2021).
Professor of law (July 2009-present; on leave July 2009-July
2011 and since January 2021).
Visiting professor of law (August-December 2008).
Ann Arbor, MI.
Michigan Employment Relations Commission.
Member and Chair (December 2019-January 2021).
Lansing and Detroit, MI.
Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and Graduate School
of Medical Sciences of Cornell University Medicine.
Contractor--legal research (2017-2019).
New York, NY.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General (January 2010-July
2011).
Deputy Assistant Attorney General (July-December 2009).
Washington, DC.
UCLA School of Law.
Visiting professor of law (January-May 2009).
Los Angeles, CA.
Washington University School of Law.
Associate dean for research and faculty development (July 2007-
June 2008).
Professor of Law (July 2004-June 2008).
St. Louis, MO.
Harvard Law School.
Assistant professor of law (July 2000-June 2004).
Research fellow and lecturer on law (1999).
Cambridge, MA.
Pyle, Rome and Lichten.
Associate (1998).
Boston, MA.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1997-1998).
Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
Trial attorney, Appellate Section (1995-1997).
Washington, DC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Law clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt (1993-1994).
Los Angeles, CA.
Jenner and Block.
Summer associate (1992).
Washington, DC.
Baker and Botts.
Summer associate (1991).
Washington, DC.
FGI, Inc.
Telemarketer (1990).
Chapel Hill, NC.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
In addition to the positions listed above, I also served as a
part-time, volunteer member of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission
and its affiliated nonprofits, the Ann Arbor Housing
Development Corporation and the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing
Corporation, from March 2019 until I assumed my position at OMB
in January 2021.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
None.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
I have undertaken to answer this question as fully as I can. I
do not have complete records of my memberships going back the
31 years since I graduated college.
Ann Arbor Reconstructionist Congregation.
Member (2011-present).
I served a term on the board and a couple of years on the
Rabbinical Search Committee.
State Bar of Michigan.
Member (2010-present).
California State Bar.
Member (1994-present).
Disability Rights Bar Association (and predecessor Association
of Disability Rights Counsel).
Member (2011-2021, various years before 2009).
Executive board (dates unknown).
National Employment Lawyers Association.
Member (2011-2020, various years before 2009).
Public Justice.
Member (2019-2021).
American Constitution Society.
Member (various times since law school but I don't have
specific dates. I am not currently a member.)
ACLU of Michigan.
Pro bono cooperating attorney (at least 2014-January 2021).
Association of American Law Schools.
Member (2000-present).
Chair, disability law section (one term, dates unknown).
Law and Society Association.
Member (various years since approximately 2004).
Michigan Speech Coaches, Inc.
Member (2014-2018).
National Speech and Debate Association.
Member (2014-2018).
Member, Michigan District Committee (2017-2018).
Ann Arbor Racquet Club.
Member (2011).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18:
Michigan Supreme Court (Democratic nominee, 2018).
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination:
I am a member of the Michigan Democratic Party and the Washtenaw
County Democratic Party. During the past 10 years (but not since
assuming my current Federal position), I have hosted or co-hosted
fundraisers for various candidates in Michigan.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination:
See table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribution Description Date Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty and Justice for All PAC 7/10/21 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Perez for Governor 6/21/21 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent County Democratic Party 6/13/21 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Nessel for Attorney General 5/26/21 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress 5/22/21 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Whitmer for Governor 4/21/21 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washtenaw County Democratic--Federal Account 4/17/21 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate 12/22/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate 12/22/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Whitmer for Governor 12/15/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warnock for Georgia 11/7/20 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate 11/7/20 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Federal Elections Committee--Federal 11/7/20 $62.50
Account
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate 11/7/20 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 10/31/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 10/31/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 10/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 10/28/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together Fund PAC 10/25/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters Victory 2020 10/25/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 10/25/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 10/25/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund 10/25/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Espy for Senate 10/23/20 $150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 10/23/20 $400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 10/23/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats 10/22/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan House Democratic Fund 10/20/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 10/15/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters Victory 2020 10/12/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 10/10/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Welch for Supreme Court 10/7/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warnock for Georgia 10/6/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Harrison for U.S. Senate 10/6/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alan Gross for U.S. Senate 10/6/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 10/5/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC 10/1/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters Victory 2020 10/1/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Street PAC 10/1/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 10/1/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 9/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19 9/29/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 9/27/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund 9/27/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Porter for Congress 9/21/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 9/19/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kelly for Senate 9/19/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Gideon for Maine 9/19/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Greenfield for Iowa 9/19/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC 9/19/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC 9/19/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes on 16 9/14/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress 9/11/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis for Congress 9/11/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 9/10/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 9/8/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 9/6/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Dan O'Neil 9/3/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Daniel Ortiz for State Representative 9/1/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 8/31/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund 8/31/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 8/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 8/22/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus 8/21/20 $72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Street PAC 8/17/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pulver for State Representative 8/17/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats 8/15/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 8/13/20 $74.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund 8/13/20 $74.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Ganguly for Canton Trustee 8/11/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Whitmer for Governor 8/11/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 8/10/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party 8/8/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Democratic Party 8/8/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress 8/3/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 7/31/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 7/31/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 7/31/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 7/31/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 7/31/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 7/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate 7/28/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate 7/28/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative 7/19/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washtenaw County Democratic--Federal Account 7/16/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 7/12/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Beasley for Supreme Court 7/12/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 7/8/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 7/8/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane for Colorado 7/1/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 6/30/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine A Morse 6/30/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 6/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 6/26/20 $272.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 6/26/20 $227.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund 6/19/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 6/19/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Breen for State Representative 6/14/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pulver for State Representative 6/14/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 6/10/20 $950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 6/10/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowman for Congress 6/5/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Savit for Prosecuting Attorney 6/2/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Brixie Blue Wave Fund 5/31/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress 5/29/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 5/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Hart for Iowa 5/27/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Donna Lasinsky 5/15/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 5/13/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action 5/10/20 $100
Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Thornton for State Representative 5/3/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 4/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 4/28/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19 4/20/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 4/14/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic National Committee 4/12/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic National Committee 4/8/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President 4/8/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 3/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis for Congress 3/24/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rashida Tlaib for Congress 3/21/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19 3/11/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Yousef Rabhi 3/9/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Radina for City Council 3/7/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 3/5/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC 3/3/20 $150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Ganguly for Canton Trustee 3/3/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Donna Lasinsky 3/2/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Dan O'Neil 2/29/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 2/29/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sommer Foster for Canton Trustee 2/29/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President 2/21/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President 2/20/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Karofsky for Supreme Court 2/19/20 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Welch for Supreme Court 2/18/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative 2/16/20 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warren for President 2/5/20 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic National Committee 1/29/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress 1/29/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress 1/15/20 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress 1/1/20 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan House Democratic Fund 12/30/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes We Can Democratic Club 12/19/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress 12/17/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President 12/16/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress 12/16/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 12/15/19 $72.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 12/7/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 12/7/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Goodwin for Insurance Commissioner 12/2/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Mari Manoogian 12/2/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action 11/24/19 $50
Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action 11/24/20 $50
Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate 11/19/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Tedra Cobb 11/16/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 11/15/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mondaire for Congress 11/15/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 11/9/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastenaw County Democratic--Federal Account 11/3/19 $87.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pulver for State Representative 10/23/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Padma Kuppa 10/20/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative 10/18/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President 10/16/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan House Democratic Fund 10/13/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action 10/2/19 $75
Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rashida Tlaib for Congress 9/28/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress 9/21/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 9/14/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActBlue 9/14/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Ganguly for Canton Trustee 9/9/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty and Justice for All PAC 9/7/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Savit for Prosecuting Attorney 9/5/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 8/27/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Kelly Breen 8/19/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washtenaw County Democratic--Federal Account 8/16/19 $300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President 8/3/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Savit for Prosecuting Attorney 8/2/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 8/2/19 $120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19 7/25/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis for Congress 7/22/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Mari Manoogian 7/19/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Julia Pulver 7/18/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Julia Pulver 7/5/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Caban for District Attorney 7/4/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActBlue 6/30/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress 6/30/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus 6/25/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress 6/24/19 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan List 6/20/19 $275
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress 5/6/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Kelly Breen 5/3/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President 4/22/19 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress 3/29/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Abdullah Hammoud 3/23/19 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative 2/21/19 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 2/19/19 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hinds for City Council 2/9/19 $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 11/7/18 $496
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party 11/2/18 $2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 10/31/18 $814
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party 10/30/18 $12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19 10/23/18 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 10/21/18 $2,146
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 10/19/18 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 10/19/18 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 10/17/18 $2,104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi for Senate 10/12/18 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi for Senate 10/12/18 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 9/30/18 $1,259
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 9/15/18 $1,767
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canton Democratic Club 9/6/18 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats 9/1/18 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 8/31/18 $1,723
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party 8/17/18 $7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 8/10/18 $1,502
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 8/9/18 $50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Robert Van Kirk 8/4/18 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 7/31/18 $2,780
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Federation of College Democrats 7/25/18 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Dana Nessel 7/11/18 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 6/30/18 $682
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 6/14/18 $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 5/31/18 $559
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 5/7/18 $39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 4/30/18 $562
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats 4/28/18 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Caucus of the Michigan 4/1/18 $54
Democratic Party
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 3/31/18 $86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bieda for Congress 3/31/18 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee 3/6/18 $450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 2/22/18 $5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court 2/15/18 $312
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 2/13/18 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Earls for Supreme Court 1/23/18 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 1/13/18 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 12/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 11/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Jones for Senate Committee 11/13/17 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Miles for Attorney General 10/19/17 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Benson for Secretary of State 10/17/17 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 10/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Jones for Senate Committee 9/27/17 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Jealous for Governor 9/24/17 $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 9/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 8/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 7/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 6/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Allred for Congress 6/7/17 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress 5/30/17 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 5/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 5/4/17 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress 4/19/17 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left 4/13/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress 4/12/17 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Thompson for Kansas 4/6/17 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Quist for Montana 4/6/17 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress 3/20/17 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress 3/1/17 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress 3/1/17 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes We Can Democratic Club 1/14/17 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Baldwin for Senate 12/31/16 $300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 10/19/16 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Ross for Senate 10/19/16 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie for NH 10/19/16 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cortez Masto for Senate 10/19/16 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie McGinty for Senate 10/19/16 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cortez Masto for Senate 10/19/16 $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 10/19/16 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois 8/22/16 $110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois 8/22/16 $110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Victory Fund 7/21/16 $2,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America 7/21/16 $2,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin 6/23/16 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 3/23/16 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois 3/21/16 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 12/31/15 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois 12/31/15 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Gilbert for Congress 12/31/15 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin 12/31/15 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin 12/31/15 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin 12/31/15 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America 12/23/15 $1,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America 10/22/15 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America 8/15/15 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America 6/30/15 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin 5/15/15 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress 3/11/15 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Totten for Attorney General 10/19/14 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 10/7/14 $2,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 9/30/14 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 8/25/14 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 7/30/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 7/30/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 7/24/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 7/24/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 7/20/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 6/26/14 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Gretchen Driskell 4/16/14 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Byrnes for Congress 3/30/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Totten for Attorney General 3/16/14 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 2/27/14 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 2/27/14 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Byrnes for Congress 1/8/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Kayyem for Governor 1/6/14 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 12/30/13 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 12/28/13 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 11/27/13 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 9/24/13 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 9/13/13 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Kayyem for Governor 8/27/13 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 7/31/13 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 6/30/13 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan 6/30/13 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor 6/5/13 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 11/4/12 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 10/26/12 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Gretchen Driskell 10/24/12 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duckworth for Congress 10/19/12 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 10/16/12 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 10/10/12 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Victory Fund 2012 10/10/12 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 10/7/12 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 9/7/12 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 8/31/12 $728
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 8/24/12 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Carol Kuhnke Circuit 8/23/12 $50
Court Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 8/10/12 $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duckworth for Congress 8/9/12 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 8/7/12 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 7/15/12 $126
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Victory Fund 2012 7/15/12 $126
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America 7/10/12 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duckworth for Congress 7/10/12 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Victory Fund 2012 7/10/12 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Party of Wisconsin--Federal 5/14/12 $100
Account
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stabenow for U.S. Senate 5/14/12 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
James T. Neubacher Award, University of Michigan Council for
Disability Concerns (2012).
Bethesda Voices Public Policy Award, Bethesda Lutheran
Communities (2011).
Advocacy Award, National Association of Protection and Advocacy
Systems (2001).
Special Commendation, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of
Justice (1996).
Special Achievement Award, Civil Rights Division, U.S.
Department of Justice (1995).
Phi Beta Kappa (1989).
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
Law Journal Articles and Essays:
Subordination, Stigma, and ``Disability,'' 86 Va. L. Rev. 397
(2000).
The Americans with Disabilities Act as Risk Regulation, 101
Colum. L. Rev. 1479 (2001).
The Americans with Disabilities Act as Welfare Reform, 44 Wm.
and Mary L. Rev. 921 (2003).
``Rational Discrimination,'' Accommodation, and the Politics of
(Disability) Civil Rights, 89 Va. L. Rev. 825 (2003).
Justice Ginsburg and the Judicial Role in Expanding ``We the
People'': The Disability Rights Cases, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 49 (2004).
The Supreme Court, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
Rational Discrimination, 55 Ala. L. Rev. 923 (2004).
The Future of Disability Law, 114 Yale L.J. 1 (2004).
Has the Americans with Disabilities Act Reduced Employment for
People with Disabilities?, 25 Berkeley J. Emp. and Lab. L. 527 (2004).
Comparative Disability Employment Law From an American
Perspective, 24 Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 649 (2003) (published 2004).
Trapped in the Feedback Loop: A Response to Professor Days, 49
St. Louis U. L.J. 1007 (2005).
The Promise was Broken: Law as a Negative Force in Bruce
Springsteen's Music, 14 Widener L.J. 837 (2005).
The Structural Turn and the Limits of Antidiscrimination Law, 94
Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2006).
Disability, Life, Death, and Choice, 29 Harv. J. L. and Gender
425 (2006).
Judging the Schiavo Case, 22 Const. Comment. 457 (2005)
(published 2006).
The Perversity of Limited Civil Rights Remedies: The Case of
``Abusive'' ADA Litigation, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1 (2006).
Implicit Bias, ``Science,'' and Antidiscrimination Law, 1 Harv.
L. and Pol'y Rev. 477 (2007).
Mandatory Pro Bono and Private Attorneys General, 101 NW. U. L.
Rev. 1459 (2007).
Hedonic Damages, Hedonic Adaptation, and Disability, 60 Vand. L.
Rev. 745 (2007) (with Margo Schlanger).
Abolish the Integration Presumption? Not Yet, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev.
Pennumbra 157 (2007).
Spending Clause Litigation in the Roberts Court, 58 Duke L.J.
345 (2008).
The Past and Future of Deinstitutionalization Litigation, 34
Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (2012).
The Anti-Leveraging Principle and the Spending Clause After
NFIB, 101 Geo. L.J. 861 (2013).
Employment Law and Social Equality, 112 Mich. L. Rev. 225
(2013).
Keynote Presentation, 11 Rutgers J.L. and Pub. Pol'y 371 (2014)
(transcript of oral remarks).
Viva Conditional Federal Spending!, 37 Harv. J.L. and Pub. Pol'y
93 (2014).
Universalism and Civil Rights (With Notes on Voting Rights After
Shelby), 123 Yale L.J. 2838 (2014).
The Unrelenting Libertarian Challenge to Public Accommodations
Law, 66 Stan. L. Rev. 1205 (2014).
Formalism and Employer Liability Under Title VII, 2014 U. Chi.
Legal F. 145 (2014).
Bottlenecks and Antidiscrimination Theory, 93 Tex. L. Rev. 415
(2014).
Who is Responsible for the Stealth Assault on Civil Rights?, 114
Mich. L. Rev. 893 (2016).
Disparate Impact and the Role of Classification and Motivation
in Equal Protection Law After Inclusive Communities, 101 Cornell L.
Rev. 1115 (2016).
Disability Rights and Labor: Is This Conflict Really Necessary?,
92 Ind. L.J. 277 (2016).
From Integrationism to Equal Protection: tenBroek and the Next
25 Years of Disability Rights, 13 U. St. Thomas L.J. 13 (2016).
The EEOC, the ADA, and Workplace Wellness Programs, 27 Health
Matrix 81 (2017).
Educational Equality for Children with Disabilities: The 2016
Term Cases, 2016-2017 ACS Sup. Ct. Rev. 17 (2017).
Disability, Universalism, Social Rights, and Citizenship, 39
Cardozo L. Rev. 413 (2017).
Implicit Bias's Failure, 39 Berkeley J. Emp. and Lab. L. 37
(2018).
Interview with Khaled Beydoun, 52 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 903
(2019) (transcript of oral remarks).
Disability Rights and the Discourse of Justice, 73 SMU L. Rev.
F. 26 (2020).
This is What Democracy Looks Like: Title IX and the Legitimacy
of the Administrative State, 118 Mich. L. Rev. 1053 (2020).
Taking Choice Seriously in Olmstead Jurisprudence, 40 J. Legal
Med. 5 (2020).
Who Gets the Ventilator? Disability Discrimination in COVID-19
Medical-
Rationing Protocols, 130 Yale L.J. Forum 1 (2020).
Olmstead v. L.C.: The Supreme Court Case, 27 Geo. J. on Poverty
L. and Pol'y 209 (2020) (transcript of oral remarks).
The ADA Amendments Act and the Projects of the American
Disability Rights Movement, 23 UDC L. Rev. 139 (2020).
Legitimacy and Agency Implementation of Title IX, 43 Harv. J.L.
and Gender 301 (2020).
Consent, Coercion, and Employment Law, 55 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.
Rev. 409 (2020).
Towards an Urban Disability Agenda, 47 Fordham Urban L.J. 1335
(2020).
Disability and Reproductive Justice, 14 Harv. L. and Pol'y Rev.
273 (2020).
The Personal Responsibility Pandemic: Centering Solidarity in
Public Health and Employment Law (with Lindsay F. Wiley), 52 Ariz. St.
L.J. 1235 (2021).
Articles and Essays in Other Outlets
The Supreme Court's Week in Review: One Step Forward, Three
Steps Back, Pacific Standard, June 28, 2013, available at http://
goo.gl/yCNhjv.
A Supreme Court Case Threatens the Independence of People with
Disabilities, Huffington Post, Jan. 22, 2014, available at http://
goo.gl/9gm0oW.
The Preliminary Injunction Provision, in The Voting Rights
Amendment Act: A Constitutional Response to Shelby County (ACS Issue
Brief, May 2014), available at http://goo.gl/DH9JQv.
Obamacare Court Ruling is Nonsensical and Cynical, L.A. Times,
July 25, 2014, available at http://goo.gl/rjS4Ig (with Jill Horwitz).
Beware: ``Wellness'' May Be Hazardous to Your Health, Huffington
Post, March 11, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/coErn5 (with Judith
Feder).
The Disability Cliff, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Winter
2015, at 55, available at http://goo.gl/spTLIf.
The ADA and the Supreme Court: A Mixed Record, 313 J. Am. Med.
Ass'n 2217 (2015) [no hyperlink available].
Social Change Litigation as Just Another Political Tool, New
Rambler Rev., June 2015, available at http://goo.gl/OxjYSr.
We Don't Need ``Modern Asylums,'' American Prospect, Summer
2015, available at http://goo.gl/BdPSHN (with Harold Pollack).
What Went Wrong with Title IX?, Washington Monthly, September/
October 2015, available at http://goo.gl/GTKQI1.
Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Never Should Have Gone to Jail, New
Republic, Sept. 8, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/S7OBbK.
Technical Standards and Lawsuits Involving Accommodations for
Health Professions Students, 18 AMA J. Ethics 1017 (2016) [no hyperlink
available].
The Spending Clause (with Ilya Somin) and For a Broad Spending
Power, in Nat'l Constitution Center, Interactive Constitution (2016),
available at https://goo.gl/ohxtu0.
Workers' Rights, in What's the Big Idea? Recommendations for
Improving Law and Policy in the Next Administration (ACS, Oct. 2016),
available at https://goo.gl/KCxqf4.
Civil Rights Deja Vu, Only Worse, American Prospect, Winter
2017, available at https://goo.gl/o5hf2C.
How Congress is Hacking Away at Disability Rights, Reuters,
Sept. 25, 2017, available at http://goo.gl/r4R4up.
Racism Didn't Stop at Jim Crow, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas,
Fall 2017, available at http://goo.gl/TLLoqM.
Here's How Gov. Whitmer Can Limit Impact of Medicaid Work
Requirements, Bridge, May 14, 2019, available at https://perma.cc/H5DT-
B8KT.
The Hidden Disability Consensus in the 2020 Campaign (with
Harold Pollack), JAMA Health F., Feb. 7, 2020, available at https://
perma.cc/VE32-NELP.
Trump Is Already Using the Coronavirus to Push His Right-Wing
Agenda (with Dahlia Lithwick), Slate, Mar. 30, 2020, available at
https://perma.cc/EF43-HXY6.
From Jobs to Health Care, COVID-19 Reveals the Moral Bankruptcy
of Conservative Politics, Mich. Advance, Apr. 1, 2020, available at
https://perma.cc/FJ9Y-6USM.
Don't Deny Ventilators to Disabled Patients, Wash. Post, Apr. 6,
2020, available at https://perma.cc/KBL9-MJ4V.
How the Law Harms Public Health (with Lindsay F. Wiley),
Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Fall 2020, available at https://
perma.cc/C96C-X86A.
The Americans with Disabilities Act at 30: A Cause for
Celebration During COVID-19? (with Joseph J. Fins), The Conversation,
July 26, 2020, available at https://perma.cc/HZZ7-8Q4Y.
Disorders of Consciousness and Disability Law (with Joseph J.
Fins and Megan S. Wright), 95 Mayo Clinic Proceedings 1732 (2020) [no
hyperlink available].
The DOJ's COVID-19 Nursing Home Inquiry is Nakedly Corrupt (with
Margo Schlanger), Slate, Aug. 31, 2020, available at https://perma.cc/
7828-3HJ3.
Litigation for the People, Dissent, Fall 2020, available at
https://perma.cc/D2ZC-HZ5S.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dedicated Her Life to Expanding the Circle
of ``We The People,'' Mich. Advance, Oct. 6, 2020, available at https:/
/perma.cc/53CJ-8W8X.
Lochner Lives On (Econ. Pol'y Inst., Oct. 7, 2020), available at
https://perma.cc/EQ68-3LTB.
Refusing to Certify Legitimate Votes is a Felony (with Justin
Levitt), Detroit Free Press, Nov. 23, 2020, available at https://
perma.cc/P6FJ-QTXS.
Books and Book Chapters
Law and the Contradictions of the Disability Rights Movement
(Yale U. Press, 2009) [no hyperlink available].
Disability Rights Law: Cases and Materials (Foundation Press
2010; 2d ed. 2014; 3d ed., 2020) [no hyperlink available].
A Nation of Widening Opportunities: The Civil Rights Act at 50
(Ellen D. Katz and Samuel R. Bagenstos, eds., 2015).
US Airways v. Barnett and the Limits of Disability
Accommodation, in Civil Rights Stories (Myriam Gilles and Risa
Goluboff, eds., 2007) [no hyperlink available].
The Judiciary's Now-Limited Role in Special Education, in From
Schoolhouse to Courthouse: The Judiciary's Role in American Education
(Joshua Dunn and Martin West, eds., 2009) [no hyperlink available].
Federalism by Waiver After the Health Care Case, in The Health
Care Case: The Supreme Court's Decision and Its Implications (Nathaniel
Persily, Gillian Metzger, and Trevor Morrison, eds., 2013).
On Class-not-Race, in A Nation of Widening Opportunities, supra
(2015).
Foreword: Thoughts on Responding to the Left Critique of
Disability Rights Law, in Disability Politics in a Global Economy:
Essays in Honour of Marta Russell (Ravi Malhotra, ed., 2016) [no
hyperlink available].
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs: Universalism and
Reproductive Justice, in Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories
(Melissa Murray, Kate Shaw and Reva Siegel, eds., 2019) [no hyperlink
available].
Health Professions and the Law, in Disability as Diversity: A
Guidebook for Inclusion in Medicine, Nursing, and the Health
Professions (Lisa Meeks and Leslie Neal-Boylan, eds., 2020) [no
hyperlink available].
Blogging
Formerly maintained the Disability Law Blog: https://disability
law.blogspot.com/.
Guest-blogged at various outlets, including Prawfsblawg,
SCOTUSBlog, the ACS Blog, Concurring Opinions, Balkinization, the Take
Care blog, and Just Security.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates):
I do not have a list of all speeches and presentations I have
delivered in the last 5 years. I do, however, have records of
giving the following presentations (with hyperlinks to the
extent I could find them):
ACS Michigan: 2019-2020 SCOTUS Review, panel discussion
hosted by the Michigan Chapter of the American Constitution
Society, (July 30, 2020).
COVID-19: Disability Civil Rights and Health Care Rationing
(panel discussion hosted by Wayne State University Law School,
April 13, 2020).
#COVIDChat with Samuel Bagenstos, JD (April 28, 2020).
Bloggingheads.tv (April 5, 2018).
Olmstead: The Supreme Court Litigation, panel at Georgetown
Journal on Poverty Law and Policy's Symposium on Fulfilling
Olmstead: Community Living for People with Disabilities (2019)
[transcript of remarks is listed in the publications section
above].
Taking Choice Seriously in Olmstead Jurisprudence, keynote
address at Georgia State University's Symposium on Olmstead at
Twenty: The Past and Future of Community Integration (2019)
[written version of remarks appears in the publications section
above].
The ADA Amendments Act and the Projects of the American
Disability Rights Movement, presentation at UDC Law Review's
Symposium on Disability Rights: Past, Present, and Future
(2019) [written version of remarks appears in the publications
section above].
The Politics of Disability Identity, Richards Lecture on
Disability Law, University of Iowa College of Law (2019).
Educational Equality for Children with Disabilities, Ken
Campbell Lecture on Disability Law and Policy, Ohio State
University (2017) [written version of remarks appears in the
publications section above].
Disability, Universalism, Social Rights, and Citizenship,
presentation at Cardozo Law Review's disability law symposium
(2017) [written version of remarks appears in the publications
section above].
Disability Rights and Labor: Is This Conflict Really
Necessary?, William R. Stewart Lecture, Indiana University
Maurer School of Law (2016) [written version of remarks appears
in the publications section above].
Corporate Wellness Programs: Are They Hazardous to Well-
Being?, panel discussion at Case Western University School of
Law (2016) [written version of remarks appears in the
publications section above].
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
When I decided to become an attorney, I was inspired by the
civil rights movement, which used the law to rectify historic
injustices. I have been fortunate to have been able to use my
legal training to pursue equality and fairness in many
important areas--notably those relating to health care and
human services. I have litigated cases that helped protect
those living with HIV against health-care discrimination,
ensure that those who are pregnant do not lose their jobs,
secure to those with physical disabilities basic access to
government facilities, and provide those who have experienced
water contamination a means to hold public officials
accountable. Most recently, I engaged in legal and
administrative advocacy to ensure that people with preexisting
disabilities may not be sent to the back of the line for COVID-
19 treatments.
No individual or entity should be above the law's obligations,
nor should any be below its protections. Should I be confirmed
as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), I will serve in that spirit. If confirmed, I
will not be a policymaker; I will have the responsibility of
ensuring that policies set by the President and his appointees
are developed and implemented in a way that is consistent with
the law. That is the role that I currently play as General
Counsel at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and that
is the role that I am prepared to play as General Counsel at
HHS.
I have spent nearly 30 years litigating, studying, and writing
about substantive areas of law that implicate HHS. I have
litigated health-related matters in the Michigan courts and in
Federal courts throughout the country, including arguing four
cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. I also
have developed extensive expertise in the regulatory process
during my work at OMB, at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),
and as an outside advocate. All of these experiences qualify me
for the role of General Counsel at HHS.
Throughout my career, I have worked on complex legal and policy
issues that required me to engage with key components of HHS.
Those components have included the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the
Administration for Children and Families, the Administration
for Community Living, the Administration on Aging, the Office
of Civil Rights, and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC).
From 2009 to 2011, I was the Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights. In addition to supervising
200 attorneys across three sections of DOJ's Civil Rights
Division--a division that is almost the same size as the entire
HHS OGC, I led the Department's enforcement of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. That work frequently required me to work
with State Medicaid systems--negotiating amicably with them
where possible, suing them where necessary--to defend the
rights of people with disabilities to receive community-based
services. I have a deep understanding of the legal and
regulatory issues that apply to Medicaid (at both the State and
Federal levels)--as well as to Medicare.
For several years, I litigated on behalf of Flint residents who
were victims of the city's water crisis--a public health
emergency. I successfully argued the case three times before a
Federal appeals court. As a result, the Flint residents
obtained the chance to make their constitutional case in court
and hold accountable those who caused the crisis.
I am currently the General Counsel at OMB. One of my primary
responsibilities in this role is to make sure that regulations
and other administrative pronouncements issued by Federal
agencies comply with the law--notably the restrictions of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Because of my experience working
on administrative law issues at OMB, I will be able to do my
job at HHS more effectively and efficiently from day one.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
I will retain my tenure at the University of Michigan but will
be on an unpaid leave and receive no salary or benefits (other
than continued participation, without new contributions, in my
defined-contribution retirement accounts). I have ceased any
work in my part-time solo legal practice, and that practice
will remain dormant during my government service.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
No (aside from my answer to Question B.1.).
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of
Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics agreement has
been provided to the committee. I am not aware of any potential
conflict other than those addressed by my ethics agreement. If
I have any questions arise, I will consult with HHS career
ethics officials.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of
Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics agreement has
been provided to the committee. I am not aware of any potential
conflict other than those addressed by my ethics agreement. If
I have any questions arise, I will consult with HHS career
ethics officials.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
government need not be listed.
In 2017 and 2018, I participated, with several others, in the
drafting of Proposals 2 (independent redistricting commission)
and 3 (voting rights), State constitutional amendments that the
voters of Michigan adopted in the 2018 election.
In 2012, I testified before the Senate HELP Committee in favor
of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
On numerous occasions, I have assisted public interest
organizations in submitting comments on proposed rulemakings by
Federal agencies. On occasion, I have also submitted comments
on my own behalf, as in response to proposed rules for the SNAP
program in 2019, and proposed rules for the Fair Housing Act in
that same year.
Much of the litigation in which I have engaged through my
career has ``affect[ed] the administration and execution of law
and public policy'' as well.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of
Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics agreement has
been provided to the committee. I am not aware of any potential
conflict other than those addressed by my ethics agreement. If
I have any questions arise, I will consult with HHS career
ethics officials.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
I understand that my ethics agreement has been provided to the
committee along with the accompanying transmittal documents.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
In 2011, due to an oversight, I failed to renew my car
registration in DC. A police officer noticed the expired tag
and pulled me over. Rather than issuing me a citation, the
officer arrested me. When I arrived at the precinct, the desk
sergeant was not pleased that the officer had arrested me
rather than having merely given me a ticket. The desk sergeant
released me and dismissed the charge without any admission of
guilt on payment of a $50.00 fee. (In DC, they call this
practice ``post and forfeit.'')
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
N/A.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Samuel R. Bagenstos
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
transplant system reform
Question. My staff have become aware of a legal determination, made
by HHS, which has potentially dire consequences for Americans waiting
for a transplant. As I've said before, reforming the transplant system
is an urgent health equity issue. Communities of color are much more
likely to need lifesaving organ transplants. For example, Black
Americans are three times more likely to suffer from kidney disease
than White Americans. Furthermore, experts project a dramatically
increased need for transplants as a result of COVID-19, which is likely
to compound the disparities already experienced by minority
populations.
Do you believe it is appropriate for HHS to reconsider its legal
determination on how the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
contract is awarded to ensure competition in the next contract cycle?
Answer. Because I am not at HHS, I have not been involved with
legal issues concerning the Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network (OPTN) contract. But I would be very glad, if confirmed as
General Counsel, to work with the attorneys in my office and with
program experts at the Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA) to optimize the OPTN contracting process and the Department's
role in ensuring the efficient and equitable operation of this crucial
lifesaving program.
Question. As HHS General Counsel, if confirmed, what will you do to
address the critical inequities in the transplant system?
Answer. One of the top priorities of the Biden-Harris
administration is to address equity issues across the health-care
sector, including throughout the organ transplant community. HHS is
making numerous adjustments to its policies to help close these health
equity gaps.
I understand that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) recently finalized changes to organ procurement organization
(OPO) outcome measures to improve the quality of OPO services and hold
underperformers accountable by using objective, transparent, and
reliable data. I also understand that CMS recently finalized
modifications to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Treatment Choices
Model--one of the agency's first CMS Innovation Center models to
directly address health equity--to encourage certain health-care
providers to decrease disparities in rates of home dialysis and kidney
transplants among ESRD patients with lower socioeconomic status. CMS
has also announced an intention to issue a request for information that
would seek public input on all aspects of the organ donation and
transplant system.
If confirmed, I intend to work with HRSA and CMS to assist in using
available authority to improve the function of the organ transplant
system. I am also committed to working with Congress to support
appropriate oversight efforts related to organ procurement.
telehealth following the public health emergency
Question. As the coronavirus began to spread in the spring of 2020,
I think one of the most important actions that HHS and Congress took
together was to provide new flexibilities for telehealth services,
especially in Medicare. During this pandemic, these flexibilities have
allowed patients to continue to receive care from their doctors, while
maintaining social distancing and reducing the spread of the virus.
Many of these flexibilities are authorized via waivers that last
through the end of the public health emergency.
If confirmed as General Counsel at HHS, will you work with this
committee to ensure a smooth transition for these telehealth
flexibilities as the public health emergency ends and Congress
considers long-term approaches to modernizing telehealth policies in
Medicare?
Answer. Telehealth, supported by investments in broadband
infrastructure, is an important tool to that can address health equity
and improve access. My understanding is that HHS continues to examine
the telehealth flexibilities developed for the current public health
emergency and determine how we can build on this work to improve health
equity and improve access to health care. CMS recently stated that
certain telehealth services that were available for Medicare payment
during the public health emergency will continue to be available
through December 31, 2023 to allow additional time to evaluate whether
these telehealth services should be paid by Medicare permanently. If
confirmed, I intend to assist HHS with its review of these important
services that improve access to health care.
home and community-based services (hcbs)
Question. For too long, American families have struggled to help
their mom, dad, relative, or child with a disability find good quality
long-term care at home. Millions of Americans receive home and
community-based services through Medicaid today. But many Americans sit
on wait lists--sometimes for years--before they can access the services
they need.
You have been a powerful advocate on behalf of people with
disabilities throughout your career. As you know, Congress just made
major investments in home and community-based services through the
American Rescue Plan, and we're on the precipice of a historic
investment through Build Back Better.
How will your experience advocating on behalf of those with
disabilities inform your work at HHS, should you be confirmed, and how
would you help to ensure these investments in home and community-based
services will benefit American families?
Answer. I appreciate your leadership in this area. My own
experience working to expand home and community-based services across
the Nation gives me an acute understanding of just how far we need to
go to make these programs a reality for those who want to be served in
their own homes rather than in nursing homes and other institutions.
As you noted, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 temporarily
provides additional Medicaid funding that allows States to enhance,
expand, or strengthen HCBS under the Medicaid program. I understand
that CMS is working with States to improve the HCBS system, both in
response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and in response to
longstanding priorities.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with CMS on further
improving HCBS for all Americans.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr
Question. The Family First Prevention Services Act created a new
Federal category for settings that deliver trauma-informed treatment
for foster children with serious emotional or behavioral issues in a
residential setting, known as Qualified Residential Treatment Programs
(QRTPs). QRTPs are one of the few residential settings that are
eligible for title IV-E reimbursement.
On October 19, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) confirmed QRTPs with more than 16 beds meet the definition of an
Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMDs), preventing Medicaid
reimbursement for care in these facilities. Specifically, the CMS
guidance document stated: ``CMS does not have the authority to utilize
general enforcement discretion or compliance action to authorize
reimbursement of services provided to children residing in QRTPs that
the state has assessed as meeting the definition of an IMD.''
On a recent call with staff of committee members, you mentioned
that you have spent a great deal of time thinking about the IMD
exclusion from Medicaid payments but have not thought about the merits
of a potential policy change for QRTPs. On the same call, you indicated
that you had not previously contemplated whether or not you feel there
is a distinction between these specialized facilities for vulnerable
children and other IMDs, namely inpatient psychiatric hospitals.
You have been serving as the General Counsel for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) since January of 2021. Typically, OMB
serves as a clearinghouse for agency documents before they are made
public. According to its website, one of the office's five main
functions is ``Coordination and review of all significant Federal
regulations from executive agencies, privacy policy, information
policy, and review and assessment of information collection requests.''
Did OMB see the CMS guidance prior to its release on October 19,
2021?
Did you see the CMS guidance prior to its release?
If yes, why did you tell my staff that you had not considered the
issue previously?
If no, why would the OMB General Counsel, who has decades of
experience in disability law and has been nominated to serve in the
same position as HHS, not review such an important policy guidance?
Have you provided any more consideration to the issue of whether or
not QRTPs should be exempted from the IMD payment exclusion, allowing
children in foster care to have Medicaid coverage in these placements?
Do you support the exclusion of QRTPs from the definition of IMDs?
Please provide a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer.
Answer. The issues surrounding QRTPs are important and complex. I
understand that CMS's section 1115 demonstration opportunity went
through appropriate clearance within the Biden-Harris administration. I
understand that this demonstration opportunity was developed to provide
Federal matching funds for Medicaid services provided to foster
children residing in QRTPs. If confirmed, I am committed to working
across HHS--with both CMS and the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF)--to broadly evaluate all available administrative and
legislative authorities to ensure that children in foster care receive
the medical care that they need and to which they are entitled, in a
safe and nurturing setting that fosters their growth and development. I
will similarly work to ensure that children in foster care receive
necessary medical care without disruption.
Question. The rapid pace of medical innovation has led to the
development of novel technologies intended to prevent infectious
diseases with the potential to benefit individuals with a variety of
diseases in the future, such as those used in some of the COVID-19
vaccines. The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP)
establishes the list of pediatric vaccines distributed by the Secretary
through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. In establishing its
list, ACIP may include FDA licensed or authorized vaccine products,
including those that leverage novel and innovative technology, to help
prevent infectious diseases in children.
Can you assure the committee that you will provide assistance, to
the best of your ability, as appropriate, and to the fullest extent of
your legal authority, to help ensure appropriate access to innovative
pediatric immunizations for American children?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The inability to fully leverage our testing
infrastructure in the U.S. during the early days of the COVID-19
pandemic left the U.S. Government unable to accurately track the spread
of the virus, hampering our ability to effectively control the spread
of the virus. Thankfully, over the last 18 months, the private sector
has been highly innovative in developing advanced technology to aid in
testing and surveillance.
How does HHS plan to leverage advanced or novel technology
developed by private sector partners in the near and long-term to help
rapidly scale surveillance and testing capabilities and capacity to
better prepare for future pandemics?
Answer. As HHS continues to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is
important that the Department also look ahead to what can be integrated
to better prepare for future pandemics. If confirmed, I will support
this ongoing work.
Question. Are there any barriers to effective partnerships with
private-sector innovators?
Answer. ASPR's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority (BARDA) continuously and effectively partners with private-
sector innovators. BARDA provides an integrated, systemic approach to
the development of necessary vaccines, drugs, therapies, and diagnostic
tools for public health emergencies, including the current COVID-19
pandemic. If confirmed, I will support this ongoing work.
Question. Through the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response
Supplemental Appropriations Act of March 2020 and otherwise, Congress
appropriated billions of dollars for the development of COVID-19
therapeutics and diagnostics. However, I have heard that multiple
highly promising candidates did not receive funding, and it remains
unclear whether and how the funding earmarked for the development of
COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics was spent.
If confirmed, will you commit to investigating on what activities
and programs the funds appropriated to HHS for the purposes of COVID-19
therapeutics and diagnostics through the Coronavirus Preparedness and
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act were spent, and publicly
release (in a manner that does not affect national security) such
information, in addition to the amount of funding that remains
unobligated or unspent?
Answer. I believe in transparency and, if confirmed, will carry out
my new role with that perspective in mind. My understanding is that the
Office of General Counsel at HHS has been consistently involved in
decision-making regarding the use of HHS's COVID funding, in
coordination with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial
Resources and the HHS Operating and Staff Divisions, and I would have a
better view of this issue once confirmed.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
Question. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
finalized reforms in November of 2020 to ensure that organ procurement
organizations (OPOs) will be held accountable to objective data for the
first time and that failing OPOs will lose their contracts. The new
regulation, however, currently does not allow HHS to decertify a
failing OPO until 2026.
What actions can HHS take to accelerate that timeline?
Answer. I understand that CMS recently finalized changes to OPO
outcome measures to improve the quality of OPO services and hold
underperformers accountable by using objective, transparent, and
reliable data. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, other
members of Congress, and CMS to use available authority to hold OPOs
accountable for their performance.
Question. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)
contract has been held by only one entity, the United Network for Organ
Sharing (UNOS), since 1986. When the contract is up for renewal, UNOS
is historically the only bidder for the contract due to contract
requirements set forth by the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) that make it nearly impossible for other entities
to apply.
What specific steps should HHS take to ensure that all future OPTN
contracting cycles--including the next, immediate cycle--have a robust,
competitive bid process?
Answer. It is my understanding that future contracting cycles will
utilize past experience and market research to gauge interest and
capabilities of vendors to handle the entirety of the OPTN operational
functions. If confirmed, I intend to work with HRSA and CMS to ensure
we use available authority to improve the function of the organ
transplant ecosystem.
Question. What oversight is HHS providing to ensure UNOS is living
up to the requirements set out in statute?
Answer. It is my understanding that the current contract includes
requirements that OPTN policymaking be consistent with existing
statutes and regulations. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to
support their oversight efforts related to organ procurement, where
appropriate.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune
Question. If confirmed, do you anticipate that you would uphold the
legal opinion offered by your predecessor related to 340B contract
pharmacies, which stated that the plain meaning of 340B statute
requires manufacturers to offer drugs at or below ceiling price without
qualifiers?
Answer. The 340B drug pricing program is an important program for
our safety-net providers serving some of our most vulnerable
populations. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and other
members of Congress to uphold the law and ensure this vital program is
able to continue supporting vulnerable communities.
Question. As you know, there have been multiple providers of
concern at the Indian Health Service. As the Department's attorney, how
would you ensure that abusive providers are held to account and that
the Department is transparent with Congress?
Answer. I am aware of this very troubling issue. If confirmed, I am
committed to supporting the Indian Health Service's (IHS) policy of no
tolerance for abusing patients or failing to prevent or report abuse in
the Indian health system. I will also commit to ensuring that HHS
follows the law and holds all employees and contractors accountable to
the advancement of our mission and maintenance of the public's trust in
our services and programs. If confirmed, I will work with IHS to ensure
continued transparency regarding sexual abuse within the IHS system and
to being transparent with Congress and the public.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo,
a U.S. Senator From Idaho
Today we will hear from a panel of nominees who will influence and
implement a broad range of the administration's priorities.
Dr. Neiman, the United States is the best place in the world to do
business. Not surprisingly, that has drawn foreign investment, which
has benefited our citizens immensely. I look forward to hearing your
views on how the United States can remain a prized destination for
foreign investment. I fear that uncontrolled spending, burdensome
regulations, and potential tax increases--including on the middle
class--will make America less competitive and less attractive for
foreign investment. The administration's international tax negotiations
are concerning, given lack of detailed consultation with Congress as a
whole.
I am also concerned about how some of our overseas rivals are
manipulating international organizations the U.S. helped found, like
the World Bank. The U.S. and other countries established these
institutions to promote global prosperity, not to further parochial
interests.
Mr. Frost, I look forward to learning about your thoughts on the
administration's fiscal policy, the debt ceiling, and proposed
financial market reforms, including the U.S. Treasury securities market
and the replacement of LIBOR. The debt limit provides an important
check on both the President's and Congress's policies. And if fiscal
decisions that will influence debt accumulation moving forward are
willfully made by one party alone, then the accompanying obligation to
change the debt limit to accommodate those fiscal choices must also be
made by the party making unilateral choices. Tools and time are
available to unilaterally accomplish such a change in the debt limit.
Along the way, Mr. Frost, I look forward to your commitment to
ensure that Treasury keeps members of this committee fully and timely
informed on the Nation's debt, cash balances, and debt management.
Turning to LIBOR, while recent administrations, the Federal
Reserve, and market participants have worked successfully to establish
the Secured Overnight Financing Right as an alternative reference rate,
nearly $2 trillion in LIBOR-linked exposures are expected to remain
outstanding after the termination of LIBOR in June 2023. It is
important to understand how the administration plans to address this
looming challenge.
Ms. Pagan, the World Trade Organization is critical to our trading
interests, but is in need of reform. I look forward to hearing your
views on how to make the institution more effective.
Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, you will be the first Deputy U.S. Trade
Representative for Innovation and Intellectual Property. Strong
intellectual property protections are critical to America's economic
prosperity. This is especially true today. I want to know your
priorities for the position, and how we can combat unfair practices by
our global competitors, like theft and forced technology transfers, and
how we can protect intellectual property and private intellectual
property rights.
Additionally, the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic has been
lessened, thanks to innovations borne out of the partnership between
the American government and American industry. It is critical that we
not undermine the American people's ability to respond to future
challenges with intelligence and agility.
Mr. Bagenstos, as the nominee for General Counsel at HHS, you will
have a key role in opining on the legality of new regulations. I am
interested in your perspective on providing legal opinions to Congress
so that we can understand and discuss policymaking effectively with the
administration. Already, this administration has shown a disturbing
tendency to push through its policy preferences despite clear
indications of the intent of Congress.
Finally, I again emphasize the importance of responsiveness to this
committee. While there have been noteworthy exceptions, several
nominees before this committee have provided late, incomplete, and
evasive responses to questions from the members of this panel. This
makes it harder for the Finance Committee and its members to work
constructively with the administration.
I strongly urge the nominees here today to commit to timely and
thorough communication with the committee.
I congratulate the nominees here before us today, and I look
forward to our discussion.
______
Prepared Statement of Joshua Frost, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary
for Financial Markets, Department of the Treasury
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored
to be President Biden's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for Financial Markets, and I am grateful to Secretary Yellen
for her confidence in me.
Before proceeding, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my
family, without whom I would not be sitting here today: my wife Emily,
my daughter Lily, and my brother Andy. I would also like to thank my
parents, Robert and Nikki, who instilled in me the importance of public
service via the example that they set as dedicated public-school
teachers.
It was this early example of contributing to the greater good that
led me to begin my career at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. I
have spent over 23 years at the New York Fed in a number of roles, and
in each of those jobs, I saw first-hand the dedication of this
committed group of public servants who selflessly helped me to develop
my understanding of how different corners of financial markets operate,
and how the financial system can better serve the American people.
If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue to serve
our Nation by supporting the President's and Secretary Yellen's
priorities in leading the Office of Financial Markets. Among other
responsibilities, this office helps formulate policy on debt management
at the Federal, State, and local levels; serves to assess the capital
markets implications of various policy choices; and serves as the
Treasury's eyes and ears in financial markets. This set of
responsibilities aligns well with my interests and experience, and
having spent my entire career focused on these issues, I look forward
to taking a data-driven, taxpayer-centric approach to policymaking.
Finally, I would note that managing the Nation's debt is an awesome
responsibility, and if confirmed, I will be sure to ground any debt
management decisions in an assessment of what provides for the lowest
cost of funding over time for the taxpayer. I believe that it is also
critical to have a resilient and well-functioning Treasury market, and
I would look forward to working with other agencies to continue to
ensure that the Treasury market is structured so that it remains the
deepest, most liquid market in the world.
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee,
thank you for considering my nomination. If confirmed, I look forward
to working closely with you and your staff and appreciate the important
oversight role of this committee. I would be happy to take your
questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Joshua (Josh) Lee Frost.
2. Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Financial Markets.
3. Date of nomination: September 13, 2021.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: April 19, 1976; Neptune, NJ.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Shore Regional High School; September 1990-June 1994 (HS degree
granted June 1994).
Rutgers College; September 1994-May 1998 (BA degree in
mathematics and psychology granted May 1998).
New York University; August 2004-May 2006 (MBA degree with a
concentration in finance granted May 2006).
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
Federal Reserve Bank of New York; August 1998-current.
Various roles, including Director of Treasury Markets, Director
of Money Markets, Co-Chair of Large Institution Supervision
Coordinating Committee Liquidity Program, Lead of Corporate
Credit Facilities, detail to Treasury Department.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
Same as employment record above.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
Officer of Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination.
Biden for President, $2,800--June 4, 2020.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
Rutgers University Presidential Scholar.
Rutgers University honors program.
Phi Beta Kappa.
NYU class valedictorian.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
Papers:
Overnight RRP Operations as a Monetary Policy Tool: Some Design
Considerations, FRB of New York Staff Report No. 712--February
25, 2015, https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/
SSRN_ID2568698_code387943.pdf?ab
stractid=2568698.
Other published materials:
The Effects of MBS Paydowns and Potential Reinvestment
Options--August 5, 2010, https://www.federalreserve.gov/
monetarypolicy/files/fomc20100805memo
07.pdf.
Possible Approaches to Providing Monetary Accommodation:
Reinvestment Maturity Extension Program, SOMA Portfolio
Maturity Extension Program, and Long-Maturity LSAP--September
12, 2011, https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/
FOMC20110912memo01.pdf.
The effect of an additional $1 trillion LSAP on the exit
strategy--August 28, 2012, https://www.federalreserve.gov/
monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20120828
memo07.pdf.
Options for an Additional LSAP Program--August 28, 2012,
https://www.
federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20120828memo06.pdf.
Options for Continuation of Open-Ended Asset Purchases in
2013--November 30, 2012, https://www.federalreserve.gov/
monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20121130
memo05.pdf.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates):
Speeches/presentations:
Introducing the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR)--
November 2, 2017, https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/
media/newsevents/speeches/2017/Frostpresentation.pdf.
Presentation by Joshua Frost at the Alternative Reference Rates
Committee Roundtable--November 8, 2017, https://
www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2017/fro171108.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
I have spent my entire 23-year career serving the American
public in a steady progression of roles at the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, and believe that this experience has left me
particularly well-qualified to serve in the role of Assistant
Secretary of Financial Markets, if confirmed.
My professional career began with a 7\1/2\-year stint in the
Central Bank and International Account Services area of the New
York Fed. In this role, I learned the plumbing of the Treasury,
mortgage-backed security, and foreign exchange markets, as well
as the importance of the dollar in the global financial system.
After graduating at the top of my MBA class in finance, I
joined the New York Fed's open market desk, where I built a
strong understanding of all corners of financial markets. In my
12\1/2\ years on the open market desk, I led teams that briefed
policymakers on market developments, provided Treasury with
debt management advice, and designed the Fed's ``QE'' purchases
in the Treasury market. I also led teams that auctioned U.S.
Government debt on behalf of the Treasury, implemented monetary
policy in domestic money markets, and designed, built, and
published the principal successor to LIBOR (the Secured
Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR)).
At the end of 2018, following 2 decades in the New York Fed's
Markets Group, I took an opportunity to broaden my knowledge
base and led the Federal Reserve's efforts to supervise the
liquidity positions and risk management at the Nation's most
systemically important banks. After roughly a year and half
supervising banks, as the pandemic began to spread, I took on
the challenge of leading the two Corporate Credit Facilities,
jointly launched by the Treasury and Federal Reserve to ensure
that the Nation's largest corporations could continue to play
their crucial roles in the global economy and in the labor
market.
Finally, perhaps two of the most rewarding parts of my career
have been serving on the committee that sets the New York Fed's
strategic priorities and serving as a leadership advisor to the
bank's African American and Latino Men's Association employee
resource group. Both of these opportunities gave me a fresh
perspective on the ways that financial markets have
historically served to reinforce some of the inequities present
in our society, and have made it clear to me that we need a
financial system that works for all Americans.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
Yes. If confirmed by the Senate, I will sever all such
connections. Please note that I will remain a participant in
the defined benefit plan for employees of the Federal Reserve
System. Under this plan, I am eligible to receive a monthly
lifetime retirement benefit in the form of a defined benefit at
any time after age 50. I will not accrue additional benefits
under this plan after I resign from my role at the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
None.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
None.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
government need not be listed.
None.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at the
Department of the Treasury and the Office of Government Ethics.
I understand that my ethics agreement has been provided to the
committee. I am not aware of any potential conflict.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
Provided to the committee.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
None.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Joshua Frost
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
Question. Our financial industry has a diversity problem,
especially at the highest levels. The proportion of minorities in
financial services drops by 75 percent from entry-level to the C-
Suites. At the highest levels, 90 percent of the C-Suite is White.
Women of color make up only 2 percent of executives despite being 21
percent of the entry-level workforce. This is not just an optics
problem. Lack of diversity leads to real issues in our financial
system. Treasury Secretary Yellen has previously stated that ``[i]f
economists are mainly of one gender or race, they are likely to miss
things that matter.''
Do you believe the same holds true for executives and senior
management of financial institutions?
Answer. I agree. The findings from a broad body of academic
research on this subject--specifically, that leadership teams that are
diverse with respect to background and experience outperform those that
are more homogeneous--are unambiguous.
Question. Do you agree that the lack of diversity at financial
institutions means they may be more likely to miss things that matter,
as Secretary Yellen described?
Answer. I agree, for the reasons stated above.
Question. If confirmed, how would you help diversify regulated
financial institutions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary for
Financial Institutions, the Department's newly appointed Counselor for
Racial Equity, and other colleagues around the Treasury Department to
promote a financial system that better reflects the diversity of our
country. I would work with my colleagues to support policies that lead
financial institutions to hire and retain a more diverse workforce,
create opportunities for diverse suppliers, and encourage more diverse
representation at the board level.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
inflation, investment, and economic growth
Question. Last week, Fed Chair Powell said, ``Supply-side
constraints have gotten worse. . . . [T]he risks are clearly now to
longer and more persistent bottlenecks, and thus to higher inflation.''
I am deeply concerned that trillions of dollars of new social
spending proposed by this administration will exacerbate inflationary
trends by sending more dollars after a limited supply of goods and
services.
If that happens, I believe the Fed could be constrained in its
ability to address inflation through rate increases because of the
large and growing deficits that this social spending requires.
However, persistent low rates could contribute to inflation even
further.
How will financial markets respond to the rising inflation, growing
budget deficits, and rate policy uncertainty stemming from this
scenario?
Answer. The President's infrastructure legislation, including
investments in infrastructure, would be expected to result in a more
productive economy in the long run. Upgrading our transportation
infrastructure will allow more goods and services to be produced and
enable U.S. firms to access new markets. As our digital economy
continues to grow, people need reliable broadband in all corners of the
country. Further, investing in our airports and ports will help
decrease the supply-chain constraints that are leading to current
pricing pressures. Therefore, I would expect financial markets, which
are inherently forward-looking, to react positively to the long-run
productivity benefits of the proposed legislation. I also agree with
Secretary Yellen's stated view that these investments are not likely to
result in an increase in inflation.
Currently, financial markets are not signaling concern over the
budget deficit or long-term debt levels. The level and shape of the
yield curve are not indicative of a market belief that this is a major
issue today. With respect to interest rates, I respect the independence
of the Federal Reserve to make those decisions based on its
congressional mandate to sustain full employment and stable prices
Question. What effects would uncertainty in the financial markets
have on business and public sector investment, as well as economic
growth?
Answer. In general, excessive financial market uncertainty can
serve as a drag on investment and growth. This happens because firms
are reluctant to invest or expand when there is greater uncertainty
surrounding their prospects. When volatility increases, companies are
less able to anticipate their long-run cost of capital, which can
result in lower investment volumes. That is why, if confirmed, I would
focus on managing the Nation's debt in a regular and predictable manner
at the lowest cost to the government. I will also work to make sure
that market participants have confidence in a transparent and well-
functioning Treasury market. I would also note that the
administration's proposed Build Back Better legislation is likely to
result in a more productive economy and lower deficits in the long run.
On the other hand, in August, the Senate passed on a bipartisan
basis the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which would provide
more than $550 billion for traditional physical infrastructure.
Question. Given that so many of our current economic problems stem
from supply-side constraints, in order to promote economic growth,
wouldn't financial markets take more comfort from a focus by the
Federal Government on policies to promote investment in traditional
physical infrastructure?
Answer. Investments in physical capital/public infrastructure, like
the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will serve as an
important boost to the economy's long-run growth potential. I agree
that there are supply-side constraints, and as I noted above,
improvements to our country's physical infrastructure will be critical
in staying competitive and providing confidence to our manufacturers
and workers that the government understands these challenges. However,
physical infrastructure upgrades alone will not ensure that our economy
is on the path to sustained growth and full employment. We also need
investments like those outlined in the Build Back Better Act. Financial
markets have thus far responded well to the potential for these
measures to grow the economy.
debt limit
Question. The debt limit represents a statutory limitation on the
value of debt subject to the limit. Increasing the debt limit serves to
facilitate fresh borrowing in order to fund past obligations made by
Congress and signed into law by the President. Increasing the debt
limit or suspending the debt limit for a fixed future period also
facilitates increased borrowing to facilitate funding of new
obligations made by Congress and signed into law by the President
between the date at which the debt-limit increase (or suspension) was
made and the date at which the new, higher, debt limit binds (under a
suspension, there will be a new, higher limit at the date on which the
limit is reinstated). The debt limit, and any changes in probabilities
of it being breached, can have domestic and international financial and
economic effects, and the position to which you have been nominated
would confront such effects.
A debt limit increase or suspension is not exclusively limited to
increasing debt-issuance authorization that would only facilitate fresh
borrowing to pay obligations that have been made prior to the date of
the increase or suspension. Do you agree? If not, fully explain why
not.
Answer. Increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending.
It simply allows the government to finance obligations approved by
Congress. Today, an increase in or suspension of the debt limit is
necessary to allow Treasury to borrow to meet obligations resulting
from laws previously enacted by Congresses and Presidents of both
parties. I would add that if the Federal Government failed to honor all
of its obligations, the financial and economic effects would be
significant.
Question. It is known that Treasury regularly makes projections of
its near-term and longer-term operating cash balances and, in periods
approaching binding of a statutory debt limit, regular (daily, and
sometimes multiple times per day) projections about how much headroom
is made available from so-called ``extraordinary measures'' to operate
under a debt limit with available cash and incoming receipts, given
incoming due obligations.
Will you commit to supplying member of this committee and their
staff with regular updates of projections of cash holdings and
extraordinary when asked?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with members of this
committee and their staffs to share information to assist the committee
in its oversight capacity. I appreciate the committee's need for
information regarding projections during debt limit impasses, and if
confirmed, would look forward to working with the committee on this
issue.
Question. Will you commit to ensuring that members of the committee
and their staff have, upon request, at least as much projection
information as Treasury supplies to the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York?
Answer. I would need to be fully briefed by Treasury staff on the
exact nature of the information to which you are referring. As a
general matter, I am fully committed to providing the committee with
information about the debt limit, consistent with applicable laws,
procedures, and practices. If confirmed, I would look forward to
working with you to facilitate the committee's ability to perform its
important oversight role.
Question. Treasury officials regularly meet with financial market
participants, officials from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
officials from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
and often others, in the New York Fed's Treasury Market Practices
Group. When Treasury nears a debt limit that may bind, that Group
typically engages in discussions of views about effects on markets,
most prominently on markets related to Treasury securities. Indeed, in
a September 2, 2021 meeting of the Group which you attended on behalf
of Treasury, the debt limit was discussed. In that, and several prior
meetings of the Group, relevance of a Group 2013 ``white paper'' on
``Operational Plans for Various Contingencies for Treasury Debt
Payments'' was noted. That report, as the September meeting minutes
reveal ``focuses on operational practices associated with a delayed
payment on Treasury debt, in order to reduce the adverse consequence of
such an even on the markets for these securities.'' The report is, in
effect, one of the contingency plans we would expect Treasury, the Fed,
and others to have in place to provide a roadmap of steps to take in
the event of significant market disruption caused by an inability to
provide timely payment on U.S. Treasury obligations--where, notably,
the cause could be a cyberattack, a superstorm that disrupts systems,
breach of a debt limit, or other contingencies. Such a contingency plan
is something that, in a prior debt limit scare during the Obama
administration, neither Treasury nor Fed officials would acknowledge.
Do you commit, if confirmed, to share contingency plans formulated
by Treasury to confront adverse contingencies that could affect market
functioning in markets for Treasury securities, if asked by member of
this committee?
Answer. While I cannot speak to the Obama administration's
practices regarding contingency planning, if confirmed, my intention
would be to ensure that Treasury is as transparent as possible
regarding its plans for confronting adverse contingencies.
Question. Do you commit, if confirmed, to report to this committee
if you are instructed by anyone to, in turn, instruct officials or
staff of the Federal Reserve System, including the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York, to refrain from sharing with members of this committee any
information about Treasury's cash positions, projected cash positions,
or projections regarding aspects of ``extraordinary measures''?
Answer. If confirmed, I would urge Treasury to work in as
transparent a manner as possible and would not instruct others to
refrain from sharing information in a manner consistent with applicable
laws, procedures, and practices.
capital markets/securities regulation
Question. The administration continues with an odd belief that,
somehow, private-market participants do not fully understand and price-
in risks presented by climate change. The belief, further, is that
those fallible market participants must face more regulations and
controls from the perceived infallible Federal regulators, who somehow
know risks better than others.
If you agree with the administration's stance on additional Federal
financial regulations for climate change, can you provide detailed
examples of exact markets and industries and companies where private-
sector actors do not adequately understand risks that somehow Federal
regulators know more about?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Yellen and the FSOC that ``climate
change is an emerging and increasing threat to America's financial
system that requires action.'' The steps identified by the FSOC in its
recent report, including filling climate-
related data and methodological gaps and enhancing public climate-
related disclosures, are important in helping the public and private
sectors better understand the unique nature of climate risk. I believe
it is important that Treasury work with Congress on these important
issues. The FSOC's climate report notes disclosure challenges in a
number of specific financial sectors on pages 86 and 87 of the report
(available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC-Climate-
Report.
pdf).
______
Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune
Question. Inflation is at a 13-year high. Prices of more and more
goods and services are increasing. Combined with supply-chain
bottlenecks, labor shortages, and ultra-easy fiscal and monetary
policies, there's a growing recognition that inflation will be with us
well into next year or longer. Republicans warned that pouring $1.9
trillion into the economy earlier this year would fuel inflation, but
the White House dismissed increasing price pressures as
``transitory''--despite inflation forecasts having been revised up
several times already. Now Democrats want to push another multi-
trillion-dollar partisan spending bill onto the economy.
Do you regard this inflationary increase as transitory, as
Secretary Yellen has proclaimed, or is rising inflation a persistent
problem our economy will be dealing with for months, and possibly
years, ahead?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Yellen's view, which is widely held
by most economic forecasters, that the inflation outlook remains
transitory as the economy pivots from a steep recession back into
recovery. The pandemic led to a drastic shift in consumption patterns
towards goods and away from services. The pandemic has also disrupted
global supply chains and kept some workers on the sidelines. As the
vaccination rate improves and cases recede, I expect these factors to
reverse, bringing inflation rates lower.
______
Question Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
Question. You have deep contacts at the New York Fed, which is
responsible for purchasing debt that the Treasury Department sells. At
the Treasury Department you will oversee the desk which sells these
securities.
Can you detail which safeguards you will put in place to ensure
these transactions remain lawful and are not subject to any conflict of
interest?
Answer. I take the independence of the Federal Reserve very
seriously and would pledge to never undermine this independence. I know
that you and this committee are committed to assuring the independence
of our Nation's central bank, and I want to assure you that I share
that commitment. I also support the rigorous controls Treasury has in
place regarding the conduct of its auctions of Treasury securities. If
I have the honor of being confirmed, I commit to you that I will fully
embrace the role to which I have been nominated and will respect the
independence of the Federal Reserve in its monetary policy formulation
and implementation.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
Question. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget
Office, debt held by the public will reach $35.827 trillion in the year
2031, climbing to over 106 percent of GDP at that time. While interest
rates may be low now, with such a significant debt burden, even small
increases in interest rates will mean trillions in debt servicing
costs.
At what point will our Nation's ever-climbing national debt
threaten our ability to prudently and responsibly fund essential
services and protect our national security?
Answer. The current level of debt as a share of GDP is primarily
the result of the combination of (1) fiscal policies undertaken by
previous Congresses and Presidents of both parties; and (2) necessary
emergency actions taken to protect American families and our economy
from the impacts of COVID. While the emergency actions taken were a
critical part of the government's response to the pandemic, I agree
that it is imperative that we ensure that our country is on a path to
long-term fiscal sustainability.
Necessary steps on this path include investments in the productive
capacity of our economy and prudent steps to offset the costs of those
investments.
Question. Do you agree that such significant levels of borrowing,
fueled further by my colleagues' efforts to spend trillions more,
carries significant risks?
Answer. As I noted above, it is imperative that we put our country
on a path to long-term fiscal sustainability. At the same time, it is
important to invest in our Nation's productive capacity, and I believe
that right now the risks of doing too little to address long-running
structural concerns outweigh the risks of doing too much.
Question. Some of my colleagues have suggested that because
interest rates are currently low, we should not worry about deficit
spending and, in fact, some have used it as the rationale for drastic
increases in spending without any concern to how it will be financed in
the future.
Do you agree with their view--that low interest rates eliminate any
concern of deficit spending?
Answer. Real interest rates are at quite negative levels, and
nominal interest rates are very low when compared to history. While
interest rates are likely to rise over time, the projection is also
that rates will remain low by historical standards. This outlook is
supportive of my view that additional investment in improving the
productive capacity of our economy is likely to be seen by investors in
Treasury debt as a source of strength, rather than as a threat.
Question. Are you concerned about our current trajectory of
continuing to run up our national debt without any plan for reduction
in the future, while merely hoping that interest rates remain low?
Answer. As I noted above, it is imperative that we put our country
on a path to long-term fiscal sustainability. It is also important to
makeinvestments in our Nation's productive capacity.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
Question. According to The New York Times,\1\ you played an
important role in the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing (QE)
measures following the 2008 financial crisis. Given your knowledge and
experience on this topic, I want to ask you about current QE efforts by
the Federal Reserve and the relationship those strategies may be having
on the skyrocketing inflation Hoosiers--and all Americans--are
currently facing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/business/economy/11fed.html.
In an effort to stabilize the economy in the wake of COVID-19, the
Federal Reserve began engaging in QE through purchases of government
bonds and other assets. Since January 1, 2020, the Federal Reserve has
added over $4 trillion to its balance sheet, doubling the size of its
holdings since the start of the pandemic.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-
federal-reserves-balance-sheet/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you please describe the relationship between QE and inflation?
Answer. The Federal Open Market Committee has stated that it
``seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2
percent over the longer run'' while seeking to ensure that ``longer-
term inflation expectations remain well anchored at 2 percent.'' As one
of the tools to meet its statutorily defined mandate, the Fed has been
purchasing Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities in
an effort to ensure that ``substantial further progress has been made
toward its maximum employment and price stability goals.'' As these
asset purchases proceed, if they led to interest rates being too low
for a given set of economic and financial conditions, there could be
upward pressure on rates of inflation.
Question. Do you believe the elevated levels of inflation we are
currently experiencing can be attributed more to QE from the Federal
Reserve or instead to other policies from the Biden-Harris
administration, such as massive spending?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that the rate of
inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the economy
transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery, and that
the outlook remains that inflation is transitory. The spending during
the pandemic has been important to provide support to American
businesses, communities, and households.
Question. Are there any lessons that can be learned from the
Federal Reserve's response to the pandemic and the current inflationary
environment we are in now?
Answer. I believe that the Federal Reserve's response has been
robust and timely given the challenges faced and the magnitude of the
pandemic's effect on the economy. There is little evidence that the
policies employed by the Fed had an outsized impact on inflation. As I
noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that the rate of
inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the economy
transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery.
Question. Professor Larry Summers, the former U.S. Secretary of the
Treasury under President Clinton, the former Director of the National
Economic Council under President Obama, and the Charles W. Eliot
university professor at Harvard, issued the following series of tweets
on October 25, 2021:
Yesterday on @CNN w @jaketapper, @SecYellen said I was wrong
about my assertion we are more at risk of losing control of
inflation than at any time in my career. She expressed
confidence that inflation is decelerating and will be back to
target levels by the end of next year. I hope she is right but
I think it's much less than a 50/50 chance. When the
administration formulated its budget in February, it expected 2
percent inflation in 2021, I was warning about inflation. Their
forecast is no longer operative. In May and June, @SecYellen
expressed confidence that inflation would be back to the 2
percent range by late 2021 or early 2022. Now this forecast is
no longer operative. In @CNN interview, @SecYellen asserts
twice that inflation has decelerated. This is a bit misleading
as the 3 month and 12 month CPI inflation rates are both around
5 percent on an annual basis. And the trimmed mean and median
inflation rates that exclude aberrant sectors (which used to be
a stable of administration's rhetoric) are now accelerating.
The TIPS market is suggesting inflation in 3 percent range over
5 years and more next year. Breakeven inflation over 5 years is
up 40 bps in the last month. Expectations data are even more
disturbing. This is part of why my alarm is increasing and
Treasury should be as well. Given lags in indices, housing
inflation is almost certain to soar in coming months. With
super tight labor markets, rising strike activity and real
wages having declined, increases in wage inflation are likely
as well. I actually believe the gap between Treasury and Fed
statements and the everyday experience of business and
consumers in terms of inflation has widened in recent months.
Until the Fed & Treasury fully recognize the inflation reality,
they are unlikely to deal with it successfully.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1452698999656534018.
Do you agree with Professor Summers' analysis and conclusions as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
set forth above, why or why not?
Answer. As I noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that
the rate of inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the
economy transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery,
and that the outlook remains that inflation is transitory. The pandemic
saw a drastic shift in consumption towards goods and away from
services, while also disrupting the production and distribution of
goods. These effects of the pandemic have raised goods inflation over
the past year. The consensus expectation, which I agree with, is that
these price pressures will abate in the near term as the pandemic
recedes and return to levels that are consistent with the Federal
Reserve's target.
Question. The Federal Reserve of San Francisco recently released an
analysis suggesting that President Biden's $1.9-trillion American
Rescue Plan contributed to the inflationary crisis we find ourselves in
today.\4\ In fact, the Federal Reserve's key measure of inflation, the
personal consumption expenditure price index, is on track to hit a 40-
year high.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/business/economy/fed-
inflation-stimulus-biden.html.
\5\ https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/brady-families-fall-further-
behind-as-bidenflation-pushes-prices-to-highest-in-30-years/.
Given these facts, do you have concerns that another massive
injection of money into the economy, particularly through President
Biden's revised Build Back Better Act, will only perpetuate the rapid
inflation we have seen this year? Please answer ``yes'' or ``no.'' If
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
your answer is ``no,'' please explain.
Answer. No. As I noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view
that the rate of inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as
the economy transitions between a steep recession and a healthy
recovery, and that the inflation outlook remains that inflation is
transitory. The Build Back Better proposals would expand the productive
capacity of our economy by raising labor participation rates and
improving productivity. They also entail expenditures that are critical
in unlocking our Nation's growth potential.
Question. According to Federal Reserve survey data, consumers,\6\
business,\7\ and markets \8\ all expect inflation to remain at elevated
levels in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/sce#/inflexp-1.
\7\ https://www.atlantafed.org/research/inflationproject/bie.
\8\ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE.
What steps should the Biden-Harris administration take to curb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
inflation before it is too late?
Answer. As I noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that
the rate of inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the
economy transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery.
Elevated inflation rates have been driven by the effect of the pandemic
on our consumption patterns and the workforce. Ending the pandemic is
central to bringing down inflation rates. In the short term, as COVID-
19 cases recede, inflation rates should follow. Over the longer term,
it is important to make investments in our Nation's productive
capacity, and I believe that the risks of doing too little to address
long-running structural concerns outweigh the risks of doing too much.
Question. If confirmed to this position, what specific actions
would you take during the first 60 days of your tenure to address the
current economic crisis brought on by this administration?
Answer. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will work to
serve our Nation by supporting the President's and Secretary Yellen's
priorities in leading the Office of Financial Markets. This includes
making sure we have regular and predictable Treasury debt auctions at
the lowest cost to the government, ensuring that Treasury market
participants have confidence in a fair and well-functioning market,
addressing the transition from LIBOR, and addressing the challenges
posed by the rapidly growing and changing markets for digital assets.
______
Prepared Statement of Brent Neiman, Ph.D., Nominated to be Deputy Under
Secretary for International Finance and Development, Department of the
Treasury
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished members of
this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today as nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary/Designated Assistant
Secretary for International Finance and Development at the Treasury
Department. I am also deeply grateful to President Biden and to
Secretary Yellen for placing their confidence in me.
I would like to introduce my family, most of whom are in Chicago,
where I was born and raised and live today. Though I didn't end up far
from where I started, my wife Yael moved from Argentina to New York
when she was 4 years old. Her family came to the United States seeking
opportunity and they found it, as my wife was the first in her family
to finish college. We are so proud of our wonderful kids--our 11-year-
old daughter Tal and our 8-year-old son Lev. My parents, Bill and Gail,
have always been encouraging and are watching from home right now. I am
so appreciative of my entire family's support.
My grandparents are also in my thoughts. My grandmother Margot, who
fled from Germany in 1939 to Decatur, IL, always encouraged an
awareness of world affairs and an understanding of other people,
places, and cultures. My grandfather Julie, who ran a small
manufacturer, hired me for summer jobs ranging from assembling boxes to
coding the company's first web page, and taught me about
entrepreneurship and small business. I'm grateful for what they shared
with me and imagine that all four of my grandparents would be proud
today.
My interest in international macroeconomics started early in high
school, when I gave a speech about the ECU (the euro's predecessor) for
the final project in my sophomore year speech class. My teacher
criticized the topic as hopelessly dry, but I stuck with it. Since
then, I've worked as the staff economist for international finance at
the Council of Economic Advisers, written a doctoral dissertation at
Harvard University, consulted to the IMF and Congressional Budget
Office, and presented to central banks all around the world. For the
past 13 years, I've also taught a course called ``International
Financial Policy'' at the University of Chicago's Booth School of
Business. I hope I have been able to prove my high school speech
teacher wrong and instill some excitement about international economics
in the next generation of leaders.
My research has uniquely prepared me to serve in this position, at
this time. I've published papers exploring the changing international
role of the U.S. dollar and analyzing the financial exposures of U.S.
investors to emerging market borrowers, including those that issue
securities through offshore affiliates. My work has evaluated the
impact of exchange rate movements on productivity during a sudden stop
crisis and measured the price response of U.S. imports and exports to
trade policies. I've developed models of how economic activity
transmits across borders and used them to understand the formation and
resolution of external imbalances. Most recently, I've studied cross-
country differences in the ability to work from home during the
pandemic.
The past 2 years have brought unprecedented challenges, with all of
us struggling to stay physically safe while doing our best to satisfy
economic, educational, and emotional needs. Our government's bold
policies have helped tremendously, but many lower-income countries have
less capacity to act and face a daunting situation in coming years.
The pandemic has underscored how interconnected the world economy
is. Continuing hardship in foreign countries spurs families to leave,
seeking better opportunities elsewhere. Disruptions in the global
supply chain keep our workers waiting for equipment and our consumers
waiting for goods that both need. Slow growth abroad restricts markets
for American businesses, large and small. Helping to alleviate
suffering and restore financial and physical health to the rest of the
world is worthy in its own right, but also benefits the U.S. economy
and our national security.
The position for which I've been nominated plays a key role in
directing Treasury's macroeconomic engagement with other countries,
bilaterally and through multilateral institutions including the G7,
G20, and the IMF. The United States must lead in these engagements and
bring about a sustained global recovery with smart, implementable
policies that enhance stability and create opportunity for all American
workers and their families. If confirmed, working closely with the
members and staff of this committee and with the distinguished civil
servants in the Office of International Affairs at Treasury, I will
dedicate myself fully toward this task.
Thank you again for the privilege of appearing here today, and for
your consideration of my nomination. I look forward to answering your
questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Brent Neiman.
2. Position to which nominated: Deputy Under Secretary/Designated
Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Finance and
Development.
3. Date of nomination: August 10, 2021.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: September 1, 1977; Highland Park, IL.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Harvard University, September 2002-June 2008, Ph.D. in
economics.
Oxford University, September 1999-September 2000, master of
science in numerical analysis and scientific computing.
University of Pennsylvania, September 1995-June 1999, bachelor
of science in economics and bachelor of applied science in
engineering.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, professor,
Chicago, 2008-present.
Council of Economic Advisers, Staff Economist, Washington DC,
2003-2004.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, graduate summer intern,
Chicago, Summer 2003.
McKinsey and Company, business analyst, San Francisco, 2000-
2002.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
None.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
Director, Initiative on International Economics, Becker
Friedman Institute, University of Chicago, 2017-present.
Co-director, Initiative on Global Markets, Chicago Booth, 2019-
present.
Limited partner, Hirsch Family Partners LP, 2017 (est.)-
present.
Co-member, Neiman Family Partnership LLC, 2005-2021 (terminated
in June).
Co-trustee, Neiman Survivorship Insurance Trust, 2002-present.
Associate Editor, American Economic Review, 2017-present.
Associate Editor, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2014-present.
Associate Editor, Journal of International Economics, 2013-
present.
I have served as a consultant to the following businesses and
institutions during the past 5 years: Arete Wealth Management,
2017; Beacon Capital Partners, 2020; Congressional Budget
Office, 2019; Hound Partners, 2016, 2017, 2019; and
International Monetary Fund, 2016.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
Member, KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, 2021-present.
Research Fellow, Center for Economic Policy Research, 2019-
present.
Member, Northmoor Country Club, 2016-present.
Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016-
present.
Member, Macro-Finance Society, 2017-2019.
Faculty Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research,
2010-2016.
Affiliate, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2009-present.
Community of Support, Muchin College Prep, 2009-2011.
Auxiliary Board Member, Teach for America Chicago, 2008-2011.
American Economic Association, 2008-present (various years).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Recieient Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2020 Casten for Congress $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1, 2020 Biden Action Fund $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1, 2020 Biden for President $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 3, 2019 Casten for Congress $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 2018 Casten for Congress $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 16, 2018 Quigley for Congress $300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 28, 2017 Casten for Congress $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
Economics in Central Banking Award (with Maggiori and
Schreger), 2020.
William Ladany Faculty Scholar, 2019-2020.
AQR Insight Award (with Maggiori and Schreger), 2018.
Sloan Research Fellowship, 2014-2016.
Rosenfield Grant, 2015.
Neubauer Family Faculty Fellow, 2014-2015.
Emerging Leader, Chicago Council of Global Affairs, 2009-2011.
Charles E. Merrill Scholar, 2009-2010.
Chiles Dissertation Completion Fellowship, 2007-2008.
Harvard University Graduate Fellowship, 2002-2004.
The Thouron Award, 1999-2000.
Academic All-Ivy League, 1997-1998.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
I performed an exhaustive hard-copy and digital search and to
the best of my knowledge and belief, here are the published
writings that I can identify:
Academic Publications
``Redrawing the Map of Global Capital Flows: The Role of Cross-
Border Financing and Tax-Havens'' (with Antonio Coppola, Matteo
Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Forthcoming, https://globalcapitalallocation.s3.us-east-
2.amazonaws.com/CMNS-Paper.pdf.
``Exchange Rate Reconnect'' (with Andrew Lilley, Matteo
Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), Review of Economics and
Statistics, Forthcoming, https://globalcapitalallocation.s3.us-
east-2.amazonaws.com/LMNS_Paper.pdf.
``Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence
from U.S. Trade Policy'' (with Alberto Cavallo, Gita Gopinath,
and Jenny Tang), American Economic Review: Insights, Vol 3., No
1, 2021, https://brentneiman.com/research/CGNT.pdf.
``How Many Jobs Can be Done at Home?'' (with Jonathan Dingel),
Journal of Public Economics, 2020, Volume 189 Preprint: COVID
Economics, Vetted and Real-Time Papers, 2020, Issue 1, p. 16-
24, https://brentneiman.com/research/DN.pdf.
``International Currencies and Capital Allocation'' (with
Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger), Journal of Political
Economy, 2020, Volume 128, Issue 6, https://brentneiman.com/
research/MNS.pdf.
``The Rise of the Dollar and Fall of the Euro as International
Currencies'' (with Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger), AEA
Papers and Proceedings, 2019, Volume 109, p. 521-526, https://
brentneiman.com/research/MNS_PandP.pdf.
``Accounting for Factorless Income'' (with Loukas
Karabarbounis), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2018, Volume 33, p.
167-228, http://brentneiman.com/research/Factorless_Income.pdf.
``The Global Rise of Corporate Saving'' (with Peter Chen and
Loukas Karabarbounis), Journal of Monetary Economics, 2017, 89,
p. 1-19, https://brentneiman.com/research/CKN.pdf.
``Obstfeld and Rogoff's International Macro Puzzles: A
Quantitative Assessment'' (with Jonathan Eaton and Sam Kortum),
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2016, 72, p. 5-23,
https://brentneiman.com/research/EKN_
OR.pdf.
``Trade and the Global Recession'' (with Jonathan Eaton, Sam
Kortum, and John Romalis), American Economic Review, 2016,
106(11), p. 3401-3438, https://brentneiman.com/research/
EKNR.pdf.
``The Price Impact of Joining a Currency Union: Evidence from
Latvia'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto Rigobon), IMF
Economic Review, 2015, 63(2), p. 281-297, https://
brentneiman.com/research/CNR_Latvia.pdf.
``Currency Unions, Product Introductions, and the Real Exchange
Rate'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto Rigobon), Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 2014, 129(2), p. 529-595, https://
brentneiman.com/research/CNR.pdf.
``Trade Adjustment and Productivity During Large Crises'' (with
Gita Gopinath), American Economic Review, 2014, 104(3), p. 793-
831, https://brentneiman.com/research/EKNR.pdf.
``The Global Decline of the Labor Share'' (with Loukas
Karabarbounis), Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2014, 129(1),
p. 61-103, https://brentneiman.com/research/KN.pdf.
``On Deficits and Unemployment'' (with Jonathan Eaton and Sam
Kortum), Revue economique, 2013, 64(3), p. 405-420, https://
brentneiman.com/research/EKN.pdf.
``Trade Prices and the Global Trade Collapse of 2008-2009''
(with Gita Gopinath and Oleg ltskhoki), IMF Economic Review,
2012, 60(3), p. 303-328, https://brentneiman.com/research/
CrisisPrices.pdf.
``A State-Dependent Model of Intermediate Goods Pricing,''
Journal of International Economics, 2011, 85(1), p. 1-13,
https://brentneiman.com/research/Intermediate_Pricing.pdf.
``Growth Accounting with Misallocation: Or, Doing Less with
More in Singapore'' (with John Fernald), American Economic
Journal: Macroeconomics, 2011, 3(2), p. 29-74, https://
brentneiman.com/research/Misallocation.pdf.
``Stickiness, Synchronization, and Passthrough in Intrafirm
Trade Prices,'' Journal of Monetary Economics, 2010, 57(3), p.
295-308, https://brentneiman.com/research/Intrafirm.pdf.
``The Impact of Post-9/11 Visa Policies on Travel to the United
States'' (with Phillip Swagel), Journal of International
Economics, 2009, 78(1), p. 86-99, https://brentneiman.com/
research/VWP.pdf.
Working Papers
``The Rise of Niche Consumption'' (with Joe Vavra), NBER
Working Paper, No. 26134, 2020, https://brentneiman.com/
research/NV.pdf.
``Capital Depreciation and Labor Shares Around the World:
Measurement and Implications'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis),
NBER Working Paper, No. 20606, 2014, https://brentneiman.com/
research/KN2.pdf.
Other Writings
``A new map of global capital allocation'' (with Antonio
Coppola, Matteo Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), FDI Magazine,
June 2021, https://content.yudu.com/web/43wcl/0A43wm9/
fDiJuneJuly2021/html/index.html?page=
84&origin=reader.
``The Global Capital Allocation Project'' (with Matteo Maggiori
and Jesse Schreger), NBER Reporter, Number 1, 2021, https://
www.nber.org/reporter/2021number1/global-capital-allocation-
project.
``Making a good job of remote work'' (with Jonathan Dingel),
Financial Times, February 2021, https://on.ft.com/2LxeKIC.
``Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence
from U.S. Trade Policy'' (with Alberto Cavallo, Gita Gopinath,
and Jenny Tang), VoxChina, September 2020, http://voxchina.org/
show-3-194.html.
``What has coronavirus taught us about working from home''
(with Jonathan Dingel), Economics Observatory, June 2020,
https://www.coronavirusandthe
economy.com/question/what-has-coronavirus-taught-us-about-
working-home.
``How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home'' (with Jonathan Dingel),
VoxEU.org, April 2020, https://voxeu.org/article/how-many-jobs-
can-be-done-home.
``How Many Jobs Can be Done at Home? In the United States, It's
37 percent'' (with Jonathan Dingel), ProMarket.org, April 2020,
https://promarket.org/how-many-jobs-can-be-done-at-home-in-the-
united-states-its-37-percent/.
``Three Pillars of the Economic Policy Response to the COVID-19
Crisis'' (with Eric Budish, Anil Kashyap, and Ralph Koijen),
IGM Forum, March 2020, http://www.igmchicago.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-032320-final.pdf.
``Exchange Rate Reconnect'' (with Andrew Lilley, Matteo
Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), VoxEU.org column, January 2020,
https://voxeu.org/article/exchange-rate-reconnect.
``The Rise of Niche Consumption'' (with Joe Vavra), VoxEU.org
column, September 2019, https://voxeu.org/article/rise-niche-
consumption.
``What to Do with Missing Payments to Factors of Production''
(with Loukas Karabarbounis), VoxEU.org column, June 2018,
https://voxeu.org/article/what-do-missing-payments-factors-
production.
``The Rise of the Dollar and Fall of the Euro in Global Asset
Trade'' (with Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger), VoxEU.org
column, June 2018, https://voxeu.org/article/rise-dollar-and-
fall-euro-global-asset-trade.
``Factorless Income and Some Skepticism on the Case for Rising
Markups'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis), Premarket Blog, Chicago
Booth Stigler Center, May 2018, https://promarket.org/
factorless-income-skepticism-case-rising-markups/.
``Trends in Factor Shares: Facts and Implications'' (with
Loukas Karabarbounis), NBER Reporter, Number 4, 2017, https://
www.nber.org/reporter/2017number4/trends-factor-shares-facts-
and-implications.
``Labour Shares, Inequality, and the Relative Price of
Capital'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis), VoxEU.org column,
November 25, 2014, http://www.voxeu.org/article/labour-shares-
inequality-and-relative-price-capital.
``The Research Agenda: Loukas Karabarbounis and Brent Neiman on
the Evolution of Factor Shares'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis),
The EconomicDynamics Newsletter, 15(2), November 2014, https://
brentneiman.com/research/The_
Research_Agenda.pdf.
``Pricing to Market and Eurozone Membership: Evidence from
Latvia'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto Rigobon), VoxEU.org
column, August 22, 2014, http://www.voxeu.org/article/pricing-
and-ez-membership-evidence-latvia.
``The Euro and Price Convergence'' (with Alberto Cavallo and
Roberto Rigobon), VoxEU.org column, November 29, 2013, http://
www.voxeu.org/article/euro-and-price-convergence.
``Comment on the Decline of the U.S. Labor Share by Michael
Elsby, Bart Hobijn, and Aysegul Sahin,'' Brookings Panel of
Economic Activity, September 2013, https://brentneiman.com/
research/Neiman_Comments_for_BPEA.pdf.
``The Great Trade Quantities Collapse'' (with Gita Gopinath and
Oleg ltskhoki), VoxEU.org column, July 28, 2012, http://
www.voxeu.org/article/great-trade-quantities-collapse.
``Trade and the Global Recession,'' Chicago Council on Global
Affairs, 2012 Summit Expert Commentaries, May 2012 (link
unavailable).
``Trade Accounting in the Recent Recession'' (with Jonathan
Eaton, Sam Kortum, and John Romalis), VoxEU.org column, July 7,
2010, http://www.
voxeu.org/article/trade-accounting-recent-recession.
``Computers: Why the Party's Over'' (with Mike Cho), McKinsey
Quarterly, Q1 2002, https://go.gale.com/ps/
anonymous?id=GALE%7CA82535799&sid=google
Scholar&v=2.1&it=r&Jinkaccess=abs&issn=00475394&p=AONE&sw=w.
``A Mathematical Model of Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia,'' MSc
Dissertation, Oxford University, September 2000, https://
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/96488.pdf.
I'm happy to update and supplement this submission should I
discover additional information.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g..
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates):
I performed an exhaustive hard-copy and digital search and to
the best of my knowledge and belief, here are the speeches and
public presentations that I can identify:
Presentations of ``Redrawing the Map of Global Capital Flows:
The Role of Cross Border Financing and Tax-Havens'' (with
Antonio Coppola, Matteo Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger; digital
copy filename: ``CMNS.pdf''): 2021: International Monetary
Fund, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Peterson Institute for
International Economics; 2020: U.S. State Department,
University of Texas, NBER Conference on Emerging and Frontier
Markets: Capital Flows, Risks, and Growth, Virtual
International Trade and Macro Seminar, Harvard University, Bank
of England; 2019: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago, University of Chicago.
Presentations of ``International Currencies and Capital
Allocation'' (with Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger; digital
copy filename: ``MNS.pdf''): 2019: NBER-CCER Conference in
Beijing; 2018: Stanford University, University of British
Columbia, Northwestern University, International Monetary Fund,
University of Illinois at Chicago, Bank for International
Settlements; 2017: University of Michigan, University of
Maryland, University of Houston, Duke University, European
Central Bank, Goethe University, Carlson School of Management,
University of Toronto, Bank of Canada, NBER Conference in
Neemrana.
Presentations of ``Obstfeld and Rogoff's International Macro
Puzzles: A Quantitative Assessment'' (with Jonathan Eaton and
Sam Kortum; digital copy filename: ``EKN.pdf''): 2016: Central
Bank of Argentina, Central Bank of Chile, Central Bank of
Mexico, NBER IFM Summer Institute.
Presentations of ``Accounting for Factorless Income'' (with
Loukas Karabarbounis; digital copy filename: ``KN.pdf''): 2018:
Columbia University, University of Chicago, NBER MacroAnnual,
UCLA, Congressional Budget Office; 2017: University of
Pittsburgh--Carnegie Mellon.
Presentations of ``The Rise of Niche Consumption'' (with Joe
Vavra; digital copy filename: ``NV.pdf''): 2019: NBER
Conference on Economics of Mega-Firms and Changes in Market
Power, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, Boston College.
Presentation of ``Real Exchange Rate Behavior: New Evidence
from Matched Retail Prices'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto
Rigobon; digital copy filename: ``CNR.pdf''): 2017: Federal
Reserve Board of Governors.
Other presentations/talks: November 2019: Congressional Budget
Office (digital copy filename: ``CBO.pdf''); October 2019:
Ethical Humanist Society (digital copy filename: ``EHS.pdf'');
May 2019: Macro Finance Society (digital copy filename:
``MFS.pdf''); and May 2018: International Monetary Fund
(digital copy filename: ``IMF.pdf'').
The presentations referenced above by their digital copy
filenames were included in the file Presentations.zip.
I'm happy to update and supplement this submission should I
discover additional information.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
My research career has focused on applied topics in
international finance, trade, and macroeconomics that are
important for the prosperity and stability of the United States
and for global economic development. I have studied the
changing international role of the U.S. dollar, analyzed the
exposures of U.S. investors to emerging market borrowers, and
evaluated the impact of trade policies on U.S. importers and
exporters. I have developed models of how changes in economic
activity transmit across countries and used them to study the
formation and resolution of trade imbalances. My work has
documented how emerging market firms respond to crises and how
multinational firms respond to changes in exchange rates and
exchange rate regimes. This body of work gives me a deep
appreciation for how interconnected our economy is with the
rest of the world and for how effective international financial
policies can improve outcomes.
I am a co-founder of the Global Capital Allocation Project, a
research lab which produced several of the above studies and
distributes codes and data useful for researchers and
practitioners. As director of the Initiative on International
Economics at the Becker Friedman Institute, I cofounded and
coorganize a conference on international macro finance that is
now in its 9th year and includes researchers from academia,
international financial institutions, and central banks. For 13
years, I have taught a course for MBA students called
``International Financial Policy.''
Finally, I have presented on international macroeconomic topics
at central banks and multilateral institutions around the world
and served as a consultant to the International Monetary Fund.
Earlier in my career, I spent a year working on international
finance issues while on the staff of the Council of Economic
Advisers. These experiences made clear to me that applied
economic research can lead directly to improved economic
policy.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations, if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
If confirmed, I will take a leave of absence from my tenured
position at the University of Chicago and plan to return after
government service.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
If confirmed, I will take a leave of absence from my tenured
position at the University of Chicago and plan to return after
government service.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
I expect to return to the University of Chicago at the end of
my leave of absence, which I anticipate will last 2 years.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted
with the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics
official, who has consulted with the Office of Government
Ethics, to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any
potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance
with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have entered with
the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics official
and that has been provided to this committee. I am not aware of
any other potential conflicts of interest.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
None.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
Government need not be listed.
None.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted
with the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics
official, who has consulted with the Office of Government
Ethics, to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any
potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance
with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have entered with
the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics official
and that has been provided to this committee. I am not aware of
any other potential conflicts of interest. Should any potential
conflict of interest arise in the future, I will seek guidance
from a Treasury ethics official.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
Provided to the committee.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
None.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Brent Neiman, Ph.D.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
Question. As I mentioned in my questioning, I am concerned about
the growing trend of the IFIs bowing to Chinese pressure.
If you are confirmed, how will you go about approaching malign
Chinese influence at the IFIs?
Answer. Countering malign influence in the IFIs depends on
reasserting American leadership in the IFIs and reaffirming the U.S.
commitment to multilateralism, which is a priority for the Biden-Harris
administration. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary
Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as well as like-
minded partners from other countries, in underscoring this message;
reinforcing the importance of the IFIs' commitment to high standards,
transparency, and integrity; emphasizing that all shareholders,
including the PRC, need to play appropriate roles and fulfill
responsibilities in the IFIs; and delivering financing and policy
advice to other countries that contribute to increased transparency,
sound governance and policies, and increased capacity to counter malign
influence.
Question. I also want to ask about how you think the IFIs should be
helping developing countries in their post-COVID economic recovery. G20
proposals like the Debt-Service Suspension Initiative and the
authorization of IMF special drawing rights are great tools and have
helped struggling countries, but it is my belief there is more to be
done. I know you, in your role at the University of Chicago, have done
research on this very issue. If you are confirmed, how will you use the
voice and vote at the IMF and World Bank to ensure that developing
countries have more flexibility in their post-COVID economic recovery?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary
Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress to promote robust
financing and policy advice from the International Financial
Institutions to support a strong, sustainable, and inclusive recovery
in both advanced and developing countries, building on the important
measures that the international community has already implemented for
COVID-19 response and recovery. If confirmed, I will work with
colleagues, as well as like-minded partners, to use the U.S. voice and
vote in the IFIs to promote sound macroeconomic and financial policies,
good governance, sustainability, inclusion, and private and domestic
resource mobilization, while providing development assistance that
responds to countries' own needs, challenges, and investment
priorities.
Question. Further, how do you plan on using our voice and vote to
counter China around the world, or for issues surrounding climate
change?
Answer. Countering PRC influence around the world depends on
reasserting American leadership in the IFIs and reaffirming U.S.
commitment to multilateralism and working with allies, which is a
priority for the Biden-Harris administration. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with Secretary Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors,
and Congress, as well as like-minded partners from other countries, to
use the U.S. voice and vote to underscore this message; reinforce the
importance of the IFIs' commitment to high standards, transparency, and
integrity; promote increased mobilization of domestic and private-
sector resources; and deliver financing and policy advice to other
countries that contribute to increased transparency, sound governance
and policies, and increased capacity to counter malign influence.
Similarly, I look forward to working with others in the U.S.
Government and like-minded partners to use the U.S. voice and vote to
promote strong IFI engagement on providing financing and policy advice
to support countries in mitigating and adapting to climate change,
especially as the IFIs play a key role in meeting our international
climate finance commitments. I understand that Secretary Yellen has
been actively engaging with the leadership of the multilateral
development banks to encourage them to adopt ambitious programs related
to climate, stand up new facilities targeting climate change, fully
align their operations with the Paris Agreement, and increase
mobilization of private finance. If confirmed, I will assist in
carrying forward these efforts.
Question. During your hearing, you committed to ``absolutely and
fully engage'' with me and my office related to a 10th general capital
increase for the Inter-
American Development Bank. If confirmed, what specific steps would you
take to advance a 10th general capital increase for the IDB?
Answer. I understand that IDB Group shareholders have decided on a
process to examine the policy priorities, challenges, and opportunities
of the IDB Group and the region, starting with a program of analytical
work. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the details
of this work, which is examining the utility of new capital for the
private- and/or public-sector arms of the IDB Group, including
borrowing countries' interest in the various lending instruments of the
IDB, and sovereign borrowers' ability to absorb resources. I reaffirm
my commitment to engage with you and your office regarding the IDB
Group and Treasury's engagement with the region.
Question. During your hearing, you committed to work with me and my
office to develop a policy framework in support of a 10th general
capital increase for the Inter-American Development Bank, one that
address longstanding priorities of democratic governance, climate
change, and countering China's engagement in the hemisphere. If
confirmed, what steps would you take to work with me and my office to
develop a framework of policy priorities to accompany a 10th general
capital increase for the IDB?
Answer. If confirmed, and as addressed above, I will look forward
to learning more about the details of work underway at the IDB Board,
which is examining the utility of new capital for the public- and/or
private-sector arms of the IDB Group, including borrowing countries'
interest in the various lending instruments of the IDB, and sovereign
borrowers' ability to absorb resources. Any new capital contributions
from the United States to the public- and/or private-sector arms of the
IDB Group will require authorization, and I am aware that the Senate
has included authorization for a capital increase for the public-sector
window of the IDB in the China bill. I commit to engaging with you and
your office on any policy framework that the administration might
propose as the basis for a request for authorization and appropriations
for the private and/or public sector arms of the IDB.
Question. What would be your policy priorities inside negotiations
related to a 10th general capital increase for the IDB?
Answer. If confirmed, my policy priority for the IDB Group is to
ensure that the IDB Group remains a key partner for the United States
and the region in advancing market-driven, sustainable, inclusive
growth in Latin America and the Caribbean, including through promotion
of good governance and transparency, sound policy advice, and adherence
to high standards and financial sustainability. I understand that IDB
Group shareholders have decided on a process to examine the policy
priorities, challenges, and opportunities of the IDB Group and the
region, starting with a program of analytical work. If confirmed, I
look forward to learning more about the details of this work and
reaffirm my commitment to engage with you and your office regarding the
IDB Group and Treasury's engagement with the region.
Question. What is your assessment of how a 10th general capital
increase for the Inter-American Development Bank could complement the
Biden administration's Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative?
Answer. I understand that IDB Group shareholders have decided on a
process to examine the policy priorities, challenges, and opportunities
of the IDB Group and the region, starting with a program of analytical
work. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the details
of this work. Regardless of any future decisions by shareholders as a
result of this work, the private-sector arm of the IDB Group can be an
important complement to B3W's emphasis on high-quality, private-sector-
led infrastructure development, given the broader IDB Group's own
adherence to high social, environmental and fiduciary standards;
emphasis on fostering good governance, transparency, and private-sector
development in Latin America and the Caribbean; policy advice and
financing supporting infrastructure development and investment climate
reform; and the strong leadership role of the United States and
partnership with the region.
Question. Given the social and economic impact of the global COVID-
19 pandemic on Latin America and the Caribbean, what is your assessment
of the role that the Inter-American Development Bank can play in
support the region's economic recovery from the pandemic?
Answer. The IDB has longstanding experience partnering with
countries to strengthen social protection frameworks, foster private
sector development, promote equitable access to public services and
market opportunities, and build capacity in the public sector. Together
with the IDB's collaboration with other partners in supporting
equitable and efficient vaccine rollout, these areas are all critical
to minimize social and economic scarring from the pandemic and support
inclusive and
climate-resilient recovery across the region. With many governments in
the region needing to restore fiscal buffers in the medium-term, the
IDB's contributions to increasing the effectiveness of public sectors
and supporting private-sector-led growth will be particularly
important. The IDB should continue to strengthen its focus on
governance and transparency in the region.
Question. Economic growth and development in Latin America and the
Caribbean have long been limited by a deficiency in modern
infrastructure. Can the United States help Latin American and Caribbean
governments meet those needs solely with the capacity of its
development finance institutions?
Answer. I do not believe so. Compared to faster-growing regions of
the world, most of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean
have low domestic savings and investment. Several feature extremely low
tax-to-GDP ratios. Productivity is relatively weak, and much of the
region remains outside of global value chains. The International
Financial Institutions and U.S. development agencies provide
significant financing and policy advice to regional governments, but it
is essential that domestic policies provide an environment that
supports international and domestic private-sector investment in
infrastructure. Bilateral and multilateral development finance
institutions can offer incentives to create and implement such
policies, but they cannot overcome local political and security
obstacles on their own.
Question. What is your assessment of the role that the Inter-
American Development Bank could play in helping Latin American and
Caribbean nations address infrastructure deficits?
Answer. Development finance institutions, including the IDB Group,
can and do provide substantial financing and policy advice for
infrastructure projects and to mobilize increased private investment,
including through reforms and capacity development to improve the
investment environment. However, to meaningfully address the region's
infrastructure deficits and improve the investment climate, governments
must complement such assistance with sound macroeconomic and financial
policies, commitment to good governance and transparency, rule of law,
and other efforts to increase savings and investment.
Question. Would a 10th general capital increase strengthen the
IDB's ability to help Latin American and Caribbean government's address
infrastructure needs?
Answer. I understand that IDB Group shareholders have decided on a
process to examine the policy priorities, challenges, and opportunities
of the IDB Group and the region, including as related to infrastructure
development, starting with a program of analytical work. If confirmed,
I look forward to learning more about the details of this work.
Development finance institutions, including the IDB Group, can and do
provide substantial financing and policy advice for infrastructure
projects and to mobilize increased private investment, including
through reforms and capacity development to improve the investment
environment. However, to meaningfully address the region's
infrastructure deficits, governments must complement such assistance
with sound macroeconomic and financial policies, commitment to good
governance and transparency, rule of law, and other efforts to increase
savings and investment.
Question. If the United States is unable to help Latin American and
Caribbean governments address their infrastructure needs, do you assess
that the PRC would seek to fill that void? What would be the impact of
expanded China's investment and presence in Latin America and the
Caribbean for U.S. national interests?
Answer. It is important that the United States restores and
strengthens our partnerships in the region and keeps countries from
engaging in irresponsible and opaque borrowing, including from the PRC.
Through the IFIs and with our allies, we must promote high-quality,
private-sector-led, inclusive, and sustainable growth and development
policies, with particular focus on democratic governance and respect
for human rights, anti-corruption and transparency, sound macroeconomic
and financial management, and debt management capacity and
transparency. We must aggressively contrast these features with poor
outcomes experienced in the region, such as the case of Venezuela's
engagement with China, which include low-quality infrastructures and
unsustainable debt burdens. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with Secretary Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as
well as like-minded partners from other countries, to achieve these
goals.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
international capital flow measurement
Question. Some of your research identifies relations to work by
economist Gabriel Zucman in relation to, for example, ``the economic
impact of tax havens.'' With respect to income and wealth tracing, to
which some of your work applies, some of Professor Zucman's related
analyses have been criticized on the bases of measurement and
incorporation of a normative agenda, leading to results that many view
as substantially inaccurate and substantially misleading. Some of the
work that you have undertaken focuses on ``unwinding corporate
ownership chains and accounting for offshore issuance in tax havens
around the world.''
Many statistics and measures have shortcomings and advantages
relative to the underlying object that those statistics and measures
are intended to quantify. Some of your work identifies alternative
measures to foreign investment flows and stocks. Do you believe that
existing measures, used partly to inform policymaking, with respect to
global capital allocations, bilateral investment statistics, and global
capital flows, are fundamentally flawed and in need of revision?
Answer. In some recent academic work, my coauthors and I report
several measures of bilateral investment exposures generated using
methodologies that differ from the residency-based approach that
underlies most official statistics. For example, we report a set of
bilateral investment exposures that reflects a nationality-based
approach as well as a set that reflects the geographic distribution of
firms' sales. Depending on the question at hand, standard measures or
our alternative measures may be more appropriate to use for analyses.
In many cases, analysis can benefit from simultaneously considering
multiple available measures.
Question. Do you intend at Treasury, if confirmed to the position
to which you have been nominated, to work to alter any of the measures
that have been used to date by academics and policymakers with respect
to understanding how capital is allocated globally; and, if so, what
alternative measures will you be advocating?
Answer. I think economic data and statistics, including those
covering how capital is allocated globally, are valuable public goods.
These data improve our understanding of the economy and serve as inputs
into the design or evaluation of policy decisions. My understanding is
that entities that collect or compile these statistics, including
groups at Treasury, are continuously thinking of ways to expand and
improve upon the usefulness of their economic data, and if confirmed, I
would support such efforts.
economic responses to recessions
Question. In a March 2020 paper for the IGM Forum, you and several
coauthors discussed policy responses to the ``COVID-19 Crisis.'' To aid
economic recovery from shutdowns, one recommendation was that ``. . .
firms might be incentivized to hire aggressively by using a payroll tax
cut.'' In March of 2020, the unemployment rate (U-3) was 4.4 percent,
with a prospect of significant future increases.
In the event that there is a future severe economic shock likely to
lead to significant unemployment rate increases, do you still consider
a payroll tax cut to be a worthwhile policy to consider in response? If
not, what has changed your thinking relative to your March 2020 paper?
Answer. A payroll tax cut can stimulate the economy by encouraging
consumption and increasing employment. If there were a future severe
economic shock, the advisability of employing this form of economic
stimulus relative to others would depend on multiple factors, including
the nature and source of the shock, the anticipated duration of the
shock, and the way in which the shock affected different households or
industries. The choice of the optimal form of stimulus would also need
to take into account other policies in effect at the time.
negotiations in international forums
Question. The position to which you have been nominated, as your
testimony reveals, ``. . . plays a key role in directing Treasury's
engagement with other countries, bilaterally and through multilateral
institutions including the G7, G20, and the IMF.'' Engagement
internationally under the Biden administration related to Treasury's
functions has been largely unilateral, with, at best, minimal
substantive information being shared with Republican members of this
committee. On international taxes, for example, Republican input has
not been adequately incorporated into the administration's unilateral
negotiations. Briefings with staff from Treasury have been void of
substantive quantitative analyses that must have been performed before
proclamations have been issued about some sort of international
``agreement'' on global taxation, including ceding of U.S. rights to
tax U.S. tax bases. These are important policy decisions that will
influence constituencies of members from both sides of the aisle, and
cannot be made unilaterally by one political party.
Please identify steps that you would take, if confirmed, to ensure
that the Treasury Department, in international engagements, represents
member of Congress from both sides of the aisle.
Answer. I understand that Treasury staff and leaders communicate
regularly with members of Congress and their staffs from both sides of
the aisle about key policy priorities, and if confirmed, I will
continue to do so to ensure that we understand and take into account
the range of views across the U.S. Government.
debt limit
Question. The debt limit represents a statutory limitation on the
value of debt subject to the limit. Increasing the debt limit serves to
facilitate fresh borrowing in order to fund past obligations made by
Congress and signed into law by the President. Increasing the debt
limit or suspending the debt limit for a fixed future period also
facilitates increased borrowing to facilitate funding of new
obligations made by Congress and signed into law by the President
between the date at which the debt-limit increase (or suspension) was
made and the date at which the new, higher, debt limit binds (under a
suspension, there will be a new, higher limit at the date on which the
limit is reinstated). The debt limit, and any changes in probabilities
of it being breached, can have domestic and international financial and
economic effects, and the position to which you have been nominated
would confront such effects.
A debt limit increase or suspension is not exclusively limited to
increasing debt-issuance authorization that would only facilitate fresh
borrowing to pay obligations that have been made prior to the date of
the increase or suspension. Do you agree? If not, fully explain why
not.
Answer. Increasing the debt limit does not authorize any new
spending. It simply allows the government to finance legal obligations
made by Congresses and Presidents of both parties.
legislative information
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to full transparency
regarding any proposal put forward by the administration regarding
Federal debt management, and to ensure that public pronouncements of
facts can be judged with reference to written details of the proposals
that are available to all?
Answer. Federal debt management would not generally be part of my
responsibilities in the position for which I have been nominated.
However, if confirmed, I commit to working with this committee to
enable and facilitate the sharing of information. I respect the
committee's need for information and look forward to working with the
committee.
inflation
Question. As I mentioned in the hearing, the Biden administration
is planning a massive increase in taxes and spending, to be
accomplished unilaterally by one political party through
reconciliation. While the size, and indeed contents, of this fiscal
agenda are still unclear, I am concerned about the possibility that
they will exacerbate inflation trends, which even former Treasury
Secretary Larry Summers has described as ``disturbing.''
In September, the OECD released its Global Economic Outlook interim
report. It noted:
Near-term inflation risks are on the upside, particularly if
pent-up demand by consumers is stronger than anticipated, or if
supply shortages take a long time to overcome. . . . [A]
lasting upward move in inflation from the low rates observed
before the pandemic is likely to occur only if wage inflation
intensifies substantially, or if inflation expectations drift
upwards. . . . [S]izeable increases in wages are occurring in
some contact-
intensive sectors that have reopened in the United States, such
as leisure and hospitality.
The report also indicated that household 1-year inflation
expectations in the United States now exceeds 5 percent.
In his town hall last Saturday, President Biden was asked whether
he thought current levels of inflation would last into 2022. The
president said, ``I don't think so. I don't think it will last if--
depending on what we do. If we stay exactly where we are, yes. If we
don't make these investments, yes.''
How will the social spending programs and increased taxes being
discussed in the administration's reconciliation proposals (the
``investments'') address pent-up demand, supply shortages, wage
inflation, and inflation expectations?
Answer. Treasury has stated that the administration's Build Back
Better legislation is entirely paid for due to tax increases on
corporations and well-off individuals. As such, the legislation should
not contribute significantly to demand pressures and will likely reduce
deficits over the long term. The legislation includes investments in
climate change mitigation, education, and health care that should
increase productivity and long-run aggregate supply as well as
investments in child care that should help boost short-run labor
supply.
Question. What risks do higher domestic taxes and substantial
inflation pose to the reputation of the United States as a good
destination for foreign investment?
Answer. The return to investment in the United States is greater
when all of our workers are well-educated, healthy, and resilient, and
when our infrastructure is modern, efficient, and sustainable. The tax
increases included in the Build Back Better legislation enable such
investments in our workers and the overall business environment and put
the U.S. fiscal system on a sounder footing. Further, the agreed
changes to the international corporate tax environment will end the
global race to the bottom. These steps will strengthen the reputation
of the United States as a great destination for foreign investment.
Question. By contrast, what would be the effects on supply-side
bottlenecks, inflation, economic growth, and foreign direct investment
in the United States resulting from investment in traditional physical
infrastructure, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
provides for?
Answer. Investment in physical infrastructure will also boost
economic potential in the coming years and strengthen the incentives
for foreign direct investment in the United States. The administration
has recognized the importance of physical infrastructure and has made
those a centerpiece of the American Jobs Plan.
However, there are other essential components for boosting economic
growth in the long run. Investments in our workforce and increases in
labor supply from expanding access to child and elder care are also
critically important. For example, women's labor force participation
now trails many other advanced countries. The lack of affordable child
care and elder care is likely an important factor driving this.
Allowing more workers to participate in the economy can improve the
allocation of talent, encourage innovation, and raise productivity.
Question. Some argue, based on things like inflation-expectation
readings drawn from yield curves, that inflation expectations are
contained. There are at least three reasons for caution about such
arguments. One is that the process governing changes in inflation
expectations, or, more generally, an aggregation of beliefs about the
future evolution of economic variables relevant for inflation
determination, is not well understood. Second, yield-curve inferences
may not provide reliable forecasts. Third, as the financial crisis
showed, officials who make claims of containment (e.g., housing
troubles prior to the full onset of the financial crisis) may find that
the claims are not borne out by subsequent, quite devastating
realizations.
Given that inflation and expectations about inflation are being
generated in an unusual, perhaps unprecedented, environment with not-
well understood ``supply chain'' breakage dynamics, should we not be
extra prudent and avoid stoking inflationary pressures at this point
using massive increases in fiscal outlays, as in the reconciliation
bill being considered by one party in Congress, on the heels of already
massive fiscal policies that have pumped trillions of dollars into
spending, incomes, and savings?
The U.S. is the best place in the world to do business. It is a
prized destination for foreign investment. I want to keep it that way.
If confirmed, I encourage you to use your position to ensure the
U.S. remains the premier destination for international investment.
Answer. The Build Back Better proposals are fundamentally different
than the American Rescue Plan or earlier relief packages adopted on a
bipartisan basis during the pandemic. First, the Build Back Better
proposals contemplate spending gradually over the course of a decade,
with a substantial component devoted to infrastructure spending which
takes time to outlay. Second, these proposals are more than fully paid
for, and are estimated to reduce deficits in the long run. Third, the
Build Back Better agenda would meaningfully boost the productive
capacity of the U.S. economy. Improving transportation infrastructure,
building more affordable housing, lowering drug prices, and increasing
labor force participation are all disinflationary. These proposals
would help ensure that we remain an attractive destination for foreign
investment.
foreign exchange value of the dollar
Question. Do you believe in a ``strong dollar'' policy and, if so,
can you define what that means and how the administration's policies
advance such a policy?
Answer. As only the Treasury Secretary should speak on matters of
the dollar, let me repeat what Secretary Yellen has stated: the value
of the U.S. dollar and other currencies should be determined by
markets. Markets adjust to reflect variations in economic performance
and generally facilitate adjustments in the global economy.
Question. What do you believe will be the effect on the exchange-
value of the dollar of the significant increases in inflation that we
have recently seen, and which may persist for a significant future
period given ongoing, unresolved supply-chain frictions?
Answer. The dollar has appreciated by roughly 3 percent over the
course of 2021, reflecting a wide range of factors including the
strength of our economy.
Question. What do you believe is the policy utility of the Exchange
Stabilization Fund in stabilizing exchange rates governing the U.S.
dollar relative to foreign currencies, and how, if at all, would you
use the Exchange Stabilization Fund to execute whatever are the
administration's foreign-exchange objectives?
Answer. Over the past 20 years, foreign exchange interventions by
the major economies have been rare. When appropriate, Treasury has used
the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to intervene in foreign exchange
markets in coordination with the Federal Reserve and with other major
partners to stem excess volatility and disorderly movements in foreign
exchange markets. The ESF continues to retain its policy utility in
this regard.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
Question. As we discussed during your confirmation hearing, on
August 15, 2021, the Treasury Department froze the Afghan government's
reserves held in the United States (mostly in the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York), which have an estimated value of as high as $9.5 billion.
As a result of this action, the Taliban government has not had access
to this reserve capital of Afghanistan's central bank, Da Afghanistan
Bank.
Under what circumstances would the administration unfreeze the Da
Afghanistan Bank's reserve assets in U.S. financial institutions?
Answer. It is important to note, first, that a U.S. decision on
this question will involve other entities, including the Federal
Reserve and the State Department. It is too early to say at this time
if or when a decision to unfreeze Da Afghanistan Bank's reserve assets
will be made. If confirmed, I look forward to working with others in
the U.S. Government, Congress, and other stakeholders to examine these
issues in more detail.
Question. Under what circumstances would the administration vote to
lift current restrictions on lending to Afghanistan at the World Bank
or International Monetary Fund?
Answer. It is too early to say at this time. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with others in the U.S. Government, Congress, and
other stakeholders to examine these issues in more detail, including to
examine options to provide humanitarian support to the Afghan people
while preventing the flow of funds to any person or entity seeking to
harm the United States.
Question. A big part of your job description will be oversight over
U.S. policy and strategy at Multilateral Development Banks and
International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the International
Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Inter-
American Development Bank.
What is your strategy to coordinate the efforts of U.S. Executive
Directors at the IMF, World Bank and IDB are in alignment with our
broader foreign policy agenda across all multilateral entities?
Answer. U.S. participation in the International Financial
Institutions is critical to achieving our foreign policy objectives. I
will work closely with our Executive Directors at each IFI to identify
opportunities to advance important U.S. foreign policy interests, and I
will coordinate their efforts to ensure that we are moving in sync
across institutions. My understanding is that Treasury International
Affairs oversees several processes to coordinate interagency review of
IFI projects, programs, and major policy decisions and provide
direction to the U.S. Executive Directors on the exercise of the U.S.
voice and vote. If confirmed, I will fully support these robust
processes and will maintain Treasury's ongoing dialogue with other
institutions within the U.S. Government, including the White House and
the State Department, to ensure that our work in the IFIs reinforces
key U.S. policy objectives.
Question. The influence of China at International Financial
Institutions and other multilateral organizations is well-documented
and a top concern of this committee. It recently came to light that the
IMF had elevated China's ranking on the Doing Business report, which is
the IMF's annual index that measures the business environment in 190
countries and ranks them based on how friendly their investment and
regulatory climate.
What is your strategy to elevating American leadership in the
entities within your portfolio? Specifically, how do you plan to
leverage US influence and counter China's malign influence at
international financial institutions, which is counter to the interests
of the U.S. and our allies?
Answer. It is critical that we ensure the integrity of the
international financial institutions and the credibility of their
analysis and reports. If confirmed, I will work with other key
countries represented in these institutions to push for improved
governance processes and protections for whistleblowers. I will also
work to ensure fair and equal treatment for all members of these
institutions, and that all members, including China, fulfill the
obligations, appropriate roles, and responsibilities of membership in
these institutions.
Question. China is still considered a ``developing country'' at the
World Bank, despite exceeding the Bank's own graduation threshold since
2016. In December 2019, the Board of Governors approved the Country
Partnership Framework with China, which continues loans to China for an
additional 5 years. China's continued receipt of this development
financing from the World Bank frees up other capital it raises through
taxation and other means to support its predatory Belt and Road
Initiative.
Will you work to ensure that countries who have exceeded the
graduation threshold (currently measured at a country's gross national
per capita income level of $6,795) such as China do not receive World
Bank financing?
Answer. I believe the PRC meets the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development's criteria for graduation, given its
high per capita income, institutional capacity, and ample access to
other sources of finance. If confirmed, I will press for the PRC's
graduation, and will seek to advance this position by working with the
U.S. Executive Director, World Bank Management, Secretary Yellen and
Treasury colleagues, Congress, and other U.S. agencies, as well as
like-minded partners. I understand that as part of the reform
commitments accompanying its 2018 capital increase, the World Bank
committed to decrease the share of lending going to countries with per
capita income above the graduation threshold, more fulsomely identify
the constraints to graduation for countries with per capital incomes
above the graduation threshold, and better target lending in those
countries on addressing the constraints identified. If confirmed, I
will encourage the World Bank to adhere to those commitments, in
coordination with the U.S. Executive Director and Treasury colleagues.
Question. While well-intentioned, I am concerned that an SDR
issuance would be counterproductive to two paramount U.S. objectives:
stabilizing the economy and countering Chinese influence. Since many
developing countries already have high levels of indebtedness to China,
this liquidity boost could simply enable them to pay back Beijing what
they already owe.
Prior to supporting additional SDRs, what steps will you take to
ensure that borrowing countries will not use some or all of the funds
from their SDR issuance to pay back Belt and Road Initiative loans to
China?
How will you ensure that borrowing countries are forthcoming and
transparent about their respective debt exposures to the PRC and other
predatory lenders?
Answer. As SDRs are an international reserve asset, any support for
a new SDR allocation would be based on an assessed deficit in global
reserves, something I do not currently expect based on the global
economic outlook. SDRs, as an international reserve asset, are an
unconditional source of liquidity, so neither the United States nor the
IMF can directly control their use by other countries. However, I will
continue to press the importance of IMF support and consultation with
countries considering the use of their SDRs and oppose their use to
support new unsustainable or irresponsibly contracted sovereign debt
obligations, including to China. I will also press the IMF and World
Bank to improve public debt transparency practices and debt data
disclosure from borrowing countries.
Question. Do you believe the United States should oppose loans to
Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism at the IMF and World Bank?
Answer. Yes; consistent with U.S. law, the United States should
oppose any IFI loans to Iran or other state sponsors of terrorism.
Question. China has increased investments in Latin America as part
of its Belt and Road Initiative in an attempt to strengthen its
relationships in the Americas and peel away U.S. partners.
What is your strategy to utilize U.S. influence and leadership at
the Inter-
American Development Bank to provide an alternative to China's
predatory lending to our friends in Latin America?
Answer. It is important that the United States restores and
strengthens our partnerships in the region and keeps countries from
engaging in irresponsible, opaque, or unsustainable borrowing,
including when borrowing from the PRC. To do this, we must reassert
American leadership in the IFIs, including the IDB Group, and reaffirm
the U.S. commitment to multilateralism, which is a priority for the
Biden-Harris administration.
Through the IFIs and with our allies, we must promote high-quality,
private-
sector-led, inclusive, and sustainable growth and development policies,
with particular focus on democratic governance and respect for human
rights, anti-
corruption and transparency, sound macroeconomic and financial
management, and debt management capacity and transparency. We must
aggressively contrast these features with poor outcomes experienced in
the region, such as the case of Venezuela's engagement with China,
which include low quality infrastructures and unsustainable debt
burdens.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary Yellen, our
U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as well as like-minded partners
from other countries, to achieve these goals.
Question. Over the last few months, my Democratic colleagues have
proposed trillions in tax increases. I am concerned that such tax
increases will discourage growth and investment, and will put U.S.
companies and their workforces at a competitive disadvantage.
Do you believe that a competitive tax code and a reasonable
regulatory environment are necessary for attracting foreign investment
to the United States?
Answer. The investment climate surely benefits from a sound tax and
regulatory environment, and the return to investment in the U.S. also
increases when all of our workers are well-educated, healthy, and
resilient and when our infrastructure is modern, efficient, and
sustainable. The tax increases included in the Build Back Better
legislation enable such investments in our workers and the overall
business environment and put the U.S. fiscal system on a sounder
footing. Further, the agreed changes to the international corporate tax
environment will end the global race to the bottom. These steps will
strengthen the reputation of the U.S. as a great destination for
foreign investment.
Question. How can we ensure that the U.S. remains a prime
destination for domestic and foreign sourced investment?
Answer. It is important that we make adequate investments that lead
to sustained productivity growth, including repairing roads and
bridges, expanding broadband access, investing in the education and
training of U.S. workers, from early childhood through higher
education, and taking serious actions that respond to the reality of
climate change. These sorts of public investments require tax revenue,
and the United States raises much less tax revenue as a share of GDP
than do most peer nations. Improved infrastructure and well-trained
workers are complements to private capital and will help keep the U.S.
a prime destination for domestic and foreign sourced investment.
Question. In response to questions from Senator Crapo last week,
you said that, ``When thinking about the destination of the United
States for investment, the same things presumably that make it a better
destination for foreign investment, make it a better place to do
domestic investment.'' You continued to state that, ``As you raise
taxes, the question is, are you raising them in a way that contributes
to the productivity of the workforce, that makes the country's
infrastructure better, that invites investment, whether it's domestic-
sourced or foreign-sourced?''
According to the Tax Foundation's preliminary estimates, the
legislation marked up by the House Ways and Means Committee in
September would have eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time
equivalent jobs and moved the U.S. to 28th place on the International
Tax Competitiveness Index. Further, according to the Joint Committee on
Taxation, Americans at every income level would have seen tax increases
under that legislation.
Now, under the recently released Build Back Better framework, the
Tax Foundation estimates that the recently released legislation would
reduce long-run economic output by nearly 0.4 percent, eliminate
roughly 103,000 full time jobs, and reduce average after-tax incomes
for many Americans in the long run.
Given that data, are you concerned that these proposals could
threaten the U.S.'s reputation as a prime destination for investment,
whether foreign or domestic?
Answer. Other organizations have much more positive assessments of
the growth potential of these sorts of public investments. For
instance, a new analysis by Moody's Analytics projected that if the
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back
Better Act are enacted, total GDP will increase by nearly $3 trillion
relative to the baseline over the next decade. Moody's Analytics
estimates that the two historic bills will also raise annual employment
over the next decade by an average of 1.5 million jobs. An earlier
International Monetary Fund analysis of the American Rescue Plan, the
American Jobs Plan, and the American Families Plan--the infrastructure
deal and reconciliation bill are based on the latter two--found that
the plans would boost the level of GDP by 1 percent in 2030.
Question. Are you concerned that these proposals, contrary to your
statement, would diminish productivity of our workforce and discourage
investment--throwing off the balance that you said is necessary?
Answer. Given the considerations in my prior answers, I believe
these proposals will help U.S. workers and improve the environment for
U.S. investment.
Question. Congress has expressed concern in the past about the
relatively short term lengths (2 years) of the Executive Directors and
Alternative Executive Directors at International Financial Institutions
compared to Ambassadorships and other comparable political
appointments, and whether this short length of service impedes U.S.
influence in multilateral forums compared to our competitors. The FY
2021 appropriations bill directs Treasury to submit a report containing
a review of amending the term length for the United States Executive
Director and the United States Alternate Executive Director of the
World Bank by June 25, 2021, but the Department has yet to do so.
If confirmed, will you commit to (A) thoroughly examining all
options on this matter and (B) ensuring this report is delivered to
Congress?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about
this issue and consulting further with you and your staff.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
Question. Secretary Yellen has been negotiating the OECD ``Pillar
One'' agreement. She has suggested that Pillar One can be implemented
without a treaty--and thus without the approval of two-thirds of the
Senate.
Does Pillar One implementation in the United States require Senate
ratification of a treaty, yes or no? Please explain your answer in
detail.
Answer. I understand that Pillar One is subject to ongoing
international discussion, and what is needed to implement Pillar One
will depend on the details of those discussions. If confirmed, I hope
to work with Congress and my colleagues at Treasury and the State
Department to determine the appropriate approach to implementing an
agreement.
Question. The United States has been working with G20 countries to
provide debt relief to developing countries in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic. This cooperation is taking place under the Common Framework
agreement reached in November 2020 among G20 members. However, China,
the world's largest sovereign lender, is not complying with its
commitments under the Common Framework. Its existing loans are not
transparent and are riddled with loopholes and requirements designed to
trap developing countries. One recent report suggests that developing
countries now owe over $385 billion in hidden debts to China.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.aiddata.org/publications/banking-on-the-belt-and-
road.
Should anything more be done to ensure China complies with its
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
commitments under the Common Framework agreement?
Answer. I have heard concerns that China is not complying with its
commitments. I am also concerned about China's participation in the
Common Framework. If confirmed, I will work within Treasury as well as
with our partners in the G7 and G20 and the IMF and World Bank to
address these issues.
Question. What are the consequences of China not participating
fully in the Common Framework and other debt relief efforts?
Answer. Without China's full and transparent participation in the
Common Framework, countries will not be able to receive timely and
effective debt treatments to restore debt sustainability. This will
compound the current difficulties that low-income countries are facing,
including rising poverty levels, increasing inequality and a lack of
fiscal space.
Question. What are the risks of China squeezing its debtor
countries?
Answer. My understanding is that China has resorted to various
strategies and methods to exert pressure on debtor countries, such as
the insertion of non-
disclosure and collateral arrangements to maximize Chinese repayment
prospects. If I am confirmed, I will work with allies and partners to
hold China accountable for practices that could be harmful to debtor
countries.
Question. What can be done to pressure China to increase
transparency on its overseas lending activities?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will work to push for greater debt
sustainability and transparency in various international forums,
particularly at the IMF and the World Bank.
Question. The World Bank, IMF, and other development banks have
provided hundreds of billions in emergency support in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Yet most of this has been in the form of loans,
which may create debt sustainability risks as interest rates rise. And,
of course, multilateral development bank (MDB) funding pales in
comparison to the amounts these same countries owe China under obscure
and non-transparent terms.
How can we ensure that multilateral bank lending is sustainable and
does not overly burden developing countries with additional debt they
cannot pay off?
Answer. The MDBs calibrate the terms and assistance envelope
available to countries based on assessments of per capita income,
creditworthiness, and debt sustainability, with poorer, less
creditworthy countries receiving concessional assistance and the
poorest countries with the highest risk of debt distress receiving
grants or highly concessional loans. The World Bank regularly produces
debt sustainability analyses jointly with the IMF for low-income
countries to assess the risk of debt distress. The MDBs also play an
important role in collecting and reporting on debt data from developing
countries, promoting debt transparency, and providing financial and
technical assistance to build debt management capacity in developing
countries.
Question. What steps can the United States take to ensure that the
World Bank or other multilateral development bank assistance is not
used to simply pay off Chinese loans?
Answer. The World Bank and other MDBs can play an important role in
collecting and reporting on debt data from developing countries,
promoting debt transparency, and providing financial and technical
assistance to build debt management capacity in developing countries. I
understand that the International Development Association (IDA) has a
Sustainable Development Finance Policy (and other MDB concessional
windows have adopted or are in the process of adopting such a policy)
that incentivizes IDA-eligible countries to undertake reforms related
to debt management capacity and transparency on an annual basis and in
some cases limits non-concessional borrowing. If confirmed, I will
advocate for continued focus on this work and strong support for
implementing the G20 Common Framework. Similarly, I will work with the
U.S. Executive Directors to promote strong internal controls, auditing,
and evaluation of MDB projects to help monitor that MDB assistance is
going towards its intended purposes and delivering strong development
results.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your approach to engaging
with China on global debt transparency standards?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with allies and partners, as well
as with Chinese counterparts, bilaterally and in multilateral
institutions, to pressure China to improve debt transparency in line
with international standards and practices, including the G20
Operational Guidelines for Sustainable Financing.
Question. On October 16, 2021, when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper
whether it sounded tone deaf to suggest that rising prices and empty
grocery store shelves are ``high-class problems,'' White House Press
Secretary Jen Psaki responded, ``A year ago, people were in their
homes, 10 percent of people were unemployed, gas prices were low
because nobody was driving, people weren't buying goods because they
didn't have jobs. Now more people have jobs, more people are buying
goods, that's increasing the demand. That's a good thing. At the same
time, we also know that the supply is low because we're coming out of
the pandemic. And because a bunch of manufacturing sectors across the
world have shut down because ports haven't been functioning as they
should be. These are all things we're working through. What people
should know is that inflation will come down next year. Economists have
said that. They're all projecting that.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/15/jen-psaki-ron-
klain-inflation-retweet-tapper-lead-vpx.cnn.
Based on your considerable experience and expertise as an
economist, do you agree with the White House's explanation for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
inflationary environment America is currently facing? Why or why not?
Answer. I agree that the pandemic has greatly shifted consumption
patterns and disrupted production in a way that has put upward pressure
on prices. First, since the start of the pandemic, U.S. households have
shifted their consumption away from services and towards goods; demand
for goods is still about 10 percent above pre-pandemic trend. This
positive demand shock for goods has resulted in pricing pressures and
put stress on international shipping and distribution networks since
goods are generally more tradable than are services. Second, COVID-19
outbreaks have shut down some factories and ports in different
countries and at different times. This negative supply shock has
further added to pricing pressures. Finally, rising commodity prices
have been contributing to headline inflation.
As more people are vaccinated and treatments are rolled out in the
U.S. and around the world, the impact of COVID-19 will hopefully
decrease, and this should alleviate both these demand and supply
factors. With a global recovery from COVID-19, the composition of
demand should shift back towards services and the cessation of
shutdowns and return of workers should abate shipping delays and supply
shortages. This logic forms the basis for the view that recent measures
of elevated inflation will prove temporary. Consistent with this view,
monthly core PCE inflation rates have come down sequentially from their
peak in April through to September.
Question. As described above, the White House stated that ``all''
economists are predicting a return to normal levels of inflation in
2022. Specifically, when you do you predict inflation will return to
normal levels? Please describe in detail the assumptions you made in
developing your response to this question.
Answer. My research as an academic economist has not focused on
inflation forecasting. Instead, my recent work has emphasized models of
international investment, international trade, exchange rate dynamics,
international use of the U.S. dollar, and the differential implications
of work-from-home across rich and developing countries. That said, as
noted in my previous answer, my best assessment is that the COVID-19-
induced shift in demand toward goods and shutdowns of some production
has caused inflationary pressures. As such, my view is that as the
world recovers from COVID-19, core inflationary pressures will
normalize. A quantitative forecast of inflation would also incorporate
one's view of the monetary policy reaction function, i.e., how the
Federal Reserve will respond to future economic conditions, and the
dynamics of inflation expectations.
A new analysis by Moody's Analytics shows inflation reverting back
to normal levels in late 2022/early 2023, similar to the timing in
forecasts from the IMF's World Economic Outlook and the most recently
released median forecast provided by the Federal Reserve.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Sasse
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to blocking any assistance
or financing by the World Bank, IMF, or Asian Development Bank for
Afghanistan, since its government is now controlled by the Taliban,
except for humanitarian assistance provided through the UN or other
international organizations?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with others in the
U.S. Government, Congress, and other stakeholders to examine these
issues in more detail, including options to provide humanitarian
support to the Afghan people while preventing the flow of funds to any
person or entity seeking to harm the United States.
Question. How does the Biden administration plan to work with the
World Bank and IMF to address the challenges posed by the Belt and Road
Initiative on a global scale? In your view, are there situations in
which the World Bank or IMF should work with Chinese Government-backed
projects that are part of the Belt and Road Initiative? If so, under
what criteria? Do you believe that the World Bank and IMF should
coordinate with the Chinese Government on assistance to third
countries? If so, under what criteria? What are the prospects for
closer cooperation between the World Bank and IMF and like-minded
infrastructure development finance initiatives, such as the Blue Dot
Network?
Answer. Countering PRC influence around the world, including
through their Belt and Road Initiative, depends on reasserting American
leadership in the IFIs and reaffirming U.S. commitment to
multilateralism and working with allies, which is a priority for the
Biden-Harris administration. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with Secretary Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as
well as like-minded partners from other countries, to use the U.S.
voice and vote to underscore this message; reinforce the importance of
the IFIs' commitment to high standards, transparency, and integrity;
promote increased mobilization of domestic and private sector
resources; and deliver financing and policy advice to other countries
that contribute to increased transparency, sound governance and
policies, and increased capacity to counter malign influence.
I do not believe that the International Financial Institutions
should seek to advance the bilateral foreign policy initiative of any
single shareholder.
The International Financial Institutions should seek to coordinate
with China on creditor transparency to understand and report on China's
lending to developing countries, including the amounts and terms
(including collateral) and the purpose of such lending so as to reduce
risks to debt sustainability, facilitate debt relief where necessary,
and avoid duplication of financing to developing countries.
The IFIs can be an important complement to multilateral initiatives
focused on high-quality, private-sector-led infrastructure development,
given their own adherence to high social, environmental, and fiduciary
standards; emphasis on fostering good governance, transparency, and
private-sector development; policy advice and financing supporting
infrastructure development and investment in climate reform; and the
strong leadership role of the United States and our allies in these
institutions.
Question. Current IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has
been credibly accused of manipulating data to inflate China's standing
in the World Bank's 2018 Doing Business survey when she worked at the
World Bank. What steps has the Biden administration taken to ensure
that the World Bank maintains a transparent and accountable system for
awarding contracts to any Chinese Government-backed state-owned
enterprises or private Chinese companies?
Answer. It is critical that the IFIs take steps to ensure their
integrity and that we promote strong accountability and transparency.
The Biden-Harris administration is strongly committed to good
governance and anti-corruption, including in the governance and
management of the International Financial Institutions and through
their assistance.
If confirmed, I look forward to understanding steps the U.S.
Government has taken within the World Bank regarding procurement
transparency. If confirmed, I will work with the U.S. Executive
Director, other U.S. Government officials, and like-minded partners to
advocate for implementation of a procurement framework focused on
value-for-money over the full lifecycle of a project, rather than
awards to the lowest bidder, and greater scrutiny on abnormally low
bids; added attention to building contracting capacity and transparency
in public financial management in World Bank recipient countries; and
enhanced reporting on contract awards for World Bank-funded projects.
I understand that the U.S. Government has tasked agencies to put
this into action, and if confirmed, I commit to work with all parts of
the U.S. Government and the U.S. Executive Directors to do our part to
seek to keep forced labor out of MDB-funded projects and to apply
rigorous safeguards and standards to prevent human trafficking and
forced labor.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso
Question. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) with the approval
of the Biden administration issued $650 billion in special drawing
rights (SDRs)--the largest in history. Instead of helping the most
vulnerable nations struggling with the economic impacts of the
coronavirus, the funds also went to wealthy nations and rogue regimes.
It appears the majority of the allocations ended up going to those
countries that need it the least. Media reports indicate that high-
income countries received $400 billion of the pot, while low-income
countries only received about $21 billion.
What was the amount of special drawing rights issued to the United
States and what is the current plan for those resource?
Answer. As outlined in the IMF's Articles of Agreement, a general
allocation of SDRs is distributed to all members according to their
participation, via quota share, in the IMF. Accordingly, the United
States, with our 17.43 percent quota share, received 17.43 percent of
the $650-billion SDR allocation, or about 79.5 billion SDRs. The United
States is currently working with the IMF and other major economies to
develop mechanisms to channel a portion of these SDRS to vulnerable
countries through IMF-administered trust funds, and the Biden
administration's FY 2022 budget includes a request for authorization to
lend up to 15 billion of our SDRs for that purpose.
Question. Please provided the amount of funds received by the each
of the following countries as part of the special drawing rights:
China, Russia, Syria, and Iran.
Answer. As noted above, the IMF is required to distribute SDRs to
all of its members on the basis of their quota share in the IMF.
Accordingly, China, Russia, Syria, and Iran received about 29.2 billion
SDRs, 12.4 billion SDRs, 281 million SDRs, and 3.4 billion SDRs,
respectively. China, which already has ample international reserves,
has supported efforts to channel SDRs to vulnerable countries. SDRs are
not a currency and have limited uses on their own. For a country to use
its allocation for fiscal support it must exchange SDRs for a usable
currency. The United States retains the right to refuse to voluntary
exchange SDRs for dollars with any country.
Question. In June, the G7 urged the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) to come up with a variety of proposals to channel special drawing
rights. The IMF now is looking at ways to reallocate reserves from
higher income countries to developing nations.
What are the current mechanisms and proposals being considered to
channel special drawing rights?
Answer. The administration has worked closely with the IMF and
other major economies to develop mechanisms to allow donor countries to
voluntarily channel some of their SDRs to countries in need. One option
that already exists for SDR channeling is the IMF's Poverty Reduction
and Growth Trust, which provides low-cost (currently zero-interest
rate) loans to low-income countries in the context of an IMF-agreed
program of structural reforms. Since the start of the pandemic, IMF
members have already provided over 17 billion SDRs in new loans to the
PRGT to support increased IMF lending to the poorest countries and have
pledged an additional 5.3 billion SDRs. The IMF and major countries are
also working to develop a new facility, the Resilience and
Sustainability Trust, or RST. The RST will be financed by channeled
SDRs and will provide longer-term financing to countries to build
climate and pandemic resilience. President Biden joined other leaders
of the G20 recently in a declaration calling for channeling up to $100
billion in SDRs to vulnerable countries.
Question. What protections are in place to ensure that those
resources a country wants to reallocate to low-income countries does
not go to countries like China, Syria, and Iran?
Answer. China has ample international reserves and has no
foreseeable need for IMF assistance. IMF lending programs require that
countries agree to a program of reforms to address unsustainable
policies and structural issues. The regimes in Syria and Iran would be
unlikely to agree to this conditionality. Moreover, before agreeing to
disburse funds the IMF conducts an assessment of the borrowing member's
safeguards to prevent loss or misuse of IMF-provided funds. Given the
substantial concerns regarding the integrity of key economic
institutions in Syria and Iran, it is unlikely they would pass these
assessments.
Question. In your view, what enhanced transparency and
accountability measures should be attached to any reallocation effort?
Answer. The IMF's proposed RST, which would be financed through
channeled SDRs, will require that borrowing countries have a concurrent
standard IMF program that includes an agreed macroeconomic framework
and appropriate policies. Doing so will help ensure that IMF resources
are used effectively and provide a strong basis for future repayment.
Since the RST will likely focus on lending to enable countries to build
resilience to climate and pandemic impacts, the IMF will cooperate
closely with the World Bank to establish a robust set of policy
measures focused on these outcomes that will accompany the provision of
financing.
Question. The World Bank stopped funding for projects and halted
operations in Afghanistan after the Taliban took control of the
country. The International Monetary Fund also suspended payments and
access to lending to Afghanistan around the same time. The Biden
administration has also frozen assets of the Afghan central bank that
are held in the United States.
Under what conditions, if any, would you recommend the United
States support the resumption of International Monetary Fund lending
and World Bank aid to Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban?
Answer. It is too early to say at this time. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with others in the U.S. Government, Congress, and
other stakeholders to examine these issues in more detail, including to
examine options to provide humanitarian support to the Afghan people
while preventing the flow of funds to any person or entity seeking to
harm the United States.
Question. Under what circumstances, would you recommend allowing
the Taliban to access assets belonging to the Afghan central bank held
in U.S. banks?
Answer. It is too early to say at this time. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with others in the U.S. Government, Congress, and
other stakeholders to examine these issues in more detail.
______
Prepared Statement of Maria L. Pagan, Nominated to be Deputy United
States Trade Representative, Geneva Office, With the Rank of
Ambassador, Executive Office of the President
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, members of the committee,
good morning. It is an honor to be before you today as the nominee for
the position of Deputy U.S. Trade Representative in Geneva. I am
grateful to President Biden for this nomination, and to Ambassador Tai
for her support.
I am also grateful to my family--my parents, my two brothers and
their wives, and my son--for their support, love, and inspiration. My
parents are doctors and have dedicated their professional lives to
advancing public health in Puerto Rico. I learned from them the value
of public service, of taking pride in what you do, and that there is
nothing you can't achieve if you just give it a try. They couldn't be
here with me, but I am sure they are watching from home. My son
couldn't be here either, as he is a first-year law student on the west
coast, but his support is enormously important to me.
I come before you today having spent nearly 30 years as a civil
servant, first at the Department of Commerce, and for the last 18
years, at the U.S. Trade Representative's office, representing our
country in trade negotiations and litigation. After almost 20 years at
USTR, I know well the challenges we face domestically and abroad, and I
look forward to drawing on this experience to represent USTR at the
World Trade Organization, if confirmed.
I want to underscore Ambassador Tai's recent speech where she
reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the WTO. However, there is
a growing recognition that after 25 years, the institution needs to be
reformed in order to be effective and relevant for the next 25 years.
If confirmed, it would be an honor to represent the United States in
Geneva at this critical juncture for the institution.
In her remarks in Geneva, Ambassador Tai emphasized the Biden-
Harris administration's belief that trade--and the WTO--can be a force
for good, and she laid out her vision to help the organization reorient
its mission to better serve and advance the interests of regular
people. For example, taking steps to address the COVID-19 pandemic
would be a good start. It also means finding a way to incorporate the
interests and priorities of workers into the WTO's work. Additionally,
Ambassador Tai spoke about the need to reform the dispute settlement
process to help empower members to secure resolutions and provide
confidence that the system is fair. These challenges are central to the
WTO's ability to operate as it was envisioned at its founding.
I know this won't be easy, and any successful reform requires a
willingness to work cooperatively with other members. As Deputy General
Counsel at USTR, my job is to get things done, and I will bring that
can-do approach and attitude to Geneva. We need to be creative; not
just focus on the areas where we disagree, but find the areas where we
can agree. That also means listening to each other, not just talking at
one another. And it means listening to voices outside of Geneva and
Washington, DC so we are broadening the perspectives that can be
incorporated into our agenda.
That includes working with this committee and members of Congress.
Action--or inaction--at the WTO directly affects communities, workers,
farmers, and small businesses in your States. If confirmed, I commit to
maintain open lines of communication with all of you and represent the
interests of your constituents in Geneva.
We are living in challenging times defined by rapid technological
innovation, a pandemic, and climate change. Trade has an important role
to play in all those areas. If confirmed, I look forward to
representing the United States at the WTO to address these challenges
and make sure it's a force for good.
As a longtime member of the USTR family, I know I will be able to
count on a fantastic career staff to support our efforts in Geneva.
USTR staff is known for its excellence and hard work, but also for
creativity and can-do attitude. It is reassuring to know they will be
there to support me.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning, and to President Biden and Ambassador Tai for their support. I
look forward to answering your questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Maria L. Pagan.
2. Position to which nominated: Deputy United States Trade
Representative, Geneva Office.
3. Date of nomination: August 10, 2021.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: February 10, 1963; San Juan, Puerto Rico.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Name: Cupeyville School.
Dates attended: August 1977 to May 1981.
Degree received: High school diploma.
Date degree granted: May 1981.
Name: Tufts University.
Dates attended: August 1981 to May 1985.
Degree received: B.A. in political science.
Date degree granted: May 1985.
Name: Georgetown University Law Center/School of Foreign
Service.
Dates attended: August 1987 to May 1991.
Degrees received: J.D./Master of Science in Foreign Service
(MSFS).
Date degrees granted: May 1991.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
Covington and Burling, LLP, Washington, DC, August 1985 to June
1987, paralegal.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of General
Counsel, Washington, DC, June 1988 to August 1988, law clerk.
State Department, Inter-American Affairs Bureau, Office of
Press and Public Affairs, Washington DC, June 1989 to August
1989, summer intern.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Washington, DC, September
1989 to April 1990, law clerk.
Collier, Shannon, and Scott, Washington, DC, June 1990 to
August 1990, summer associate.
Rick Swartz and Associates, Inc., Washington, DC, October 1991
to July 1993, policy advocate.
Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Counsel for
International Commerce, Washington, DC, November 1993 to
October 2003, Senior Counsel.
Office of the United States Trade Representative, Office of the
General Counsel, Washington, DC, October 2003 to present,
Deputy General Counsel.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
None.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g.. limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
Department of Commerce Day Care Center: Was a member of the
parent board of the DOC Day Care Center while my son was there.
Dates would have been around 1997 through 2001.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
Member of the Maryland Bar Association since December 1991.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination.
None.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
Recipient of Sloan Foundation Minority Program Award, for
internship at the State Department, Summer 1989.
Attorney of the Year Award at the Department of Commerce, 2001.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
Author of ``U.S. Legal Requirements Affecting Trade with Cuba''
published in 2 Tulsa J. of Comp. and Int'I Law 291 (Spring
1995) and VII Pace Int'I Law Rev. 485 (Spring 1995).
Speaker at Practicing Law Institute's Department of Commerce
Speaks program, on ``Recent U.S. Trade and Investment
Initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean,'' October 1994.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates. Provide the committee with one digital copy of each
formal speech and presentation):
None.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
I have served as a trade lawyer for the United States
Government for 28 years. The last 18 years I have worked in the
Office of the General Counsel at USTR, starting as a junior
staff attorney and rising to become Deputy General Counsel. I
am deeply familiar with U.S. trade law and U.S. trade
obligations. I have participated in trade negotiations in
various capacities, including being the lead lawyer for various
free trade agreements, most recently the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement. I bring years of experience not only
in the law (domestic and international), but also the policy
dimensions of trade for the United States. I understand that
U.S. policy must reflect a vast array of stakeholders, in
particular congressional. I have been proud to represent the
U.S. Government not only in negotiations but also in litigation
before the World Trade Organization, and believe I can use my
knowledge and experience to further advance a U.S. trade policy
that works for all at the World Trade Organization.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
N/A.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
None.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
None.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
Government need not be listed.
None.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the
Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics
agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of
any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics
agreement.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
Provided to the committee.
6. The following information is to be provided only by nominees to
the positions of United States Trade Representative and Deputy United
States Trade Representative:
Have you ever represented, advised, or otherwise aided a
foreign government or a foreign political organization with
respect to any international trade matter at any time in any
capacity? If so, provide the name of the foreign entity, a
description of the work performed (including any work you
supervised), the time frame of the work (e.g., March to
December 1995), and the number of hours spent on the
representation.
None.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
Not aware of anything.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Maria L. Pagan
Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
Question. The WTO dispute settlement system has played an important
role in holding member countries accountable for their trade policies,
but the Appellate Body has fallen short of its promise by overstepping
its mandate and engaging in judicial overreach--hampering the
application of U.S. trade enforcement laws, and leaving American
workers and businesses to pay the price.
I believe the future of the WTO rests with achievable reforms that
create trust in the Appellate Body as a functional dispute settlement
mechanism. The Appellate Body can no longer disregard the rules that
apply to it and the imbalance in the application of those rules.
If confirmed, how will you ensure that Appellate Body reform is a
top priority for the WTO?
Answer. I share the longstanding, bipartisan concerns expressed by
the Congress about the Appellate Body. We have seen how Appellate Body
overreach has undermined and weakened the WTO's ability to negotiate
and monitor. Appellate Body overreaching has also shielded China's non-
market practices and hurt the interest of U.S. workers and businesses.
Reforming the dispute settlement system in a way that addresses these
problems is a top priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent
keynote speech in Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about
restoring the Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way
it used to be.
Instead, the dispute settlement system can and should better
support the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. We want a WTO
that serves as a venue for discussion and negotiations, rather than
being imbalanced towards dispute settlement or litigation.
We have already started engaging with some WTO members, and we
intend for the reform conversation to be inclusive so we can approach
the question of WTO reform in a holistic way. A WTO dispute settlement
system that helps to shield China's non-market distortions is not in
the best interest of any WTO member.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
special and differential treatment
Question. One of the major elements for reform at the World Trade
Organization (WTO) must be reform of ``special and differential
treatment'' (S&D)--exemptions and flexibilities from WTO obligations
intended to assist developing countries. The fact that WTO rules allows
countries to decide for themselves whether they are developing--and
thus eligible for S&D--undermines the effectiveness of the WTO system.
Specifically, it undercuts the utility of S&D for countries that truly
deserve such flexibilities and enable major powers to avoid taking on
meaningful commitments. In particular, it defies belief that China--the
second largest economy in the world and a country classified by the
World Bank as an upper-middle-income country--claims it is a developing
country entitled to S&D.
If confirmed, do you commit to pushing WTO members to adopt
objective criteria regarding whether a member is developing or not, and
thus eligible for S&D?
Answer. If confirmed, I will push WTO members to establish
objective criteria for determining whether a WTO member may avail
itself of blanket ``special and differential treatment'' (S&D) in
current and future WTO negotiations. The United States is actively
engaged in the discussion on how to reform special and differential
treatment and would like it to be part of the overall reform agenda at
the WTO.
sanitary and phytosanitary measures
Question. One of the most important WTO agreements is the Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS
Agreement). The SPS Agreement facilitates agricultural market access by
ensuring that measures taken to protect human, animal or plant life or
health are supported by scientific evidence. Various WTO members have
sought to undermine the effectiveness of the SPS Agreement including by
failing to notify their SPS measures to the WTO and making spurious
claims about the SPS Agreement's rules, including in the WTO SPS
Committee.
If confirmed, will you be a vigorous champion for ensuring the
science based disciplines in the SPS Agreement are not compromised, and
effectively enforced?
Answer. USTR is committed to ensuring that our trading partners
live up to their WTO commitments, including their WTO obligation to
base their SPS measures on scientific principles, and to base measures
on international standards where they exist, or on risk assessments. I
am committed to hold accountable countries that establish non-science
based measures that are inconsistent with international standards, or
that establish unjustified barriers to safe U.S. agricultural products.
dispute settlement
Question. During the hearing, you noted that WTO rules ``needed to
be enforced.'' I agree. The impasse over the Appellate Body has brought
dispute settlement to a standstill--and thus rules are not being
enforced. I appreciate that reforming the Appellate Body will not
happen overnight, but neither does litigation before a WTO panel, which
can take over a year before there is anything to appeal at the
Appellate Body. We have a number of potential disputes we could
initiate at the WTO while the United States tries to find a way forward
on the Appellate Body.
Do you agree that the United States needs to start moving forward
on WTO enforcement against foreign trade barriers concurrently with
reform of the Appellate Body?
Answer. I believe the United States should continue to bring
disputes to the WTO when we consider WTO dispute settlement to be the
most effective way to enforce U.S. rights under the WTO-covered
agreements. The objective of dispute settlement is to facilitate
mutually agreed solutions between members. Dispute settlement remains
capable of supporting that objective for the United States and other
WTO members, irrespective of the status of the Appellate Body. When it
is appropriate to do so, we should continue to use WTO dispute
settlement to ensure that our trading partners live up to their WTO
commitments.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
Question. Article 23.3.1(b) of the USMCA states: ``1. Each party
shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices
thereunder, the following rights, as stated in the ILO Declaration on
Rights at Work: (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or
compulsory labor.''
Given this provision, as I raised in my questions during the
hearing, is human trafficking a violation of the USMCA?
Answer. Under the USMCA, one right that each party is required to
maintain in its statutes, regulations, and practices is the elimination
of all forms of forced or compulsory labor. Human trafficking of anyone
to Mexico is a violation of Mexico's anti-trafficking laws and should
be investigated by Mexican authorities. Human trafficking is an issue
that USTR and the entire administration take very seriously, and if
confirmed, I am committed to working with interagency colleagues,
allies, stakeholders, members of Congress, and others to combat human
trafficking.
Question. The chapter on Cuba in the Department of State's 2020
Trafficking in Persons Report raised numerous concerns about the Cuban
regime's foreign medical missions, including the fact that the missions
subject Cuban doctors and medical personnel to human trafficking and
forced labor conditions.
Do you agree with the Department of State's assessment about Cuba's
foreign medical missions?
Answer. USTR is a member of the President's Interagency Task force
on Human Trafficking. USTR regards the Department of State's Annual
Trafficking in Persons Report as an important tool to inform USG
efforts to combat human trafficking in the United States and abroad. We
are aware of the indicators of forced labor as they relate to Cuba's
foreign medical missions and will continue to work with the Department
of State and other interagency partners on this issue.
Question. Given provisions in USMCA on forced labor and what is
known about the forced labor conditions present in the Cuban regime's
foreign medical missions, does Mexico's decision to host a Cuban
medical mission amount to a violation of USMCA?
Answer. Human trafficking is an issue that USTR and the entire
administration take very seriously, and if confirmed, I am committed to
working with interagency colleagues, allies, stakeholders, members of
Congress, and others to combat human trafficking and forced labor. We
are aware of the indicators of forced labor as they relate to Cuba's
foreign medical missions and will continue to work with the Department
of State and other interagency partners on this issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune
Question. In December, China will have been a member of the World
Trade Organization for 20 years. In that time, China has become the
WTO's largest trading nation and the second largest economy in the
world--all while doubling down on a state-led, non-market approach to
trade.
It makes no sense that a country like China should continue to be
able to self-designate as a developing country at the WTO to gain
unfair trade advantages, especially as the Chinese Community Party
takes advantage of actual developing countries through the predatory
lending of the Belt and Road Initiative. I have introduced a bipartisan
resolution to address this issue at the WTO, and I think this is a
common-sense reform to strengthen the global trading system.
Do you believe that China declaring itself as a developing country
at the WTO misidentifies its economic stature and corrodes trust in the
rules-based trading system?
Answer. Yes, the United States is very concerned that China
continues to seek developing country status at the WTO, including in
ongoing negotiations. We have made that clear to China on several
occasions, most recently during China's October 2021 Trade Policy
Review at the WTO.
Question. One of the problems the U.S. faces at the WTO is that a
lot of countries are not transparent and we don't know what policies
they have in place that might affect U.S. agriculture exports.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to make sure that members
are living up to their agricultural trade commitments?
Answer. Transparency is key to being able to understand the global
agricultural trade landscape and the challenges facing U.S.
agricultural exports. In addition, without adequate transparency we
will be unable to make progress in agricultural trade reform efforts.
If confirmed, I will work closely with like-minded members to improve
transparency, which is widely recognized as lacking in the WTO. I will
use a variety of tools, including counternotifications, formal WTO
Committee Q&A processes, and bilateral engagement to bring more clarity
regarding members' policies and practices that may impact U.S.
agricultural exports. In addition, I will to continue to press for
reform of the WTO's negotiating and monitoring arms, including by
enhancing U.S.-led efforts to improve the operation and effectiveness
of notification requirements in order to facilitate greater
transparency in the WTO.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
Question. One of the challenges facing the World Trade Organization
(WTO) is the breakdown in the WTO's ability to facilitate the
negotiation of new agreements, especially to write new rules to
constrain non-market behavior.
In my WTO resolution with Senator Cardin, I articulated a set of
proposed reforms to the WTO aimed at addressing the loss of the
negotiating function. One of these reforms was the use of plurilateral
agreements without Most Favored Nation (MFN) requirements.
Do you agree that non-MFN plurilateral agreements can be a helpful
tool to work with like-minded countries to restore purpose and
relevance to the WTO?
Answer. The United States believes that plurilateral negotiations
at the WTO can be a useful means to advance issues of interest to
members and to keep the WTO relevant. We do not view plurilateral
negotiations and outcomes as undermining multilateral ones. Rather,
plurilateral initiatives can foster new ideas and creative, flexile
approaches that can build momentum toward multilateral outcomes.
Question. Alongside the decrease in successful negotiation, there
has been an increase in litigation at the WTO. This has led to concerns
about activism by the Appellate Body (AB). In an attempt to stop
activism by the Appellate Body both the Obama and Trump administrations
blocked new appointments to the AB. The loss of the AB is problematic,
yet we should also not restart the AB without correcting the
longstanding flaws that the United States has articulated.
Will you commit to working with WTO members to address AB activism
in an effort to restart the Appellate Body? How do you propose WTO
members can work together to reduce judicial activism by the AB?
Answer. I share the longstanding, bipartisan concerns expressed by
the Congress about the Appellate Body. We have seen how Appellate Body
overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and weakened the
WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. At the same time, Appellate
Body overreaching has shielded China's non-market practices and hurt
the interest of U.S. workers and businesses. Reforming the dispute
settlement system in a way that addresses these problems is a top
priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent keynote speech in
Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about restoring the
Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way it used to be.
Instead, the dispute settlement system can and should better
support the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. We want a WTO
that serves as a venue for discussion and negotiations, rather than
being imbalanced towards dispute settlement or litigation.
We have already started engaging with some WTO members, and intend
for the reform conversation to be inclusive so we can approach the
question of WTO reform in a holistic way. A WTO dispute settlement
system that helps to shield China's non-market distortions is not in
the best interest of any WTO member.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Patrick J. Toomey
Question. So far, the U.S. has mainly relied on unilateral tariffs
under section 301 to push for market-oriented reforms to the Chinese
market--but these measures hurt Americans, while not having much effect
on Chinese trade practices. Instead of unilateral measures, the U.S.
has the option of working with key allies and utilizing the WTO rules
to encourage China to adopt reforms. While the WTO needs reform in some
key areas, the United States has previously utilized the WTO to win a
significant number of cases against China--especially as the
complainant, but also as respondent. Uncovering China's WTO violations
is challenging but possible, and the U.S. can use the WTO to hold China
accountable, particularly in relation to the areas of intellectual
property protection, forced technology transfer, and subsidies.
How can the U.S. better utilize the WTO dispute settlement system
in addressing the challenges with China's non-market trade policies?
Answer. Ambassador Tai recently underscored her intent to use the
full range of tools we have, but also to develop new tools as needed to
defend American economic interests from harmful policies and practices,
which include China's unfair economic practices. I believe the United
States should continue to bring disputes to the WTO when we consider
WTO dispute settlement to be the most effective way to enforce U.S.
rights under the WTO-covered agreements. When it is appropriate to do
so, we should continue to use WTO dispute settlement to address WTO-
inconsistent measures of our trading partners--including China.
However, even when we have secured victories in our disputes
against China, we have seen that China's follow-through was
inconsistent and that it did not change the underlying policies. At the
same time, we have seen how Appellate Body overreaching has shielded
China's non-market practices and hurt the interest of U.S. workers and
businesses. This overreaching by the Appellate Body has undermined our
ability to protect U.S. workers and businesses from those non-market
practices. That is why reforming the dispute settlement system in a way
that addresses these problems is a top priority. A WTO dispute
settlement system that continues to shield China's non-market
distortions is not in our interest.
Question. For those areas of contention that are not well covered
by WTO rules, how can the United States work with our allies within the
WTO to develop new rules?
Answer. To protect ourselves against the damage China continues to
inflict through its non-market practices--including, among other
things, through industrial planning and targeting, preferential
treatment of state-owned enterprises, massive subsidization, forced
technology transfer, cybertheft and inadequate intellectual property
enforcement--we need to be prepared to deploy all tools and explore the
development of new ones, including through collaboration with other
economies and countries. We are already engaging with allies to address
China's harmful non-
market policies and practices.
Additionally, in the G7, G20, and at the WTO, we are discussing
market distortions and other unfair trade practices, such as the use of
forced labor in the fisheries sector, and in global supply chains, and
the use of non-market financing. We will continue to work closely with
our allies and like-minded partners towards creating a more level
playing field in the 21st century, including by developing new tools
and negotiating new rules where appropriate.
Question. What are the limits of the WTO in dealing with China, and
how can the U.S. help facilitate reforms to strengthen it?
Answer. The consensus nature of the WTO limits our ability to forge
new rules in that forum that would address challenges raised by China's
embrace of state capitalism and its litany of unfair trade practices.
Moreover, over time, the core functions of the WTO--monitoring,
negotiating, and dispute settlement--have become imbalanced towards
dispute settlement and that imbalance towards litigation has advantaged
China. Dispute settlement was never intended to supplant negotiations,
yet China has been able to get around the hard part of diplomacy and
negotiation by securing new rules through litigation. At the same time,
Appellate Body overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and
weakened the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. This imbalance
has harmed U.S. interests and advantaged China, helping to shield its
non- market distortions. Efforts to reform the dispute settlement
system--and bring about WTO reform more generally--must address these
problems. Over time, the core functions of the WTO--monitoring
implementation of existing commitments, negotiating new commitments,
and dispute settlement--have become imbalanced towards dispute
settlement and that imbalance towards litigation has advantaged China.
Question. There have been two recent cases at the WTO that have
challenged the broad applicability of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) Article XXI, the ``national security exception'' in
the WTO, as well as Article 73 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
A 2020 WTO ruling in a case brought by Qatar against Saudi Arabia
stated that Saudi Arabia cannot use ``national security'' (TRIPS
Article 73) as an excuse for failing to protect the intellectual
property of Qatari rights holders from piracy of their broadcast rights
for sports, movies, and television programming.
Additionally, a 2019 WTO ruling on a case between Russia and
Ukraine clarified the limits of ``national security'' as a defense for
breaking WTO rules against unjustified barriers to trade, stating that
any such claim should be ``objectively'' true, relating to weapons,
war, fissionable nuclear materials or an ``emergency in international
relations.'' The panel concluded that governmental actions for which a
national security exception is claimed must ``meet a minimum
requirement of plausibility in relation to the proffered essential
security interests.''
However, the Trump administration disagreed with both rulings
claiming that measures taken by members for the purposes of national
security are non-justiciable and cannot be reviewed by a WTO dispute
settlement panel--siding with Russia and Saudi Arabia in the
aforementioned disputes.
Do you believe that actions taken under GATT Article XXI or TRIPS
Article 73 are reviewable by the WTO? If not, please explain why.
Do you believe that WTO members should explain a rationale for why
they are invoking GATT Article XXI/TRIPS Article 73, or are these
provisions fully ``self-
judging''?
Answer. Since the negotiation of the GATT in 1947, through the
establishment of the WTO in 1995, and to the present day, the United
States has maintained a consistent position: issues of national
security are political matters not subject to review or capable of
resolution by GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Every member of the WTO--
including the United States--retains the authority to determine for
itself those matters that it considers necessary to the protection of
its essential security interests, as is reflected in the text of
Article XXI of the GATT 1994. In other words, Article XXI(b) of the
GATT 1994 and Article 73(b) of TRIPS--which mirrors Article XXI(b)--are
self-judging. That was the U.S. position during GATT 1947 negotiations,
and in 1949, when the United States invoked Article XXI(b) in a dispute
with Czechoslovakia. That was also the U.S. position in 1982, when the
European Communities and its member states, Canada, and Australia
invoked Article XXI to justify their application of certain measures
against Argentina. The United States also expressed similar views in
1985, after Nicaragua asked the GATT Council to condemn a U.S. embargo
and to request that the United States revoke these measures
immediately.
Article XXI(b) provides that ``[n]othing in this Agreement shall be
construed to prevent any member from taking any action which it
considers necessary for the protection of its essential security
interests.'' Fundamentally, Article XXI(b) is about a member taking an
action ``which it considers necessary.'' Whether the member
``considers'' that action necessary for protection of the acting
member's essential security interests is a subjective question. The
text also specifies that it is ``its essential security interests''--
the member's in question--that the action is taken for the protection
of. In identifying such security interests, therefore, it is the
judgment of the member that is relevant. Only a member like the United
States--and not WTO adjudicators--can determine for itself what
comprises that member's essential security interests. Therefore, a WTO
panel may not second-guess a member's determination of what it
considers necessary for the protection of its own essential security
interests. Nor may a member be required to furnish reasons for or
explanations of an action for which Article XXI is invoked. While a
member invoking Article XXI may nonetheless choose to make information
available to other members, in the absence of language imposing a
requirement to furnish reasons, no such obligation may be imposed on a
member through dispute settlement.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
Question. As our Ambassador to the WTO, you'll be joining the
negotiations that the Biden administration is supporting regarding the
waiver of TRIPS protections for COVID-19 vaccines.
Do you understand the concerns that members of this committee have
expressed about the TRIPS waiver?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with members of this
committee to further understand the concerns that they have expressed.
Question. In your assessment, what potential pitfalls (if any) does
a waiver of TRIPS protections for COVID-19 vaccines pose to future
pharmaceutical and biomedical innovation?
Answer. If confirmed, as I work with members of the World Trade
Organization, I will be clear-eyed about potential risks that you have
raised. I am committed to keeping Congress fully informed of
developments in the process in the WTO.
Question. Are there any elements of India and South Africa's
request that you would consider a non-starter or a red-line in your
negotiations?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to hearing more from members
about concerns about specific proposals and will be clear eyed about
the potential risks.
Question. Do you believe it is in the national interest for China
and Russia to have access to the proprietary information behind the
COVID-19 vaccine? Why or what not?
Answer. I believe strongly in intellectual property protections and
the importance of safeguarding American innovation from illicit
acquisition. If confirmed, as I work with members of the World Trade
Organization, I will be clear-eyed about potential risks that you have
raised.
Question. My primary frustrations with WTO litigation in recent
years have been the slow pace of the dispute settlement process, as
well as instances of judicial activism by the Appellate Body that
disadvantage U.S. interests.
What are your ideas to speed up the dispute settlement process at
the WTO and how do you plan to build consensus in Geneva towards that
end?
Answer. There have been longstanding, bipartisan concerns with the
way that the dispute settlement system has been functioning and for
years the United States has been saying there needs to be a course
correction. The objective of the dispute settlement system is to
facilitate mutually agreed solutions between members, yet over time, it
has become synonymous with litigation that is prolonged, expensive, and
contentious. Reforming dispute settlement requires finding ways to
create more opportunities for disputing parties to come together and be
incentivized to solve the problem instead of prolonging litigation for
its own sake. We want a WTO that serves as a venue for discussion and
negotiations, rather than being imbalanced towards dispute settlement
or litigation. For years, Appellate Body overreaching provided WTO
members with the wrong incentives and worsened that imbalance. We have
already started engaging with some WTO members, and we intend for the
reform conversation to be inclusive so we can approach the question of
WTO reform in a holistic way.
Question. What specific reforms is this administration seeking to
the Appellate Body before it begins providing consent to Appellate Body
vacancies?
Answer. This administration shares the longstanding, bipartisan
concerns expressed by the Congress about the Appellate Body. I believe
the WTO must undertake fundamental reform if the dispute settlement
system is to remain viable and credible. We have seen how Appellate
Body overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and weakened the
WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. At the same time, Appellate
Body overreaching has shielded China's non-market practices and hurt
the interest of U.S. workers and businesses. Reforming the dispute
settlement system in a way that addresses these problems is a top
priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent keynote speech in
Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about restoring the
Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way it used to be.
A WTO dispute settlement system that continues to shield China's non-
market distortions is not in our interest.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
Question. In your opening statement, you mentioned that the WTO
needs to be reformed in order to stay relevant for the future. However,
there are limits as to what the WTO can and should do regarding various
trade and non-trade issues. If the role of the WTO is too weak, then
major markets will likely continue to react unilaterally. But if the
organization is too strong, it may become overstrained and overbearing
on major markets.
In your opinion, what do you believe are the key issues surrounding
WTO reform?
Answer. The reality of the WTO today is that the organization does
not match the ambition of its goals. The WTO has rightfully been
accused of being insulated from reality, slow to recognize global
developments, and not grounded in the experiences of working people. To
build a more viable and durable multilateral trading system, reform is
needed throughout the organization. This includes working to address
problems that have undermined the negotiating function, including
certain members' lack of transparency and unwillingness to make
contributions commensurate with their role in trade and the global
economy. It also includes efforts to revitalize the underappreciated
monitoring and deliberating function, where members increasingly are
not responding meaningfully to concerns raised with their trade
measures. Further, it involves fundamental reform to dispute
settlement, which has been used to supplant the negotiation of new
rules through prolonged and contentious litigation, rather than to
facilitate mutually agreed solutions between members.
Question. Do you believe the WTO should create a new system of
governance with new rules or focus on greater policy coherence with
stronger enforcement?
Answer. I see a need for reform in all three pillars of the WTO, so
that the organization can achieve its founding goals: trade that raises
living standards, ensures full employment, pursues sustainable
development, and protects and preserves the environment. Refocusing on
these goals requires that members deliberate issues and monitor
compliance with existing rules; negotiate new rules that respond to the
issues we face today, such as the need to protect our planet, address
widening inequality, and increase economic insecurity; and have
opportunities to reach mutually agreed solutions to the issues between
us.
Question. One of the more troublesome issues with the WTO is its
inadequate methods for addressing the challenges that China presents in
regards to IP protections, excessive subsidies, and the predatory
practices of state-owned enterprises.
If confirmed, how do you plan to work with Ambassador Tai on these
concerns when negotiating new WTO rules that address China's predatory
practices?
Answer. In a recent speech, Ambassador Tai underscored her intent
to use the full range of tools we have and develop new tools as needed
to defend American economic interests from harmful policies and
practices, which include China's unfair economic practices you
mentioned. As part of that approach, we will continue to work through
multilateral channels, as well as bilateral and regional channels, to
cooperate with like-minded partners who share our strong interest in
ensuring that the terms of competition are fair. I intend to work with
other WTO members to rebuild confidence in the system and boost
motivation for creating a more level playing field in the 21st century,
including by negotiating new rules where appropriate.
Question. Since the debate on WTO reform started, China has been
proactively engaged. It continues to give the portrayal of guardian
status among the global trading system, but China's pattern of vague
commitments and adverse actions against the United States and like-
minded nations speaks otherwise.
In your opinion, what role does China play--or should it be
playing--in reforming the WTO given its economic weight in the world
economy?
Answer. China is the world's largest trader in part because of the
benefits that WTO membership has provided. When China acceded to the
WTO 20 years ago, WTO members expected that the terms set forth in
China's Protocol of Accession would permanently dismantle existing
Chinese policies and practices that were incompatible with an
international trading system expressly based on open, market-oriented
policies. But those expectations have not been realized. The United
States will continue to use all available mechanisms to move China to
uphold its WTO obligations.
Question. Can the WTO be reformed to accommodate two different
economic regimes--especially with China's stance to safeguard its
system of state capitalism?
Answer. The administration is committed to working closely with our
allies and like-minded partners, including at the WTO, towards building
a truly fair international trade system that enables healthy
competition.
______
Questions Submitted Hon. John Barrasso
Question. Members from both sides of the aisle have made it very
clear that the World Trade Organization is in dire need of reform.
What specific reforms do you believe are needed in order to prevent
the WTO's Appellate Body from acting as a rulemaking body?
Answer. The WTO must undertake fundamental reform if the dispute
settlement system is to remain viable and credible. Over time, certain
WTO members discovered they could get around the hard part of diplomacy
and negotiation by securing new rules through litigation. Dispute
settlement was never intended to supplant negotiations--and the reform
of these two core WTO functions is intimately linked. We have seen how
Appellate Body overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and
weakened the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. At the same
time, Appellate Body overreaching has shielded China's non-market
practices and hurt the interest of U.S. workers and businesses.
Reforming the dispute settlement system in a way that addresses these
problems is a top priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent
keynote speech in Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about
restoring the Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way
it used to be. A WTO dispute settlement system that continues to shield
China's non-market distortions is not in our interest.
Question. The U.S. sugar industry generates 142,000 jobs in 22
States and nearly $20 billion in annual economic activity. These are
good-paying jobs and critical to the local economies in many rural and
urban communities. U.S. sugar policy is critical to the health of this
industry.
The current world sugar market is highly dysfunctional, driven by
production and trade-distorting practices employed by nearly all sugar-
producing countries. It is more important than ever that the United
States maintain its current no-cost sugar policy which provides a
stable and predictable economic environment for U.S. producers, an
environment necessary for capital investments and long-run
sustainability. Then Ambassador-designate Tai indicated during the QFR
process that any reforms she would pursue regarding the global sugar
market would be ``consistent with maintaining the current no-cost U.S.
sugar policy,'' and that she would ``work with like-minded partners to
ensure that any new rules are consistent with U.S. domestic sugar
goals.''
Given the current challenges facing the WTO, do you believe the
organization is equipped now, or can be made equipped going forward, to
effectively address the full scope of underlying issues that have
created the existing distortive global sugar market?
Answer. To address the full scope of these underlying issues that
have created the existing distortive global sugar market, one must
consider both the policies and practices that currently skirt existing
WTO rules, as well as those that do not necessarily contravene WTO
rules but are nevertheless distortive and detrimental to U.S.
interests. I believe more work is needed to reform the WTO to properly
address these issues. If confirmed, I will re- engage like-minded
partners who also recognize the importance and necessity of reform of
the WTO. This will be difficult work, but I remain hopeful that with
proper U.S. leadership, we can achieve the necessary reform that will
address such global trade distortions.
Question. Do you agree that the U.S. should not unilaterally disarm
regarding existing U.S. sugar policy until such time other countries
abandon their trade distortive production and export subsidies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support and defend the U.S. sugar
program, including as prescribed in U.S. farm bills enacted by the U.S.
Congress.
Question. I'm concerned about the lack of action taken to date by
this administration to open new markets for U.S. ranching and
agriculture products. Wyoming's farmers and ranchers take great pride
in their work. Our beef, barley, sugar, grain, feed and other
agriculture products are second to none. In order to showcase these
products around the world, Wyoming's producers need access to
international markets.
If confirmed, will you commit to fighting for fair market access
for America's farmers and ranchers; and
Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is committed to rebuilding
America's international alliances and partnerships, and developing a
trade policy that increases opportunity across the agriculture
industry.
I know how important trade is to America's farmers and ranchers,
and there are several key tools we can use to create opportunities for
the agriculture industry. We can enforce our existing agreements so
that our producers can fairly compete, and we can upgrade and expand
existing trade frameworks to deliver market access opportunities.
Question. Will you aggressively highlight and push back against
market access barriers that disadvantage producers in Wyoming and
across the country?
Answer. We will use both bilateral and multilateral tools to
enforce existing agreements, and to eliminate market access barriers
that disadvantage American farmers and ranchers. As Ambassador to the
WTO, I will ensure that we use the WTO bodies, such as the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Committee, the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, the
Committee on Agriculture, and the Dispute Settlement Body to highlight
and eliminate unfair trade barriers.
Question. U.S. businesses are often at a disadvantage vis-a-vis
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that are not guided by market
principles. Such SOEs benefit from environmental, health, and labor
standards below that of publicly traded companies. The uranium miners
in Wyoming know this only too well, as U.S. mining has come to a
standstill at the hands of increased imports from places like Russia,
Uzbekistan and other countries where the Chinese have significant
mininginvestments. U.S. trade policy needs a clear strategy for
addressing the SOE imbalance.
Can you describe in detail how you would approach the WTO with
respect to the challenges facing U.S. companies with respect to SOEs?
Answer. We have committed to use the full range of tools we have,
including those of the WTO, and to develop new tools as needed to
defend American economic interests from the harmful economic and trade
policies and practices of others. The Marrakesh Declaration and WTO
Agreement, on which the WTO is founded, begins with the recognition
that trade should raise living standards, ensure full employment,
pursue sustainable development, and protect and preserve the
environment. We believe that refocusing on these goals can help bring
shared prosperity to all.The administration is committed to working
with like-minded partners to seek to update the WTO rulebook with more
effective disciplines on industrial subsidies, unfair behavior of
state-owned enterprises, and other trade and market distorting
practices.
______
Prepared Statement of Christopher S. Wilson, Nominated to be Chief
Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator, Office of the United
States Trade Representative, With the Rank of Ambassador, Executive
Office of the President
Chairman Wyden, Senator Crapo, members of the committee, good
morning.
In 1982, as a college junior, I spent a semester interning for my
distinguished home-state Senator, Bob Dole. At the time, Senator Dole
was serving as chairman of this committee. To now find myself sitting
at this table, in this room, is an honor that is maybe made a little
more special by virtue of that personal history. I am honored that
President Biden nominated me to serve as the first-ever Chief
Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator at the Office of the
United States Trade Representative. And I am grateful to you, Senators,
for your consideration.
I also want to acknowledge the many friends and colleagues who have
enriched my career at USTR over the past 2 decades. I have had great
teachers and excellent examples among both my fellow civil servants and
the agency's political leaders over the years.
I'm glad that my husband, Mark Hegedus, is here this morning, and
I'm grateful for his love and support.
If confirmed for this position, I would be the first person to hold
the title. To do a job for the first time is both exciting and a little
daunting. Fortunately, Congress has provided a very clear expectation
about what the position is about, namely to be a ``vigorous advocate on
behalf of United States innovation and intellectual property
interests.'' If I'm confirmed, those words will be prominently posted
on my desk at USTR.
I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through intellectual
property rights is key to our economic success. This principle has been
woven through every position I've held during my years at USTR. In
addition to serving in USTR's IP office from 2006 to 2008, I have
worked on important intellectual property issues in my engagements with
trading partners in Central America, Europe and the Middle East, South
and Central Asia, and in the context of the World Trade Organization.
This work has reinforced my belief that trade policy must protect
American innovation and creative endeavors, and that rules governing
that protection should be effectively enforced. I look forward to your
input--today and going forward--on how best to advance those
objectives.
Senators, one of my early mentors at USTR taught me that, in any
negotiation as well as in the process of policy development, listening
is as important as talking. I intend to apply that lesson every day I
am in this position. My experience has taught me that, perhaps more
than in many other areas of trade policy, IP is the subject of strongly
held and often widely divergent views among a broad spectrum of
stakeholders. If confirmed, my door will be open to all, and I will
listen carefully. I assure you that this committee and its staff would
be prominent among those by whom I expect to be guided.
Ambassador Tai has laid out a worker-centered trade policy that
ensures, as President Biden often says, our economy grows from the
bottom up and the middle out. If confirmed, I will always be thinking
about how we can defend U.S. innovation and intellectual property in
order to help workers and generate broad-based, durable prosperity.
Finally, Senators, it will be important to me to ensure that the
relationship between this new Chief Negotiator function and the
dedicated career professionals in USTR's IP office is placed on a
sound, sustainable, and respectful footing.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I
look forward to your questions and advice.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Christopher Scott Wilson.
2. Position to which nominated: Chief Innovation and Intellectual
Property Negotiator (USTR).
3. Date of nomination: September 13, 2021.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: January 13, 1962; Butler, MO.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Sterling High School, Sterling, KS (attended 1976-1980,
graduated 1980).
Sterling College, Sterling, Kansas (attended 1980-1982).
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (attended 1982-
1984, graduated May 1984 with a B.S. in foreign service).
University of Geneva, Switzerland (attended 1984-1985,
certificate program in French language and civilization).
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
October 1985-April 1987: U.S. Department of Commerce/
International Trade Administration, Washington, DC.
Mexico Desk Officer.
April 1987-March 1995: U.S. Department of State.
April 1987-September 1987: Junior Officer Training, Washington,
DC.
September 1987-July 1989: Economic Officer, U.S. Embassy,
Kigali, Rwanda.
July 1989-July 1991: Economic Officer, U.S. Embassy, Manila,
Philippines.
July 1991-July 1992: Staff Assistant, Bureau of African
Affairs, Washington, DC.
July 1992-August 1994: Desk Officer, Office of East African
Affairs, Washington, DC.
August 1994-March 1995: Language training, Washington, DC.
March 1995-July 2000: C&M International, Washington, DC.
Consultant on trade policy issues, advised corporate and trade
association clients.
July 2000-April 2012: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
July 2000-September 2002: Director for Central America, Office
of the Americas, Washington, DC.
September 2002-August 2006: Senior Trade Representative, U.S.
Mission to the European Mission, Brussels, Belgium.
August 2006-May 2008: Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade
Representative, Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation,
Washington, DC.
May 2008-April 2010: Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
Europe and the Middle East, Washington, DC.
April 2010-April 2012: Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
WTO and Multilateral Affairs, Washington, DC.
April 2012-March 2014: C&M International, Washington, DC.
Senior director; consultant on trade policy issues, advised
corporate and trade association clients.
March 2014-present: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
March 2014-February 2019: Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Mission
to the World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
March 2019-present: Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
South and Central Asia, Washington, DC.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
N/A.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
From 1995-2000 and again from 2012-2014, I was in a non-
partnership, non-fiduciary role as an employee of Crowell and
Moring International, a non-legal consulting affiliate of the
Crowell and Moring law firm.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
Christ Church Washington Parish (Episcopal)--member since 2010;
member of governing council (vestry), 2021-2024.
Capitol Hill Chorale--member since 2008; member of board of
directors 2010-2011.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination.
_______________________________________________________________________
Barbara Bollier-------------------------------------$50-------10/24/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bollier $50 9/28/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Biden $250 9/2/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bollier $100 8/31/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Biden $100 7/20/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Biden $100 6/18/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bollier $100 6/7/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSCC $200 4/16/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar $150 2/12/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar $50 2/7/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar $50 1/14/20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar $50 10/18/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy McGrath $50 9/30/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar $50 6/27/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Buttigieg $200 4/2/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar $200 2/11/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton $500 9/13/2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama $300 12/30/2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
USTR William B. Kelly Award (2007).
Rotary International Fellowship (study abroad) (1984).
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
None.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates):
None.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
I have developed extensive exposure to the trade policy aspects
of innovation and intellectual property during my nearly 20-
year career with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
From 2006-2008 I served as Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade
Representative in USTR's intellectual property office. In this
role, I served as principal U.S. delegate to the Council on the
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Council)
at the World Trade Organization; I also engaged on IP trade
policy issues with U.S. trading partners in Latin America, and
was part of the team producing the annual Special 301 report on
IP practices of U.S. trading partners. In addition, I led U.S.
negotiations on geographical indications during a sensitive
phase of the WTO's Doha Round negotiations. Beyond my role in
USTR's IP office, I have encountered IP-related trade policy
issues in each of my other USTR assignments, including
especially my roles as Assistant USTR for WTO and Multilateral
Affairs and as Deputy Permanent Representative at the U.S.
Mission to the WTO. Through each of these roles, I have
developed both technical expertise and policy sensitivity in
this critical area of U.S. trade policy, and have had extensive
exposure to the full range of stakeholder perspectives on the
intellectual property dimensions of U.S. trade policy.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the
Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics
agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of
any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics
agreement.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the
Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics
agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of
any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics
agreement.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
Government need not be listed.
None.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was
developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the
Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics
agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of
any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics
agreement.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
Provided to the committee.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
N/A.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Christopher S. Wilson
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
engaging stakeholders and balancing private and public interests
Question. If confirmed, you'll be the first Chief Innovation and
Intellectual Property Negotiator in U.S. history--just in time to
support the historic investments of the Biden administration's Build
Back Better agenda. The Biden administration has championed a worker-
centric trade policy--a commitment to ensuring that everyday Americans'
interests are represented when we talk about trade.
On intellectual property, it's critical that all stakeholders have
a seat at the table--everyone from large and small businesses and
creators, to libraries, the disability community, and the general
public. All these perspectives are important to achieving balanced IP
policies that protect creators, incentivize innovators, and benefit the
public at large.
If confirmed, how do you plan to strike the right balance among the
interests of varied stakeholders, including those in the public and
private sectors?
Answer. Ambassador Tai has noted that creating a more inclusive
process is the first step to achieving a worker-centered trade policy
that delivers shared prosperity for all Americans. If confirmed, I will
engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders, including those
from traditionally underrepresented or underserved groups, on
innovation and intellectual property issues.
copyright limitations and exceptions
Question. U.S. law, as well as international agreements like the
TRIPS Agreement and Berne Convention, allow for certain limitations and
exceptions to copyright. In the United States, these provisions serve a
vital public function: they support the preservation of works by
libraries and the access to those works by scholars, students, and the
public; allow fair use, such as the creation of transformative works
and reproduction for educational purposes; and ensure accessibility for
people with disabilities.
If confirmed, will you support efforts by our trading partners to
adopt copyright limitations and exceptions that align with U.S. law and
are consistent with international obligations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will aim for our trading partners to adopt
or maintain a standard for intellectual property protection similar to
that found in U.S. law and will carry out my duties as directed by
relevant U.S. law. I will also engage and consult with a wide range of
stakeholders, including those from traditionally underrepresented or
underserved groups, on innovation and intellectual property issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
enforcement
Question. Congress established the Chief Innovation and
Intellectual Property Negotiator in the Trade Facilitation and
Enforcement Act of 2015 in part to ``take appropriate actions to
address acts, policies, and practices of foreign governments that have
a significant adverse impact on the value of United States
innovation.'' This is no surprise as American innovation is critical to
our economic and strategic strength. Indeed, IP-intensive industries
generate over 38 percent of U.S. annual GDP.
Do you agree that the following matters are precisely the types of
issues that a Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator
needs to ``take appropriate action to address''?
The Cyberspace Administration of China's cybersecurity
reviews, which appear to target foreign companies in order to
secure their proprietary information including source code;
India's attempt to amend section 31D of its Copyright Act to
incorporate ``Internet or digital broadcasters'' (i.e.,
streaming services), which would result in price controls that
would adversely impact American creative content;
The European Union's proposed Digital Markets Act, which
would require U.S. companies to disclose proprietary
intellectual property, including source code for algorithms;
The failure of various countries, including China and India,
to take meaningful action against websites hosting pirated
content; and
High foreign tariffs on IP-intensive goods, including
agricultural biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices,
and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) products.
Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success.
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States
innovation and intellectual property interests and will take
appropriate actions to address acts, policies, and practices of foreign
governments that have a significant adverse impact on the value of
United States innovation. I will consult with you and other members of
this committee on your views regarding priority IP issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr
Question. The Biden administration has announced its support for a
waiver of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) agreement in relation to the prevention, containment, or
treatment of COVID-19 that is being negotiated at the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
If you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure that such a waiver
does not have a negative impact on America's world-leading
biopharmaceutical industry, or undermine our preparedness for future
public health threats?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests. I am
familiar with the discussions around promoting innovation and
intellectual property interests, in the context of public health
crises, as reflected in agreements such as the United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement. Given this history, I will be cleared-eyed about the
potential risks to our biopharmaceutical industry, as well as the goal
of addressing preparedness for future public health threats.
Question. According to law, the Chief Innovation and Intellectual
Property Negotiator ``shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United
States innovation and intellectual property interests,'' and is
responsible for protecting the intellectual property of American
innovators in accordance with trade agreements and addressing practices
that have a significant adverse impact on the value of U.S. innovation.
How will you advocate for US innovation and the intellectual
property rights of COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests, including
through outreach to allies and partners.
Question. In what specific ways does handing over the intellectual
property of the makers of our COVID-19 vaccines protect the value of
U.S. innovation meet the mission of the office you aspire to hold?
Answer. Given my prior service in the intellectual property office,
I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through intellectual
property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. I am clear-
eyed about the potential risks of a COVID-19 waiver on innovators. If
confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States
innovation and intellectual property interests.
______
Question Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
Question. As you know, the origin of the China tariffs, and the
Phase One agreement, was China's rampant violation of intellectual
property rights, including forced tech transfer. While there has been a
lot of focus lately on China's failure to fully live up to its
purchasing commitments, we shouldn't lose sight of the IP issues at
stake.
How do you propose we get China to live up to its Phase One
commitments on IP?
Answer. The United States has been closely monitoring China's
progress in implementing its numerous commitments under the Phase One
agreement. We have been regularly engaging with China using the
extensive consultation processes established by the agreement to
discuss China's implementation progress and any concerns as they arise.
In addition, the United States and China have also held numerous
technical-level meetings. We will continue to stay in close touch with
U.S. stakeholders on their concerns to ensure that China adheres to the
obligations set forth in the agreement.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Patrick J. Toomey
Question. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) added
several positive improvements to the North American Free Trade
Agreement's (NAFTA) intellectual property (IP) chapter on geographical
indications, patents, and more. Initially, it also included 10 years of
IP protection for biologics--one of the most promising categories of
new medicines.
These protections were trying to level the playing field for U.S.
companies by making Mexico protect U.S. companies' IP. However, at the
last minute, House Democrats eliminated this provision in closed-door
negotiations. This removal went against decades of U.S. trade policy
supporting expanding IP protection for American technology-based
businesses. Trade agreements should encourage the development of the
American biologics and innovation market, instead of allowing other
countries to rip us off.
Your job charges you to be ``a vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests.'' Does
renegotiating trade agreement text to remove pre-existing IP
protections for biologics benefit U.S. innovation interests?
Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success.
If confirmed, I look forward to consulting with you to better
understand your concerns regarding intellectual property protections
for biologics.
Question. As Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator,
you will have significant influence in negotiating the intellectual
property (IP) provisions of any future FTAs. Do you agree that we
should include IP protections for biologics in future FTAs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests and will
consult closely with this committee on future trade agreement
negotiations.
Question. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we must promote
technological innovation and encourage the development of important,
high-knowledge industries based in the United States. Intellectual
property protections are an indispensable part of attracting these
critical industries to our country.
The Biden administration has stated that they want to pursue a
``worker-
centered'' trade policy. IP-intensive industries employ over 45 million
Americans, in high-paying domestic jobs. The average worker in an IP-
intensive industry earned about 46 percent more than his counterpart in
a non-IP industry.
Do you believe that protecting IP-intensive industries is
beneficial for U.S. workers?
Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success.
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States
innovation and intellectual property interests.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
Question. As we discussed in your nomination hearing, your role
will be to protect American innovation from bad actors seeking to steal
our intellectual property and undercut U.S. economic leadership.
Do you understand the concerns that members of this committee have
expressed about the TRIPS waiver?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with members of this
committee to further understand the concerns that they have expressed.
Question. In your assessment, what potential pitfalls (if any) does
a waiver of TRIPS protections for COVID-19 vaccines pose to future
pharmaceutical and biomedical innovation?
Answer. If confirmed, as I work with members of the World Trade
Organization, I will be clear-eyed about potential risks that you have
raised. I am committed to keeping Congress fully informed of
developments in the process in the WTO.
Question. Do you believe it is in the national interest for China
and Russia to have access to the proprietary information behind the
COVID-19 vaccine? Why or what not?
Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success.
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States
innovation and intellectual property interests.
Question. Since your portfolio exclusively deals with protecting
American innovation and intellectual property, can I count on you to
push back against the pursuit of TRIPS waivers--even if others in
leadership at USTR are advocating for a waiver of IP protections?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests. I am
committed to keeping Congress fully informed of developments in the
process in the WTO.
Question. Business leaders in Oklahoma agree the biggest foreign
threat to American innovation is China. China's regulatory structures
force U.S. businesses to choose between access to the Chinese market
and protection for their intellectual property. Beijing uses its market
access as leverage to coerce mandatory disclosure of IP and/or full
technology transfers to Chinese entities. The CCP also engages in
strategic acquisitions and heavy subsidies to compete with American IP,
as well as cyber intrusions to steal U.S. trade secrets and other
confidential business information.
How do you intend to protect American IP and challenge the PRC's
economic and technological predations?
Answer. As Ambassador Tai made clear in her October 2021 speech on
the U.S.-China trade relationship, the United States continues to have
grave concerns about the impact of China's state-led, non-market
economy, including Chinese practices such as industrial planning and
targeting and cybertheft. Addressing these issues remains a top
priority in our work with China. In addition, I understand how
protecting U.S. innovation through intellectual property rights is key
to our Nation's economic success. If I am confirmed, one of my first
priorities would be to open up the toolbox that we have at USTR,
evaluate the existing tools, decide whether new tools are needed,
consider where they can be used most effectively, and consult with the
committee on how we do that.
Question. Given that China and Taiwan both recently submitted
requests to join CPTPP, do you believe China's record on IP protections
meet the standard required by CPTPP?
Answer. I understand that in the 2021 Special 301 Report, USTR
noted that severe challenges persist in China because of informal
pressure and coercion to transfer technology to Chinese companies,
continued gaps in the scope of IP protection, incomplete legal reforms,
weak enforcement channels, and lack of administrative and judicial
transparency and independence.
Question. How do you intend to leverage U.S. influence in entities
like WIPO to advance American leadership towards strong IP protections?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my U.S. government
interagency counterparts on how to best leverage U.S. influence at
international organizations, including WIPO, to advance U.S. innovation
and intellectual property interests.
Question. In the Phase One trade agreement negotiated by President
Trump's team, China committed to referring all cases of IP theft to
criminal authorities, establishing criminal penalties for trade secret
misappropriation, and establishing a mechanism for resolving
pharmaceutical patent disputes.
In your assessment, has China kept its commitments on the IP
provisions of the Phase One agreement?
Answer. China has taken a number of steps to implement its
commitments under the Intellectual Property Chapter of the Phase One
agreement. The United States will continue to closely monitor China's
progress in implementing its commitments under that chapter of the
agreement.
Question. What tools do you plan to utilize to enforce compliance--
and punish noncompliance--with the terms of this agreement?
Answer. The United States has been regularly engaging with China
using the extensive consultation processes established by the Phase One
agreement to discuss China's implementation progress and any concerns
as they arise. In addition, the United States and China have held
numerous technical-level meetings. We will continue to stay in close
touch with U.S. stakeholders on their concerns to ensure that China
adheres to the obligations set forth in the agreement.
Question. Please describe what your priorities would be in a
potential Phase Two agreement with China in IP.
Answer. We do not have plans to negotiate a Phase Two agreement. We
are focusing on enforcing the terms of the Phase One agreement while
also raising with China our concerns with its state-centered and non-
market trade practices that were not addressed in the Phase One deal. I
intend to use the full range of tools we have and develop new tools as
needed to defend American economic interests from harmful policies and
practices.
Question. President Trump's team completed seven rounds of FTA
negotiations with the United Kingdom, but the Biden administration has
not resumed those negotiations or sought to conclude them.
Do you agree that the UK is a valuable trading partner with strong
intellectual property standards on par with U.S. standards, and that it
would be in the national interest to complete these negotiations and
ratify a free trade agreement?
Answer. I understand that Ambassador Tai is currently in the
process of reviewing the state of the UK negotiations and that any path
forward would be done in consultation with Congress, and will reflect
the Biden administration's commitment to a trade policy that is worker-
centered. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests, including
when conducting trade negotiations.
Question. The Biden administration has displayed a troubling lack
of initiative in pursuing new trade agreements, either bilaterally or
multilaterally, with allies.
Do you agree that the most effective way to isolate the impact of
China's forced technology transfers and other IP theft is to establish
agreements with other nations on IP protections?
Answer. If I am confirmed, one of my first priorities would be to
open up the toolbox that we have at USTR, evaluate the existing tools,
decide whether new tools are needed, consider where they can be used
most effectively, and consult with the committee on how we do that. I
will also consult closely with this committee on future trade agreement
negotiations.
Question. How will you use your position to apply pressure on China
to choose between changing its practices or facing a degree of economic
isolation?
Answer. As Ambassador Tai highlighted in her October speech on the
U.S.-China trade relationship, the United States is currently raising
its concerns with China's non-market approach to trade and the economy
directly with China. Where China does not make needed changes, we are
prepared to use all tools at our disposal, including the development of
any new tools that may be necessary, to seek to pressure China and
protect U.S. interests. I will support that work in any way possible.
Question. What would you recommend to the President and to
Ambassador Tai as the appropriate next step to strengthen IP
protections among allies and partners?
Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success.
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States
innovation and intellectual property interests, including through
outreach to allies and partners, and look forward consulting further
with members to prioritize the most urgent issues.
Question. What role should new trade agreements play in securing
strong IP protections with our trading partners, particularly countries
in the Indo-Pacific with whom we don't have an FTA?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of
United States innovation and intellectual property interests and will
consult closely with this committee on any future trade agreement
negotiations, including with countries in the Indo-Pacific.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
Question. Intellectual property (IP) protections play a vital role
in the American enterprise. It is because of IP protections that our
businesses stand out and lead the world in innovation. However, our
businesses rely on market access to prosper and due to the unfair
concessions they have to make, particularly at the hands of China, many
jobs and business models are under threat.
How will you seek to hold China accountable for unfair actions, and
advocate for critical IP protections?
Answer. If I am confirmed, one of my first priorities would be to
open up the toolbox that we have at USTR, evaluate the existing tools,
decide whether new tools are needed, consider where they can be used
most effectively, and consult with the committee on how we do that.
Question. Do you believe there is a sense of urgency to address
instances of malpractice?
Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success.
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States
innovation and intellectual property interests and look forward
consulting further with members to prioritize the most urgent issues.
Question. Do you believe there is value in the United States
setting forth principles to promote integrity within digital trade?
Answer. Our approach to digital trade will be to pursue growth that
is inclusive, fair, sustainable, and advances the quality of life of
human beings.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso
Question. Strong intellectual property protections in the United
States are critical for the invention and manufacturing of innovative
medicines and medical technologies. It is not a coincidence, therefore,
that the United States leads the world both in terms of inventing and
manufacturing these products and providing intellectual property
protections that incentivize innovation. I remain deeply concerned
about the administration's efforts to waive IP protections for COVID
vaccines. I think this is a mistake and one that should corrected.
How do you intend to protect American intellectual property abroad
and ensure that our trading partners value the important contributions
of America's innovative industries;
Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success.
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States
innovation and intellectual property interests and will consult with
members on how to best do that.
Question. And do you think the pursuit of a Trade-Related
Intellectual Property Rights waiver will impact future investment and
research in the United States?
Answer. There is this tension between the need to reward innovation
through intellectual property, and the equally important objective of
being able to ensure access to the products of that innovation. It has
been and will continue to be a struggle to get the balance right. And
if confirmed, I'd work very closely with you and others on the
committee to make sure that we're getting as close to that balance line
as we can.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden,
a U.S. Senator From Oregon
The Finance Committee meets this morning to discuss an important
set of nominations that spans three Federal agencies and at least two
continents.
Maria Pagan is President Biden's nominee to serve as a Deputy U.S.
Trade Representative and our envoy to the WTO in Geneva. Ms. Pagan
brings to her nomination nearly 3 decades of experience in
international trade law. She currently serves as USTR's Deputy General
Counsel, which puts her right at the heart of just about every effort
to ensure that our trade laws and agreements are protecting American
workers and businesses and giving them a shot to get ahead. She has
valuable experience litigating disputes before the WTO, which makes her
the right choice for this job.
Chris Wilson is President Biden's nominee to serve as USTR's Chief
Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator. It's the first time a
nominee for this role has come before the Finance Committee since the
committee created this position in the Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act of 2015. It was long overdue.
Getting trade done right in the modern economy means fighting for
manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers, as well as fighting for the high-
wage, high-skill jobs and businesses of the modern economy. It also
means ensuring that our policies balance the interests of IP owners,
innovators, technology users, and the public at large. Mr. Wilson
brings to his nomination 20 years of experience at USTR, during which
he has represented American workers and businesses in negotiations all
across the globe. All that experience makes him an ideal choice to be
the first-ever Chief Innovation and IP Negotiator.
Joshua Frost is President Biden's nominee to serve as Assistant
Treasury Secretary for Financial Markets. It's a challenging job that
deals with a variety of subjects including debt management, the housing
market, and the health of our financial system. Mr. Frost has more than
20 years of experience in a variety of roles at the Federal Reserve,
including more than 12 years at the open markets desk. He has overseen
programs aimed at preventing another financial crisis and responding to
the COVID-19 economic crash. He is a natural fit for this position
that's all about protecting the integrity and the stability of our
economy and financial system.
Dr. Brent Neiman is President Biden's nominee to serve as Deputy
Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Finance and
Development. This job deals with the most tangled, complicated policy
questions having to do with the global economy. One of the big
challenges Dr. Neiman will be working on, if and when he's confirmed,
is how to help solve the interruptions of global supply chains that are
continuing to pop up as the pandemic continues to infect people around
the world.
He'll also work on the issue of currency manipulation, which is a
subject this committee takes very seriously. He'll have a leading role
in the effort to make sure that multinational corporations can no
longer hide their profits in shadowy tax shelters around the globe
instead of paying a fair share. Dr. Neiman is currently the Edward
Eagle Brown professor of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth
School of Business, and his decades of research have contributed to his
expertise on international macroeconomics, finance, and trade. He's an
excellent choice for this difficult job that handles a lot of tough
issues.
Sam Bagenstos is President Biden's nominee to serve as General
Counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Bagenstos
has worn a lot of hats in public service through his career. Currently
he serves as General Counsel to the Office of Management and Budget.
From 2009 to 2011, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for Civil Rights. He's argued cases before the Supreme Court dealing
with protections for pregnant workers and Americans with disabilities.
An expert in civil rights law, he is currently on leave from his
position as the Frank G. Millard professor of law at the University of
Michigan Law School. At HHS, he'll work closely with Secretary Becerra
and his team and provide legal advice on all the Department's efforts
to make health care more affordable, strengthen Medicaid, uphold the
Medicare guarantee, and ensure that vulnerable people in this country
are protected and cared for.
I want to congratulate all five nominees and thank them for joining
the committee today. After Senator Crapo makes his opening remarks,
I'll have a few routine questions that we ask all nominees, and then
I'm looking forward to our discussion.
______
Communications
----------
Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents
Arkansas' Statewide Parent-Guardian Association
15 Eagles Nest Trail
Norfork, Arkansas 72658
November 9, 2021
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the
Committee:
In your busy schedules, review of credentials for the office for
General Council of Health and Human Services (HHS) may be rather ``cut
and dry;'' however, for families with personal stakes in the
nomination, the process produces high anxiety. We ask: if Samuel R.
Bagenstos is confirmed, will he use his office to undermine and
ultimately eliminate the long-term care programs upon which our
vulnerable loved ones rely?
We respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Finance not
confirm Samuel R. Bagenstos to be General Counsel of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
Who we are
Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents (FF-CFR), Arkansas'
parent-
guardian association, is a 501(c)3 organization which advocates for a
range of care options for persons unable to care for themselves based
on the realities of the individual and their families. Most FF-CFR
members have loved ones who receive residential treatment services in
Medicaid certified intermediate care facilities (ICFs), the specialized
residential treatment programs for persons with life-long cognitive and
other developmental disabilities.
We are familiar with the nominee, Samuel R. Bagenstos, because of his
actions as Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department
of Justice from 2009-2011.
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division--Arkansas Case
In 2010, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice (DOJ) brought two
lawsuits in our state: one against the Conway Human Development Center
(CHDC) and the other against all of the state's other developmental
disabilities centers (HDCs). Arkansas' five human development centers
(HDCs) serve over 800 residents from throughout the state. The majority
of HDC residents are non-verbal and function in the profound range of
cognition. There is no cure for their life-long cognitive
deficits/developmental disabilities. During the stressful years DOJ
spent investigating and litigating against Conway HDC, the center was
at all times in compliance with its federal and state Medicaid
certification regulations. Not one Conway center family from the over
400 residents joined with DOJ in its claims that their family members'
civil rights were violated and not one area medical provider or
hospital representative familiar with the center's at-risk residents
and their behavioral and medical needs testified to support DOJ's
claims of poor care. After a six-week trial in the fall of 2010, the
federal court dismissed the DOJ case against Conway HDC in June 2011.
Earlier, in 2010, the court had dismissed the DOJ case against all of
the state's other HDCs. The cost to our state in defending Conway HDC
against DOJ was $4.3 million and $150,580.00 in court costs. Our state
cut and sold timber from public lands and used the Conway center's
bequest funds to meet the litigation costs. We will never forget the
Herculean effort our state made in defending the state's developmental
centers against the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice's
deinstitutionalization case in Arkansas.
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division--Georgia Case
From the nominee's statement to Committee on Finance: ``I am especially
proud of work I did to reach a historic agreement with then-Governor
Sonny Perdue in Georgia to expand that state's community-based services
system.''
--Samuel R. Bagenstos to U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
On October 19, 2010, DOJ entered into a comprehensive Settlement
Agreement with the State of Georgia and Georgia officials, resolving
the United States' complaint alleging that individuals with mental
illness and developmental disabilities confined in State hospitals were
unnecessarily institutionalized and subjected to unconstitutional harm
to their lives, health, and safety in violation of the ADA and the U.S.
Constitution. The agreement, without trial, required that Georgia cease
all admissions to state-operated facilities for persons with cognitive
and developmental disabilities and transition residents from licensed
specialized long-term care facilities to ``home and community''
programs. Georgia families learned in the news that their loved ones'
homes were being closed and people unable to care themselves were
placed in the crucible of risk and uncertainty.
By the Numbers
498--Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Development
Disabilities patients in 2014 who died in community care.
500--Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Development
Disabilities patients in 2013 who died in community care.
The Augusta Chronicle
Saturday, March 21, 2015
This article was written by Sandy Hodson
The Augusta Chronicle requested the investigative reports of all 2013
deaths of developmentally disabled people living in community-based
care homes. The reports were prepared by the state's Department of
Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities.
The investigation began in earnest after the project was selected in
2014 for a National Health Journalism Fellowship, a program at the
University of Southern California's School for Communication and
Journalism.
The Chronicle used several Open Records Act requests to obtain
investigative files on some of the 82 unexplained deaths in 2013 among
the department's patients in community care, which was then focused on
just those with developmental disabilities.
The Chronicle used other Open Records Act requests to discover that
nearly 1,000 patients had died in community care in the past two years
and that a majority of the unexpected deaths are among patients with
developmental disabilities. (Emphasis added.)
Conclusion and Request
It is critically important to the nation that states have in place a
range of treatment services to meet the diverse needs of the population
with disabilities, including licensed institutional programs for those
unable to care for themselves and who require close care for their
health and safety. From his actions while in leadership at the Civil
Rights Division within the Department of Justice, the nominee does not
agree.
We respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Finance not
confirm Samuel R. Bagenstos to be General Counsel of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
Carole L. Sherman
Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee
Mother and guardian of John, age 52, who functions on the level of a
young toddler
______
Letter Submitted by Rebecca Underwood
November 8, 2021
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Distinguished Members of
the Senate Finance Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record.
I write as the mother of an adult son with profound neurological
impairment coupled with complex medical issues who is receiving
comprehensive and synchronized medical care in an intermediate care
facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities to oppose the
nomination of Mr. Samuel R. Bagenstos as General Counsel for the United
States Department of Health and Human Services.
Mr. Samuel Bagenstos testified during his confirmation hearing on
Tuesday, October 26, 2021, before this Committee that he was
``especially proud of work'' he did to reach a historic agreement with
then-Governor Sonny Perdue in Georgia ``to expand that state's
community-based services system.'' Mr. Bagenstos failed to mention,
though, that the ``historic agreement,'' reached during his time at the
United States Department of Justice, was obtained through his pursuit
of callous and indiscriminate civil rights litigation that harmed the
legal and medical interests of Georgia's most disabled citizens.
As a result of this 2010 Settlement Agreement \1\ negotiated behind
closed doors in Georgia families and legally authorized decision-makers
were stripped of their right to choose between institutional or
community based services in defiance of the Social Security Act. The
Agreement required all individuals with intellectual and other
developmental disabilities to be removed from state operated
institutional services within a five year time frame. These individuals
were forced into a community based system which proved to be incapable
of handling the intensive needs of the patients. The trail of shattered
and destroyed lives through abuse, neglect and unnecessary deaths has
been well documented by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Augusta
Chronicle, and Athens Banner-Herald.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Georgia, No. 1:10-cv-00249-CAP (N.D.Ga.).
While Mr. Bagenstos led final negotiations with Georgia officials
behind closed doors, families and other decision-makers were unaware of
the proceedings affecting their family members and wards. The Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the Settlement Agreement were publicly announced at the same time.
The expansion of Georgia's community-based system that Mr. Bagenstos is
so proud of came through forcing people into the system by denying them
their right to make informed decisions about their own health care. Mr.
Bagenstos overrode the informed choices of free Americans to higher
levels of care in institutional settings by imposing his own opinions
and values on people he had never met and had never known. He was not
there when lives were shattered and destroyed through abuse, neglect,
and unnecessary deaths.
The unprecedented Georgia Settlement Agreement, negotiated behind
closed doors by Mr. Bagenstos, was further announced as the most
comprehensive Agreement ever reached and would serve as a template for
future enforcement efforts across the country.
The Georgia Settlement Agreement that denied thousands of Georgians the
right to choose higher levels of care in institutional settings was not
the end of Mr. Bagenstos' imposition of his own opinions and values on
people he has never met and will never know.
Mr. Bagenstos has also been involved in civil rights litigation to
remove institutional care from people in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Ohio who have exercised their rights to choose appropriate
health care supports under the Social Security Act and under the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v L.C.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999).
While Mr. Bagenstos has publicly professed his advancement of the
paired principles that no person should be above the law's constraints,
nor should anyone be beneath its protections,\3\ his actions speak
louder than his words. His activities in Georgia to negotiate an
Agreement, outside of public purview, calling for the eviction of
cognitively disabled residents from state operated facilities, along
with his civil rights litigation to remove institutional care from
cognitively disabled persons in other states, does not indicate his
intention to protect the rights of individuals who have chosen a higher
level of care through institutional services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Testimony%20Samuel%20R.%20Bagenstos_
Final1.pdf.
Parents and guardians have had to fight back at great financial expense
to have their voices heard in federal court in order to protect their
disabled loved ones. Judges have pushed back on the misguided and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ideological policies espoused by Mr. Bagenstos:
Ohio:
Thus the Court finds that the rights of those individuals who
do not wish to move from their residence in an ICF, or those
who are at serious risk of institutionalization who wish to
obtain a residence in an ICF, are directly impacted in this
lawsuit. Those rights were not protected until the Guardians
filed their Motion to Intervene.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ball v. Kasich, No. 2:16-cv-282, 2017 WL. 3172778, *9 (S.D.
Ohio July 25, 2017).
Virginia:
In fact, at least 84 of the 155 legal representatives of the
current SEVTC residents have made formal pleas to permit their
loved ones to remain in the new facility rather than be placed
in community housing. Thus, the argument made by ARC and the
United States regarding the risk of institutionalization fails
to account for a key principle in the Olmstead decision:
personal choice.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ARC of Virginia v. Kaine, No. 3:09cv686, 2009 WL 4884533, *8
(E.D. Va. December 17, 2009).
Arkansas:
Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights
have been violated. Not this one. The Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice brings this action on behalf of the
United States of America against the State of Arkansas . . .
alleging that practices at Conway [ICF/IID] violate the rights
of its residents. . . . All or nearly all of those residents
have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the
legal rights of their children or wards. Those parents and
guardians, so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the
United States. Thus, the United States is in the odd position
of asserting that certain persons' rights have been and are
being violated while those persons--through their parents and
guardians--disagree.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ United Sates v. Arkansas, 794 F. Supp. 2d 935, 937 (E.D. Ark.
2011).
While no longer under the employ of the Civil Rights Division of the
United States Department of Justice, Mr. Bagenstos continues to
demonstrate his disdain for congregate care settings/institutions. In
an August 31, 2020 opinion piece published in Slate,\7\ Mr. Bagenstos
refers to the ``inhumanity of our system of shunting away elderly and
disabled people in isolated congregate institutions''. He goes on to
opine that ``institutions separated from the mainstream of society--
nursing homes, long-term care facilities, psychiatric hospitals or
jails and prisons--cause intense harm to the people who are confined
there''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/doj-covid-nursing-
home-inquiry-trump-corruption.html.
Confirming Mr. Samuel Bagenstos as HHS General Counsel would place him
in a position to continue his relentless pursuit of a misguided
ideological agenda--
``community-for-all''. Mr. Bagenstos' past civil rights litigations to
eliminate institutional services for those individuals seeking a higher
level of care stands in stark contrast to HHS' goal of protecting the
health of all Americans and providing essential human services,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
especially for those who are least able to help themselves.
As HHS General Counsel supports the development and implementation of
HHS' programs by providing legal services to HHS' various agencies and
divisions, Mr. Bagenstos would be providing legal services to the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services which certifies and funds
the intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual
disabilities (ICFs/IID) which he has spent his career pursuing closure
of. Mr. Bagenstos would be providing legal services to the
Administration for Community Living, an HHS agency currently led by a
colleague of Mr. Bagenstos, another civil rights attorney whose past
history also includes litigation to eliminate ICFs/IID.
Mr. Bagenstos is an overwhelmingly inappropriate selection for General
Counsel of the federal Department charged with protecting the health,
safety and welfare of Americans least able to help themselves. Mr.
Bagenstos' civil rights career has been dedicated to removing the
safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. He has trampled on their
rights resulting in human rights disasters. He fails to validate or
acknowledge the existence of individuals who need and choose that
higher level of care in institutional settings.
As the mother and co-legal guardian of our adult son whose 41 year
survival is attributed to the extraordinary synchronized and
comprehensive medical care provided in a Medicaid certified and funded
intermediate care facility, I urge you to thoughtfully consider whether
Mr. Bagenstos, a civil rights attorney who has endeavored for years to
close HHS certified and funded facilities for individuals with the most
profound disabilities, is now the most appropriate and best candidate
for HHS General Counsel.
I urge you to reject Mr. Samuel Bagenstos' nomination for General
Counsel for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Underwood
______
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
https://www.uschamber.com/
November 2, 2021
The Honorable Ron Wyden The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chair Ranking Member
United States Senate United States Senate
Committee on Finance Committee on Finance
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chair Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the nomination of Christopher S.
Wilson to serve as the Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property
Negotiator with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).
Mr. Wilson is a highly qualified nominee, with over two decades of
service to USTR. Throughout his career in the government, he has
utilized trade policy to further IP protection with key U.S. trading
partners abroad. Serving in multiple roles within USTR, Mr. Wilson has
a keen understanding of the landscape of global IP protection, both in
foreign countries and multilateral institutions. Mr. Wilson's long
record of public service has prepared him well to advance effective IP
protection through bilateral dialogues and free trade negotiations with
other countries.
The Chamber supports the nomination of Mr. Wilson to serve as the Chief
Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator at USTR. We urge the
Committee to favorably report Mr. Wilson's nomination to the full
Senate.
Sincerely,
Tom Quaadman
Executive Vice President
Global Innovation Policy Center
cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Finance
[all]