[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF U.S. - HUNGARY RELATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 19, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-687PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
TOM EMMER, MinnesotaUntil
5/18/15 deg.
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
MO BROOKS, Alabama THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
PAUL COOK, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Hoyt Brian Yee, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State........ 8
The Honorable Kurt Volker, executive director, The McCain
Institute for International Leadership, Arizona State
University..................................................... 27
Mr. Tad Stahnke, vice president, Research & Analysis, Human
Rights First................................................... 29
Andras Simonyi, Ph.D., managing director of the Center for
Transatlantic Relations, School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University (former Hungarian Ambassador
to the United States).......................................... 57
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Hoyt Brian Yee: Prepared statement........................... 11
Mr. Tad Stahnke: Prepared statement.............................. 33
Andras Simonyi, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................ 60
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 76
Hearing minutes.................................................. 79
THE FUTURE OF U.S.-HUNGARY RELATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:18 p.m., in
room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I call to order the Europe, Eurasia, and
Emerging Threats Subcommittee for this afternoon's hearing on
the Future of U.S.-Hungarian Relations. And after our ranking
member and I each take 5 minutes for opening remarks, each
member will have an opportunity for a short opening statement.
And what we have now, I will wait to proceed. Well, maybe I
should go ahead with my full opening statement now, and then
when Mr. Meeks gets here, hopefully he will be getting here
momentarily, he will be able give his opening statement. We
will then proceed with a briefing by the Ambassador, and then
the hearing will commence after that.
So everyone will be given a chance for an opening
statement, but especially Mr. Smith has asked for permission
today, and without objection, to be able to join our meeting
and our hearing today and give an opening statement as well. So
with that said, we will then proceed with our, okay, first
panels and questions in for moment after we have this briefing
from our Ambassador.
As we begin our--as we begin our conversation about Hungary
today, let me underscore that Hungary is a NATO ally and a
democratic country. The people of Hungary and the United States
share a mutual respect for one another, and have a friendship
built on shared values and democratic principles. My motivation
for calling this hearing is not to bash any particular entity
or take sides in Hungary's internal politics. I personally came
up with the idea for this hearing. Those who suggest otherwise
just don't know what they are talking about.
It is certainly not being done to support or oppose the
current Hungarian government. We have taken every measure to
ensure a diversity of perspectives and make sure that they are
heard today. The relationship between Hungary and the United
States is vital to both nations. Hungary's key geographic
location in the heart of Europe makes it a critical crossroads
between Eurasia and Europe and between the Baltics and the
Balkans.
This hearing is part of the subcommittee's work to ensure
that the bonds between America and our key allies remains
strong and durable. Both of our nations have fought for our
freedom, and we each work to perfect our democracies. We should
be able to speak frankly and honestly in the spirit of mutual
benefit. Since Minister Orban returned to power in 2010,
Hungary has adopted a new Constitution and seen major changes
in its electoral system. Those and other actions have led some
to believe that Hungary is out of step with European values and
damaging the checks and balances of Hungarian democracy.
Such accusations cannot help but cause concern, but I
remain mindful of the political motivations and hidden agendas
that may lie behind such charges and behind those who are
making those charges. Last October, the tensions, which had
grown between the government in Budapest and our own, reached a
crescendo when six current former Hungarian officials--current
and former officials were made ineligible for U.S. visas,
ostensibly because of corrupt activity. The media storm which
followed was not in the interest of either side.
I had the opportunity to visit Hungary last September, and
I was impressed with much of what I saw. I was happy to hear
the report from Hungary's Ambassador to the United States. I
hope she can work well with our newly-appointed Ambassador in
Budapest to make sure that we have progress in the future.
As we hear from our witnesses today about the bilateral
relationship, where it stands and where it is going, I will be
listening for any recommendations about how the United States
can reach out to a better mutual understanding and determine
how the United States Congress can play a productive role.
During this hearing, undoubtedly, there will be some
constructive criticism of the current Hungarian Government. I
view this type of openness as a sign of a mature relationship
that we have with Hungary.
Ironically, two witnesses with more positive views toward
the current Hungarian administration withdrew from their
commitment to me to testify. This reflected the sandbox turf
mindset, read that stupid politics, that undermine--and I saw
this same thing when I worked in the Reagan administration, it
undermined the anti-Communist effort to get together and get
the job done during the whole cold war, and I was very
disappointed to see that same type of nonsense going on now
when two people could have been up here giving their best to
help us understand what is going on. And they are not here now,
so their point of view isn't going to get as well represented.
But whether the criticism or praise, the people, the
government, and the elected leaders of Hungary deserve our
respect and our evaluation, an honest evaluation. So regardless
of what is said here, the kinship between the citizens of
Hungary as manifested in their government, which they elected,
and the people of the United States is of great value to us all
and of great value to western civilization. The United States
and Hungary are allies and friends, and that will not change.
And with that said, I am sorry that Mr. Meeks is not here
at this moment, but Mr. Sires, you have a----
Mr. Sires. I just have a short opening statement, if you
don't mind.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Short opening statement.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing. Since the fall of communism, Hungary has proven to be
a key U.S. ally in eastern Europe. As Hungary broke free of the
Soviet grip, Hungary has contributed hundreds of troops to
western peacekeeping mission, particularly in Afghanistan.
Most recently, Hungary's Parliament overwhelmingly
authorized the use of Hungarian troops to support the fight
against ISIS in the Middle East. Unfortunately, like many of
other countries in the region, Hungary has found it difficult
to find other energy sources to diversify their supply beyond
Russia. Until Hungary and the rest of the eastern Europe gain
energy independence from Russia, the Kremlin will continue to
have an influence in the region. It is imperative that we
continue to engage with Hungary to ensure that democracy, human
rights are protected, as well as encourage Hungary to continue
engagement with the West.
I look forward to hearing from our esteemed panel, the one
panel member, and how the U.S. can bolster their relationship
with Hungary. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We will have a few more opening
statements, and then the Ambassador will give us a briefing,
and which will be a 5-minute briefing, and then the hearing
will commence.
Mr. Meeks, with your permission, we have had a unanimous
consent before you arrived, we have given Mr. Smith the right
to have a short opening statement.
Mr. Meeks. Absolutely.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And then you will proceed with your
opening statement. Mr. Smith from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just
note that I will be--come back to the hearing. I am actually
part of a investment in nutrition seminar with Melinda Gates. I
have a prime--or a bill on global nutrition that has passed out
of the Foreign Affairs Committee and will be focusing on the
first 1,000 days of life from conception to the second birthday
as a transformative time, so I regret that I will have to
leave, but I will try to get back as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, in written testimony of Deputy Assistant
Secretary Hoyt Yee submitted for this hearing, the Obama
administration has returned to its previous pattern of
criticizing the domestic policy of the Hungarian Prime Minister
Viktor Orban, which has proven to be both counterproductive and
hypocritical in the past. Many of us had hoped that the Obama
administration policy had changed. We were concerned that his
prolonged and sometimes extremely outspoken public campaign
against the Orban government had permanently alienated many
Hungarians from the United States.
In February, the administration seemed to take a new tact.
This started after the recall of Andre Goodfriend, our deputy
chief of mission, whose politically charged behavior gave him
the reputation of the leader of the opposition in Hungary. And
I would ask the distinguished Deputy Assistant Secretary why
was he recalled?
Since the arrival of our new Ambassador in Budapest,
Colleen Bell, it was reported that the atmosphere was
improving. DAS Yee will testify that Hungary has proved to be a
reliable partner in helping to address challenges such--in
places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Balkans, and then
Hungary supported sanctions the EU imposed on Russia over its
sanctions in Ukraine, their actions in Ukraine, and has
provided assistance to the Ukrainian Government, and that our
security cooperation with Hungary has been, in his words,
excellent.
Yet with the testimony of Mr. Yee, it seems that the
administration has gone back on the offensive. Many of Mr.
Yee's criticism, for example, about centralizing executive
authority, weakening checks and balances, deepening the
investment climate, making changes that advantage entities that
support the governing party and using a super majority to make
sweeping changes would more accurately describe the Obama
administration.
Again, when the Obama administration had the super
majority, that is when ObamaCare was passed. You have the
votes. Do it. When you didn't have the votes, you couldn't get
it done, but when you had the votes, you did it. And then it
was also the IRS scandal, the Benghazi coverup, and a myriad of
other executive orders that bypassed the Democratic process.
As I said before, the administration needs to be a lot more
humble in its dealings with Hungary and the Orban Government.
Otherwise, it creates the impression of hypocrisy and fosters
an environment in which anti-Westernism thrives. Right now,
that is represented in Hungary by Jobbik, a disgusting anti-
Semitic and pro-Iranian party. This should be the
administration's chief concern.
As chairman of both the Human Rights Subcommittee and as
chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I repeatedly met with
foreign leaders and diplomats who privately expressed amazement
and bewilderment at the administration's obsession with
attacking the Orban government, or shake their heads in
disbelief or irony or worse. They are reacting to what they
perceive to be a disproportionate double-standard,
misrepresentations, and inaccurate information in that
campaign.
Once again, the conversation between two countries must be
a conversation between friends and equals. So I urge the
administration to conduct that accordingly. This is a
conversation between equals. There is a lot we can learn from
the Orban government, for example, the constitutional cap on
public debt as our careens out of control.
Finally, I have dedicated my life to ending human
trafficking. Anti-human trafficking bills are often difficult
to pass. Ted Poe just had an important bill passed yesterday,
and it took a long time to do so. When I first introduced the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 1998, the legislation was
met with a wall of skepticism and outright opposition. My
bill's key provisions were opposed by the Clinton
administration. Howard Coble testified right here at my
committee against almost every provision in the bill, including
the establishment of the trafficking in persons office; namely,
sanctioning countries that failed to meet minimum standards
prescribed in the bill, and even the comprehensive TIP report
itself.
People both inside of government and out, sought the bold
new legislation that included sheltering, asylum, and
significant protections for the victims, long jail sentences
and active confiscations for the traffickers and tough
sanctions for the governments that failed to meet those minimum
standards was merely a solution in search of a problem.
So as prime actor of that landmark Trafficking Victims
Protection Act, as well as reauthorizations in 2003, 2005, I am
encouraged by the important anti-trafficking efforts and
leadership by the Orban government. As a matter of fact, most
recent U.S. Department of State TIP report, June 2014, the new
one will be out soon, while you urging increased efforts noted
that--on prosecution, ``The government of Hungary sustained
anti-trafficking enforcement efforts.''
A new criminal code with anit-trafficking provisions came
into effect in July 2013. On protection, the government of
Hungary increased efforts to protect trafficking victims, and,
of course, more can be done, should be done, but they have made
progress. And on prevention, the government of Hungary
sustained prevention efforts by utilizing multiple platforms to
prevent human trafficking. Inexplicably, DAS Hoyt Yee makes no
mention of this. I thank the chair and yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Might I add that Mr. Smith is a man who is
always a voice of courage and morality when people belittle
some of the issues that you talk about. They are of utmost
importance, and you are a person I dearly respect for the
energy and time you put in on things like this, so thank you
for sharing your thoughts with us today.
Mr. Meeks, who I also admire deeply and am very grateful
that he is part of our subcommittee and our ranking member, Mr.
Meeks, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, for holding
this hearing to provide us with a status update on America's
relationship with Hungary. With the West's attention
justifiably being focus on the Ukraine and our larger strategy,
vis-a-vis, Russia, we must not overlook the importance of NATO
allies that have different concerns than we do and
simultaneously, have changing domestic political landscapes.
In recent years, I have traveled to Hungary and I met with
leaders, many who are still in the party in power of Fidesz.
But times are changing, and to Fidesz's right, we see an
increasingly popular Jobbik party, a party that overly uses
anti-Semitic and anti-Roma speech. As Jobbik rises in the
polls, Fidesz must address the far right and not appease it in
my mind. The Hungarian government and its people should
understand that we support our common democratic values that
are also reflected in the NATO alliance. This is essential.
When I think of Hungary, I think of 1956 and the uprising
against Soviet policies during which over 2,500 brave
Hungarians lost their lives. I think of Goulash communism and
the quiet reforms that Hungarians pushed through until the
ultimate fall of communism. I think of NATO allies who sent 150
troops to join the fight against ISIS. Hungary paid a high
price for its freedom from fascism and communism and ultimately
for its ability to live in a democracy. Yes, in a democracy.
Even in older ones, including our own, freedoms are not always
given, and it is up to the political leaders and the media and
the civil society to advance these liberal ideas.
Today, we are looking at U.S.-Hungarian relations, and I am
interested in discussing Hungary's role as a reliable NATO
partner and member of the EU. Now, there are things that gives
one concern, of course, when you hear the prime minister
praising illiberal democracies, and we have got to figure out
how we work collectively with Russia and also with China, and
China and energy deals that puts Moscow's economic sphere. How
can we make sure that we are working together with Hungary so
that we can also make sure that we have Hungary's cooperation
and their ours?
This is especially important as European and our
Transatlantic unity is being tested by Russia, and I understand
our different geographies and histories and economic realities,
but it is imperative that we maintain unity when we are talking
about someone taking over sovereign property as Russia has done
in the Ukraine.
Also, in today's hearing, we will hear about human rights
and democracy issues that are of concern. I particularly am
concerned about the treatment of the role of minority either in
the justice system or as a forgotten minority is extremely
troubling. A healthy democracy includes and protects all of its
citizens. New media laws, along with new Constitution, are, in
my opinion, some of it is questionable, if not in their spirit,
then definitely in their implementation.
This comes, as I mentioned before, with the rise of the
ultra right in the backdrop. The Hungarian Government, along
with its European partners, have to work together to obviate
this threat. Just today, the European Parliament held a plenary
debate with Prime Minister Orban on the situation in Hungary.
Now, this is not, and I am clearly--want to be clear on this,
this is not an attack on Hungary. For surely I would want
individuals to also talk about the situation, for example,
currently that we are having here in America with African
Americans throughout. So this is not something that is isolated
in Hungary.
I am just going to speak out just as I speak out about
situations here in the United States. I am going to speak out
about issues that I think that are taking place in others, and
this is what I think friends should do with friends. We have
got to be honest with one another and talk to one another to
try to resolve issues that we may have, and this is what a
democracy should allow us to do so that we don't have to, you
know, hold back words. This is what maturity is all about, that
we discuss these matters.
And so I would love to discuss--like I said, I think that
there is some problems here in the United States with
minorities, and them being taken care of properly, and I also
think, from what I have seem with Roma and others, minorities
in Hungary, I think this is dialogue that good friends should
have honestly if we are going to move forward.
So I hope to hear from our experts about your opinions on
Hungary's progress and its difficulties. Transatlantic unity,
whether it is on trade, whether it is on Russian sanctions or
protecting the common values that we fight for everyday, is
something we must work hard at deepening. I look forward to the
fruitful discussions that we can explore what Congress can
offer, and to do to help guarantee both economic growth, a
healthy democracy, and peace for all in the region.
You know, right now in Washington we are looking at trade
deal with--in Asia with TPP, but there is no real pivot just to
Asia. We got to make sure that we focus on our old friends in
Europe and right across the Atlantic and come closer together,
and we can only do that with honest dialogue between the two of
us. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks.
And now we have the chairman of another subcommittee who
just was courteous enough to allow me to have my statement and
my time period today. Judge Poe, you may proceed with any
opening statement that you have got.
Mr. Poe. I want to thank the chairman for having this
hearing. As already been said, I think the United States and
Hungary have a unique relationship for a lot of reasons. It
concerns me that we seem to be meddling in domestic affairs of
one of our close partners. Surely the United States needs to
have a dialogue regarding international foreign relations. I am
not so sure the United States would likely take kindly if other
countries decided to meddle in our policy and tell us how we
should change our policy, and we will discuss that with the
witnesses.
The new Constitution is not like the United States
Constitution, but it is a Constitution, and Hungary is
operating under that Constitution. It seems to concern a lot of
people, this is just my opinion, that Hungary's major party is
center right, and the second strongest party is far right,
being a center right government or population. That is the
choice of the Hungarian people. That is not the choice of the
United States, nor should it be the choice of the United States
what type of government, either left of center, far left,
right, right of center should be made. I frankly don't believe
that that is any of the United States' business. That is
meddling in a domestic relationship situation that we--or
domestic situation that concerns me as an American where we
take the--maybe the approach that we know better than the
people of Hungary.
I don't know that we do in certain domestic issues which we
will explore later with the witnesses. So I do want to thank
the witnesses for being here and the chairman for holding this.
I value the relationship that we have with the nation of
Hungary, and we need to work together on a lot of issues. We
should be careful in pushing the American agenda, whatever that
is, on other countries, whether they are friends or not
friends, and I will yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Your Honor, Judge
Poe, and now call as our first witness--actually no. I will now
call to brief us 5 minutes for our hearing, the Ambassador from
Hungary to the United States, Ambassador Szemerkenyi, and you
may proceed for as long as you would like to talk, and then
thank you.
[Whereupon, the hearing proceeded to a briefing.]
[Hearing resumes.]
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador, and
that was the briefing portion of our hearing, and you could be
excused now. We now have witnesses that we will proceed to the
podium. Thank you, Madam Ambassador.
Ambassador Szemerkenyi. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So if we could have our panel of
witnesses. Please proceed. It is my pleasure to welcome back
Deputy Secretary of State Hoyt Yee. He was appointed to his
current post in the bureau of Europe, Eurasia, and in September
of last year. He is a career foreign service officer and
previously stationed in such places as Afghanistan, Greece, and
most recently in--he was the DCM in Croatia. All right.
And Andras Simonyi is the managing director of the Center
for Transatlantic Relations at the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He is the
former Hungarian Ambassador to the United States, serving in
that capacity from 2002 to 2007.
We have Kurt Volker, who is the executive director of the
McCain Institute for International Leadership. He is a career
member of the U.S. Senior Foreign Service. He has held a number
of positions with the State Department, including at our
Embassy in Budapest, speaks fluent Hungarian, and before
leaving government service, he was U.S. Ambassador to NATO. And
Tad--and I am going to have to pronounce his name. Stahnke.
Mr. Stahnke. Like Eddie Stanky, sir
Mr. Rohrabacher. Stahnke. Is vice president for research
analysis at Human Rights First. Prior to that, he worked for
the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom. He is an expert on international human rights law.
I just introduced four people, but there is only three
people here; is that right? And here he is. Mr. Yee, you have
just been introduced. All right. I tell you what we are going
to do. I would like to have the other witnesses, let Mr. Yee
just testify, and then we will have the final team of witnesses
come forward, and that gives Mr. Yee a little bit more time to
get questions from everybody. So here we go.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Yee, I have already introduced you,
and I had--was singing your praises. Yeah, that will be the
day. So with that said, Mr. Yee, you go right ahead.
Mr. Yee. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You got to punch that button.
STATEMENT OF MR. HOYT BRIAN YEE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Yee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Rohrabacher,
Ranking Member Meeks, members of the subcommittee. Thank you
for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss
Hungarian-U.S. relations.
Hungary is a valued ally, partner, and friend of the United
States. The strong bonds between our nations are rooted in our
shared commitment to democratic values. Hungary has been a
reliable partner on such issues as Afghanistan, the Balkans,
and Ukraine. Hungary supported Europe Union sanctions on Russia
and has provided gas by reverse flow to Ukraine.
Our security cooperation has been excellent. Our economic
and people-to-people ties are strong, and the friendship
between the American and Hungarian peoples is enduring.
Recognizing the many areas where cooperation is strong, even
the best of friends have differences, and when we do, we can
and should speak openly about them.
As a member of NATO, the European Union, and the
organization for security and cooperation in Europe, Hungary is
committed to upholding democratic values. Over the past 5
years, as we have witnessed the Hungarian government take such
steps as weakening checks and balances and undermining
institutional independence, we have spoken out in private and
in public. We have seen, including recently in eastern Europe,
the disastrous consequences of failing to uphold the principles
and values that underpin democracy.
As Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland has said, we can
only be strong when we protect political pluralism, civil
society, and the right to dissent within our own borders when
our governments are clean, transparent, and accountable to the
people they serve.
Since 2011, we have made clear to the Hungarian Government
our concerns about how it has used its two-thirds majority in
Parliament to push through a range of legislative and
constitutional changes that have centralized executive power,
diminished checks and balances, and restricted freedom of the
media.
The 2014 parliamentary elections illustrated how the
government changed the rules to its advantage. The OSCE's
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights reported
that the main governing party enjoyed an undue advantage
because of restrictive campaign regulations, biased media
coverage, and campaign activities that blurred the separation
between political party and the state.
Also, in 2014, the government undertook a campaign against
nongovernmental organizations that have served as independent
voices and have received funds from Norway. The NGOs are still
waiting for their names to be cleared. Their confiscated
equipment to be returned, and their tax identification numbers
restored.
I would also like to highlight the problem of corruption,
which degrades institutions and saps the will to protect them.
Instead of responding forcefully and transparently to
allegations of corruption, the Hungarian government has allowed
the problem to fester, has protected certain accused officials,
and has punished the accusers. Perhaps most troubling, from the
highest levels of power in Hungary, we have heard rhetoric
about building an illiberal state on national foundations and
praise for autocracies. Such comments do not do justice to the
democratic values that Hungary has pledged to uphold.
In 2014, the U.S. Government raised its concerns about
Hungary's democracy at the OSCE and in the President's speech
in which he cited Hungary's intimidation of civil society. In
addition, we applied Presidential Proclamation 7750, suspending
the right of certain Hungarian official suspected of corruption
to enter the United States. Ambassador Bell, in country since
January, has made clear that our concerns persist.
The United States Government has not been alone expressing
these concerns. As the European Union, counsel of Europe, and
OSCE have also spoken up, as have independent organizations
such as Transparency International and Amnesty International.
And importantly, concerns about democracy in Hungary are
shared by many Hungarians themselves. The United States has
also expressed concerns about the rise of ethnic nationalism.
The problem is, of course, not unique to Hungary, but
increasingly prominent there. We hope to see greater efforts to
strengthen the climate of tolerance more consistent with the
Transatlantic values to which Hungary has subscribed.
In recent months, we have seen some positive signs. For
example, leading up to the vote on deploying troops for the
anti-ISIL coalition, the coalition and governing party leaders
consulted with other parties and relevant parliamentary
committees. We look forward to additional steps and more
substantial ones by the Government of Hungary to address the
issues I have raised here today.
I would like to reiterate, in conclusion, that Hungary
remains a friend, partner, and ally that we have expressed our
concerns--and that we have expressed our concerns in that
spirit. It is important for Hungary to represent transatlantic
values not only for its own future, but also for it to be a
strong, reliable partner on global challenges for the United
States and its other allies. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yee follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony. We will proceed with questions for the Assistant
Secretary, and I will start it off with, if you had to compare
Hungary to, let's say, Bulgaria, Romania, all the neighboring,
those neighboring countries, the criticisms that you just
leveled, would you say that Hungary is worse than they are in
these areas?
Mr. Yee. Well, thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. I
think it would be difficult to generalize across the board
whether Hungary is worse in all the categories. I think in some
ways----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let's be specific then. Is there any
gerrymandering going on in Bulgaria and Romania?
Mr. Yee. I am not aware of a gerrymandering process ongoing
now, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I guess we have to look closer to home to
find gerrymandering, don't we? Not very far. I seem to remember
that happened in our first election as a free country.
The--is there bias in the news media in those countries
against candidates that may be running for office? You know,
you have the out party, does--is there a bias against them in
Bulgaria and Romania against those candidates?
Mr. Yee. I believe it is possible to find bias in the media
against political candidates, party leaders in any country.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. So there is bias in the media. My
gosh----
Mr. Yee. I would include----
Mr. Rohrabacher. There is no bias in media here, of course.
All right.
What about the NGOs? The NGOs that were put out of business
that you mention, were these NGOs made up of people from
Hungary, or we talking about foreign NGOs involved in their
system?
Mr. Yee. They were Hungarian----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Hungarian.
Mr. Yee [continuing]. Citizens.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, because it is hard to tell.
Sometimes what we have today are NGOs that end up being
financed by outside interest groups in these countries, and we
don't know whether they are local, and certainly everybody has
a right to express their opinion and they should not be
repressed. And the Ambassador suggested that the NGOs that were
attacked were basically engaged in some sort of economic fraud.
Was that--is there any truth to that?
Mr. Yee. We understand there is an ongoing investigation,
Mr. Chairman, but the impression that the United States
Government has and the overwhelming consensus of the
international community is that the manner in which the
investigation or the police raid on these NGOs was conducted
was far in proportion to what it should have been.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So they just weren't open about
their--the charges that they were charging them with or----
Mr. Yee. There was a police raid on the headquarters of
NGOs which equipment was seized. Tax identification numbers of
the NGOs were confiscated.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, I had a friend here.
Unfortunately he is not here now. His name is Curt Weldon, and
you know, his daughter's home was raided just 2 weeks before at
the election by the FBI. Hmm, I wonder if these things happen
in different countries, too. I mean, maybe even right here. So
let's put it in perspective. That doesn't make it right. That
does not make that right, but that may mean that what we are
talking about here is not so much out of the ordinary that it
deserves to be a cornerstone or a reason for specific policy
decisions.
And of course, did--you know, we do have a situation where
Lois Lerner here in our own country was--did some
investigations of their opponents, their political opponents,
is that right? Did that happen here with our administration? I
think it did. And, of course, here we have had a huge coverup
of that, and over there, I guess they can have lots of
criticism and the international community comes down on them.
With that said, I think that people shouldn't raid NGOs. I
don't think there should be gerrymandering. I certainly think--
don't think there should be corruption in these societies, but
when we are dealing trying to decide what the foreign policy of
the United States is going to be all about, where we are going
to put our pressure, it better not be singling out a country
that is so friendly to the United States as Hungary is, because
if they are not doing something uniquely bad, we are singling
out friends rather than trying to seek truth and make things
better.
With that, I will yield to my friend, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is always good
following you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You got my back.
Mr. Meeks. Actually, some of the things, you know--I think,
as I said in my opening, and you missed that, Mr. Yee,
unfortunately. I think that when you have friends, you can be
honest with friends, and you can talk back and forth. I think
there is room for criticisms in various democracies. Surely in
ours, there is room for criticisms.
As I stated in mine that when I look at the scenario that
is going on in this country now as reflected with African
Americans, and what is taking place across with the shooting of
young African American men, and the criminal justice system,
that is questions that I will take, and just as I will ask
questions about the treatment of minorities in Hungary and
other places, I think that is where we need to talk so that we
can work collectively together so that we can try to figure out
how this system works better.
I also think that it is important that we try to work as a
group in unison, and I know that with our NATO allies, we have
got concerns that we have got to work there collectively
together. So in the spirit--and I should have said earlier,
because anytime I am here, and I can think of my recent visit
to Hungary, one of the individuals that come to mind who was
born in Hungary but was a great American who dedicated his life
to being a champion of human rights was the former chair of
this--of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, and so I
can't help but raise his name and his life's legacy to the
great relationship that we now have with Hungary.
But Tom, when I hear of Tom, and as I visited Budapest and
looked at, you know, what has been and what is the relationship
today, we have a great--a great relationship of which can only
get better if we are honest with one another and we talk back
and forth.
With that, you know, where my questions will go around,
because I am really concerned about Russia and what has taken
place in the Ukraine, and the taking of territory, and I know,
and I think Hungary voted for sanctions, although it expressed
reservations about sanctions, so my question is--there is going
to be a new vote soon to renew the sanctions this summer that
is coming closely. Have you got any feelings or have any
indication, I should say, as to what we can expect in regards
to Hungary with the renewal of sanctions against Russia coming
shortly?
Mr. Yee. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks. I have
heard from my Hungarian colleagues, including from the
Ambassador here today, that Hungary intends to maintain
consensus with other EU members and maintaining sanctions, and
have not heard any indications that that is in--is going to
change anytime soon.
We do, as you mentioned, sir, we have heard some
reservations expressed by political leaders in Hungary about
the consequences, economic consequences of the sanctions upon
those countries which are enforcing them. And it is certainly a
fact that the sanctions have an impact on countries in the
European Union, on the United States of America, in applying
these sanctions, but so far, we still have a consensus that it
is essential to make sure that Russia continues to pay a cost
for what it is doing in Ukraine.
Mr. Meeks. So--and there is no question in my mind that
Russia--excuse me, Hungary is a very important member of NATO,
and the EU, and I want to make sure that we are maximizing our
relationship because of energy concerns and because one1 of the
things that we are hearing, that--and this is not just true of
Hungary, this is true of some other countries, you know, when I
hear of America's involvement in NATO, especially with
reference to defense budgets and the amount of money that needs
to be put up in NATO for all countries, I wouldn't--are we
leveraging or encouraging Hungary and other countries like it
that are not putting up its fair share into defense spending
for NATO so that I don't have to go back to my constituents and
saying it is just the United States that is putting up all the
dollars into NATO?
Mr. Yee. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks. We
agree completely, of course, that it is essential that NATO
remain strong, and I think that is one of the central messages
that I wanted to make today is that we are concerned about and
eager to help Hungary because it is a NATO member, and as
Hungary relies on us and other allies, we rely on Hungary to be
a strong member of NATO, and that is why institutions are
important, democratic institutions which are the backbone of
the strength of any democracy
As far as ensuring that our allies do meet their
obligations to NATO, whether it is financial or in terms of
military capabilities, that is an important part of our
dialogue with all of our NATO countries. Hungary is one of the
NATO allies that is not meeting the goal of spending 2 percent
of its GDP on defense. Like other NATOs at the Wales Summit
last year, Hungary committed to increase its spending toward
the 2 percent target, and we are also encouraging Hungary to
spend more on modernization of its military. So this continues
to be one of the important points we raise with Hungary and
will remain so.
Mr. Meeks. My last question is this. And it is a concern
that I just have in a number of different countries, but I just
like to get your viewpoints. I always get extreme--whether it
is in the United States or anyone else about extremes. Extreme
left, extreme right, either way, I am concerned about extremes.
And it seems to me, and you can correct me, I am just really
just trying to figure this out, that there is a rise in
popularity of extreme right in Hungary that have basically an
anti-immigrant and an anti-Semitic, and you can correct the
language that I have been hearing coming out of there, it seems
to me to be alarming.
So is that--am I right, is the administration concerned
about the growth of the extreme right in Hungary? Am I
incorrect? Is that, from your viewpoint, not happening? Would
you give me your opinion in that regard?
Mr. Yee. Thank you, Representative Meeks. We do share your
concern about the apparent rise of the extreme right, not only
in Hungary, in other countries in Europe. But we do, as I
mention in my statement, notice that there is a--an ascendence
of the far right. According to latest polls, the far right
party, Jobbik, may be reaching, if it hasn't already reached,
the number two position among parties in popularity in Hungary,
which is alarming, considering it is a not only anti-
immigration, it is anti-Semitic, anti-foreigner party at least
in the views and policies it espouses.
So while we certainly believe that--in free speech, in the
right of all parties to be represented, and the people of the
citizens of Hungary to choose whom they want to represent them,
we do believe it is important to watch trends, especially
alarming trends in either anti-Semitism or xenophobia or anti-
immigration in a way that is at odds with democratic traditions
and democratic values that--on which the European Union and
NATO are based.
But we do think that as long as there is a government in
Budapest that respects basic democratic principles of
plurality, of democracy, of rule of law, that the space for
such extremists for right wing extremists or any extremists
will be narrowed.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you
Mr. Rohrabacher. And now Colonel Cook.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to go back to
some of the comments about NATO, and I am a little concerned
about this because obviously, it is a very, very fragile
organization, and you talked about, you know, where we start
singling out particular countries. We could, you know, make
criticisms about the Erdogan regime, if you will, the swing to
the far right, the Muslim Brotherhood situation may be changing
in Spain with the--their new government, and I won't even go
into Greece. So I think you always got to be careful when you
hold this organization together.
And you talk like Hungary is--didn't make their
obligations. But who has met that 2 percent obligation? What,
three countries, if I remember correct, out of 28. Do the math.
It is not very good. And I am very, very worried that this--an
ally such as Hungary, if a scenario develops, and we have
talked about this in House Armed Services Committee where you
had a situation where Putin and Russia decides to pick off the
weak link in their minds, and that might be Estonia or
Lithuania or Latvia, because of its geography and proximity to
the old Soviet bloc, and the question is: Will certain
countries not support NATO? And in your opinion, would Hungary
be there for us in such a scenario, which has been discussed by
many of our military leaders?
Mr. Yee. Thank you, Representative Cook. I would like to
put into context----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you push the button.
Mr. Yee. Apologies. Thank you, Representative Cook. Just to
put in context briefly. The concerns that I expressed about
Hungary would apply to many other countries. We are not simply
isolating Hungary.
Mr. Cook. I agree, but right now we are focusing on that,
and a part of me wants to say, well, wait a minute, they
committed troops to Afghanistan as opposed to other members. My
fear is that if you have one member that does not support this
action, then NATO is going to fall apart. So that is why
specifically, what we can talk about all the other 27
countries, and whether they would do it or not, and I am trying
to figure out, perhaps I am worried about the weak link and
they are a lot closer to the geography than we are and some of
the other countries.
Mr. Yee. I would agree, Representative Cook. The alliance
is only as strong as its weakest link.
Mr. Cook. That is right.
Mr. Yee. And what we are trying to talk about today, the
point I am trying to get across today is that we need to look
beyond the immediate and into the future about where the
alliance will be if we do not address some of weaknesses. So I
would say the alliance is strong today and will be for the
foreseeable future if we don't see new problems, new challenges
to alliance, strength.
Mr. Cook. And I understand that. I am trying to put you on
the spot, if it is not obvious, and I just want your opinion
based upon your experience, whether you thought Hungary would
support the alliance. I think they will, but from your
testimony here today, I get the feeling that you think they
won't. I just want you to--it is your opinion. You know, it
is--of course you are also the assistant secretary. I guess it
might make a little difference.
Mr. Yee. Well, sir, the answer to the question is yes,
Hungary has been a strong NATO ally. I am sure it will remain
one.
The question I am raising today is how do we ensure that
Hungary and our other allies continue to be strong not only in
terms of their military capabilities and the financing they are
providing to support NATO, but within internally strong, their
democratic institutions, the values and principles on which the
alliance and the commitments that we make to our allies is
based.
Mr. Cook. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, it has been difficult for nations in eastern
Europe, like Hungary to completely turn away from Russia when
the majority of their energy comes from Russia. And we don't
seem--Europe or us, we don't seem to be working very hard
trying to provide an alternative to Russia. And I am just
concerned that bashing Hungary or keep talking about Hungary,
when we become very selective in the countries that we talk
about with corruption and undemocratic ways, it is just going
to drive Hungary more toward Russia.
And do you have any concern about that? And I know, look,
we are friends and we should talk. We should be able to sit
down and talk about differences and everything else, but I
think that is B.S. You know, this is hard-core politics here. I
mean, they got Russia right next door, you know, putting a lot
of pressure on this country. We, quite frankly, keep losing
friends, and I am concerned that if we go down this road, we
are not going to be able to count on Hungary.
Can you talk a little bit about that?
Mr. Yee. Thank you, Representative Sires.
I would answer that it is precisely for that very reason,
our shared concern about Russia's maligned influence in Eastern
and Central Europe that we need to have these kinds of candid
conversations with our allies about how to be strong together,
individually, in facing the threat that Russia poses. So that
includes, for example, on energy where Hungary is--I think
Hungary would admit is overly dependent on Russia for its
energy. Over half of its gas, 80 percent of its oil, it depends
on Russia----
Mr. Sires. Well, we have known that for a long time, and we
don't seem to make the effort to wean them away from this
dependency, either by us or by Europe.
Mr. Yee. Sir, I would respectfully say that we are trying
very hard to help Hungary, specifically in the area of energy
security.
My colleagues from the Department of State who work in the
Energy Bureau, Special Envoy Hochstein has devoted a lot of
time working with the Ambassador in a previous capacity and in
her current capacity in trying to find ways to help Hungary
diversify its energy and to increase its energy security by
finding alternative routes, supplies, a better mix of energy
types, and to cooperate with other countries in the region who
have similar problems, and to better interconnections, new
routes, can lessen their dependence on Russia.
I would agree--I fully agree that we have not so far been
successful, as successful as we need to be, but we are working
very hard to find solutions to that energy dependence.
We are also working very hard together, as we discussed
earlier, in maintaining a common front against what Russia is
doing in Ukraine, pursuing its aggression in Ukraine. By
standing together Hungary, United States, other allies, EU
members, we are exacting a high cost on Russia. We are having
an impact on Russia's economy, and we believe this is the right
course.
So I guess the short answer would be, Representative Sires,
that we believe we need to do both. We need to work together in
these areas such as energy security and in pushing back against
Russian aggression in Central and Eastern Europe. And we also
need to have the hard conversations with each other about what
we need to do to strengthen our base, make sure that internally
we are also strong.
Mr. Sires. But sometimes, you know, this conversation
doesn't have to be so public like we do with other countries.
You know, I don't see us bashing China as, you know, as we bash
Hungary. And, you know, and other countries, quite frankly.
Mr. Yee. Sir, what I would say to that is that we always
begin, in any of our diplomatic discussions, with private
conversations, private discussions, in Budapest or in
Washington, and the importance, we believe, needs to be placed
on results. If we get results with the quiet diplomacy, then we
should proceed in that direction. If we don't get the desired
results, we have to try something new.
In this case, we felt it was important that we ensure the
public, and Hungary also was aware of the U.S. concerns, that
it was not the United States itself that took this discussion
public. In some cases it was Hungary itself that made the
discussion public about the corruption, for example, and the
pursuit of the visa travel bans. The OICE European Union, those
organizations also brought these concerns to public discussion.
So I completely agree. It is better to do it behind closed
doors, but sometimes we need to go to a different mode if it is
not working in the first----
Mr. Sires. I just think the European Unions have to step up
a little bit more to assist some of these countries on the
Eastern part because it just can't be on us. You know, it
always falls on us and the taxpayers of this country. Thank
you.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Well, thank you very much. We have--Judge
Poe just--just one question we were making sure that we aren't
having a double--what we are hearing is we think we are having
a double standard against somebody who is our friend, and that
is sort of the spirit that is coming out of this questioning,
and, you know, you push our friend away if you have a double
standard to judging him.
Let me ask you, have we pulled the--any official
recognition or have we pulled the visas for any Bulgarian or
Romanian officials for corruption?
Mr. Yee. I can say, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether we
have in those countries. We have in many other countries. The
7750 authority applies to----
Mr. Rohrbacher. I really want to focus--the reason I am
focusing on Romania and Bulgaria is because they are right
there. They are neighbors. And if they don't have the same--if
they are not the same type of policy toward them as we have
toward Hungary, it would seem like a double standard, not if
say--let's say maybe countries like Tibet or some other places
are different, but--or maybe England, but--so we need to know
whether or not this is--whether or not this government is being
picked upon because of ideological reasons by this
administration or whether or not this administration is
upholding a standard that we can be proud of. So that is what
that is all about.
Mr. Yee. So thank you, sir, for the question. The short
answer is there is no double standard. We apply the same
standard in all countries.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Well, the question actually was whether you
had done it in Bulgaria or Romania, and the short answer would
be yes or no.
Mr. Yee. Well, actually, sir, if I could just say that we
do ban people from Bulgaria and Romania from traveling to the
U.S. for reasons of corruption, but we don't use necessarily
the same authorities in Hungary and other countries. I would
have to get back to you on what authorities we use. But I can
tell you for sure that there are people from both those
countries who are not allowed to travel to the U.S. because of
corruption.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Yeah, sure. But top government officials is
what we are asking about here because it is not just citizens--
--
Mr. Yee. And I do mean--sir, just to clarify so I don't--
I'm not misunderstood. There are government officials or former
government officials from Romania and Bulgaria who are not
allowed to travel to the U.S. because of reasons of suspected
corruption.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Could you send us that list? That would be
great. If you could make sure we have a list of those people.
Mr. Yee. I can't send you a list, sir, but I can send you
the numbers. I can send you the numbers.
Mr. Rohrbacher. You can't send us the names?
Mr. Yee. The information--well, I will have to check to see
if I can. It is not publicly available. The names can't be
released publicly, just as we didn't publicly release the names
of the people in Hungary. So not to apply a double standard.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Good. That is a great answer.
Judge Poe. But now you are up against Judge Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you for being here. You weren't here for my
opening comments, and I--let me preface everything with this. I
have been called a lot of things in my life, but I have never
been called a diplomat. So I am not very diplomatic, and I
would hope that you would just give me candid answers and not
explain your answer unless I ask you to.
The Russians and the Ukrainians--or, excuse me, the
Hungarians are coming up upon a time table to get gas from
Russia. Russia holds Hungary hostage like they do many other
countries, 87 percent of their gas comes from Russia. This
contracthas been coming up. They don't sign the contract. The
Russians are going to double it unless there is an alternative.
Has the United States done anything to sell American gas or
to get it to Hungary either directly, indirectly, whether it is
LNG, helping them develop their own energy so they have gas? I
am not talking about green energy. I know it has been the
policy of the U.S. telling Hungary you got to go to green
energy. Set aside green energy. They need gas. This is
contracts coming up, up the governmenthas got to make a
decision. Have we said: Here is an alternative. You can buy
some gas from Texas. They got more than they can use.
Now, I am serious about this. Have we done anything to make
sure they can get gas from America instead of Russia?
Mr. Yee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Poe. What? Are they going to be able to get gas from
the United States when this contract comes up?
Mr. Yee. We are doing two things, sir, to help Hungary and
other countries in Europe get more gas.
One, as you, sir, know better than I, we are authorizing
the export of LNG, and that is a process that could begin, as I
understand it, as early as 2015 exports.
Mr. Poe. But that is too late. They have got a contract
coming up now. If they don't sign the contract, the Russians
are going to double the price of natural gas down the road,
2015 is too late. It is not like we knew this was coming up
last week. We knew the contract was coming up 15 years ago.
So the answer is no, we have not done anything to give them
an alternative immediately from Russian gas. Is that right?
Mr. Yee. Sir, I would respectfully disagree. Just the fact
that the U.S. is producing more gas now has lowered the price
of gas worldwide. That has helped Hungary. That has helped all
the countries of Europe that import gas.
Mr. Poe. But Russia sets the price of gas that they are
going to sell to Hungary.
Mr. Yee. Yes, sir, but it is a lower price because they
have to deal with the market prices worldwide. So we are doing
something, sir.
Mr. Poe. So you say that the United States has affected the
price of natural gas and the Russians are not going to double
the price if they don't sign this contract?
Mr. Yee. Sir, I don't know what the Russians will do.
Mr. Poe. Well, I think fair guess is that since it is a
monopoly that Gazprom has on all of Europe, and the United
States has been diddling on selling natural gas to other
countries because of our regulatory process, they are going to
be held hostage and they are going to have to buy Russian gas.
Now, that is my opinion.
Did the United States support or not support the new
Constitution in Hungary?
Mr. Yee. We have serious concerns with the Constitution.
Mr. Poe. So did we support it or not support it when it
became the law of the land?
Mr. Yee. We expressed concerns when it became the law of
the land.
Mr. Poe. Why?
Mr. Yee. For a number of reasons, sir.
First, we believe that the Constitution and the amendments
and the number of laws that were passed between 2010 and 2013
centralized executive authority----
Mr. Poe. Okay. Let me interrupt right there on that one
question.
Is it true that the socialist party did not participate in
the debates on the new Constitution? Is that true?
Mr. Yee. I don't know.
Mr. Poe. Well, I think maybe you should check that out.
They did not participate in the new Constitution. The
Constitution and a new government has been elected under the
news Constitution. You mentioned that you are concerned, that
we are concerned, about the government being right of center,
far right.
Would we be just as concerned if they were left of center
or far left?
Mr. Yee. Sir, I didn't say that I had concerns about the
government being right or left. It was the extreme right
parties who seem to be growing in popularity, anti-Semitic,
anti-foreigner, anti-immigration parties that seem to be
growing more popular. That is not my concern with the
government.
Mr. Poe. So you are not concerned with the government.
Mr. Yee. My concern with the government is about its
tendency to consolidate power, to not leave space for an
opposition, to weaken the judiciary, to weaken freedom of the
media, to weaken civil society.
Mr. Poe. So we are trying to make a democracy in our image
with one of our neighbors. Isn't that basically it? We want to
import whatever our policy is about democracy. We don't want a
centralize government over in Hungary, although we seem to have
a pretty centralized government in the United States. We don't
want one in Hungary. We want them to change their immigration
policy, even though they have had a 20-fold increase of illegal
immigration in just 2 years. So that is what the United States
is really doing. We want a democracy in our image.
Isn't this just meddling into their domestic relationship,
and isn't that causing ill will for us arrogantly to go to
another country and say: We don't like the way you are doing
things domestically. We wouldn't like it if some other country
came over here and said: We don't like the way your democracy
is.
For, after all, the Constitution, are you familiar with the
first phrase in the Constitution? I have heard that this was
objectionable to the United States. You know what the firsts
phrase in the Constitution of Hungary is? Do you know?
Mr. Yee. No.
Mr. Poe. God bless the Hungarian people. I have heard that
we have had problems with that in the United States because it
mentions a deity.
I am out of time.
I will put all my other questions and then I will get
answers in writing.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Thank you very much, Your Honor, and
unfortunately, Mr. Yee, you are going to have another Texan
following another Texan here.
Mr. Weber. Or fortunately, depending upon your point of
view.
Judge Poe, just slide your notes over here for me. Would
you?
Mr. Yee, when you were discussing with Congressman Meeks
about the extremes, and the Congressman said he was concerned
about extremes, it looks like he is extremely cautious, you
responded to him by saying that you were concerned about the
extreme right. But you didn't mention the extreme left. I just
want to mention that for the record. You can go back and listen
to your comments.
You said that you were concerned about the anti-immigrant
trend over there.
Do you have examples? Can you quote going back 2 and 3 and
4 years their immigration flow? Can you give us proof of that?
Mr. Yee. I am sorry, sir, I don't understand the question.
The numbers of immigrants.
Mr. Weber. You were saying they are becoming anti-
immigration. Is that right?
Mr. Yee. There is a rise in popularity of a far right
extreme party named Jobbik which among other----
Mr. Weber. Gotcha. Has that affected the flow of
immigration into Hungary?
Mr. Yee. I don't know. I don't know.
Mr. Weber. So you don't really have any numbers to back
that up in terms of how it is affecting immigration, you are
just seeing a bunch of rhetoric out in the public.
Mr. Yee. Sir, I didn't make any comment on immigration
itself. My concern is about the presence of an extreme right
party which is anti-Semitic, anti-foreigner----
Mr. Weber. But not an extreme left party.
Mr. Yee. If there were a problem with it, an--I am against
extremism, sir, of any kind. Any extremist party.
Mr. Weber. But you don't really have any facts to back that
up on immigration itself.
One of the other members had a good--compare it to its
neighbors. It might have been the chairman.
How do you compare Hungary's, let's just say, stance
against Russia with Crimea, for example? How would you make
that comparison?
Mr. Yee. The comparison between Hungary's position on----
Mr. Weber. Well, Crimea, Romania, Bulgaria. You really
didn't answer that question. Well, we are going to say Crimea
because there is a history there.
So is Hungary in a position to be favorable toward Russia?
And if so, would you say the natural gas played a role in that?
Mr. Yee. Sir, I have to say I don't understand the
question.
Mr. Weber. Okay. I think the chairman asked you. You are
not making a comparison. You are saying a lot of bad things
about Hungary, and yet you have got other countries right
there, Romania, Bulgaria, and I would even add Crimea, that you
are not making any comparison to those neighboring countries.
You are just singling out Hungary. Why?
Mr. Yee. Well, sir, I would be happy to talk about the
other countries because I also cover them. I came prepared to
talk about Hungary. That was the topic I thought----
Mr. Weber. Okay. Is Hungary more favorable to the United
States than those other countries are?
Mr. Yee. I don't believe it is possible to make that
generalization, sir.
Mr. Weber. Okay. All right. Well, let me move to my next
question.
You said they are working very hard on energy, and the
judge over here had a good--and I have LNG plants in Texas.
You said that importance is placed on results. Those are
your words.
Okay. How about the speed with which--by which those
results are reached? Would it be better for Hungary to get
natural gas from us sooner or later?
Mr. Yee. Sooner.
Mr. Weber. That is pretty easy. Isn't it?
Okay. So on LNG permitting, and I have got a lot of it in
my district on the Gulf Coast of Texas, have you been pushing
the administration, the Department of Energy, FERC, to really
get on top of this and make sure that we can get as much LNG?
Now, you did mention the fact that there is a lot of it,
but I would argue that it is in spite--gas is very, very
plentiful, in spite of this administration, not because of.
Okay. And have you really been pushing the administration to
release that LNG and get those permits in gear high speed?
Mr. Yee. Sir, I have not my answer----
Mr. Weber. That seems to contradict your position here.
Mr. Yee. My answer was in response to the question what is
the United States doing to help Hungary. And these are the two
areas where we are trying to help. But I would never say, sir,
that we very exhausting all possibilities----
Mr. Weber. Is that a product more of the private sector, or
is that of the government sector, all the gas that we have now?
Mr. Yee. I wouldn't dare to speak on behalf of the private
sector, sir. I am talking about U.S. policy and what we are
trying to do with our partners in Europe.
Mr. Weber. Okay. But in your opinion, you are an American,
do you think that that gas has been produced because of the
administration or because of the private sector?
Mr. Yee. Sir, it has got to be a combination.
Mr. Weber. It has to be a combination, 50/50, 60/40, 70/30?
Put a ratio on it.
Mr. Yee. I am not competent to answer that.
Mr. Weber. You are not competent to answer that. Okay.
Well, you have an opinion and you know the answer. It is more
about the private sector.
Do you think that Putin is on the March?
Mr. Yee. Sir, well, thank you for that question.
We do believe that Russia is interested in expanding its
influence in Eastern and Central Europe.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Yee. And it important that we find ways to----
Mr. Weber. Okay. Is Hungary enough of a friend and an ally
that we need to help protect them?
Mr. Yee. We have an obligation under a treaty to defend
Hungary and our other allies.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Will you leave here and go back to the
administration and push for getting the gas permitted process
as soon as possible?
Mr. Yee. Sir, I will carry the message back and do my best.
Mr. Weber. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I yield back.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Thank you very much for joining us today,
and it was a lively discussion, and we appreciate you putting
yourself here with us and being really ready to answer these,
and these were very tough questions for you, but thank you for
being here, and don't think because we are asking tough
questions that we don't admire you as a person and are grateful
for the job you are doing for us, for our country, in the State
Department. So thank you very much, and this witness is now
excused, and we will be in recess for 2 minutes while the next
panel comes--steps forward. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rohrbacher. We have permission from the ranking member
to proceed. He is out making a phone call and will be back
momentarily, but he gave his permission to proceed with the
hearing, and the witnesses have already been introduced, and so
I would just ask if you could keep your testimony to about 5
minutes apiece, and let me note that we had planned to have one
more--we plan to have sort of a positive witness--two positive
witnesses and two critical witnesses, and that didn't work out.
The two positive witnesses that we had in fact cancelled
precipitously on us, and that type of foolish behavior, people
end up hurting their own cause when they do stuff like that,
and, unfortunately, we tried our best. We have now at least got
somewhat of a balanced panel because that is what we want--that
is what you want to have. In my committee meetings we always
struggle to get both sides and every argument on both sides
presented, and that is the way I think you make decisions and
are able to get to the truth, and that is what this is all
about.
So we will start with Mr. Volker and just work our way down
the line. 5 minutes apiece, and then we will go into the last
round of questions.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT VOLKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
MCCAIN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP, ARIZONA STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Volker. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
members of the committee for having me.
I have worked with Hungary in one way or another for about
27 years. I started studying Hungarian in 1988. I remember the
first phrase my teacher taught me was [speaking foreign
language.] Which is: Don't be mad at me because I am late.
I served in Hungary at the U.S. Embassy in the mid-1990s
when we moved the U.S. Army from Germany to Bosnia and had to
set up U.S. bases in Hungary. I worked very closely with Major
General Jim Wright, who was the commander of the 21st TAACOM.
He was a Texan, and I remember him saying as he left Hungary
after all of this that, ``I am proud to be an American. I am
proud to be a soldier. If I weren't an American soldier, I
would want to be a Hungarian.'' And that is the kind spirit
that I see between our countries and between our values and
what I believe we should represent together as an alliance.
I want to make three basic points. One about the context
that we are working in; two, about Hungary itself; and, three,
about U.S. policy.
Context is important. Russia is on the move, as you asked.
Putin is imposing authoritarianism at home. He has invaded
Georgia, he has invaded Ukraine. He has annexed Crimea. He is
putting a lot of pressure on countries in the neighborhood,
including through energy policy. We have a very weak EU at the
moment. Europe is more divided today than at any time since it
was forcibly divided by the Iron Curtain. It is divided east/
west over things like Russia and Ukraine. It is divided north/
south over things like immigration and the Eurozone. We have an
EU that is looking inward. We have the United States that is
much less engaged in Europe today than it was in the past. And
when you travel in Europe these days, that is all you hear.
Whether it is in the Baltics, in Germany, in Poland, in France,
in Southern Europe and Central Europe, they are looking for
more U.S. leadership and they don't see it.
That is the context in which forces rise up that we don't
want to see. And we see this across all of Europe, not just
Hungary. We see parties on the far right gaining in strength
like the National Front in France. We see the Alliance for
Deutschland in Germany. We see Jobbik in Hungary. We see a pro-
Russian Czech President. We see a Slovak Prime Minister who in
the past has been very oriented toward Russia. We see the
nationalist parties in the Balkans digging in on their
positions. We are seeing a Europe where the forces that we
would like to see not be strong actually get strengthened in
the face of a weak Europe and a retreating United States and a
tough Russia. And of course Russia throws a lot of money around
to try to influence these developments, paying for political
parties, bribing politicians, taking advantage of corruption,
corrupt business deals, mafia, intelligence services, foreign
language propaganda, the whole works. So that is what we see in
context here.
Within that, then, so, okay so what about Hungary? Hungary
is, as has been pointed out here, a democracy, a market
economy, an ally, a member of the European Union, and we have
seen since 1989 a lot of development in Hungary over time. And
if you visit there, you will see it is a great place.
There are things--and I should say I have known the Prime
Minister, members of cabinet for 20 years. I have known the
opposition leaders, current and former. I have got lots of
friends there. Some who are very opposed to the government,
some who are very supportive of the government. It is a place
full of great people, smart people, people with strong opinions
who disagree. People say if you put two Hungarians in a room
you get three opinions at least. And that is the nature of
Hungary. That makes it a robust democracy with a lot of
disagreement.
Now, I look at many of the policies that the Prime Minister
has undertaken in the course of his time as Prime Minister. I
disagree with some of them, as anyone would. I have variously
in private conversations described them as arrogant,
capricious, self-centered or bone headed. But that doesn't mean
he is tearing up democracy. It means he is a politician, and he
is doing what he believes is right, and he has the votes in the
country to sustain that. He is a very effective politician,
very aggressive--I view him much more like a Chicago politician
with a country instead of a city than a dictator or someone who
is imposing something on the whole society.
Now, that being said, there are important issues in
Hungary, and I think that they all deserve discussion and
debate. But I think that they get discussion and debate inside
Hungary from the different political parties, from opposition
media, opposition television, opposition newspapers, friends of
mine there--it is a very robust debate. There are protests
outside the Prime Minister's house. That is okay. And that is
how I think of it. So I don't think we should be accusing him
of tearing up a democracy. I think we should have a partnership
where we are trying to work on big challenges together. If we
have points of view, we can certainly express them, but we have
got to do it in a respectful way where we are not telling them
how to run their domestic politics just as we would not accept
if they were telling us how to run our domestic politics.
The third point, then, is about U.S. policy. On U.S.
policy, I think the key thing is to focus on is what do we
want, and how do we get it? What we want is to stop Putin from
disrupting Europe, imposing authoritarianism at home, invading
neighboring countries, tearing up Ukraine. We want to stop
that. We want to stop Islamist extremism like ISIS, and we want
our allies helping to do that. And we want our community, our
Transatlantic community to be democratic and market economic,
with good rule of law, good respect for human rights, and
secure so that we don't have to worry about it for the future
and future generations. That is what we want.
I think the way in which we have singled out Hungary and
gone after areas where we do have some disagreements has
actually caused more anti-Americanism inside Hungary. It has
led the government to feel that it can't necessarily work with
us as closely as it could because of domestic perceptions. It
has driven them to want to get back at us in some ways. And so
it is just not a constructive way to get what we actually want.
Now, we may have these disagreements, but we really got to
think as a matter of U.S. policy how do we do that. I think
that in the last 6 months or so I have seen some improvement in
this. I think we have been working a little bit better with
Hungary. I respect our new Ambassador from Hungary as well as
our new U.S. Ambassador there. I think they have made an
improvement, and I think that if we are working together as
allies based on shared values with common perceptions about
what is going on around us, we will be able to forge a very
strong partnership with Hungary.
Thank you.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Thank you very much.
[Mr. Volker did not submit a prepared statement.]
Mr. Rohrbacher. Mr. Stahnke.
STATEMENT OF MR. TAD STAHNKE, VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH &
ANALYSIS, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
Mr. Stahnke. Stahnke, yes, sir. Thank you. Like Eddie
Stanky the baseball player.
Thanks for holding this hearing. It is very important, the
future of U.S./Hungary relations. Hungary is an important
country. It is an important ally to the United States, and it
should be a concern, we believe, to the United States when an
ally is taking steps that call into question commitment to
democratic governance and the rule of law. And so I appreciate
the opportunity to be here.
I will say a few words about Hungary and then say a few
words about recommendations.
And since 2010 the government of Prime Minister Orban and
his Fidesz party has made sweeping changes to Hungarian
constitutional and legal systems. And a number of these changes
have eroded the rule of law, human rights protections, and
checks and balances. This is not a human rights first unique
interpretation of what is going on. We have looked at it.
Hungarian human rights groups have looked at this. Hungarian
human rights groups that have criticized governments from the
fall of Communism. So not groups that have a special problem
with this government, but groups that are--who are looking at
holding the Hungarian government accountable to its
international obligations, they have. Freedom House. The
European Commission. The European Parliament. The Fundamental
Rights Agency of the European Union. The Council of Europe. The
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe. All of
these bodies have expressed concerns. And our own government
has begun to express those concerns, as been mentioned.
President Obama raised concerns about the treatment of civil
society, and I will come back to that in a moment.
Also at the 10th anniversary of the OSCE Berlin Conference
on anti-Semitism Samantha Power expressed concerns about the
situation for anti-Semitism and related problems in Hungary.
And, finally, Prime Minister Orban himself, who famously in the
summer called on Hungarians to help build a non-liberal state.
And that is not, you know, liberal in the U.S. political terms.
He is talking about an illiberal democracy and looking toward
Russia and China and Turkey as models. And that should be
concerning, I think, to the United States for the reasons that
we have mentioned. And that Mr. Orban's actions in some
respects are not inconsistent with his words.
So a few points about that. The harassment continues of
nongovernment organizations receiving foreign funding. This is
a--and we can talk more about it if you like in questions, but,
you know, Orban himself has singled out civil society
organizations for particular criticism, calling them paid
political activists who are trying to help foreign interests.
And then the government launches an investigation, the details
of which--the basis of which is still not entirely clear, and
then police and special forces raid offices. They come with
search warrants, and they search not only the office which is
written on the warrants, but they demand to go to the
organization head's home to search their home, which is not
written on the warrant, but the woman is told that this is, you
know, the new way that we are going to--we are allowed to
implement our warrants in that way. So there are issues here.
And it was mentioned that the--a court, yes, reversed and
said that these raids were not done in accordance with law, but
there is still a cloud hanging over these organizations and
still their tax ID numbers are being held--are being
challenged, which would force them to shut them down. And it is
not for the whatever underlying financial irregularities there
might have been, but for a noncompliance--alleged noncompliance
with the investigations, and it seems as though the groups have
been compliant.
And needless to say, restricting NGOs because of their
foreign funding only, which I am not saying necessarily has
been adjudicated in this case, would be a violation of
international standards and something of concern.
Also in the area of religion/state relations, the
government has yet to change a 2011 law which deregistered
hundreds of previously registered churches and required them to
reapply under a politicized procedure, not my words. It is the
European Court of Human Rights words, which required a two-
thirds vote in the Parliament rather than a decision in the
courts. They took the decision whether or not to recognize
religious institutions from a court and gave it to the
Parliament.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Could I ask you to repeat that last point
that you just made. I was trying--did it something--what did
they do with the churches and----
Mr. Stahnke. Sure.
Mr. Rohrbacher. If you could just--I have trouble----
Mr. Stahnke. Yeah. So in 2011, the government passed a law
that changed how they were going to recognize religious
organizations for the purposes of granting them privileges.
Like many European countries, they have a system of recognizing
religious institutions in order to allow them to get state
subsidies or allow them to get tax--from the--you know----
So they changed it. There was--it was an administrative
procedure that was governed by a court. They changed it to a
administrative procedure that then would be ratified by the
Parliament. Right? As though Congress was going to be the ones
actually recognizing religious institutions or not, and they
forced all of the recognized institutions to go through this
new process. Hundreds of them.
This was challenged. It was brought to the European court
of Human Rights. The European court said that this was a
politicized procedure that violated the rights. These were
groups who did not--who were recognized and were no longer
recognized. It violated their right to freedom of association
and freedom of religion. The government under that judgment is
bound to revise its procedure. It has not yet done so. There
are religious organizations who still remain unrecognized.
My third point has to do with anti-Semitism, nationalism,
and political extremism. Elie Wiesel in 2012 returned an award
to the Hungarian government expressing the following concern:
Hungarian authorities are encouraging the whitewashing of
tragic and criminal episodes in Hungary's past. That is the
governmentstates' involvement in the deportation of Jews.
Since that time, the current government has pursued
controversial historical projects in Hungary, including a new
museum, a controversial monument that 30 Members of Congress
asked him not to go forward with without consultations with the
Hungarian Jewish community. Two days after the government--
Obama was reelected, they started building the monument amid
protests.
Mr. Rohrbacher. And it was a monument to again? Do you want
to repeat that.
Mr. Stahnke. It was a monument to the so-called victims of
a German occupation of Hungary, and it portrayed a weak
compliant Hungary being attacked by an aggressive German eagle.
And the complaints of the Jewish community was that--and others
was that it did not adequately recognize those victims, and it
caused some segment of the community to withdraw its support
for the government's 70th anniversary commemorations of the
Holocaust. And I want to be clear. President Orban has said
there is zero toleration for anti-Semitism in Hungary. He said
it recently. It is very important, very welcome, that he said
it. Senior government officials have also recently said that
the Holocaust was a disaster for all Hungarians. Very welcome.
And, nevertheless, concerns remain.
There is a 2013 poll by the Europe Union Fundamental Rights
Agency that said 50 percent of Hungarian Jews were concerned.
Mr. Rohrbacher. You know, excuse me. You are only supposed
to have 5 minutes. You got about 6 or 7, and you are going on
10 now.
Mr. Stahnke. I am sorry. If I can just make a couple points
about recommendations, sir.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Be very quick because otherwise there will
be no time for questions.
Mr. Poe. Votes are----
Mr. Stahnke. Yes. And I think that some combination of
smart diplomatic pressure supporting embattled civil society
and independent journalism, holding Orban to a zero tolerance
pledge on anti-Semitism, and launching a better effort--U.S.
Government launching a better effort to demonstrate the
benefits to the Hungarian people of close ties to the United
States and a democratic Europe is very important. And, finally,
I think as we have been talking about, Congress should look
more closely at Russian influence throughout the region and the
pernicious effect that that has had on human rights and many
other--many other things so we can get a better handle on that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stahnke follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrbacher. And for our lasts witness, Mr. Simonyi.
STATEMENT OF ANDRAS SIMONYI, PH.D., MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY (FORMER
HUNGARIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES)
Ambassador Simonyi. Thank you very much. I don't know which
category I am supposed to fall into, but you will tell me after
I have spoken.
Mr. Rohrbacher. As long as you are absolutely truthful, it
is okay.
Ambassador Simonyi. Okay. Good. Well, Mr. Chairman, members
of the committee, Iwould like to say I am a Hungarian patriot
who--I have spent half my lifetime working on building and
strengthening the ties between our two countries, and I am
determined to do that. So when I come here in front of you, and
I will be critical, it is because I see this as an important
part of what this relationship is supposed to be about.
I see today's hearing as a desire by the United States
Congress to send a strong message that it cares about Hungary,
its people, and the state of its democracy. My friend and
mentor, former chairman Congressman Tom Lantos would have
approved. However, he would have--he would not be happy about
the worries which have been prompted by this meeting, or the
worries which prompted this meeting. But I would also like to
tell you that I was so proud to serve my country under
President George W. Bush, and I worked very closely with the
President and with members of his--members of his
administration, and I would also like to say that I am a
certified honorary Texan.
In 2014, for the first time since the fall of the Iron
Curtain, Hungary was labeled as a defective democracy by the
respectable Berkland Foundation. In the country report we just
heard the dismantling of democratic institutions. This is
worrying. In my written testimony, which I ask you to attach to
the report, I deal in detail with the 52.7 percent win of votes
achieved by Prime Minister Orban's party in 2010, which
resulted in a two-thirds super majority in Parliament, a feat
repeated in 2014 when only 44.5 percent was enough to achieve
the same results.
In my books, in democracy a super majority should not be
interpreted as a license to do whatever you want even if it is
legal to do so. As a result, there is no other democratic
country in the Europe Union where power is a not concentrated
as much as it is in Hungary today.
In the wake of the 2012 new Constitution, and approved by
Fidesz, the ruling party, which has since been repeatedly
amended in its image by the same super majority, control over
governmental power, checks and balances have been weakened.
Unfortunately, a number of legal initiatives struck down by
the constitutional courts as unconstitutional were immediately
and hastily incorporated into the Constitution.
The government has, thus, restricted the competence of the
constitutional court to examine the constitutionality of
financial, budgetary, and tax laws. In the Prime Minister's own
words, the concept of checks and balances ``is a U.S. invention
that for some reasons or intellectual mediocrity Europe has
decided to adopt and use in European politics.''
I beg to disagree. In my view, this is a universal
principle of democracy. The Prime Minister believes in a strong
all-powerful state that has the right to interfere in the
function of the markets, determine the curricula in every
single public school in the country, and create a hierarchy
among religious groups. This restricts competition and freedom
of choice.
Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of Hungarians are
not extremists. I am, therefore, worried about the way the
prime minister has adopted some extremist rhetoric in recent
months. His comments that are outright anti-immigrant,
centerphobic, overtly homophobic, are dangerous in a country
that has still not fully recovered from the terrible human and
intellectual losses it has suffered exactly because of
exclusion and hate under authoritarian regimes of the past.
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has dramatically modified
his previously unqualified pro-Western stance in the last
years. He has most recently suggested that autocratic regimes
are more efficient than democracies, which in his view tend to
get lost in debates.
Hungary is unfortunately too dependent on Russian energy
supplies, some 80 to 90 percent, which has its dangers. This
government has done little to abate the situation. It is in the
interest of Hungary the Russian pressure is resisted and that
agreements are fully transparent, avoiding the slightest hint
of graft or political interference by Mr. Putin short and long
term.
And here I would like to tell you that in my day job I
spend about 85 percent of my time trying to get the United
States to get LNG gas to Europe. Specifically, most
importantly, to Central and Eastern Europe.
The relationship between Hungary and the United States is
that of allies, based on mutual respect and friendship which
carries obligations and responsibilities. The government's
recent decision to support the war against ISIS on the ground
must be lauded. It was abysmal petty politicking by some
members of the opposition not to support the government's
decision. Meeting our security obligations, however, cannot
only be a tool to disarm U.S. criticism. Our Transatlantic
alliance is about a lot more. U.S. diplomacy is right to
continue to call on the government to meet its obligations of
shared values and democracy.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, why waste precious time of talented
Ambassadors. And here I must say that Hungary has chosen one of
the most talented Ambassadors to serve in it Washington. Why
waste the precious time of talented Ambassadors and diplomats
in Washington on trying to explain away decisions of the
government, statements by its Prime Minister, a confusing
foreign policy instead of focusing on new forward-looking
opportunities for investments and trade innovation, business,
and science across the board. Why waste taxpayers' money on K
Street lobbyists? I know from experience that there is an
easier, more efficient, and cheaper way. Revert back to the
fundamental values of democracy of consensus, of inclusion at
home, and clarity in foreign policy abroad.
Mr. Chairman, finally I really want to take this
opportunity to thank you and the members of the subcommittee
for your interest, but also all the American friends of Hungary
for their unwavering support for the democratic future of my
country. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrbacher. And thank all of you, the witnesses, for
laying a good foundation for a discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simonyi follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrbacher. You know, first of all, just about a couple
of points you made, and then I have got some questions for the
other panelists as well.
So a government without checks and balances like the United
States is itself more authoritarian. Is that right? Is that
what you are saying? So the parliamentarian system in England,
which has no checks and balances, is authoritarian.
Ambassador Simonyi. Checks and balances is about the
institutional guarantees that a one party, whether it is a
majority or a minority, does not have an overwhelming
concentrated power.
Mr. Rohrbacher. So you are against the British system and
all the other democracies----
Ambassador Simonyi. I am not against the British system.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Well, but let me say what you just
described, to be very fair about it, when you have a
parliamentary system, which the United States doesn't have, but
many other countries do, if you have a consensus among the
population that something has to be done, they end up electing
a Parliament which concentrates power, and in these countries,
basically, like Great Britain, they do not have the checks and
balances that we have in making sure that you have three layers
of government, et cetera, et cetera. And our Founding Fathers
had a different thing in mind.
I will have to say that your testimony in that end is not
impressive that they--that that makes him in some way an
authoritarian because he redid the Constitution to make sure
what? Quite often what happens when they follow the American
example, you get governments that don't work because they are
not Americans. And it doesn't work in what we have heard in our
testimony today is that since Orbanhas come in, we have had a
major success in their economy. The country, more than anything
else, is strengthening and able to help us in Afghanistan and
elsewhere and have a higher level of growth. Maybe that is
because they decided to go with democracy in a different way
than our checks and balances.
You may answer that.
Ambassador Simonyi. Mr. Chairman, let me just add, I do not
believe in illiberal democracy. And illiberal in this sense
does not mean illiberal in the American sense. It means Western
style. I believe in Western style democracy. I do not believe
in Russian or Asari-style democracy, and I am very much
disturbed that my country has started----
Mr. Rohrbacher. We are not talking about Russian----
Ambassador Simonyi [continuing]. Started in that direction.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Okay. So how is the parliamentary system
that has been set up by Orban different than Great Britain's
Government?
Ambassador Simonyi. Sir, I think what you have to
understand is that this super majority has also resulted in
limiting the possibilities for other parties to compete on a
level playing field. I do not believe that the last election,
which, as I said, 44 percent was enough to produce a two-thirds
majority, that the parties were competing on a level playing
field.
Mr. Rohrbacher. Okay. I would just have to say that the
idea that there is going to be no gerrymandering, we have had
gerrymandering in our country for a long time, we are not an
authoritarian country. Although we don't like it, we don't
think it is a good thing, but I can tell you in California we
have 15 Members of Congress now who are Republicans. When I
came here, there were 25 and somebody redistricted it in a
way--but I have never claimed that our government in California
was not a democratic government.
Let me just go back to some of the super majority which you
mentioned here, and I will actually at this point go to Judge
Poe, and maybe ask few more questions at the end, but go right
ahead.
Mr. Poe. Thank the chairman. Thank you all for being here.
I just want to follow up on my previous comments that my
concern is that the United States is trying to get another
country, an ally, a friend, close friend, to have democracy in
our image. That is really the concern that I have and that
Hungarian bashing by our government seems to reflect that. I
certainly don't agree with a lot of things that are taking
place in Hungary or the United States or anyplace. I can find--
as somebody said, I can find a problem in every solution, and I
can. In every country I can give you a list of those.
But, Mr. Volker, I will first turn to you, and we will see
how far we can go down the line.
Do you see, based on your knowledge of the Hungarians, this
attitude of the United States about these issues toward
Hungary, has that made the United States closer friends,
buddies, workers, or have we pushed the Hungarian people and
the government away based upon these actions that we have been
taking?
Mr. Volker. I have had conversations with cabinet members
in Hungary who has said that it has pushed away, that they feel
more distant. I have had conversations with private citizens
who support the government who feel upset at the United States.
And I have had conversations with opposition figures and
private citizens who oppose the government who are grateful for
the United States for intervening.
So it is exactly as you would think in intervening and
domestic politics. Depending on where you sit is where you
stand.
Mr. Poe. And that is my point exactly. Is the United States
interfering in domestic politics?
Mr. Volker. I think that the fundamental issue here is
exactly that. That we are getting drawn into differences over
policy as opposed to differences of whether a democracy is
functioning.
I think we have a reason as the United States, as a great
democracy in the world, to speak up when we see things--
democracies really under threat. But if is really policy
differences and choices that a country is making in its own
internal politics, I think we have to hang back.
Mr. Poe. And with the bigger--I am just going to try to go
down the row on all these questions.
Would the bigger issue be that we ought to be concerned
about foreign relations, foreign problems, like the Russians,
for example. They are the big elephant in the neighborhood.
I was in Hungary over the weekend as a member of the U.S.
NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and they spent a lot of time
talking about the Russians. They are worried about the
Russians. Shouldn't we be more forthright as the United States?
We are going to help you with your concerns about the Russians,
like sending them natural gas as soon as we can. I mean, are we
missing something in our relationship----
Mr. Volker. No. I think that is exactly it, that Hungary,
as we have established, is a democracy. It is an EU country.
And, most importantly, it is an American ally. And we have real
problems with Russia. We have problems in the Ukraine, we have
problems with ISIS, and we should be gathering, working with,
and leading our allies, and we should be tackling these
challenges.
Mr. Poe. Not to justify any of the criticism or to support
any of the things that have been critical, I am not saying
anything of those things are right or wrong, it just seemed to
me that we ought to be dealing with a foreign country on
foreign relations as opposed to telling them what to do in a
domestic situation. We certainly wouldn't like it if they tried
to tell us what to do.
Mr. Volker. Yeah. I think if--sir, I think if it crosses a
real line where it is--you know, it is no longer a democracy,
it is a dictatorship, then we would have a reason, but we are
not there.
Mr. Poe. All right. And just a question or two that--
Hungary is operating under a new Constitution. Why did they get
rid of the old Constitution?
Mr. Volker. Because the old Constitution was seen by the
government as a compromise with the Communists in 1988 and
1989, and they felt that that compromise led to a document that
could only be changed when you had a two-thirds majority, and
it favored over a course of a long period of time socialists in
the administrative structures, in the party financing, and the
judiciary, and all these things.
So the current government believes that their only chance
to amend that Constitution that emerged from the Communist
period was to put through these sweeping amendments.
Mr. Poe. And it was intended to be a temporary Constitution
anyway. Wasn't it?
Mr. Volker. It was stated at the time it was meant to be a
temporary Constitution.
Mr. Poe. Communism light, as I call it.
Mr. Volker. Right. And you can argue the merits of what was
put in its place, but it was a policy judgment by the
government that got elected with two-thirds, for the first
time, enabling themselves to make those changes.
Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you very much. I will yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Stahnke, you mentioned you were concerned
about our allies' style of doing away with democratic
governance, rule of law, and since 2010, you said there have
been sweeping changes, and of course, you just heard that
exchange about the change in the Constitution.
You said you were concerned about Hungary becoming in
illiberal state like Russia and China, and then you mention
Orban had bashed some paid political activists helping with
foreign interests. You recall make those comments?
Mr. Stahnke. Not exactly the way you describe them, sir,
but I do make those comments, yes.
Mr. Weber. Orban didn't make those comments. Would you say
that that is akin to a Senate majority leader coming over on
the floor of the Senate here in the United States of America
and bashing the Koch Brothers, or lying about a Presidential
candidate not paying income taxes for the last 10 years and
then refusing on national media to say that was wrong? So would
you say that politicians often make negative comments about
those that oppose them?
Mr. Stahnke. So----
Mr. Weber. That is yes or no.
Mr. Stahnke. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Stahnke. However, if I may, I think it has gone beyond
that.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well----
Mr. Stahnke. I mean, he can make these comments, and then
the government has taken steps----
Mr. Weber. That's--but I don't want to contend with you
because I have got a very limited time. They are going to call
votes----
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is yours.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. Any second. That is right.
So then you said they took steps to shut down tax ID. Is
that different, in your view, than the IRS over here not even
allowing tax IDs for conservative groups? Is that somehow
worse--or worse in your opinion?
Mr. Stahnke. Shutting off tax IDs because the groups
receive foreign funding which----
Mr. Weber. But you agree that happens over here as well,
and when they do even allow the tax IDs, right, would there
have been a difference in political opinion?
Mr. Stahnke. Sir, I am not aware that--I think groups in
the U.S. can receive foreign funding.
Mr. Weber. But you are aware that the IRS over here has
denied tax IDs to conservative organizations.
Mr. Stahnke. Sir, I am not expert on what----
Mr. Weber. You are aware or unaware? Let me move on. And
how about the 2010 national healthcare law that is--that is
absolutely making companies, individuals make health abortion
choices, if you will, or reproductive health choices that are
against their religious objections. So if you have a group over
here that is passing laws that says you are going to do this
against your religious, your conscientious objection, is that
somehow different than what a majority over there might do
under Orban?
Mr. Stahnke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. It is different?
Mr. Stahnke. It is different.
Mr. Weber. How?
Mr. Stahnke. Because of some of the changes that have been
put in the Constitution.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Stahnke. But we got a Supreme Court that will
eventually----
Mr. Weber. And they can overcome some of that, especially
in the Green case.
Mr. Stahnke. And they--excuse me, please.
Mr. Weber. Excuse me. I am running out of time. Then you
said that as long as it was ratified by Parliament, and the
chairman addressed that, that one particular comment because--
to Dr. Simonyi.I think you are against the English form of
government with the Parliament. Just because it is ratified by
the Parliament, is that somehow worse than being ratified by
the United States Congress in 2010 and then unilaterally
changed by the executive branch some 30-something times? I
think all this talk about Orban being such a devilish
character, I mean, you can see some semblances over here. I
mean, I am just--I am looking--trying to look at it in the
30,000-foot view.
Mr. Stahnke. I understand. I would just disagree, sir.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Now, you also said there was a
whitewashing of historical events against the Jews.
Mr. Stahnke. I don't believe I said that, sir.
Mr. Weber. Three examples.
Mr. Stahnke. Yes, I quote Elie Wiesel when I said that.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Can you give us three examples of what he
is talking about?
Mr. Stahnke. Yes. Southern monument was one.
Mr. Weber. All right.
Mr. Stahnke. There is a controversy on a museum. Hungary
has a perfectly good Holocaust Memorial and museum in their
capital, to their credit, right.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Stahnke. But the government wanted to open--wants to
open an additional museum----
Mr. Weber. All right. So you have got----
Mr. Stahnke [continuing]. To the victims of the occupation.
Mr. Weber. Three examples. So would you--would you agree
with me that when a country starts to exhibit anti-Semitismor
snubbing of any other country for that matter, but let's say
Israel in this case, it is a bad thing and sometimes it even
begins with snubbing of their leaders. I mean, witness what
happened with Benjamin Netanyahu coming over here and couldn't
be received at the highest level because he wasn't welcome. So
could you agree that that is along those same lines?
Mr. Stahnke. I don't see the connection, sir.
Mr. Weber. You don't see the connection.
Mr. Stahnke. No. No.
Mr. Weber. So it is okay. In other words, if that doesn't
rise to the level of your concern, that there is no connection.
If it rises my concern, that doesn't matter.
Mr. Stahnke. No, I don't think that is what I am saying,
sir. Maybe I don't understand your question.
Mr. Weber. Well, I am just saying that that happens in
multiple countries. It is not just over in Hungary, right?
Mr. Stahnke. Anti-Semitism is a feature of many countries;
that is correct.
Mr. Weber. Would you categorize the snubbing of Netanyahu
as anti-Semitism?
Mr. Stahnke. I don't have a view on that, sir.
Mr. Weber. You don't have a view. Okay. Just curious.
Mr. Stahnke. So my--what I am looking at here----
Mr. Weber. I have got 30 seconds left.
Mr. Stahnke [continuing]. Is a international commitment,
sir, and a compliance with international standards, not
promoting U.S., how the U.S. does a----
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, I am sorry, I am out of my time. I
want to go back to Simonyi. You said no other country in the EU
had the power concentrated as in Hungary.
Ambassador Simonyi. True.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Give me country number 2 and country
number 3, and who is number----
Ambassador Simonyi. I wouldn't want to make this
comparison, but what I would like to say, and which is--which
dovetails--or is related to a comment that you--the chairman
made earlier. I remember my conversations with President Bush
when he would compare--compare and ask me questions about
Hungary in the same group as Denmark and Sweden and Norway, and
I am very, very saddened by the fact that now you are asking
about a totally different group of immature democracies.
Hungary used to be a very up on the top of the list of most
advanced democracies in central Europe, and that is really my
concern. My problem is that we have not made real progress. And
I would also--I would also like to--like to come back to anti-
Semitism. I do not believe Viktor Orban is anti-Semitic, but I
do not believe that he has done enough to push back on anti-
Semitism open or covert in my country.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back because I
know they are calling votes any minute, and you have more
questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. We are going to have votes
pretty soon here. Let me just follow up with a few final
questions.
Let me just say, this bandying around the word ``anti-
Semitism'' is a travesty. I think anybody doing that should
be--I mean, hang your head in shame. You know, anybody who is
saying--I have listened to what you are talking about. I have
found no evidence of anti-Semitism in the testimony today. That
they didn't build a statue that expanded upon the victims of
Hungary during the Second World War to specifically include
Jews instead of everyone who suffered, that is not anti-
Semitism, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting
that it is.
Mr. Stahnke. Sir, I did not call that anti-Semitism.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sir, you may have some very important
other points to make that are legitimate, and this is your--
your colleague over here has just admitted Orban that has no
anti-Semitism in him now, and he said he might appealing or
somebody might be appealing to it. This--this charge that--of
anti-Semitism, I tell you, of all the things came out today,
has shown the type of malicious untruths and lies that are
being told because this is not true from what I have heard
today.
We have asked you for evidence, and you have come up with
things that are nonsensical. The fact is that they have
museums. They completely are recognized, that the Jews were
murdered during World War II. They completely understand that.
There are museums to that end. There are synagogues--are
through not synagogues operating in Budapest? So with that
said, I think--I am going to give you--I am going to actually
give you a chance to answer that, so----
Mr. Stahnke. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Number 2, homophobic--it is a good--you
are the only person who had courage enough to really pinpoint
where a lot of people are upset with the Orban government, and
it is that they don't like gay marriage and they don't want
abortion. They are more traditional Catholics, and they were
elected by a huge majority so they would pass laws that
reflected the culture and values of their people.
And I know that some people can't--you know, their policy
toward gay marriage should be something they determine by their
culture, their values, and their parliamentary and democratic
system, and I don't consider--although I personally have--if
someone who is up castigating someone saying bad things about
someone's personal life, I think that is wrong. I personally
think that is un-Christian, but people have a right to set
their standards in terms of what they mean by marriage and by
what they mean by some of their religious--their own religious
convictions.
I do not think that requiring two-thirds majority is in
some way anti-democratic. I think it is pro-democratic to not
to require two-thirds majority. I would suggest, Mr. Weber, you
pay attention to the type of things that he is talking about
that have happened here in the last 6 years, blatantly happened
here in the last 6 years, and you are claiming that we should
question that whether Hungary has this democratic government or
whether their government is dedicated to democracy, when they
are doing worse things here than what you have charged with.
And I mean, we have had out--people in our political party
targeted by the administration by the IRS. We have seen friends
of ours like Curt Weldon have his home invaded by the FBI, and
then he lost his election by a few hundred votes. We see these
things here. They are not right, but it doesn't make us a non-
democratic country. It means we got to start working together
and perfect it and not have tolerance for basically the type of
abuse that you are talking about.
So--and that we are talking about. So let me just finish it
up, and I will give each one of you 1 minute to summarize and
to actually disagree with me or cut me down or whatever you
have to say is fine, but let me just say that I think that what
has come out of here, this hearing today, is there is a double
standard, a heavy double standard going on here treating
Hungary differently. And I think that it flows directly from
these values, these traditional values that their government
has--has embraced, and I think it is wrong, and we--they are
not perfect. They are certainly not perfect, but I haven't seen
hardly any evidence to suggest that charges made against the
Orban government are real, but are, instead, are based on
politically motivated attacks based on double standard.
With that say, we will go 1 minute apiece.
Mr. Volker. Great. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you very
much. I could go around the alliance and find in every single
allied country policies I disagree with. I could find practices
I disagree with. I could find evidence of corruption. I could
find all sorts of things. I don't think that is what I would
like to do with our allies. I would like to work with them, try
to improve what we can, and deal with our common external
challenges
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Mr. Volker, thank you, and one last
little point here, and that is, anti-immigrant. I don't know
the details. We didn't get into that here, but you are sitting
with three Members of Congress who are very upset that we have
millions of illegals in this country and do not want to give
them amnesty. We do not want to encourage more people to come
here illegally.
We have heard so many times--we have been called racist so
many times just for that, for watching out for the interests of
the American people in terms of who is going to come into our
country. I don't know if that is the same thing, and I am going
to give you 2 minutes to include that answer. Go right ahead.
Mr. Stahnke. First of all, sir, with all due respect, I do
not bandy about the term anti-Semitism, and my organization
does not either. For 12 years, Human Rights First, unique among
international human rights organizations, has had a campaign to
combat anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe and throughout the
OSCE countries.
So I take that very seriously, sir. I said that Prime
Minister Orban had expressed their tolerance for anti-Semitism
in his country, and that was a very important statement, and I
welcome that.
I did say that he has engaged in policies and actions that
have promoted a different historical understanding and that
there are major segments of the Jewish community in Hungary who
have objected to that, and that is true. And this is--this is
cause for concern.
And Jobbik, right, which is extremely anti-Semitic, I think
we would both agree on that point, is growing in power. And I
am not suggesting the United States should create a situation
where it makes it more likely that this extremist anti-Semitic
racist party comes to power. Quite the opposite. It should be
promoting a situation where there is more adherence to
international standards. This--I am not looking at this in
terms of what the United States, you know, promoting how the
United States does things.
One quick example, sir, that constitutional amendments,
there are five of them, once they put through that
Constitution, one of them cut down the jurisdiction and removed
the case law of the constitutional court. I think the
international community supported, in countries transitioning
from Communism, rights in their Constitution and a
constitutional court to protect those rights. This government
has cut back the jurisdiction of the constitutional court and
removed--that court had done important things to protect
people's rights.
That is an example, sir, of checks and balances. It is not
about how we do things in the United States. It is about
universal principles and a chance for the Hungarians to see
that their rights are protected. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you.
Ambassador Simonyi. Mr. Chairman, I want to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You have the last say of the day.
Ambassador Simonyi. Thank you. I want to be very clear.
This is not about gay rights, and I don't want to go into it.
It is just very important that the leader of the country chose
tolerance and acceptance to all its citizens, whatever their
sexual orientation. That is all about. I don't want to--the
rest is really not important here.
I want to make another--the next comment is really about I
do not believe Hungary should be--should be this close to
Russia, this close to Vladimir Putin. I think it was wrong, and
I--personally I was saddened by the fact that Hungary was the
first ally to give Vladimir Putin recently the red carpet
treatment in Budapest. And I think it was wrong, it was the
wrong message, and it was kind of breaking, breaking the
solidarity and the unity of our alliance, and I think that is
very important.
And then thirdly, last--lastly, I would--I would say that,
you know, what I really hope you understood from this
conversation. I don't--I don't care about the system that the
Brits have. I really don't care about the system that the
United States had. You have had a long run of your democracy.
U.S. Democracy is mature and strong. All I am saying is
concentration of power, to the extent it is concentrated in
Hungary today in the hands of one party and one person is
dangerous when the country is so immature in its democratic
institutions where the democratic institutions have been weak.
This is really what I wanted to say.
And a final word. I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that
Hungary will get through this phase, and I do believe that
Hungary will figure out a way to stabilize its democracy
because only a democratic country, only a democratic Hungary
has a serious and real future.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. I want to thank all the witnesses.
There is a vote on right now.
Mr. Poe. Yes, sir
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we are going to have to run out,
but thank you very much. I turned off the mic. Thank you very
much. We have a vote on, and let me just say that I deeply
appreciate all of you. I think it is very good back and forth.
I sort of enjoyed this. I think that is part of what we are
supposed to be all about, and I especially, your last
statement, understand your concerns. That is what you are
talking. You are saying you are based on concerns, and okay.
And we are all--we are all rooting for the good guys, which is
everybody who believes in tolerance and treating people
decently and having a democratic government. We are all rooting
for the good guys wherever they are, so thank you all so much
for testifying today.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]