Hearings to examine the nominations of Wesley Brooks

The United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will come to order. Good to see all of you today. We welcome our guests. Remind the people we're glad to have everyone here watching. We have zero tolerance for interruptions, as has been demonstrated quite well in recent times. Senator Blunt, so good to see you back again. Welcome. Good to see you.

Great. Thank you.

I think what we're going to do here is I'm going to make a few remarks and then I'm going to turn it over to Senator Shaheen. Then we'll hear from each of the, we'll have people who do introductions, so you can leave if you'd like to leave. Then we'll hear from the nominees. So, thank you to the nominees and to especially to the families who also help whenever we have, whenever their spouses or loved ones participate in government operations. The families also provide as much sacrifice as the actual nominees do. So, thank you to the families for being here today too. Mr. Long, Iceland is a critical partner of the United States in protecting our homeland from threats that could impact us and our allies in the North Atlantic. Both China and Russia have made their strategic goals in the Arctic clear, and advancing U.S.-Iceland cooperation will be critical to monitoring and deterring their efforts to exert influence over the region's vast resources. If confirmed as ambassador, I encourage you to continue developing our cooperation at Naval Air Station Keflavik. To advance these counter-Russia and China efforts, that will be necessary. I look forward to hearing how you will work with Iceland to improve our bilateral relationship and other NATO allies on our shared security interests. Mr. Carl, as you know, historically the United States has been the most generous donor to the United Nations, paying billions every year. Yet the return on our investment for the American taxpayer is at best questionable. President Trump and Congress have made clear that the status quo at the UN and other international organizations is no longer acceptable. As Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, you will be responsible for continuing President Trump's strong reform agenda, including the option to withdraw from many of these various UN organizations that are not meeting our standards. In addition to reducing the size of the UN and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, you will also have to deal with the organization's disgusting obsession with Israel and its deep anti-Semitism that is within the very foundation. In 2020, I published a report outlining how we can work with our allies to promote Americans and like-minded individuals in these organizations, enabling us to compete with our adversaries. In your role, I hope you'll implement some of these recommendations and above all, ensure that every taxpayer dollar given to an international organization makes America safer and better off. A heavy lift, to say the least. Mr. Sweeney, as you know, the Asian Development Bank occupies a unique position among the global development banks in its ability to directly counter China's predatory economic coercion in the region. In recent years, the ADB has provided high-quality alternatives to predatory Chinese loans, yet China remains its third-largest shareholder and continues receiving funding from the ADB. If confirmed, I'd like to know how you plan to use the voice and vote of the United States to drive quality development projects that are aligned with U.S. strategic interests. I'd also like to hear your views on how the ADB can work with its member countries and with multilateral institutions to prioritize hard infrastructure projects and energy security in the region. And finally, Mr. Brooks, if confirmed, you will play an important role in overseeing policies related to oceans, space, illegal wildlife trade, and IUU fishing. These are all areas in which China continues to play according to its own rules. Countries that participate in IUU fishing, including China, not only gain unfair trade advantages but also disrupt the global supply chain and enable other illicit activities like drug trafficking and forced labor. You will also oversee Antarctic Treaty cooperation and enforcement, as well as U.S. research engagement in Antarctica. Both Russia and China have long been suspected of conducting military and intelligence activities under the guise of research, and Russia has reportedly conducted commercial resource exploration, all of which violate the Antarctic Treaty. I look forward to hearing how you will push back on these illicit activities in your role. Once again, thank you to the nominees. Thank you for your families supporting you. And I'd like to now turn it over to the distinguished ranking member.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all of our nominees this morning, to your families, and to all of your supporters who are here with you. Around the world today, we're seeing a rollback in the rights and protections of women and girls. We're seeing bans on girls' education, conflict zones where women and girls face sexual violence, laws and policies that restrict women's legal status, property rights, and access to healthcare and economic participation. And America's response to these developments matters. Allies look to us to set the course, and if we weaken our position, others will hedge or stay silent. Peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and the implementation of the law that was passed during the first Trump administration called Women, Peace, and Security all depend on U.S. engagement. And when we do this well, women and girls and societies are better off. When we don't, they face a greater threat. In January, this administration pulled out of more than 66 organizations that included programs that supported child protections, education access, and women's health. This weakened our ability to lead coalitions and protect the rights and safety of women and girls. That's why who represents the United States on the global stage matters. Mr. Carl, you've been nominated to serve as the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, and yet you have expressed views that are deeply concerning for me and for many members of this committee and for many Americans. These include comments promoting racial supremacy, minimizing the experiences of Jewish people, and warning about a cultural genocide against white Americans. You've said these descriptions are smears or politically motivated attacks, and we'll have a chance to hear from you in your opening statement. But I can tell you as a woman who has served as both governor and senator from the state of New Hampshire, I have seen firsthand how expanding opportunity for women strengthens our economy, our communities, and our national security. And that isn't just my opinion. There is data, global data, that shows that women contribute more to their societies, to their families, to their communities, and to their countries. So I find your views about women particularly concerning. Mr. Long, you've been nominated to serve as our ambassador to Iceland, a NATO ally, and that has been critical, as the chairman stated, to U.S. security interests, especially in the Arctic. I have concerns about your past involvement in questionable tax referral operations and what that says about your judgment. Despite the jokes you've reportedly made related to Iceland, this is a role that requires seriousness and sound judgment. We don't have the luxury of treating this lightly, certainly not in the environment that we're in right now. Mr. Brooks, you've been nominated to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environmental, and Scientific Affairs. We've not had a Senate-confirmed leader in this role for far too long, and I hope that if confirmed, you will continue to advance U.S. leadership in science, technology, and the global rules that shape them. And finally, Mr. Sweeney, you've been nominated to be director of the Asian Development Bank. This role is critical in advancing U.S. economic priorities in Asia and providing a credible alternative to Chinese state-directed development finance. If confirmed, you'll need to work closely with our allies and partners to counter the influence of the PRC at the bank. I look forward to hearing from each of you. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. We'll now have some introductions. Congressman Mast, welcome to our committee. We're glad to have you here. I think this is your first time here, as I recall. You'll see we run a tight operation here, much like yours on your side. So thanks so much for joining us. Floor is yours.

Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, thank you for having me here today. I'm happy to repay the favor anytime you want me to put a microphone in front of you at the House. More than happy to bring you over.

You know, that's a really bad mistake. Especially for you today.

Other members of the committee, thank you also for having me. And you stole the best-dressed member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Curtis. If he doesn't work out for you, we're happy to take him back. We really enjoyed having him. So, in that, I just want to say how much of an honor it is, truly personally, for me to introduce Dr. Wes Brooks. I've known him since the moment I came to the Hill. He is a dedicated scholar, a public servant who has a proven track record of advancing critical environmental efforts in my home state of Florida and beyond. He has made it a priority to advance himself every day that he's had the chance to work for the people. He is hungry for it. Without hesitation, I recommend Dr. Brooks as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs. He is an inspiring leader who brings with him an extensive background in ecological science and environmental policy. When Dr. Brooks served as Director of Federal Affairs for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, he developed and led our fight for the restoration of America's Everglades, something so many are familiar with. In 2022, when Dr. Brooks was appointed by our governor as Florida's Chief Resilience Officer, he worked tirelessly to rehabilitate coastal communities grappling with Hurricane Ian's devastating aftermath. Dr. Brooks made sure to meet with as many local officials as possible from eight counties in the state, St. Johns River Water Management District, across the state. He was everywhere and he responded to everybody. I can tell that's something about him. If you call him, he is responsive to you. He will get back to you continually, no matter the time of day. He listened closely and he learned from each unique community on how his office could best support the recovery efforts that needed to take place. He understands what it takes to lead, and his testament is to his character is one of the many reasons why I'm so proud to call Dr. Brooks a great friend. He now serves as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the EPA. In this role, he has secured agreements with Mexico alongside Administrator Zeldin for resolving the Tijuana River sewage crisis. All of us know how central OES is in our work in addressing America's most pressing national security challenges. As illegal fishing undermines our allies, polar competition intensifies, and commercialization in space expands, Dr. Brooks is more than ready to shape a new era of preservation and prosperity. So I could not recommend him more. If you need to call me outside of this and ask for other stories, I'm happy to tell you those stories as well. I could speak about him at length for hours, which I will not do to you today. And as I simply close this, I would say one other thing, not related to Dr. Brooks. If it is a benefit to Mr. Long, I had dinner with him last night. If it is not a benefit to him, I can't remember the last time I saw him.

Thank you, Congressman Mast. Thank you so much for coming over and joining us. I know you've got pressing matters. You're welcome to stay if you'd like, but I know you probably have things you have to do over there. So thanks. Let me know how Munich goes if I don't see you there. Yeah, alright. Good to see you. Senator Blunt, so good to see you back here. Thank you so much. We're always happy to have you return.

Chairman, great to be with you. Great to be with my friend Senator Shaheen, my other friends on the committee, and to be here to introduce my long-time friend Billy Long to the committee. Many of you know him. Many of the committee members are going to know him from service in the House and in other ways, but they don't know him as long as I've known him. Billy and I have been friends for at least 30 years. My wife Abby and his wife Barbara are good friends. Barbara's an important part of the Long team and will be an important part of the Long team and our team in Iceland as well. We've watched his two daughters grow up. One's a doctor in our hometown in Springfield. One worked for both the House and the Senate here in Washington. And so I come from a lot of understanding of Billy and his strengths. I saw him build an incredible business as an auctioneer and a realtor in Springfield. And for 12 years, he was my congressman. When I left the Congress to come to the Senate, Billy took that job and we were constantly working for things in our part of Missouri as I worked for things all over our state. Billy was a great member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but he was also very interested in our foreign relations. The last year he was in the House, Abby and I went to a ceremony that the Japanese ambassador was having where he gave Billy what I think is the highest award that can be given to a non-citizen of Japan for his interest and his friendship in Japan. I think Billy will establish in Iceland a unique opportunity and, as both of you have mentioned, a unique country for us. A very important country for us for a long time, but at this moment maybe more important than it's ever been. You know, Billy Long will come from the middle of America to a country where relationships really matter. And I guarantee you if he has one strength, it's building relationships, understanding what other people are thinking about the issues that impact them. And I think he'll be effective both in explaining that to us and explaining our view on these issues to them. I think Billy will be a great ambassador. Wherever he goes, he's a great ambassador, and in this case, I think he'll be a great ambassador to a very important country. And I'm glad to be here today to recommend him to the committee and look forward to him having this opportunity to serve. Thank you all for letting me be here.

Thank you, Senator Blunt. Well done, as always. You're welcome to stay, obviously, but understand you have other things to do too. So you're dismissed if you'd like to be. So with that, Senator Daines, I understand you'd like the floor.

Chairman Risch, thank you, and Ranking Member Shaheen, thank you as well. I'm delighted to introduce Jeremy Carl from my hometown of Bozeman, Montana. I'll get to his professional experience in a bit, but I'd like to first share a bit more on his personal side. I've gotten to know Jeremy well over the past several years. Jeremy has a lovely family, five children, three sons, two daughters, a wonderful wife, Dr. Anna Carl, an emergency room physician. We've had a lot of great discussions over the years, ranging from everything to very Montana stories of hunting and fishing as well as politics. And we also share a common admiration for President Reagan. Jeremy also has had a very distinguished professional career where his work took him from technology to the NGO world, from Yale to Harvard to Stanford. As we say in Montana, go get a good education and then get over it. And then in his current role now at the Claremont Institute. He spent almost a decade as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where his scholarship was frequently cited by public policy professionals, including Nobel Prize recipients and political leaders from both parties. Relevant to this committee, he was hired at Hoover directly by the late U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, who worked with President Reagan to win the Cold War and with whom he worked closely for a decade on numerous policy issues, working with political leaders and distinguished diplomats from America to India to Israel. While at Hoover, Shultz praised Mr. Carl's work, citing his mastery of subject matter and the integrity he brought to his work, and he also added his seemingly boundless capacity to explore new avenues of research. The clear support and respect that Secretary Shultz had for Jeremy is a very strong endorsement of his candidacy for this important role. Jeremy also had the privilege of previously serving America as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior under President Trump in the first Trump administration. I am very pleased to introduce him to this committee and look forward to having him serve in this important role.

Thanks so much, Senator. We really appreciate that. And now we're going to hear from each of the nominees. We'd ask you to keep it to about five minutes. If you have things you want to put in in addition to that, we have unlimited room in the record and we'll be happy to include anything that you want to include on the record. So with that, we'll start with you, Mr. Brooks. Your floor is yours.

Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished members of this committee. I'm honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your staff. I'm beyond grateful for the opportunity to serve our nation with the trust and confidence of the president and Secretary Rubio. I'm also grateful to so many wonderful family members, friends, and colleagues. I'm honored in particular to be joined here today by a few of the most important people in my life. My amazing wife of more than 13 years, Megan, to whom I owe more than I can ever repay, including sharing with me the two greatest blessings of my life, our daughter Evie and our son Ford. My mom, who is a living testament to the blessings of liberty and the American dream, having fled Castro's Cuba as a child and working incessantly to provide me with a foundation in life unburdened by that history. And my dad and stepmom, who demonstrated for me day in and day out what lives of honor and service looked like throughout their long careers in law enforcement. Thank you all for your love and ongoing support. After earning a PhD in ecological science, I had the privilege to advise three members of the Florida congressional delegation on agriculture, energy, environment, trade, and water resources issues. Former Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, current House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast, and then-Senator Marco Rubio, who some of you may be familiar with. I continue to deeply admire each of them to this day. In 2020, I joined the state's federal affairs office and was later appointed as Florida's Chief Resilience Officer by Governor DeSantis, working across state agencies and local governments to address flood risks and adapt infrastructure to reduce the economic impacts of flooding and hurricanes on communities and businesses across my home state. Most recently, I've enjoyed serving under Administrator Zeldin and Assistant Administrator Kramer as Deputy Assistant Administrator in EPA's Office of Water. If confirmed, I will leverage my extensive experience cultivating and sustaining relationships and successfully coordinating against across diverse entities to achieve mutually beneficial cooperation that delivers results for the American people. As you all are aware, the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs was created by Congress in 1973 and given responsibility for matters relating to oceans, environment, scientific, fisheries, wildlife, and conservation affairs. Today, OES is at the forefront of returning us to common-sense environmental policy that puts Americans and American workers first. Under President Trump's leadership, OES protects our national security and economic interests in areas beyond national borders, including the high seas, the Arctic, the Antarctic, and outer space. Maintaining U.S. leadership and robust diplomacy is critical for the stability and security of the U.S. economy, combating transnational crime and terrorism, and countering the Chinese Communist Party's global ambitions. If confirmed, I commit to you to drive OES diplomacy on the administration's priorities, including access to rare earths and critical minerals, OES leadership in deep seabed mining and the recycling and recovery pillar of the administration's bilateral critical mineral frameworks, support the department's broader Pack Silica initiative, and directly benefits U.S. supply chain security and resilience. American space superiority, energetic commercial diplomacy on behalf of the American space industry and the promotion of U.S. space capabilities, systems, and services is imperative as we seek to advance the space technologies we've come to rely upon in our daily lives and also seek to maintain the U.S. edge in space as China works to beat NASA back to the moon. We'll also support productive oceans using coordinated action with like-minded nations to combat IUU fishing, including by China's distant water fishing fleet. I also commit to supporting water security by supporting regional bureaus and U.S. ambassadors. OES can help stabilize water supplies to safeguard industrial supply chains, create U.S. market opportunities, reduce migration, and prevent conflicts. OES must also defend against global regulatory approaches that stifle innovation and disadvantage U.S. companies. This includes continuing pressure to oppose aspects of the EU Space Act and supporting a pragmatic agreement to reduce plastic pollution that draws on U.S. waste management successes and protects U.S. jobs and investment. At its core, the United States is a frontier nation. American ingenuity and optimism have fueled our rise as a global power and our national interests in the oceans, outer space, and the ever-deepening interface between biology and technology. If confirmed, I will ensure that OES is at the leading edge of U.S. efforts to explore, exploit, and defend these vital frontiers so that the 21st century remains an American century. Thank you for considering my nomination.

Thank you very much, Mr. Brooks. Mr. Carl, you're up.

Thank you so much, Chairman Risch, Member Shaheen, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I'm honored to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs at the Department of State. I'm deeply grateful for the trust that President Trump has placed in me to guard America's interests at the United Nations and broader multilateral system. If confirmed, I will work to advance this vision by holding the UN and international organizations accountable, promoting transparency, and ensuring that the U.S. taxpayer's contributions to these organizations deliver tangible results that align with our national interest. I would like to begin by acknowledging three people who are sadly no longer with us because without them, I would certainly not be sitting before you today. In my career, I had the tremendous privilege of learning at the side of the late Secretary of State George Shultz, for whom I served as the right-hand man for almost a decade while a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. During my time with Secretary Shultz, I collaborated with some of America's and the world's greatest diplomats. I also want to acknowledge the late Kenyan professor of Harvard University, Calestous Juma, who was my first mentor in this field of IO when I was a graduate student, my first professional champion, and the first person who allowed me to work within the UN system. Third, I would like to thank the late Charlie Kirk, who was a peerless leader in the conservative movement, a long-time supporter of me and my work, and a champion of my candidacy for this position. The loss that I feel from his passing, both personally and professionally, is incalculable. I also want to thank all of my colleagues at the Claremont Institute and in particular Claremont's president, Ryan Williams, who have been so supportive of my work. And I would like to thank Senator Daines of this committee for his kind introduction and whom I've been privileged to get to know well over the past several years and who has been a constant source of encouragement and sound advice as I have navigated this process. Finally and most importantly, I would like to thank my wife Anna and our five children for their support. If I'm confirmed, these are the people who are going to suffer the most by my largely being absent from our home in Montana while I'm working in Washington, D.C. and abroad, and yet they have been unfailingly supportive of me and my desire to serve under President Trump and Secretary Rubio. As President Trump has said, the UN has potential, but it needs renewed focus as it has strayed far beyond its original purpose of solving international disputes peacefully. The United States must lead this effort to demand accountability and results from the UN to move the institution back to its founding purpose. If confirmed, I will work to refocus the UN system on its foundational mission. International organizations exist to advance the interests of sovereign nations. They are not global legislatures or independent sources of moral, legal, or political authority. By restoring the UN's credibility and effectiveness, we can better protect U.S. interests and foster a more stable and secure world. The inefficiencies within and bureaucratic sprawl within the UN and other IOs have long been a source of frustration for member states, including the United States. These institutions are often burdened by duplicative mandates, bloated budgets, and a lack of accountability for results. This undermines their ability to deliver on their mission, and if confirmed, I will prioritize management reform to streamline operations, eliminate waste, ensure that these organizations operate with the efficiency and effectiveness that our country and taxpayers deserve. A leaner and more focused UN is in America's interest, and I look forward to working with our colleagues at our U.S. missions in New York and other UN capitals to achieve that one goal, one that the mission teams are already excelling at right now. In December, U.S. leadership resulted in the historic staffing and budget cuts at the UN, a 15 percent reduction in budget and an elimination of 2,900 positions. The United States is the largest financial donor to the UN system and other international organizations. Yet all too often, our resources are used to support programs and agendas that run fundamentally counter to our values and interests. Frequently, our allies do not vote with us while privately signaling their agreement with us. This is unacceptable. American taxpayers should not fund initiatives that undermine America's interest. Our determination was made clear on January 7, when the president announced that he would withdraw from 66 international organizations that he deemed to be redundant in scope, mismanaged, or incompatible with U.S. foreign policy. The United States should only engage in international organizations when it advances the national interest. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that every dollar the United States contributes to international organizations is spent wisely and in line with our national priorities. By taking a principled and strategic approach to our funding, we can ensure that America's voice and values remain at the forefront of the multilateral system. Distinguished members of this committee, I am confident that with strong leadership and a clear vision, we can ensure that international organizations once again serve as effective tools for advancing peace, security, and prosperity. I pledge to work to restore the effectiveness and integrity of international organizations while ensuring that they serve the purposes for which they were created. As Secretary Rubio has said, America first does not mean America alone. Our role in the multilateral system will continue and will indeed be changing, but it does not mean we won't be active in it. If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to this mission and working in close partnership with Congress to uphold the values and priorities of the American people. Thank you for your time, your questions, and your consideration of my nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Carl. Mr. Long, you're up.

Thank you, Chairman Risch and Ranking Member Shaheen, another Missourian and from St. Charles, Missouri. And I do have a bone to pick with you though, because when we appeared in the Washington Press Club back in 2012 together, you were a lot funnier than I was and I've never gotten over that. ...and also the distinguished members of the committee, some of whom I served with at the House as Mr. Curtis and Mr. Daines. And thank you for giving me your time today. Thank you for the honor and privilege of appearing before you today as President Trump's nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to Iceland. I am deeply grateful to the President and Secretary Rubio for the trust they have placed in me with this nomination. And I want to take a minute to acknowledge my family and all of you that have ever been elected to a position anywhere, whether it's Washington, D.C. or back home, or whether you were a mayor or city councilman, you all know that these positions, it's hard, but it's a lot tougher on your family. And so I want to give a heartfelt shout-out to folks that have to hear all about me directly because when somebody has a problem with you, they don't come up and say, hey, you messed up on this, you messed up on that, but they can come up and say your husband, your dad, or whatever. And anyway, I also want to get on Roy Blunt's, Senator Blunt's mathematics skills a little bit. He said we've been friends 30 years. Barbara and I got married in 1984. We've 41 years, and I have a signed auctioneer license in my office that I still hang on the wall from 1982. So that predates '84, so that'd be 40-some-odd years now, signed by our Greene County Clerk, Roy Blunt. So we go back a long, long way. And Abby has been an absolute godsend to Barbara whenever we came out. We had no political experience whatsoever. I come from a business background, 32 years as a real estate broker, 31 years as an auctioneer, not counting the 12 years I was in Congress, did talk show for six years, and then my 12 years in Congress. And I built up a wealth of friends over that time. And when I came, when I ran, I'd never, like I said, held any political office, and I said I'll go 12 years and come home. And if the Senate had an opportunity there, I'd try and do 12 years there. The Senate opened up at the same time Roy was retiring, at the same time my 12 years was up, so I was going home either way. And there was 21 of us in the race, and I came in 22nd, so I didn't do quite as good as you did, Mr. Curtis. But you all remember back when Ronald Reagan was elected President and on his first or second day, the hostages that had been held for 444 days were coming home. He called this guy and he said, hey, I want you standing at the base of that plane. I want you there whenever they get off. And you know what the guy told him? No. He said, why? He said, you're the tie yellow ribbon guy. Why would you not want to be standing there with me to welcome our troops home? He said, Mr. President, he said, that would make it about me. And that tells you all you need to know about the gentleman behind me, Tony Orlando. There's not many people that would take that attitude. Tony was 4F. He couldn't serve. But he has done more for the veterans in Branson, Missouri and all around the world for years, raised $178 million, I believe, for veterans. One of the best guys I know. The guy next to him, on that side of me, Paul C. Behr, auctioneer I've known for over 40 years from our time at Certified Auctioneers Institute at University of Indiana, but he's a world champion auctioneer. He's also a Vietnam veteran. He's on a 100 percent disability, and it's very hard for him to get around. It's very hard for him to get in and out of a car. It's very hard for him to get on a plane, but he took three plane rides out here just to be with me today. That's the type of friends we are. Next to him, Lance Walker, another auctioneer. We met 1979 auctioneer school. He had a long beard and hair. He was a hippie. And but him and his wife Terry, I mean, salt of the earth, known them that many years. So I hope that when you're judging me today, you judge me a little bit about the company that I keep because I've got some very, very good people around me in my life and I have for years. But the United States and Iceland share a long history of friendship and cooperation rooted in our shared economic security, cultural and human connections. Our diplomatic relationship dates back to 1941, as you know, when the United States assumed responsibility for Iceland's defense during World War II. Since then, the partnership has only grown and matured. And I've been working very hard to get here today and to be a representative of the United States in Iceland. If I'm confirmed, I will do everything I can. I'm known to not be work-brittle, to work hard, and don't ever invite me anywhere because I'll always go. And I want to get all around Iceland. But as far as priorities, protecting American citizens, as most all ambassadors would tell you, is a prime priority. Second, enhancing our security cooperation. Iceland plays a critical role in the transatlantic security as a founding member of NATO and a key partner in the North Atlantic. Third, advancing economic and energy collaborations. Biotechnology is huge in your old area, Ranking Member Shaheen, and biotech there down in Rolla, over in Kansas City. It's also huge in Iceland. I'm a people person. I'm a salesman. I don't have any portents or I can't even say that word, however you say it, but pretense, don't have any pretenses. I'm just me. And I think I've, you know, coming from a sales background, I want to do the best job that I can possibly do. But biotech in Missouri is huge. Fourth, strengthening the Arctic cooperation. And I'm a minute over, and that's bad for me because I'm an auctioneer and I usually talk fast. So with that, I yield back.

Well, we usually let the House go over a little bit, anyway, so no problem there. With that, we'll go to Mr. Sweeney.

Thank you very much. Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is a distinct honor to be considered for the role of U.S. Director of the Asian Development Bank. I'd like to thank President Trump and Secretary Bessent for their confidence in me and for the opportunity to serve in this important position. I am very grateful to the senators, their staffs, and the staff of this committee who have taken the time to meet with me. I've appreciated the opportunity to discuss your priorities and, if confirmed, I look forward to working together to promote the interests of the United States at the Asian Development Bank. I would also like to thank the members of my family for their love and support. First, my wife Maria. I'm deeply grateful for Maria's advice, support, and love in all of our 33 years and many adventures together. Next, our three children, each of whom we could not be more proud: Andrea, Robert, and Kelly. This family has been the bedrock of my adult life, without which I am sure I would not be appearing before you today. I've had the privilege of pursuing a long career in finance centered on international business development and as an executive in banks and financial companies around the world, including in Seoul, Tokyo, and Taipei, among others. If confirmed, it would be an honor to return to Asia and seek the enhanced relationships that are appropriate to the new challenges and opportunities which we face today. It would be a special privilege to serve as U.S. Director at the ADB at a time when there is much at stake in the region. China is the second largest economy in the world and its expanding influence through its Belt and Road Initiative and its ADB competitor, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. As Secretary Bessent has emphasized, America first does not mean America alone. At the ADB, the United States should be seeking to support developing country borrowers who are both willing to engage in fair trade with the United States and mutually interested in helping us diversify and fortify supply chains. If confirmed, I would seek to promote lending policies and development projects that strengthen the economies of the countries involved, leading to a freer and fairer international economic system. It is also of vital importance that long-contemplated reforms of ADB policies and operational efficiency are enacted and accelerated. Secretary Bessent has emphasized the need for the ADB to pursue and intensify procurement reforms, seeking greater transparency and efficiency. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know that their contributions to the ADB are both productive and efficiently stewarded. If confirmed as U.S. Director, I will ensure that the ADB maintains its focus on its core economic development goals for the countries it serves. It must do so in a streamlined and transparent structure for operational efficiency. The U.S. Treasury's role in the ADB is vitally important. As one of the two founding countries and largest equity holders, its leadership can drive policy and operations of the ADB. As a consequence, it must ensure that the ADB is effective at delivering economic development financing and value, both diplomatic and economic, to both the countries it serves and the U.S. taxpayer. If confirmed, I will focus on deriving U.S. taxpayer value, shareholder value, both in the efficiency of its operations and opening opportunities for U.S. businesses to deliver results for ADB-funded projects. Finally, I understand and respect the importance of a close working relationship with Congress. If confirmed, I commit to working with Congress on issues surrounding the Asian Development Bank. Thank you again for your time today, and I look forward to your questions.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Sweeney. What we're going to do now is we're going to do a round of questions, five minutes each for members. And I'm going to start with you, Mr. Brooks. I want to talk about a subject that generally isn't in our wheelhouse, but as everybody knows, every treaty that the United States attempts to enter into has got to go through this committee regardless of what the subject matter is. It isn't necessarily international something that we deal with ordinarily. And the one that I want to focus on right now is something that's really, I think, flying below the radar nationally, but is talked about up here to a degree. And that's the effort to reach an agreement, international agreement regarding plastics. Are you familiar with that effort, I assume?

I am, Senator.

What can you tell us about the current status of the negotiations and anything you can shed light on what the final product may look like? As you may or may not know, I wrote a letter to the administration expressing the reservations I have about hearing the discussion, the international discussion that really looks to upstream as opposed to a cyclical solution of the problem. Your thoughts.

Thank you very much for that question, Chairman Risch. I have not read your letter, but if confirmed, I certainly look forward to, in fact, maybe later tonight, I will go home and take a look for it. What I can tell you is the plastics negotiations have been a very long and unfolding international drama. We just heard word that there is a new chair for the INC elected from Chile. The United States, this administration, looks forward to working with them to work towards consensus on an agreement that protects U.S. interests and ultimately solves the plastic pollution problem, again, largely drawing on U.S. innovation, our success with waste management, and ultimately ensuring that products that the American people have come to rely on in their daily lives are available and cost-effective.

We appreciate that. The first of all, the plastics issue certainly deserves the attention that it's getting. The resolution of it is incredibly important to the plastics industry, not only in America but in the world. Can you talk briefly about the, there's kind of two sides of the debate as I understand it. One is viewing the upstream side and the other is looking at the recycling side. Can you talk briefly about that conflict and whether it's a resolvable conflict or how you view that?

Yes, that's correct, Senator. So you have a group of countries on the one hand that are looking to establish a global regulatory framework that would seek to ban certain products or certain additives or place caps on the amount of plastics or certain additives in products. We think this is a really bad approach. The United States manufacturing industry, 26 percent of it is plastics. And so we, as you all know and many of you have been forceful champions for advanced manufacturing and rebuilding America's manufacturing base, we need to hold on to as much of that industry as possible. And America has shown that we can manage plastic waste well and we can encourage that management style in other places and raise standards where they're currently lacking.

Well said, Mr. Brooks. I hope you'll take that argument to the table when you're talking about this on the international stage, and we look forward to seeing if we can't get some kind of a legitimate treaty agreement regarding this. Thanks so much. Senator Shaheen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have some letters of opposition and op-eds that are regarding Mr. Carl's nomination. I ask that they be entered into the record.

They'll be entered in the record.

Thank you. I also ask that certain articles and tweets by him be entered into the record.

They'll be put in the record.

Thank you. Mr. Carl, you've argued that feminism has led to a downfall in American society. You've written that the Civil Rights Act has warped American culture. You've argued that the United States should be a white Christian nation. You also wrote that a post-feminist America is one of falling fertility, rapidly rising out-of-wedlock births, and religious collapse. In October of 2024, you stated on the Christian Ghetto podcast that, and I quote, "Jews have often loved to play the victim, that the Holocaust dominates so much of modern Jewish history, and that Jews love to see themselves as oppressed." In 2024, you wrote that you want America to be a Christian nation and you continue to make anti-Semitic and racist comments even after your nomination was announced last year. You know, Mr. Carl, in this committee, we've heard from many nominees who have said things that we don't agree with. But since your nomination, you've tweeted more than 850 times, appeared on five podcasts, and repeated this language. This is a pattern. So how can this committee trust that you can represent the United States of America to the rest of the world in an unbiased manner when you have taken no steps to restrain your conduct after your nomination?

Senator, thank you very much for this question. I didn't recognize a couple of those quotes, but I'll...

Well, they're accurate. I can assure you they are.

I'll take your word for it that they are, in fact, accurate for the record. Senator Shaheen, I'm greatly understand the importance of restraint in conduct. I unfortunately have to balance that with my current job, which involves advocacy. And I can't, as I've explained, just totally put away my day job. I'm not being offered a job here yet. I'm trying to get, hopefully, be offered a job.

Well, Mr. Carl, it's hard to understand how we can trust you if you can't even restrain yourself during the period in which you've been nominated. Mr. Long, thank you for your comments. I am a fellow Missourian, although I was only born in St. Charles. I grew up in Sikeston and lived in Kirksville as well. But I appreciate what you said about not coming to the House with any political background and being a business person. I understand that. But I am concerned about comments that you made when you referenced Iceland as the United States' 52nd state. You referred to yourself as the potential governor of Iceland. I understand that you intended this to be viewed as a joke, but I would urge you to understand that when you are being considered as an ambassador of the United States, that those kinds of jokes aren't necessarily viewed by others as funny. And I think that's what we're hearing in Iceland, that there's some real concern about what your views are if you serve as ambassador there. So I'm going to give you an opportunity to correct that rhetoric and to express what you think the ambassador to the country of Iceland should be thinking about in terms of approaching that job and how important it is to recognize the importance of Iceland as an ally of the United States, critical, as I think you did reference in your opening statement, to our own national security.

Thank you. And as soon as that, and you say joke or whatever, it was I was the way I became apprised of that was from a member of the diplomatic corps from Iceland. And they, you know, explain they started I didn't even hadn't even heard it was in anything, you know, and I was shocked because it was just it was a like a three-way somebody said something, somebody else said something, and yes, I did add the part about the 52nd state, which was totally inappropriate. But it was not something that I said as a pronouncement that was serious. And whenever the Arctic News called the next day and asked me about it, I said there was nothing serious about it. I apologize to anyone that may have been offended by it, and that's all I have to say about it. So to me, that's what I can do. Senator Feinstein, the late Senator Feinstein, when I was a freshman, we were in a meeting over in the, oh, the I can't even think of the name of the taco place over there that's now closed on the corner, but the room down there where we meet when Democrats and Republicans want to meet together for joint purposes. And I'm a freshman, and here's Dianne Feinstein. And she opened the meeting by saying, now this is all off the record, isn't it? And I looked at her as a freshman. Nobody knew me to a exalted senator like that. And it's like I said, I said, Senator Feinstein, this is Washington, D.C. I said, everything is off the record here unless it's just too good not to tell. Someone overheard my comment between friends, and they thought they needed to run to a publication and say that. And I'm sorry that it happened. I'm very sorry it happened. And I all I can do, I apologized immediately. I didn't try and sugarcoat it or anything else. It was a quip in front of friends. And so if that's, you know, I just hope that the people in Iceland will give me a second chance to make a first impression. And I, you know, you can't whenever Tom Eagleton, our senator from Missouri, whenever he was picked for Vice President, I remember McGovern saying that, you know, he got stuff about things that had happened and they were talking about dropping him off the ticket. And he said, I'm behind Senator Eagleton 110 percent. And I'm a kid and I'm like, there isn't 110 percent. So going to Iceland, I plan to put in 100 percent. And when this happened, I thought I said, no, I can't put in more than 100, but I'm still going to put in 100 percent and do everything I can to let the folks in Iceland know that I have a lot of respect for them. They have a beautiful country. A lot of 700,000 Americans go there every year. I hope I'd get that up to a million by the time my term's up, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed here today. But that's my attitude. I our I'm known to be a very, very good boss. And the post over there, as you know, the smallest one, and the people there have been great to me. They're excited to get me over there at post. And the State Department said they wanted me to, you know, you're going to lose half your people by mid-summer because they rotate out, which is something you have to get used to when you're in Washington, D.C. And they said, we have this lady, Joni, and we want you to have her be your deputy chief of mission. And we want you to leave her in there for a year. And I said, no. And I and they said, what do you mean? I said, I'm not going to be locked into somebody that I don't know for a year. I want to talk to her, visit with her. If she comes here, you know, whatever, they didn't want me going to Iceland before you're confirmed. And so we set up a Teams with Karen, who's worked for me since 1990, and she married her husband in '91, so we've been together longer than her husband. Barbara, my wife, and us, we got on a Teams with Joni. And at the end of that thing, I said, will you be my deputy chief of mission for a year? And she said, no. And I said, why? She said, I want to be for two years. And all three of us fell in love with her, and she's agreed to stay for two years. So like I said, a quip that shouldn't have been said, and I apologize for it immediately, and that's all I've got to say on that.

Well, thank you. I appreciate your clarification. I think it's an important lesson in diplomacy matters. What we say matters as Americans when we're representing this country. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Curtis.

Thank you. Mr. Carl, I think I heard in your testimony something very similar to this, but core among U.S. interest at international organizations is the protection of U.S. sovereignty and national security, and I'm sure that we agree on this. What I didn't hear and what is important to me, high among these interests is the protection of our allies, namely Israel and Taiwan, both of which are consistently mistreated in these international organizations. And as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, I view one of your core responsibilities to counter the systemic anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias in international organizations. Israel rarely asks for direct military intervention from the United States, but it does ask for diplomatic support and helping. So in your podcast of October 24, you said the United States spends too much time and energy on Israel, often to the detriment of our own national interest. So share with me specifically in what is in the U.S. interest that has been harmed by sustained American support of Israel?

Senator, thank you for that question. It's a good one. And I think in the context of this particular role, actually we we are Israel's closest ally. I mean, in that in that so I think in in the UN context, I wish the UN would stop being anti-Semitic all the time. And so therefore we could stop having, you know, there's a million other problems like the Rohingya, like the South Sudan...

Let me pull that thought because I kind of want to come back to that. But let me let me just clarify. Do you think it's all one-directional? And what I mean by that is it's all U.S. going to help Israel? And do you recognize the the intelligence, the the military innovations and things like that that come back to the United States?

No, I'm so glad you mentioned that, Senator Curtis. So I, as mentioned before, spent 10 years under one of the greatest friends of Israel that the U.S. diplomatic corps has ever had in Secretary Shultz. Charlie Kirk was also probably second to no one in America in terms of his...

Okay, let me just rein you in here because that's that's not going in the direction of my answer. Let me let me ask this. Do you view diplomatic support as important or critical, or does that fall in the too much time and energy?

Senator, I think thank you for that question. I think diplomatic support of Israel in the UN context is absolutely critical.

Are there other allies for whom you believe the United States spends too much time and energy?

Senator, it would depend, thank you for the question, on the situation. But in the UN context, I want to be very clear that we have to be by Israel's side because nobody else is going to be by Israel's side. And you see the effects of the systemic anti-Semitism that is rife throughout the UN system. It's one of the reasons that we've withdrawn from several major UN organizations.

Do you see do you see how difficult it is for you when approached by these other countries and you hear that line from them for you to defend what you just said when you've made these other comments? How do you say to to some of these other foreign nations' diplomats when they echo that same thinking that you have echoed that they're wrong?

Could you I'm sorry, Senator, I want to make sure that I understand your question.

Well, okay, so let me let me give you a specific. On this same podcast, the host, and I understand this is the host, it's not you, he criticized Jews for claiming special victim status because of the Holocaust. He said that the state of Israel is not a victim but instead a perpetrator and said, how long are you going to rest on the Holocaust because based on how you are treating the Palestinians? Now, that was the host, but this was your response: "Right, right, yeah, no, I mean, I think that's true."

Yeah.

So given that, when asked by other diplomats who who do come with these agendas that you referred to in your remarks, how do you push back on that when when you didn't push back on that moderator?

Sure, Senator. First of all, thank you for the question. And I would have to review the podcast in question that you're mentioning. I do a lot of podcasts and I'm not familiar with...

No, I've I've given you your exact words.

But no, I'm I'm sure that they're accurate. I'm sure that they're accurate. I'm not questioning that.

Trust me, those diplomats also know your exact words. So let me ask you this question. Do you believe that it is remotely acceptable to compare the Holocaust to the war launched after October 7?

Absolutely not, Senator.

Okay. Well, I'm out of time. We only give us five minutes. I think you can sense from my questions my concerns. You haven't been nominated to some random position to a post where your views to for instance to Iceland, right, where you get a you get a second chance on these issues. But you're the principal manager of the U.S. multilateral policy. And anti-Israel bias in international organizations is part of, and you know this, of a broader strategy to undermine the United States, our legitimacy. And so I I don't know that I've been convinced that you understand the threat posed to the West in the narrative. And I I regret that I'm out of time. So Mr. Chairman, I'll yield.

Thank you, Senator Curtis. Senator Rosen.

Senator Curtis, well, thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, for holding this hearing. And Senator Curtis, I really want to thank you for your comments and your concerns and always for your kindness. It is much appreciated because I too today want to speak plainly about the deeply troubling nomination of Mr. Jeremy Carl. It's not a close call. The nomination should alarm every senator who believes in basic decency, truth, and responsibility that does come with public service, sir. Mr. Carl is infamous for deleting thousands of his past tweets, but deleting tweets doesn't delete the many recorded podcast interviews, public speeches, or editorials that he has done. As many of my colleagues have and will point out, Mr. Carl's vile anti-Semitic comments are very real, whether or not he tried to erase them or excuse them. As co-founder and co-chair of the Senate's bipartisan task force for combating anti-Semitism, the only former synagogue president to serve in the United States Senate, and as a Jewish woman and mother, I am especially compelled to call out Mr. Carl's record. So I'm just going to put it in context. In a study released this week by the American Jewish Committee, one in three Jewish Americans state that they have personally experienced anti-Semitism at least once in the last year. And last year, another study that nearly found nearly one in five Jewish Americans were assaulted, physically threatened, or harassed right here in the United States. ...our own citizens, all of our constituents, everyone. Nobody feels safe in their home communities. And I know this is something that senators on both sides of the aisle really care about. I do know that. And yet Mr. Carl, despite his long record of problematic statements, has been nominated to lead our country's engagement with every single country in the world through our diplomatic work with international organizations. Some may try to excuse Mr. Carl's remarks, claiming his words were taken out of context, that he never said them, and that his own heritage protects him from criticism. So let me be clear. Identity does not excuse antisemitism. Identity does not excuse racism. Identity does not excuse hateful rhetoric. Regardless of who says them, words matter, as my colleagues have said. Words matter, character matters, judgment matters. And to my colleagues that may consider voting in favor of Mr. Carl's nomination, understand what the vote signals. It tells Americans you're willing to use your sacred vote not just to ignore but to endorse the hateful statements. It tells Jewish Americans they simply don't matter. And I ask everyone in this room, depending what your age is, many of us here have had relatives, parents who fought in World War II. We know those stories. Thank you for your service, I see a Vietnam veteran in the audience. But imagine them young, or maybe not so young, sitting here today in their uniform. Hard to imagine maybe our parents young, but imagine them young or coming back sitting here today, looking at us, knowing what they fought for. They're watching us, whether they're there or here. So Mr. Carl, I'd be hard-pressed to find any person in this room, not any of my colleagues who would agree with many of your statements. I want to quote some of them. "The Jews love to see themselves as oppressed." Another one, "Jews have often loved to play the victim rather accept that they are participants in history." Here's another one. "Hitler is always the convenient kind of bad example. Hitler is always a convenient kind of bad example." Anyone who had family members who served in World War II, I would have them, I wish they were here to argue with you on that one. I'm very critical, another thing you said, of overall political stance and sociology of the Jewish community, particularly in this century. It's been very destructive overall. Another quote, "You guys," referring to the Jews, "are spearheading a lot of bad causes." Okay. Another quote, "We need to unashamedly criticize and critique them," referring to the Jews, "when they're enemies, without being worried about being called antisemites." And finally, in discussing the Holocaust where 6 million Jews, almost half the population, Jewish population alive at the time, were slaughtered, an event that continues to be denied to this day, you say, "The Holocaust kind of dominates just so much of modern Jewish thinking even today. Everyone has traumas in their past. How much are we going to kind of relitigate them?" Say that to the memories of the folks who fought in World War II, fought and died. So speaking to my colleagues, a vote in favor of Mr. Carl is a full-throated endorsement of any and all of these statements. I know everyone cares about the rise of antisemitism here and around in the United States and around the world. And if you have empathy for the Jewish community, communities experiencing hate, simply tired of advancing nominees who I doubt will be respected on the world stage, you must vote against Mr. Carl's nomination. And I just remember for my father who fought in the war and so many of my family members, I know he's watching. I know other parents are watching. I know our children are watching. I know the world is watching. And so where will we stand? Where will we stand? What did they fight for? It matters. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Rosen. Senator Merkley is next.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I share concern about the troubling points of view you've expressed. Here we are in February and February often starts with folks attending MLK breakfasts, thinking about some of the the points he made for inclusion. And I think a phrase that resonates across America is when he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will be judged someday, or that we will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." And yet you devote yourself to judging people by the color of their skin, and I find that type of prejudice unacceptable. And I think it would be absolutely unacceptable for you to represent the United States in an international body. So I find all of that very, very troubling. But I also find it troubling that your resume is pretty thin for this position. You did serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. I'm sure there's some international issues that that might resonate for. I do serve as the ranking Democrat on the Interior Spending Committee, so I'm very familiar with those issues, but that's a very small piece internationally. You did serve as a visiting fellow in resource development, Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, a research fellow at the Hoover Institute on energy. But I believe, and I'll just ask it plainly in case I'm mistaken, you have not served for the United States previously on the U.S. mission to the UN, is that correct?

That's correct, Senator.

Thank you. And I believe you have not served in an international organization, is that correct?

Senator, thank you for that question. As I referred to in my opening remarks, I was an official research assistant on several of Professor Juma's at Harvard's international organization related things related to sustainable development goals.

Yes, you wrote and you thought about some of these things, but you did not serve in a staff capacity on an international organization.

Senator, thank you for that question. That is correct.

Okay. And have you served in any position in a diplomatic role with the State Department?

Senator, I have not, although of course I had many opportunities to do track two diplomacy while working with Secretary Shultz.

And do you have a background or expertise, and I know you have some in energy, in nuclear non-proliferation?

Senator, I've actually written a book about nuclear power that does go into some of these issues and I'm fairly familiar with non-proliferation issues, although certainly would not call myself an expert.

Yeah, and I'm familiar with your distributed power in the U.S. book, but that is very different from the nuclear non-proliferation issue. Which role is most important: the U.S. Ambassador to the U.S. mission, the U.S. permanent representative to the UN, or the U.S. representative to the General Assembly?

I believe it would be the U.S. permanent representative to the UN would be the most important.

Why is that?

I believe, and Senator, I may be incorrect on this, that it's simply the highest ranking of those positions.

That is the role to the Security Council rather than to the UN as a whole. The U.S. is a member of IAEA and IOM and ICAO and FAO and ITU. Which do you think the U.S. should be committed to funding in 2026?

Senator, I can simply tell you, I've not been party obviously to the funding or defunding decisions, although thank you for your question. I think that it has been the general public statements of the Secretary and others in the administration that standards bodies of all types are particularly important, and I would expect that we would be looking to largely continue to participate in most all standards bodies, but I have not been part of those deliberations obviously as a private citizen.

So the administration has publicly committed to funding three of those five. Why those three and not the other two?

Senator, thank you for that question. And I simply, as a private citizen, I don't have insight as to why they have chosen to fund other than as the generality that if we felt missions were duplicative, if we felt that U.S. interests were not being looked after, or if we felt that they were being run contrary to U.S. interests, that we did not want to participate in those organizations.

Are you familiar with which of the three of the five they actually committed to funding?

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question, Senator?

Are you familiar with which of the three of the five that they were committed to funding?

Senator, I would assume that we have continued to fund the IAEA and beyond that I'm not familiar.

Okay. My time is up, so I'll yield back. It is a very, very complex assembly of organizations at the UN. And recently we withdrew from 66 of organizations, 35 non-UN and 31 UN. And the lack of your previous experience kind of in that thicket of international connections and lack of experience in some of the key subject matters addressed does concern me as well as your previous comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Ricketts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The U.S. has long raised concerns about the continued lending to Communist China through the Asia Development Bank. The rationale is pretty straightforward. Communist China is the world's second largest economy, it maintains massive foreign exchange reserves, operates some of the largest state-directed development banks and finances global infrastructure through its Belt and Road Initiative. Yet Communist China continues to receive financing from institutions designed to support developing economies struggling with poverty and infrastructure deficits. Frustratingly, the Asia Development Bank is no exception. This dual status allows Beijing to benefit from global institutions while undermining the very rules-based system those institutions are designed to uphold. Treasury Secretary Bessent recently reinforced this message by calling for concrete steps to place Communist China on a clear path to graduating from Asia Development Bank's borrowing. Mr. Sweeney, do you agree with what Secretary Bessent said and that the Asia Development Bank should end Communist China's borrowing of Asia Development Bank funds?

Thank you for that question, Senator. I wholeheartedly agree with that position. As we all know, I believe, funding is fungible. And funding from the ADB, which is intended to go for economic development and for poverty reduction to places that need it, it is highly inappropriate that that funding be directed to China, Chinese entities, whether they are state-owned entities, whether they are private entities, entities of any sort. Money is fungible. That money which is not directed toward, you know, the developing country members and goes to China, which is still classified as a DCM, I don't think that's appropriate. But yes, Senator, I think it's highly inappropriate and if confirmed I would be doing everything in my power to A, advance the long-standing need to graduate China from the ADB, and secondly, related but somewhat different is ending the lending, ending lending, which is probably a somewhat more immediate possibility.

So could you provide a few details? You have some thoughts, assuming you're confirmed, what would you do within the governance structure of the Asia Development Bank to be able to stop this sort of lending to Communist China?

Thank you for the question, Senator. I, the first piece of this is that I, from what I understand, I haven't sat in the position, I don't know the details of how graduation works, but I understand that it's going to need to be a consortium effort to convince China to withdraw. That's different from stopping lending. But I believe that with our equal partner Japan and other developing countries which have an interest, a personal interest in seeing that lending stop, we will arrive at a program for graduation of China.

Yeah, let's talk about, you talked about the Belt and Road Initiative and I mentioned it as well. Last year the Asia Development Bank announced an investment in a railway along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that was closely affiliated with Communist China's Belt and Road Initiative. What's especially concerning is this project was previously slated for Chinese financing but it ultimately was deemed to be too risky by Beijing. After years of delay, cost overruns and concerns about Pakistan's debt sustainability, Chinese lenders reportedly stepped back. The result was that the risk once borne by Chinese policy banks is now being transferred to a multilateral development bank in which the U.S. is a leading shareholder. Should the Asia Development Bank be acting as a lender of last resort for the Belt and Road projects that fail to meet market or policy bank standards, even by China's own standards?

Thank you for that question, Senator. It should not. It's highly inappropriate. If confirmed I commit to the committee, to you, to oppose any such lending. It is highly inappropriate.

Great. Well, I do want to commend the Asia Development Bank for its recent decision to allow investments in nuclear power projects. This is a significant and overdue shift. Last year I led a bipartisan CODEL with Senator Coons and Senator Budd to the Philippines. During that trip we heard about the immense energy security challenges, and it's not just the Philippines, it's other countries as well. Many of our partners in the region are confronting similar problems affecting their economies and creating economic instability or their impact, their ability to resist disasters, and of course national security issues come with it as well. Authoritarian competitors understand this vulnerability and actively work to exploit it. The Asia Development Bank's shift here therefore represents not only an energy milestone but also a strategic opportunity for the United States. How will you ensure the Asia Development Bank's nuclear financing supports partner countries in addressing urgent energy security needs?

Thank you for the question, Senator. We are fortunate to have a country which is second to none, and in my opinion above all, in our energy development technologies. That includes nuclear. And if confirmed, I will work assiduously and tirelessly to ensure that U.S. technology is brought to bear on those issues.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Senator Murphy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for appearing here today. Mr. Carl, I think it's just heartbreaking that you have been nominated for this position and that you've reached a panel before the United States Senate. But I do want to give you a chance to go a little bit deeper in your explanations of your personal beliefs. They are directly relevant to your fitness to serve. You already have had some of your statements read to you, but I'd like you to respond to at least a few of them. One of the things you have said is that anti-white discrimination is the most pervasive and politically salient form of racism today. So do you continue to believe that anti-white discrimination is more salient than the discrimination faced today by Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, or other American groups?

Well, Senator, thank you for that question. And thank you also for giving me an opportunity to speak at a little bit of length. I haven't necessarily had much opportunity to respond.

I'm going to have at least one more question for you, so I'll give you a minute or two to respond.

Yes. So thanks to the great work of my friend Harmeet Dhillon at as the Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights, I actually think that we've done an incredible job in this administration of getting rid of certain policies that discriminate particularly against white Americans, but also in some cases Asian Americans.

Well, just answer my question. Let's rewind, because maybe you'll suggest that everything is fine now. Let's rewind a year ago. A year ago, were white Americans the most discriminated against group in the United States? You said it, so just do you?

Senator, no, certainly this is my belief. I'm not running away from that. I think that while of course all races in different contexts can be subject to really severe discrimination, that when we look at our legal structures, white Americans are often very disfavored in overt ways. We're seeing this in the Small Business Administration, many other places.

So your belief is that white Americans face more discrimination, at least prior to the Trump administration fixing this, than Black Americans.

On average, Senator, yes, that's correct, and I'm not running away from that statement at all.

You have made several statements about your worry regarding the erasure of white culture in America. I understand Irish American culture, I understand Italian American culture. I maybe don't understand white culture as well. Tell me the values, the white values that you believe are being erased by the current American government or prior American governments.

Senator, thank you for that question. I would say that it's not, I didn't use the word values, I used the word culture. I think that anytime you have large degrees of mass immigration, you're going to have a change in culture, if those are especially if they're coming from culturally dissimilar backgrounds. And no matter what group it is, if it were in China it would be the same thing, if it were in New Guinea it would be the same thing.

No, but tell me about what that means. I mean, culture is values, right? It's expressions of identity. Tell me what is being erased. I mean, give me some examples of what you believe are being erased about white identity. What is white identity to you?

Well, Senator, thank you for that. Tell me how it's different than other identities. Senator, I think the question of identity is something that lots of scholars go into.

Yeah, I guess you could do a sermon on identity, but just tell me how you define white identity and what you think is being erased about white identity.

Senator, it would have, thank you again for the question and genuinely thank you for finally letting me have a chance to explain some of my comments a little bit. But I would say that, you know, they could be things like going to a certain type of Christian church and that sort of culture, which is very different. I mean, we can all be Christians, right, in a certain environment, but African American Christians might worship differently than Chinese Christians that might worship differently than white Christians. Of course, sometimes you have multi-ethnic churches, but things like that. Certain types of Anglo-derived culture that comes from our history. Like what? Let me think about this. You know, Senator, I would say if you were to look at the book by one of your former Senate colleagues, Born Fighting, about the sort of Scotch-Irish military culture and certain, you know, pride that went with that, that would be one example. Obviously you can have sub-elements of that culture, you could have Italians, you could have Irish, and those are in many ways more distinct.

But you're worried about white culture. You're not worried about, you're now retreating to ethnic identity. You don't speak about ethnic identity, you speak about white identity. So tell me the values that stitch together white identity and that make it different than Black identity.

Senator, again, thank you. You've spent a lot of time talking about this and writing about this. Yeah, no, you should be able to, you're struggling with this. But you should be fairly easily, I would assume, able to tell us your thoughts on how white identity is is different than other kinds of identity and how it's being erased. Senator, again, thank you for the question. I'm just trying to be, I'm just trying to be very precise, so because I'm here in front of a Senate committee. I would say that the white church is very different than the Black church in terms of its tone and style on average. Foodways could often be different.

And those are being erased.

Music could be different. Well, if you look at the Super Bowl halftime show, which was not in English this year. So our ability to access white churches or white food or white music is being erased? Senator, again, thank you for the question. What I would say is the biggest thing, because actually contrary to many of the comments that have been shown, racial nationalists have been very, very critical of my work because they correctly say that I'm actually of course not a racial nationalist, which I'm not, I'm a civic nationalist. I am concerned with the majority common American culture that we had for some time that through particularly mass immigration, I think has become much more Balkanized and I think that weakens us. And again, I'm not running away from that comment, I'm not apologizing for it.

Well, I'm way over my time. I think you're struggling to answer this question, right, because underlying your beliefs is a sentiment that white culture is just simply better, that white people are superior. No, Senator, I have to disagree with that. But you haven't been able to really coherently answer any of my questions about how you define white culture, how you define the threat that's posed. I appreciate you being very honest that you believe that white Americans are subject to greater amounts of discrimination in this country than Black Americans. I do not think that's a sentiment that is shared broadly on this committee. It is all what makes you just wildly, wildly unqualified to take this post. I'm well over my time. Thank you.

Senator, I do appreciate you letting me actually respond. I genuinely do. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Kaine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Carl, I'll follow up a little bit. You gave a speech to the National Conservatism Conference in July of 2024 entitled "On the Persecution of Whites in America" and one of the things you said was, "American whites are victims of a cultural genocide." A cultural genocide. Where to start? So you'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that whites are pretty well represented in the United States Senate?

They are well represented in this body, yes.

And how about in the House of Representatives?

Senator Kaine, I don't have those particular numbers, however.

But you would agree that they're pretty well represented in the House of Representatives.

Senator, I would again thank you for the question. I would point out that there were no white Protestants by birth in the 25 cabinet members under Joe Biden.

How about in the ranks of American presidents throughout history, including now, pretty well represented whites? Senator, and how about in the ranks of vice presidents during American history, now, pretty, I mean, whites are pretty well represented in that group, right?

Senator, thank you again for the question.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's hard. How about on the United States Supreme Court? Throughout our history and including now, whites are pretty well represented on the United States Supreme Court, correct?

Senator, will you permit me an opportunity to finish my answer? I think obviously historically, I would of course agree with you. Of course the vast majority of Americans were white at that time. It's now a much more diverse society.

Let's focus on right now. How about in the ranks of American governors? Do you think whites are pretty well represented?

Senator, thank you for that question. I would just have to look at the numbers, I don't know.

Okay. How about this? In the ranks of CEOs of major corporations today, let's not talk about history, you think whites are pretty well represented?

Senator, thank you for the question. I suspect that they are probably pretty well represented in that, but there are other areas where they're not as well.

How about in the ranks of high-income people? And we can define it however you want. Let's just say like top 10 percent of wealthy Americans. You think whites are pretty well represented?

Senator, thank you for the question. They would certainly be underrepresented with respect to Asian Americans, but they would be overrepresented with respect to other groups.

Yeah. So, you know, a cultural genocide, that's a, that's a stiff claim. And it's an interesting one because it's kind of a white victimhood argument. But if I remember my colleague Senator Rosen, she was reading comments to you where you had been saying, man, Jews play the victim, Jews like to be the victim. And yet you're making a claim that whites are victimized by a cultural genocide when all the statistics would say, not just in history but today, that whites are very well represented at every level of every institution. They're very well represented in the incomes of Americans. And that doesn't mean each person is high income or each person is a Supreme Court justice, but you could look institution after institution in this country and the facts completely rebut the notion that whites are victimized by a cultural genocide. I have a question for Mr. Long I want to get to. Mr. Long, we've had a little controversy in the last couple weeks about Iceland. President Trump gave a speech in Davos and he said, "I'm helping NATO until the last few days when I told them about Iceland, they loved me." The problem with NATO is that we'll be there for them 100 percent, but I'm not sure that they'll be there for us. They're not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland's already cost us a lot of money. Now, the White House said the President didn't mistake Greenland and Iceland. Senator Rubio at a hearing here last week or two weeks ago said the President mistook Greenland and Iceland. But let me ask you this. Do you know of any problem we have with Iceland? Has Iceland cost us a lot of money? Did Iceland cause our stock market to decline? Are you aware of any facts that would support that Iceland has cost the U.S. a lot of money or hurt our stock market?

Every thing, we won't take this against my time I guess, but don't you have a nexus to Missouri also like?

I do.

I thought.

I'm a Mizzou grad.

You got two here now, I got a couple of opportunities. But Senator, everything that I have been given to understand, everything I've been studying the last six months, Iceland is a very good ally as you know, and we've been with them since day one when no one else was there.

So and actually this is important and I think so you have not in your conversations with folks with the Trump administration been told in any way that Iceland is a problem, Iceland's costing us money, Iceland's hurting our stock market, is that correct?

I have not been told that, no. And I think just the opposite, I think Iceland's a very, we were talking earlier, I'm not sure if you were in the room or not, but about...

Well, you were talking about how you regretted the 52nd state thing.

That's right, when I the the economy and the biotechnology that they have in Missouri, the state of Missouri as you know in St. Louis, Rolla, Kansas City, huge in biotech. And I'm excited to get over there and get, you know, have opportunities to get things going. But I'm a, you know, I'm a people person, I was an auctioneer, real estate broker, salesman, and I enjoy people, I just do. And I, if you go over the the Democrat, the House and check through the Democrats that are still there that was there when I was there, I had as many friends on the Democrat side of the aisle as I did...

I'm over time, but but I'm just really glad to hear that you've not been given any, you know, warning or instruction or expression of concern from the administration that Iceland is a problem because I think they're an ally. Thanks, Mr. Carl.

...you're going to be working with international organizations. Do you think one race is superior than another race on the planet Earth?

Senator, absolutely not.

You don't. So do you think that America would be weaker if it was, say, 40 percent Jewish?

Senator, absolutely not in and of itself. I think the problem--

Well, why did you qualify that?

No. Well, Senator, if you'd let me finish. I do not-- I believe that unity, as President Trump has said, rather than diversity, is a greater strength.

But but why not simply say it doesn't matter what percentage of our population is Jewish?

It's, Senator, it certainly doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Senator, as if I could finish, as somebody of Jewish origin myself, and I I do want to take this moment to say, because there have been some comments made, one of my weaknesses, and we've discussed some that you may think in general are weaknesses, is sometimes I take an idea too far. And I made some comments in interviews about minimizing the effect of the Holocaust that were absolutely wrong. And I'm not going to sit here and defend them here. I just want to be very, very clear on that point. Again, had I been in Germany in that time, even though I'm a sixth-generation American, but if I had not, I, you know, I would have been killed just like anybody--

I just I've heard you I've heard you say that you regret some of your comments about Jews.

Absolutely.

Do you regret any other comment about any other races?

Senator, you would have to reference a certain comment, but I'm certainly not a perfect person and I'm sure that I've made--

Do you regret any of your comments about Latino Americans?

Senator, I'm sure that if you read me every single comment I'd made about a group, there would be some that upon consideration--

So you you stipulate for this body that you have in your past made comments about Jews and Latinos and perhaps blacks that you perhaps regret.

Senator, thank you for the question. As a Calvinist who believes that we're all infinitely sinful and only redeemed through grace--

But you see, sir, we're sending you into a very diverse world. And you can't say unequivocally that America, it doesn't matter what our racial makeup is. You you believe it matters what the racial makeup of America is.

Senator--

Do you believe it matters, yes or no, what the racial makeup of America is?

Senator, to echo President Trump, I believe--

I don't want you to echo President Trump. I want you to answer my question, yes or no. Does it matter what the racial makeup of America is?

Senator, I'll I'll stand on my comment. Thank you.

What's your comment? Answer the question, yes or no.

Echoing President Trump, I believe unity rather than diversity is a strength.

So you have a problem if America grew to be more Latinos than white people.

Senator, the individual group is not important. This is across the side--

Then why then what do you mean when you say that you believe in the great replacement theory?

Senator, thank you for that question. This refers to the intentional demographic replacement of Europeans in Europe. It was invented by Renaud Camus, who was a a French scholar.

You think there's an active effort to quote-unquote replace Americans right now.

Senator, I think the Democratic Party through its immigration policies has certainly shown signs of that.

And and I don't understand that. So you are saying that if more Americans are black or Latino Americans, that that somehow weakens America because it puts whites in a minority.

Senator, I never said anything like that nor do I actually believe that. I want to be very clear that regardless of country, if people generally share more in common, that's a strength.

Can I read can I read you what you've said? Because it sounds like this. You said the great replacement is real and they are going to try to make you pay for it. Who is they?

Senator, thank you for that question. I simply don't know from you reading that one isolated comment.

Senator-- Respectfully, do you not think that they do? Sir, sir, sir, you cannot use the word respectfully because you do not respect me.

Oh no, actually I do.

You look upon me as my color of my skin. You say holidays like Juneteenth are racial hustles. Don't come here and hustle me.

Senator--

You have said statements that other nations are going to look upon you and read plainly. When you go to a country of a different religion or ethnicity, you have discriminated against Jews in your writing, you have discriminated against others, and then you claim yourself as a victim. Mr. Chairman, I I've never seen such a blatantly racist individual who who doesn't even deny that he's made these statements but wants to tell us that he regrets them and yet still believes that this body, who is committed to principles of equality, who is permitted to committed to ideals of our founders, that you're not in direct violation to the ideals and values and principles. And the last thing I want to say, I watched people beat others when they attacked the Capitol, viciously attack police officers. Brian Sicknick, a New Jersey resident, was beaten near death and would die days later. And you say those violent felons, you literally have said that they were treated worse than people during Jim Crow. When thousands of Americans were lynched, murdered, beaten, and killed, you equate Capitol Hill rioters with receiving worse treatment than Americans during Jim Crow, which even some of the worst people who participated in that violence and beatings have come forward decades later and said I was wrong. It is shameful that when this body ran for its life, when they had gallows for the Vice President put outside, when they tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power, that you would equate those people to the folks that were victimized and terrorized by white nationalist organizations like the KKK. Sir, you have no decency. You have no honor. You say inflammatory things because it thinks it will ingratiate you to those who are paying your salary. And you sit here before me and try to wrap yourself in the American flag? Well, I believe in this nation. I believe in the principles. I believe in those who fought and died for our country. You disgrace that legacy and the ideals that we all swear an oath to underhand to uphold, that does not believe in one nation for one people and another people. Dear God, I pray for us if we let somebody like you represent us to the diverse nations of the world as representing the values of our country.

Senator, I absolutely deplore Jim Crow, but I do not agree with the characterization that you have done of my views.

The record will remain open until close of business tomorrow. If there's any questions that are put into the record, appreciate it if you would respond to the record or respond to the questions as quickly as you can. We I want to thank all of you and all of the families who are here today for submitting yourself for potential nomination by the President. And again, thanks from the committee. With that, committee's adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]