U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–741PDF 2016

HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER SIEGE WORLDWIDE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 12, 2016

Serial No. 114–204

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Mark P. Lagon, president, Freedom House ................................. 5

Thomas Farr, Ph.D., president, Religious Freedom Institute .............................. 22

Ms. Amanda Schnetzer, director, Human Freedom Initiative, The George 

W. Bush Institute ................................................................................................. 31

Mr. Mark Bromley, chair, The Council for Global Equality ................................ 39

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Mark P. Lagon: Prepared statement ............................................ 8

Thomas Farr, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................. 24

Ms. Amanda Schnetzer: Prepared statement ........................................................ 34

Mr. Mark Bromley: Prepared statement ............................................................... 41

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 72

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 73

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Letter 

from the Anti-Defamation League ...................................................................... 75

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: 

Statement of David Stacy, Government Affairs Director, Human Rights 

Campaign .......................................................................................................... 81

Statement of Judy Shepard, President and Co-Founder, Matthew Shepard 

Foundation ........................................................................................................ 84

The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Rhode Island: Prepared statement ................................................................. 86

(1)

HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER SIEGE WORLDWIDE 

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE [presiding]. This hearing will come to order. 

This morning we meet to survey the troubling state of human 

rights around the world. 

Freedom House does a report every year. Its 2016 World Report 

shows the 10th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. Unfortunately, the world’s most abusive governments continue their 

abuses while non-state actors have become boastful promoters of 

unspeakable evil. 

Whether in Syria, Iraq, Libya, or the Sinai, ISIS has set a new 

standard for brutality—bombing Shi’ite neighborhoods, selling 

young Yazidi girls into sexual slavery, slitting the throats of Christians, throwing gay men to their deaths from rooftops. The House 

of Representatives and the White House have recognized ISIS attacks on Yazidis, on Christians, on Shia Muslims. All of this has 

been recognized as genocide, and ‘‘genocide’’ is the only word for it. 

In Africa, Boko Haram continues to attack Christians and many 

Muslims. From church and mosque bombings to mass kidnappings 

of children, this deranged group has cut a wide swath of terror 

through Nigeria and neighboring countries, killing thousands and 

displacing millions. 

In May, a mob of Islamists in southern Egypt reportedly forced 

a 70-year-old Christian woman to walk naked through the streets 

before burning down homes belonging to Christian families. This is 

just one of many recent attacks against Christians in Egypt. 

Religious minorities from nearly every faith face persecution 

somewhere in the world. 

Human trafficking remains a global epidemic that preys on millions of women, girls, and migrant workers who are trapped in degrading and dangerous forms of modern slavery. In June, the 

House passed Congressman Trott’s legislation to address another 

ghoulish form of exploitation—trafficking in persons for the removal of their organs. 

Many regimes such as China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Vietnam 

continue to deny basic political rights to their citizens. North Korea’s brutal Kim dynasty continues to imprison entire families in 

2

its vast and deadly gulag that holds more than 100,000 political 

prisoners. The death toll from the Assad regime’s deliberate targeting of civilian populations in Syrian is staggering. It is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. 

According to experts, press freedom has declined to its lowest 

point in 12 years. In places like Russia and Iran, we have seen governments take extreme measures to stifle communication, intimidate political opposition, and deny basic rights of speech and assembly to disfavored groups, including LGBT persons. 

Child marriage has dire, life-long consequences for the health, 

safety, education, and opportunity of the estimated 15 million girls 

that it victimizes every year. That is one girl every 2 seconds. 

Torture, extrajudicial killings, forced conscription of child soldiers, so the list goes on and on. 

Too often, public discussions present a false choice between stability and human rights. That has been the favored dodge of dictators and despots since the last century. But U.S. national security is bolstered when states are stable, and stability ultimately depends on respect for fundamental human rights. Human rights 

can’t be our only foreign policy guide, but neither can human rights 

be discounted, which happens too often. 

America has inspired the human rights movement worldwide for 

decades. This hearing will help us understand what is driving the 

global decline in human decency that I have mentioned and is to 

discuss how we can turn around this depressing trend, including by 

being the best example we can be. Promoting respect for the 

human rights of all people serves the national interest and the national values of the United States. 

I now turn to Mr. Cicilline, and I yield him 21⁄2 minutes. And I 

am informed that Mr. Engel in the meantime is on his way here. 

Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and 

Ranking Member Engel for holding this important hearing. 

Human rights form the most fundamental basis of our democracy. What has set us apart from other nations for more than 200 

years is our dedication to fundamental freedoms, equality, and universal values. 

It is especially poignant that this hearing is being held on the 

1-month anniversary of the massacre of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, which underscores the importance of this 

hearing. If the basic human rights of people for simply being who 

they are makes them targets in the United States, sadly, serious 

and sometimes deadly human rights abuses exist in nations all 

over the world. 

According to Freedom House, freedom around the world has been 

in steady decline for 10 years, and 2015 had the steepest decline 

yet. The war in Syria, the resulting refugee crisis, and the rise in 

extremism have all contributed to crackdowns in the name of socalled security and a general decline of human rights in every region in the world. 

I am especially concerned by the uptick in abuses against vulnerable populations who are already at grave risk in many countries, 

especially religious and sexual minorities. In particular, lesbian 

and gay, bisexual, and transgender communities around the world 

3

have experienced horrific violence, and violations of basic human 

rights have put individuals in these categories at grave risk for injury or death simply because of who they are. LGBT people abroad 

face horrific persecution, threats, constant harassment, lack of access to healthcare, marginalization, violence, and death because of 

their status or perceived status of being gay, lesbian, or 

transgender. 

There is an important national security angle to this issue. AntiLGBT rhetoric and violence that spreads around the world can also 

come home to harm American citizens. It is crucial that we fight 

this rhetoric and violence, not only because it is the right thing to 

do, but also because it ensures that it does not come back to harm 

American citizens again. 

Countries that are attacking LGBT people are also the ones most 

likely to crack down on human rights and civil society generally. 

Nowhere have we seen this more violently than in ISIL-controlled 

territories, where men have been accused of same-sex activity and 

publicly-executed in horrifying ways. 

In light of the ongoing discrimination and violence faced by the 

LGBT community around the world, their struggle for equality and 

justice abroad remains significant. There are still many countries 

in which homosexualality is illegal, LGBT persons are persecuted, 

and public support for the LGBT community is prohibited. Over 75 

countries have anti-LGBT laws. There are nearly 300 reported 

cases of transgender people murdered in 29 different countries last 

year and countless underreported cases around the globe. 

What may be most disturbing is that the highest number of murders have been in countries with strong trans-movements and civil 

society organizations that carry out forms of professional monitoring. Because of the particular heinous nature of the violations 

routinely committed against LGBT communities around the world, 

this hearing is particularly important. We know the United States 

Government’s attention and engagement on human rights makes a 

difference. 

In 2011, President Obama addressed the United Nations General 

Assembly and stated that, ‘‘No country should deny people their 

rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up 

for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.’’

Soon thereafter, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum entitled, ‘‘International Initiatives to Advance the Human 

Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons,’’ to address the global challenges of the LGBT community. In the following years, we saw the creation of the Office of the Special Envoy 

for Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and 

Intersex Persons at the Department of State and a Senior LGBT 

Coordinator at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Our 

commitment to promoting the human rights of the LGBT community is clear and we must ensure it continues. 

Although these examples of U.S. Government and U.N. support 

for LGBT human rights are positive steps, the violence and rights 

abuses faced by the LGBT community worldwide is unacceptable 

and we need to do more. A great man, Elie Wiesel, once told us, 

‘‘We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented.’’

4

It is on all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, to ensure 

that we continue working long after today to defend and protect 

human rights of all persons around the world. I hope this hearing 

will help to bring greater attention to these issues and motivate 

this committee to take action to protect the human rights of all 

people. 

And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member, 

for yielding. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses 

today. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. 

Let me introduce our distinguished panel here to the members. 

Ambassador Mark Lagon is the president of Freedom House. Previously, Ambassador Lagon served as the Ambassador-at-Large and 

Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, as well as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs. We welcome him back 

to the committee. 

Dr. Thomas Farr is president of the Religious Freedom Institute, 

and prior to this position, Dr. Farr served as the founding Director 

of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom. 

Mrs. Amanda Schnetzer is the founding director of the Human 

Freedom Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute. Previously, 

Mrs. Schnetzer was a senior fellow and director of studies at Freedom House. 

Mr. Mark Bromley is the chair at the Council for Global Equality, and previously, Mr. Bromley worked for more than a decade at 

Global Rights. And he served as a foreign policy fellow for Senator 

Feingold from 2001 to 2002. 

So, without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements 

will be made part of the record. Members will have 5 calendar days 

to submit statements or questions or any extraneous material for 

the record. 

I am going to go to our ranking member, Mr. Engel, to use the 

balance of the time, if you have an opening statement you would 

like to make. 

Mr. Eliot Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend 

our colleague, Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, for his eloquent statement. 

And I am glad the committee is focusing on threats to human 

rights around the world and how it ties into America’s security and 

interests. 

I know our witnesses are about to speak. I want to welcome you 

personally to the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

The committee has considered a wide range of human rights 

issues that affect every region in the world, and we have dealt with 

abuse of civil and political rights as well as rights to life and personal safety. 

And so, I want to welcome you. 

We have seen a troubling trend in recent years. According to 

Freedom House, for the 10th consecutive year of declining freedom 

around the world, and 72 countries were in a downward trajectory 

5

last year versus just 43 that made gains when it comes to human 

rights. 

I am told that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as we speak, is holding a hearing about legislation that we 

believe would permit discrimination against LGBT Americans. So, 

it is just always a fight. 

And with respect to those rights, LGBT rights, we have seen a 

particularly disturbing trend of laws that criminalize same-sex activity and other oppressive political policies aimed at the LGBT 

community. We see this in places like Russia, Brunei, and Uganda. 

And when you see LGBT rights under assault, it is a pretty good 

predictor that governments are cracking down on human rights in 

civil society more generally. 

Nowhere have we seen more horrific treatment of LGBT persons 

than in areas controlled by ISIS. Gay men have been publicly executed in just horrific ways. When we see these kinds of abuses, we 

have an obligation to act. Basic rights and human dignity are at 

the core of American values. No person should endure violence or 

discrimination just because of where they live, how they worship, 

or who they love. 

And beyond a moral imperative of advancing human rights, we 

have a security interest in these issues. It has been a month today 

since the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. This was an 

ISIS-inspired hate crime. When messages of hatred and bigotry are 

allowed to thrive, it creates a risk to us right here at home. 

So, I am glad, and I commend the chairman, that the committee 

is taking up this issue. I am grateful to all witnesses and I look 

forward to their testimony. 

Again, I want to thank Mr. Cicilline. 

And I want to just single out one of our witnesses, Mark 

Bromley, who will talk to us about the violence and persecution 

facing the LGBT communities around the world. 

I thank all our four distinguished witnesses, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I thank you, Mr. Engel. 

And I will encourage Ambassador Lagon and all of our witnesses 

here, if you summarize your remarks, I think that is most 

impactful. And then, we will go to questions and answers after you 

have begun. 

So, Ambassador, we will go with you first. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK P. LAGON, 

PRESIDENT, FREEDOM HOUSE 

Ambassador LAGON. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, 

and members of the committee, it is an honor to testify. 

Human rights and freedoms around the world are inextricably 

linked to the national security and economic interests of the United 

States. Not only is investing in these principles a natural expression of our values, it is a necessity to protect our own interests. 

Our diplomacy and foreign assistance should empower human 

rights defenders and reformers to build free, flourishing, and peaceful societies. 

‘‘Freedom in the World,’’ Freedom House’s flagship publication, 

has, indeed, documented the 10th straight year of a global decline 

6

in freedom affecting 105 countries during that decade. The three 

areas where the sharpest declines have occurred are freedom of expression, rule of law, and freedom of association. 

Economic pressures have fueled public unrest and have been met 

with harsh crackdowns in many of the world’s authoritarian countries. Rulers in Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Russia, and 

Turkey, among others, have used antiterrorism laws, blasphemy 

and insult laws, and laws governing the registration and foreign 

funding of non-government organizations to effectively muzzle civil 

society and stamp out dissent. This crisis has been accompanied 

worldwide by growing xenophobic sentiment in many parts of the 

world, including in the West, in Europe. 

It is my view and Freedom House’s that it is better to spend a 

small amount now to strengthen good governance and maintain 

peace than to spend a large amount in the future on military intervention or rebuilding after war. Ethiopia is prime example. Viewed 

as a key partner in the war on terror, its harsh repression of dissent raises questions about its long-term viability as an effective 

partner. 

We often fund healthcare, food aid, and climate change, and efforts like those in Ethiopia, but we don’t always fund governance. 

But, without good governance, there can’t be any reliable access to 

food or healthcare. 

In the same way that security is unsustainable without fair, 

democratic institutions and rule of law, so, too, is economic development. Governments built on the respect for human rights and 

rule of law tend to foster transparent, stable environments conducive to free enterprise. 

Strong growth in certain repressive states sometimes gives the 

misleading impression that authoritarianism is good for business. 

The People’s Republic of China is a perfect example. Freedom 

House found that repression has worsened under President Xi 

Jinping. In response to the 2015 stock market drop, Xi’s government has unleashed aggressive interventions in the market, enhanced censorship, arrested over 200 involved in public interest 

legal activism, and passed a sweeping, deliberately vague law 

which will impact more than 7,000 foreign NGOs and their local 

Chinese partners. 

One of the affected organizations, the American Chamber of 

Commerce in China, found that anti-corruption and intellectual 

property rights remain a concern for Americans doing business in 

China. Their surveys also indicate that four out of five companies 

reported being negatively affected by Chinese internet censorship. 

Freedom House argues that we should ensure that we are investing in our wins. Tunisia is one of the success stories of the Arab 

Spring, arguably, the only one, but its nascent democracy is still 

in danger. Terrorist attacks and ISIS recruitment tempt Tunisia’s 

Government to take steps that might imperil the path toward democracy consolidation, undercutting the positive elections and new 

constitution ensuring civil liberties. 

Another glimmer of hope is in Burma, where an overwhelming 

victory for Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy 

represents a remarkable turnaround, but ethnic and religious tensions persist with violence against the Muslim Rohingya and the 

7

largely Christian Kachin. This is why Freedom House in its programmatic work has a project in Burma working on religious pluralism and why U.S. policy should continue to invest in Burma. 

If we are serious about enabling nations to build free, flourishing, and peaceful societies, there are several things Freedom 

House would recommend. 

First, the United States should make democracy and human 

rights integral to our foreign policy. In Egypt, for instance, a more 

effective U.S. policy would use the leverage of military assistance 

to pressure the el-Sisi regime to loosen its controls on Egyptian society and give Egyptians avenues for peaceful dissent to contribute 

to real stability. 

Second, democracy and human rights should be a consistent component of our foreign policy agenda, raised at the highest levels 

from the President on down. A Freedom House study in late 2014 

found that democratic powers tend to shy away from pressing 

human rights in China. That is a mistake, and for the United 

States it demeans, rather than increases, our credibility. 

Third—and I will finish in a moment—we should generate solidarity among the democracies to invest in human rights and democracy support. 

Fourth, we should support civil society groups consistently because they are key agents of peace and prosperity. We should not 

allow U.S. aid to prop up repressive governments that squash independent groups. 

And finally, Congress should pass the Global Magnitsky Human 

Rights Accountability Act, which will impose visa bans and asset 

freezes on foreign officials responsible for human rights violations 

and large-scale corruption. 

Reversing the decade-long slide in human rights and democracy 

is important for stability and growth to be truly sustainable. The 

United States need to apply the many assets it has to fighting for 

pluralism. These steps are low-cost and high-value investments 

suited precisely to a time of husbanding resources for what is most 

important. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lagon follows:]

8


20741a-1.eps
9


20741a-2.eps
10


20741a-3.eps
11


20741a-4.eps
12


20741a-5.eps
13


20741a-6.eps
14


20741a-7.eps
15


20741a-8.eps
16


20741a-9.eps
17


20741a-10.eps
18


20741a-11.eps
19


20741a-12.eps
20


20741a-13.eps
21


20741a-14.eps
22

Chairman ROYCE. Feel free if you want to follow up, Doctor. Do 

you have a few words there? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS FARR, PH.D., PRESIDENT, RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM INSTITUTE 

Mr. FARR. I do, indeed. 

Chairman ROYCE. Please share them with us. 

Mr. FARR. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members of 

the committee, thanks for inviting me to testify. I am going to address the global crisis of religious freedom, the largely-ignored consequences of this crisis for our nation, and how religious freedom 

can increase American security here and abroad. 

At a recent conference, a young Iraqi couple described the terrible travail of Christians in Iraq and Syria, and I quote: ‘‘ISIS terrorists are raping and killing children in front of their parents. 

Then, they are killing the parents.’’ If something doesn’t stop this 

slaughter, they told a stunned audience, Christians and Christianity will soon be eliminated. The same is true of the Yazidis and 

other minority religions. 

This is but one of millions of stories of terrible human suffering 

resulting from the vile religious persecution that is occurring with 

growing frequency around the world. We are witnessing in the 21st 

century a global human rights catastrophe, one with extraordinary 

consequences for the United States. 

Last month the Pew Research Center issued the latest in a series 

of annual reports. The findings are chilling. Let me cite three. 

First, three-quarters of the world’s population lives in countries 

where religious freedom is severely restricted. 

Second, over the past 8 years, nations experiencing injuries and 

deaths from religion-related terrorism have increased from 17 nations to 60. 

Third, social hostility toward religion in America has increased 

so dramatically that the United States is now listed in the category 

of high levels of social hostility toward religion. 

Among the most serious consequences of this global crisis is the 

growing threat of violent Islamist extremism and terrorism, which 

continues to be incubated in the Middle East and exported around 

the world, including to the American homeland. Advancing religious freedom successfully in U.S. foreign policy would help to undermine terrorism. Unfortunately, religious freedom currently 

plays no part in our national security policy, but it should. The fate 

of Christians and other minorities in Iraq and Syria is closely related to American national security. If these minorities are eliminated, with them will go any opportunity for pluralism and stability. Iraq and Syria will become perpetual training grounds for 

terrorism. 

Unfortunately, military means alone are not going to defeat the 

scourge of violent Islamist extremism. Even if we defeat ISIS as a 

military force, we will not have eliminated the source of terrorism. 

We must also defeat the ideology of extremist Islam. Otherwise, it 

will continue to spread as a global agent of terrorism. If we fail at 

this task, we will face continued upheaval in the Middle East and 

elsewhere as well as an increase in violent attacks on our own children at home. 

23

The only force that can defeat the ideology of violent Islamist extremism is Muslims themselves, stakeholders in the nations where 

this ideology is dominant. But this cannot happen without the advancement of religious freedom in those nations. 

In recent years, Georgetown’s Religious Freedom Project has 

demonstrated how religious freedom helps societies achieve such 

goods as stable democracy, economic growth, and undermining violent religious extremism. For example, in many Muslim majority 

countries, public debate over Islam is dominated by those whose 

radical understandings of Islam are protected by laws against blasphemy and defamation. Muslims are, in effect, prevented from debating publicly their own religious principles. 

Success in advancing religious freedom would break this radical 

monopoly, empowering Muslim reformers to argue not only that 

Islam rejects terrorism, but it requires equality for all citizens, including non-Muslims and women. Religious freedom will provide 

young Muslims an alternative to extremism by encouraging them 

to participate in their own political systems, an opportunity that 

has rarely existed in nations where Islamist terrorism has emerged 

and flourished. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, if we succeed at advancing religious freedom, these societies will become more stable and the American people more safe and secure. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]

24


20741b-1.eps
25


20741b-2.eps
26


20741b-3.eps
27


20741b-4.eps
28


20741b-5.eps
29


20741b-6.eps
30


20741b-7.eps
31

STATEMENT OF MS. AMANDA SCHNETZER, DIRECTOR, HUMAN 

FREEDOM INITIATIVE, THE GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE 

Ms. SCHNETZER. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and 

distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to be here 

today. 

My comments will focus on the connection between promoting 

human rights and freedom abroad and maintaining our security 

here at home. Seventy-five years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt 

delivered his famous Four Freedoms speech to Congress. He 

warned that ‘‘at no previous time has American security been as 

seriously threatened from without as it is today.’’ In making the 

case to end U.S. neutrality in the war, President Roosevelt redefined America’s role in the world by intertwining our national security with the fight against tyranny beyond our shores. ‘‘The future 

and safety of our country and our democracy are overwhelmingly 

involved in events far beyond our borders,’’ he warned. 

This principle is just as relevant today, as the adversaries of 

freedom once again gain ground. Although substantially more people in the world experience liberty today than at the end of World 

War II, more than half the world’s population still lives in countries where basic political rights and civil liberties are only partly 

respected, if at all. The last decade, in particular, has not been 

good for freedom, as Mark Lagon told us. 

As the challengers to liberalism gain adherence, it is in the direct 

and immediate interest of the United States to support the advance 

of human rights and freedom abroad. The current mood in the 

United States does not appear conducive to this strategy. New Pew 

research polling shows that 70 percent of Americans want the next 

administration to focus on domestic policy over foreign policy. Yet, 

in order to address the major threats that keep Americans awake 

at night, strong U.S. leadership is still required. 

So, where do we go from here? One step would be for policymakers to make the promotion of democracy and human rights an 

important part of their foreign policy agendas. This March, 139 policy experts, civil society leaders, and former elected officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, signed a letter encouraging the 

Presidential candidates to do just that. The letter called it a ‘‘false 

choice’’ to pit the pursuit of democratic ideals against national security. 

A second step would be to engage the American people in a conversation about the impact of advancing freedom on our own peace, 

prosperity, and security here at home. At the end of World War II, 

for example, many questioned whether democracy was compatible 

with Germany and Japan. Today these are among our strongest 

partners and allies in the world, and Americans reap tangible benefits. 

During the Cold War, the United States supported democratic reform in then authoritarian allies such as Taiwan and South Korea, 

the Philippines, and Chile. The end of the Cold War was a major 

victory for freedom in Central and Eastern Europe and for American peace and security. 

Today the morale and strategic imperatives of advancing human 

rights can be seen in numerous examples. I will take three from 

our work at the Bush Institute. 

32

As First Lady and still today, Laura Bush has made the empowerment of women in Afghanistan a priority. Women and girls 

have made important gains since the end of Taliban control. Yet, 

those achievements are fragile and the need for continued U.S. 

support and engagement is there. It matters to Americans because 

investing in women in Afghanistan promotes stability and helps reduce the possibility of future terrorist attacks on the United States 

emanating from that country. 

The Institute is also investing in the next generation of women 

leaders in the Middle East, in Egypt and Tunisia. Tunisia may be 

the only success story of the Arab Spring, but the sentiments that 

inspired democratic uprisings across the region remain: Frustration 

with injustice, lack of freedom, and a dearth of economic opportunity. 

The same factors were present in Syria, but the failure to liberalize there and elsewhere in the Middle East has had devastating 

consequences. It is in the interest of the United States to see the 

forces of freedom eventually prevail. 

The Institute’s Liberty and Leadership Forum is helping develop 

young leaders in Burma who are playing important roles in their 

country’s democratic opening. For more than two decades, U.S. policy focused on isolating Burma’s military junta and advancing the 

cause of Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition. Today 

Burma’s strategic importance is also rising, as China grows more 

aggressive in consolidating its power and influence in Asia. 

There is also the example of North Korea. In 2015, the Institute 

released a report calling for new approaches to address the human 

rights abuses of the Kim regimes. One of the report’s recommendations is to treat human rights and the nuclear threat as symbiotic. 

Policy opportunities including human rights, integrating human 

rights into mainstream diplomacy, the sanctions regime, and 

frameworks for looking at future unification are among them. The 

recent decision to sanction Kim Jong Un and 10 other North Koreans for human rights abuses is a move in that direction. 

A third step in breaking the false dichotomy of human rights and 

national security would be to encourage relevant research. The 

Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, for example, has 

done important work documenting the DPRK’s use of forced labor 

to generate revenue for the government, including its nuclear program. 

Finally, a fourth step would be to seek immediate opportunities 

for bipartisan action. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan acknowledged that policymakers can disagree on many things, but he said, 

‘‘on one point, all of us are united—our abhorrence of dictatorship 

in all its forms.’’ He then called on leaders in Europe and the 

United States to ‘‘take actions to assist the campaign for democracy.’’

The founding of the National Endowment for Democracy followed 

a year later with strong bipartisan support. The creation of the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation in 2004 is another example of 

important bipartisan action. 

In the current political environment, this may be a tall order, but 

the stakes at home and abroad are high, and American leadership 

is essential. 

33

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schnetzer follows:]

34


20741c-1.eps
35


20741c-2.eps
36


20741c-3.eps
37


20741c-4.eps
38


20741c-5.eps
39

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK BROMLEY, CHAIR, THE COUNCIL 

FOR GLOBAL EQUALITY 

Mr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

Thank you, Mr. Cicilline, for your opening remarks. 

I would like to say a bit more today about the human rights protections that are under siege for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 

transgender individuals globally. The targeted attack on the gay 

bar in Orlando just 1 month ago, as already noted, is a sobering 

reminder of that fact. I would like to argue here today that targeted LGBT violence and anti-LGBT propaganda in general challenge fundamental democratic values and pluralistic societies everywhere. 

For many LGBT individuals globally, particularly in the nearly 

80 countries that criminalize consensual same-sex relationships 

with long prison sentences or death, violence is an everyday reality. 

The State Department’s Annual Human Rights Report confirms 

this. In this year’s report, targeted LGBT killings are cited in countries ranging from Honduras to Russia to Pakistan. In Zimbabwe, 

families subjected their LGBTI members to corrective rape. In Ecuador, private treatment centers confined LGBTI persons against 

their will. From Azerbaijan to Kenya and from Guatemala to Turkey, and Indonesia to Sri Lanka, the State Department reports on 

the abuse of LGBT citizens by police forces. 

Given these findings and turning back to Orlando and its global 

legacy, I believe our country and our allies must not underreact or 

overreact, and we must not confuse the difference between the two. 

To be sure, ISIS is, indeed, a threat to the LGBT community, as 

it is to other ethnic and religious communities in the Middle East 

and beyond. As noted already, the State Department has found 

that ISIS is responsible for genocide against Yazidis, Christians, 

and Shia Muslims. In the same way, ISIS has also targeted LGBT 

individuals with ferocious violence and a similar intent to destroy 

the community. 

OutRight Action International has documented more than 40 

men who have been accused of sodomy and killed in horrific public 

executions in the recent past, and those are just the cases that 

ISIS itself has taken credit for. Last summer the United States and 

Chile cosponsored a Security Council briefing on LGBT-related 

atrocities in ISIS areas. 

But ISIS is not the only perpetrator. On another front, Russia 

has led a new assault on LGBT organizations and individuals 

through an anti-propaganda law that bans all public discussion of 

homosexuality, even in the context of HIV/AIDS. 

Authoritarian governments from Uganda to Kazakhstan, and 

even allies such as Egypt and Indonesia, have adopted anti-LGBT 

rhetoric to justify the closing of civic space. While targeting gay 

groups, Russia has also gone after democracy and human rights 

groups, and it just adopted alarming new restrictions on religious 

groups as well. 

At the same time, I urge us not to overreact. We must not close 

our borders or turn inward. We need to offer protection to refugees, 

including LGBT refugees who are some of the most vulnerable individuals on the planet. And we must not allow countries to justify 

sweeping anti-democratic actions in response to terrorism. 

40

So, in this global environment, what course should we chart 

abroad? First, in the LGBT context, we should continue to invest 

in the Global Equality Fund at the State Department, which is 

supported by 13 other countries under U.S. leadership. The Fund 

has assisted frontline human rights defenders in more than 80 

countries globally. The State Department is also identifying opportunities to address bias-motivated violence by supporting law enforcement and by including new hate crimes courses in our International Law Enforcement Academies around the world. 

We also should support USAID and the World Bank as they 

identify development opportunities for individuals and demonstrate 

the macroeconomic benefits of LGBT participation in the workplace. A World Bank study recently concluded that homophobia 

costs the Indian economy $31 billion or more annually in lost economic opportunities. In short, these very modest U.S. investments 

offer important long-term dividends. 

This is also the moment to engage multilateral institutions, including the United Nations. The Human Rights Council created a 

new, independent expert position to respond to these abuses just 2 

weeks ago. And the U.N. Security Council condemned the killings 

in Orlando, recognizing for the first time that individuals were targeted because of their sexual orientation. 

Mr. Chairman, countries that turn on their own LGBT citizens 

or that scapegoat them to distract from broader political or economic failings are equally likely to turn on other ethnic or religious 

minorities and on human rights and democracy groups writ large. 

The Anti-Defamation League has documented strong links between 

anti-Semitism and homophobia in Europe and beyond. The actors 

are the same, the intentions are the same, and the violence is too 

often the same. 

In contrast, our strongest allies, from Canada to our European 

partners to Israel, have strong civil rights protections for their 

LGBT citizens. This is not a coincidence, and we should make that 

point to governments that hope to deepen their relationship with 

the United States. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bromley follows:]

41


20741d-1.eps
42


20741d-2.eps
43


20741d-3.eps
44


20741d-4.eps
45


20741d-5.eps
46


20741d-6.eps
47

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Bromley. 

Let me begin with a question to Mr. Farr. This concerns the importance of promotion of religious freedom in the fight against radical Islamist extremists such as ISIS or Boko Haram. How would 

you say the United States could most productively support that 

goal? 

Mr. FARR. Well, thanks for that question, Mr. Chairman. One 

very practical thing, if I might say so, if I could commend the committee for passing out H.R. 1150, which is now in the Senate. If 

that bill is signed and sent to the President and he signs it, I think 

it will energize the State Department. It is the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom bill. It will empower, give greater resources and status to the Ambassador-at-Large, who is an excellent 

Ambassador, David Saperstein, along with Knox Thames, who is 

the Special Advisor for Minorities in the region. These people, if 

they had more authority and resources, I think could do the kinds 

of things that I think the United States could do, but is not doing. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that. 

Let me ask Mrs. Schnetzer a question here about North Korea. 

I know you have done a lot of work on that front. Maybe you could 

tell us what could improve the human rights situation there in 

North Korea, in your view. 

Ms. SCHNETZER. Yes, sir. I think the way to improve the human 

condition in North Korea is multifaceted. Our work at the Bush Institute, we have introduced reports that talk about opportunities 

both for government, for civil society, and for the private sector to 

try to address the grievous abuse of human rights in that country. 

There are a variety of ways to do that from a policy standpoint 

and for civil society and business to engage. One example that we 

are continuing to work on is the opportunity on the policy front to 

look at the intersection of our approach to human rights in North 

Korea and our concerns about security and nuclear, and that, for 

too long, those two have been considered in parallel form, perhaps 

as disconnected from one another. What we are finding is that 

those two are intimately linked; that the way the North Korean 

Government treats its own people has a direct link to how they engage others in the world and act internationally. And as I mentioned, there is even research beginning to emerge that shows that 

things like the use of slave labor, the human rights abuses of the 

regime can be directly connected to the resources coming into the 

regime, including for its nuclear program. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

The last question I am going to ask is the Freedom House’s report would label Russia as not free. So, Mr. Lagon, Ambassador, we 

have seen the space for independent media sort of disappear in 

Russia. We had the opposition leader Krym Realii blocked, or I 

should say the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reporter. More 

concerning to me was Vladimir Kara-Murza, the journalist that 

was poisoned last December. And then, in January you had President Putin signing the new law, the restrictions on social media 

and internet communications. I would just ask you for your observations on this. 

Ambassador LAGON. A lot of people have focused on the situation 

for civil society groups with the foreign agents law and the undesirVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071216\20741 SHIRL
48

able organizations law. I am glad you ask about the media situation. There has been longstanding control or influence over major 

media operations, but things are getting worse for journalists. 

It is part of two lobes of active, well-funded Russian policy: Control of the media at home and intimidation of those who would be 

dissenting voices. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, when you are being poisoned, when you 

tell your audience, ‘‘I fear that I might be poisoned by the regime’’——

Ambassador LAGON. That is about as intimidating as it gets. 

Chairman ROYCE. But, I mean, you get poisoned and, then, you 

are hospitalized for poisoning. 

Ambassador LAGON. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. It is concerning. It is concerning to me because 

the independent media, I was following some of the reporters in 

Moscow and one of the last independent papers. After the fifth 

journalist was shot without anyone discovering who shot him, it 

began to establish in my mind the conclusion that the regime apparently didn’t want any independent media. 

So, I would ask, how impactful has the West been in finding alternative ways to get information in through social media or in 

through broadcasting to offset some of this? 

Ambassador LAGON. Not impactful enough. And I think that your 

own interest in public diplomacy and legislation to focus on that is 

very important. I think the United States should work on assisting 

indigenous independent media, funding to train journalists. We are 

encouraged in emergency assistance to all of the world to those 

who are intimidated as voices in the media and as human rights 

defenders. 

I think Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty not only should 

have good content on the political situation, filling in for the absence of independent media, but it should actually be designed to 

engage viewers more. In fact, to have entertainment will allow 

more people to hear the truth as well. 

And think about ProPublica that has looked at the web of corruption around the world. We ought to try to promote something similar to ProPublica in Russia to cover the corruption situation because the gangland violence situation that you describe in Russia 

is because of the mating of human rights oppression and corruption 

in the regime. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record testimony from the Human Rights Campaign in support of this hearing. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Bromley, let me ask you this question: In March 

2015, I sent a bipartisan letter to USAID with Chairman Emeritus 

Ros-Lehtinen urging targeted funding to protect the human rights 

of LGBT individuals in the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. As you know, violence against 

the LGBT community in these countries has reached dangerous 

49

levels. I was particularly disturbed by the recent murder of LGBT 

activist Rene Martinez in Honduras. The United States is providing $750 million in new assistance to Central America this year 

and, hopefully, in subsequent years. How can this funding be used 

to help the LGBT community in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala? How specifically can USAID and the State Department 

better assist the LGBT population in Central America? I know 

Chairman Ros-Lehtinen joins me in concern of all these issues. 

Mr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Engel, and thank you, Ms. RosLehtinen, for your support on that initiative. 

As you mentioned, the levels of violence in Central America are 

dangerously high. The average life expectancy of a transgender 

woman in Central America is estimated to be 35 years of age and 

probably lower in Honduras and some other countries. So, this is 

a real epidemic of violence, and support is important. 

There have been some steps with U.S. Government support, including the creation of a Special Victims Unit in Honduras to help 

investigate LGBT cases as well as other priority human rights 

cases, and new hate crimes training covering LGBT hate crimes for 

police officers from that region in our International Law Enforcement Academy in San Salvador. But, to date, we haven’t really 

seen the fruits of these investments. 

I think the key is that we really need to double-down on our investment in that area to bring civil society into the process, so that 

they are working with the ILEA, that they are working with the 

Special Victims Unit, to really ensure that there is coordinated action on civil society’s side as well as the government side to respond to these abuses. 

And, ultimately, at the political level from your seat here in Congress and from our Embassies in those countries, we need to ensure that the political will is there. I think we have seen moments 

of political will, but at times that political will has stumbled. So, 

I think more of the same, but it is an urgent request. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Let me ask you this: You have mentioned in your testimony the 

horrific abuses inflected by ISIS on gay men, people being thrown 

off buildings, stoned to death, and all videotaped to serve as a 

warning to others. LGBT individuals are sometimes forced to flee 

for their lives, and I understand that it is difficult to determine 

how many refugees of LGBT there are since LGBT people often do 

not self-identify. They fear violence and retaliation from their community or even from other refugees. 

So, it seems to me the LGBT refugees from different parts of the 

world suffer unique vulnerabilities and face difficult circumstances. 

Can you tell us more about that, the continued challenges they face 

while fleeing or in a refugee camp, or even when already resettled 

in another country? 

Mr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

Absolutely. As I mentioned, LGBT refugees are probably some of 

the most vulnerable individuals on the planet. Even when they are 

forced to flee their own country, which is a decision that no individual takes lightly, they find themselves in a refugee community, 

often in a country that is equally hostile to LGBT individuals, in 

a refugee community that doesn’t understand their own situation 

50

or their claim for protection on the basis of their sexual orientation 

or gender identity. And they are exposed to extreme levels of violence and persecution in camp settings, in particular. 

We are seeing large concentrations of LGBT refugees, particularly in cities in Turkey, where they are also very vulnerable and 

often forced to the margins of society. Fortunately, UNHCR and 

the U.S. Government are looking at opportunities to identify those 

LGBT refugees. As you noted, the first challenge is convincing 

them that it is safe to come out, to tell authorities, to tell UNHCR 

who they are and why they need protection. Once they are identified, there are opportunities to offer additional protections, to offer 

refugee processing in a way that is both sensitive and efficient, to 

try to get them out of danger as quickly as possible. 

But those steps need additional support. We really need to continue to push UNHCR, which is on the frontlines here. As the largest investor in UNHCR, I think we can make sure that they make 

a difference. 

Mr. ENGEL. And let me ask you one final question. The State Department Global Equality Fund supports courageous frontline 

human rights defenders, and not enough can be said of their bravery to fight against the hate and the violence, the vitriol. I think 

of the dauntless Frank Mugisha in Uganda whose colleague was 

brutally murdered; he continues to stand up for those who want 

dignity in their lives or the countless others who work under the 

threat of violence, detention, and beatings. 

What more can the U.S. Government do to support these frontline human rights defenders? 

Mr. BROMLEY. Thank you. 

I do think the Global Equality Fund is a remarkable fund and 

one that we have really been able to use to great advantage. It is 

co-funded by 13 other governments. So, we are not in this alone. 

We are pooling the resources, and the U.S. is using our broad reach 

through our Embassies to really lead that Fund and help identify 

those activists on the frontline who are most in need of support. 

But I think we need to really support that fund. We can grow 

it with more governments. I believe there are a couple more that 

are going to be coming into the Fund. But that takes diplomatic engagement and it takes U.S. leadership to show that we will continue to be a leader in that Fund and in this struggle to support 

some of these truly brave human rights defenders who are on the 

frontlines in places like Uganda and elsewhere where it is really 

difficult to be standing up for fundamental freedoms and for pluralistic societies. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, and I want to thank all the witnesses. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Randy Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Lagon, this is for you. The U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom 2015 Annual Report stated that, 

‘‘By any measure, religious freedoms abroad has been under serious 

and sustained assault since 2015.’’ Of course, we all have been 

talking about that. You know that. 

The Freedom House’s 2016 Freedom in the World report noted 

violence against religious minorities on each continent, paying speVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071216\20741 SHIRL
51

cial recognition to assaults in India, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cuba, Angola, and Macedonia. This increase in violence against religious minorities prompted many to flee their homelands and seek refuge 

elsewhere, especially in Europe. And then, the report goes on to 

state that, ‘‘This mass influx fueled an already-rising tide of hatred 

and violence targeting Muslims and Jews, particularly in Western 

Europe.’’

With that as a backdrop, there have been reports of rising antiSemitism in Europe, the BDS Movement, for example, especially in 

states that had a resurgence of the far right and far left parties 

gaining—I don’t know if they are gaining control but obviously 

being active. Last year, Israel saw the largest immigration of Jews 

in decades. Some have attributed this growing anti-Semitism to 

general xenophobic responses to mass immigration from the Middle 

East. Do you believe that is a reasonable correlation? 

Ambassador LAGON. I think there are people who are responding 

in Europe in xenophobic and nativist ways, and they are putting 

Muslims all into one category. I think that there is a really disturbing trend which one has seen over years that has spiked on 

anti-Semitism as well. It is not something I like doing to have to 

point out that there are disturbing trends among Western countries. But the kinds of statements that you see from the Czech 

President about those arriving from the Middle East who are Muslims being an organized invasion and the increase in the assault, 

even in Germany which has welcomed those who are refugees, and 

of neo-Nazis in an anti-Semitic way, we are seeing a trend of an 

increase in the worst kind of xenophobia, not just discrimination, 

but real violent persecution. 

Mr. WEBER. As Ambassador-at-Large, 2007 to 2009—is that 

right?—you, obviously, have paid attention and, obviously, what 

you all do is paying attention. Do you know of any other anti-Semitic against the Jewish state, do you know of any other 

xenophobic, as you call it, response to a country or a state like that 

against the Jewish state of Israel? 

Ambassador LAGON. Well, there is a distinctive persecution of 

Israel, and one sees it, in particular, in the U.N. For my sins, I 

worked for the State Department on U.N. affairs. 

Mr. WEBER. For your ‘‘sins’’? 

Ambassador LAGON. Yes, for my sins. You know, working as a 

Deputy Assistant Secretary——

Mr. WEBER. You must have had some really bad sins. [Laughter.] 

Ambassador LAGON. I see that at the U.N. where there is a distinct special focus on Israel and, in fact, even global conferences 

that are on xenophobia have focused distinctly on Israel. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, but why is that? You are quantitating it with 

the amount of focus. Why? 

Ambassador LAGON. In my view, it is a stalking horse for a criticism of the West, a criticism of globalization, and a criticism of big 

democratic powers by picking on Israel. 

But I think it is worth looking at a broader pattern of xenophobia. My parents are immigrants from Poland. I am deeply disturbed, as anyone should be, about the turn of events in Poland 

where the government is quite nationalist and it is treating those 

who are migrants as possibly suspect for terrorism. We should 

52

worry about the coarsening of views in Europe and, indeed, in the 

United States. Anti-Semitism is one of the most disturbing forms 

of it, but not the only. 

Mr. WEBER. But would you say that the rise of terrorism—it depends on how far back you want to go—but anti-Semitism has been 

around a long—I don’t know of any other state, and this is your 

specialty, any other people who have been discriminated against on 

that level like the anti-Semitism that we have seen for years. 

Would you agree with that? 

Ambassador LAGON. Well, anti-Semitism has, sadly, been a corrosive feeling for centuries. We should remember every time we invoke the phrase ‘‘never again’’ related to genocide that we are most 

likely speaking of an effort to stamp out the Jewish people in Europe. 

Mr. WEBER. So, one last question. 

Ambassador LAGON. And anti-Semitism continues in mild, intense, and in deeply-violent——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, I am out of time. Forgive me. 

But one last question very quickly, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

So, you are watching the Iran nuclear giveaway, I call it. And so, 

you are watching the statements of Ayatollah Khomeini that Israel 

is a one-bomb nation. Does that concern you? 

Ambassador LAGON. Yes, of course it does. And I think that you 

should take dictators and theocrats seriously when they talk about 

trying to wipe a nation off the map. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you. 

Ambassador LAGON. If I may just comment, for a long time U.S. 

policy tried to satisfy the human rights issues on Iran to focus on 

the nuclear issue. Now that there is a nuclear deal, no matter what 

one might think of it, it is time to focus on those human rights 

issues and put the kind of pressure on Iran——

Mr. WEBER. So, let me paraphrase it, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

So, what you are saying is, if a dictatorial regime has zero respect for human rights, they can’t be trusted and need to be dealt 

with in a harsh way? 

Ambassador LAGON. I have no trust for a regime that treats its 

own political opponents or certain minority groups as less than 

human. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

I have one question just for the record that I won’t ask for an 

oral response, but it builds on what the gentleman just said, and 

it is a tough one. And that is, is it appropriate in screening refugees from the Middle East and determining who to admit to exclude someone who has such extreme anti-Semitic views that their 

presence in the host country, they may not engage in violence 

themselves, but it creates a culture in which violent anti-Semitism 

is applauded, at least in one cultural segment of the country? So, 

I will ask for that as a written response. 

Mrs. Schnetzer pointed out the slave labor problem in North 

Korea. I should point out that, while the case on work camps is 

now closed, there is only a matter of time before it is, I think, reopened. There is just too much money to be made there. And those 

53

slave labor products may well enter the United States duty-free 

under our free trade agreements and particularly TPP. Those of us 

who fought for ironclad assurance that goods made north of the 

DMZ would not enter duty-free failed in both agreements. And it 

is only a matter of time, I think, before slave labor goods come into 

our country from Kasung. 

I want to comment a little bit about the background here, and 

that is legitimacy. Governments need to answer the question, why 

is it legitimate for them to rule? For hundreds of years, monarchy 

served as an answer. Now monarchy is being swept into the dust 

bin of history. Democracy is the only system that can answer that 

question, and it can allow for peaceful succession and a role for opponents. 

There are a few other systems that offer legitimacy. Communism, 

there is no vanguard of the proletariat left. Theocracy exists in 

Iran, and there are some dictatorships allied by theocratic elements. I fear that that is becoming increasingly true in Turkey. 

But, ultimately, you end up with a lot of governments that are 

just illegitimate who cannot answer the question, why are you in 

power except you happen to have guns? And so, they try to find an 

enemy. First, they seek an external enemy with exaggerated nationalism, but they also can seek an internal enemy, and then, they 

can demonize that enemy and use that as a way to rally support. 

Switching to another topic, I believe it was the chairman who 

pointed out how horrific events in Syria are. We should point out 

that those millions of displaced people and hundreds of thousands 

of deaths could not occur if Assad didn’t have allies. There is a lot 

of focus on Russia because, even if a former nuclear power does 

something modest, you have to pay a lot of attention because they 

have hundreds of nuclear weapons behind them. 

But most of Assad’s support comes from Iran. Thugs are being 

flown into Damascus or being brought by Iran in from Lebanon. 

And we are now asked to provide the planes that will be used to 

take more thugs, more weapons, to Assad. As long as we put ‘‘Air 

Iran,’’ rather than ‘‘Iran Air Force,’’ on the outside of these planes, 

we are told that that cleanses our soul and our responsibility. And 

we are told that we should sell these with no U.N. monitor to make 

sure that the plane is not used to fly to carry weapons to Assad. 

Finally, let me be the only person to say anything happy here. 

And that is, if you look at the long arc of history, it does bend toward justice. That is not a phrase that I invented. In the 18th century there was only one democracy. We had far more in the 19th 

century. We had far, far more in the 20th century. And I am confident that we will see in the 21st century the march of democracy 

and human rights around the world. 

Let me try to bring in one question. Mr. Bromley, in 2011, the 

Obama administration issues its Presidential Memorandum on 

International Initiatives to Advance Human Rights of LGBT Persons. How are they doing? 

Mr. BROMLEY. Great. Thank you for that question. 

The Presidential Memorandum I think has been a very important government-wide tool to look at the various funding streams 

and programs that we have internationally that could be leveraged 

to really offer additional support for LGBT communities in some 

54

really hostile environments. And I think they have been doing a 

really good job. 

I think there are a couple of important features of the Presidential Memorandum. It requires each of the foreign affairs agencies to report annually back to the White House on what they have 

been doing to really look at the problem and leverage some of their 

existing assets to address the problem of discrimination and violence against LGBT individuals. And that reporting-back process 

allows additional interagency coordination and sharing and some 

reflection that allows us to carry forward and really create some 

new synergies in our programming. So, I think that has been incredibly important. 

I also think that it has allowed a focus on violence prevention. 

I think at the end of the day what we really need to do is use our 

foreign affairs assets to help countries tamp down on hate violence 

and the really extreme levels of violence against LGBT individuals. 

That will allow them, then, to organize and demand their rights as 

legitimate citizens in any country. 

And so, I think, again, this coordination, particularly around violence prevention programs and human rights initiatives, has been 

incredibly important, and we certainly hope that it is an effort that 

will continue into future administrations. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, the case on industrial complexes, as you know, has been shut down. And secondarily, there 

is a conflict division, shall we say, between how we read the agreement? The agreement seems pretty ironclad in terms of disallowing 

South Korea to participate if they allow those goats to come 

through. I know the enforcement is an issue with you, but just for 

the record. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I did note in my comments that 

it is currently shut down, but I suspect that it will be opened in 

the next year or two. 

And as to whether the language is adequate, one has to wonder 

why the proponents of the agreement were unwilling to put in the 

iron ironclad language that many of us were pushing and why they 

insisted upon the language that I think will allow the——

Chairman ROYCE. No, no. I think they put in what they thought 

was the iron ironclad, but maybe there is a new iron ironclad——

Mr. SHERMAN. They certainly didn’t listen to those of us who 

were pushing for——

Chairman ROYCE. Suffice it to say that there is a disagreement 

on the interpretation there. 

We are going to go to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the panelists being here. 

And when I ask these questions or my statement, I want you to 

think how we can better do our foreign aid and how we can get better results ultimately, is what we are looking for. 

Freedom House, the 2016 Freedom in the World report, a decline 

in global freedom in each of the past 10 years; 60 percent of the 

world’s population now living in countries designated as partly free 

or not free at all. Perhaps even more troubling has been the recent 

55

backsliding of respect for human rights in longstanding democracies. Many regimes have responded to popular grievance and 

anti-democratic sentiment by closing space for political dissent and 

uncensored discourse. Other countries have seen discrimination 

against religious minorities, LGBT, you know, what we have talked 

about here. 

In Malawi, albinos have become targets for organ harvesting, 

fueled by beliefs that their body parts can be used in witchcraft to 

bring wealth and cure disease. And Russian world human rights offenders, Putin’s regime closed independent media outlets and jailed 

journalists. And we see that all over the world. And a perceived 

rise in anti-Semitism across Europe has led to record numbers of 

Jewish immigrants leaving, as Mr. Weber talked about, for Israel. 

You know, it just goes on and on and on, and it gets to be a very 

bleak picture. Yet, the United States of America and other countries have invested billions and billions, if not trillions, of dollars 

over the last 30 years, 40 years. In Ethiopia, since World War II, 

we have given tens of billions of dollars. Yet, everything seems to 

be in decline. 

And I think it was you, Ambassador Lagon, talking about the 

human rights and suppression along with corruption go hand-inhand with declining freedoms. I just came back from a trip in 

South America. In every country we went to there was corruption 

in the government. We have been over to Africa, the Middle East. 

Corruption in all these governments, yet we do business with them. 

We know countries like Vietnam are involved in the slave trade, 

human trafficking, things like that, and we put stipulations on 

them that you must meet our standards and we will trade with 

you, or you must meet our standards and we will give you foreign 

aid. Yet, we know they are not doing it. Yet, we trade with them 

and we give them foreign aid. 

Why should we continue that? Why should I go back to my district and talk to my constituents and say, ‘‘We have to keep giving 

foreign aid.’’? And I understand the purpose. We are trying to create democracy and good trading partners. But I think it is time 

that we played hard ball in this and pick out those countries that 

are willing to come to this side of the table, and let’s support those. 

And if we can get a win here, you know, success breeds success. 

But what we are doing over the last 30 years seems to be lunacy 

on the majority of it for me. What are your comments? 

Ambassador LAGON. Why don’t I briefly just talk about the tools 

that we have in the toolbox? Legislators, those in the executive 

branch, have an opportunity to talk with the American people 

about what we can do. 

We should be able to use the sticks. One reason I am in favor 

of the Global Magnitsky Sanctions Act is to target those particular 

officials who are responsible for corruption or the human rights 

abuses themselves, put the squeeze on them, and put their leaders 

in the position of either cutting them loose and losing backers in 

their heinous regimes or hugging them and showing that their regimes are bad. 

I used to be the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large to Combat Trafficking 

in Persons. When countries are on Tier 3, they should get the sancVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071216\20741 SHIRL
56

tions that the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act provides for 

and not be given a waiver. 

In terms of aid, which you properly ask about, Ethiopia is a fantastic example in which the United States has bankrolled a government, ostensibly to fight terrorism. In Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014, 

there was a combined $1.2 billion in foreign assistance and not a 

dime on governance programs. And it has gotten all the way up to 

$1.25 million in governance programs out of over $650 million in 

aid in Fiscal Year 2015. That is an imbalance. 

Then, finally, I need to make an appeal. If you are worried about 

the budget problem for the United States and spending our resources in a prudent way, governance programs are a good small 

investment. That is actually a form of foreign assistance that 

makes much more sense than those that have no ties whatsoever. 

Mr. YOHO. Where can you give me an example that has worked 

well? Because Ethiopia, I look at your Freedom Index from your organization; they are not free. After billions and billions and billions 

of dollars being put into that, why are we not getting a better result or bang for the buck. 

Ambassador LAGON. Let me give you a couple of examples, one 

that involves Freedom House and one that is not——

Mr. YOHO. Hold on just a minute. 

Madam Chairman? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Yes, you are a little bit over, but 

maybe we will do that in a concise answer. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. 

Ambassador LAGON. I will be quick. 

In Burma, Freedom House is working on religious pluralism and 

tolerance, so that the gains in the direction of democracy, which 

are by no means consolidated, can, in fact, be worthwhile. That is 

a place for a little bit of sustained assistance. 

In Nigeria, one of the few countries in which there has been continued aid in sub-Saharan Africa, the fact that all the democracy 

support organizations like NDI and others were there helped the 

elections go in the right direction, and we now have a tougher regime that confronts corruption and fights Boko Haram. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you, Mr. 

Yoho. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Sires of New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ambassador Lagon, thank you. Thank you for being here, and all 

the other witnesses that we have here. 

As a followup to my colleague Ted Yoho, is selective enforcement 

problematic in terms of other countries taking us seriously? We 

have seemed to turn a blind eye to some countries and, yet, we 

come down hard on others. Do you see that as a problem for all 

the countries to take us seriously and say, ‘‘Well, you know, they 

do this in Ethiopia.’’? 

Ambassador LAGON. Selectivity is a problem. In fact, when the 

United States itself engages in forms of surveillance or treatment 

of detainees that make it easier for dictators to say, ‘‘Well, you are 

doing the same things we are,’’ that is a problem. 

57

But the selectivity of sanctions and of assistance programs is a 

problem. One reason Freedom House is so strongly in favor of the 

Global Magnitsky legislation is that there are some countries that 

you are not going to imagine there being comprehensive sanctions. 

The United States is not going to embrace comprehensive sanctions 

against China because of our business engagement. But it would be 

really important to have legislation where you could target those 

officials who are responsible for corruption and the worst human 

rights abuses, so that you signal that it will not be something the 

United States would accept. And that would really help with that 

problem of selectivity. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Dr. Farr, I represent a large group of Catholic Christians in my 

district. One of the concerns that I always have when I speak to 

them, and they share with me, is their safety. I am just wondering, 

are they safer today than they were in Egypt? 

Mr. FARR. I don’t know how the answer to that could be yes. I 

think the answer is, no, they are not safer. One could make an argument that under General el-Sisi things have calmed down. So, if 

you compare it to a year or 2 years ago when Egypt seemed to be 

on the verge of internal collapse, they are safer for the moment. 

But, if you look at this over the long-term, I think the Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt remain in peril, which is why 

I support the idea of not only targeted funding of religious freedom 

activists in places like Egypt, but a more systemic approach to developing religious freedom not only as a way of protecting Copts, 

but of developing good governance in Egypt. So, I think religious 

freedom for the Copts as well as all of Egypt’s citizens can protect 

the Copts. The answer to your question is, no, they are not. In my 

view, we are not doing enough to address this problem over the 

long-term. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

I am one of those people that believes that in South America we 

are going in reverse. You have Ecuador where they beat up, they 

file lawsuits against the press. Are we going backwards in some of 

these countries? 

Ambassador LAGON. I think we are going backwards, and that is 

a disturbing thing when countries that have been in a free category 

or, you know, would be considered democracies are going backward. 

There is a trend of populism in Latin America, and in South America in particular, where the formula is leaders speaking in favor of 

the poor in their country, but, in fact, being grossly corrupt, intimidating opposition and media. So, the pattern you describe in Ecuador has also been seen in Venezuela in a most heinous form, but 

in Bolivia and elsewhere. 

But there are glimmers of hope. The fact that people——

Mr. SIRES. Except in Cuba. 

Ambassador LAGON. In Venezuela things went in the right direction. 

Mr. SIRES. Yes, but, except in Cuba, there is no hope there. 

Ambassador LAGON. Cuba, I am not saying that there is a regionwide trend that is in the right direction. It is, in fact, in the 

wrong direction. But in two places, glimmers of hope: Argentina 

moving away from the Kirchner’s corruption and intimidation of 

58

opposition and those people standing up to the Venezuelan Government and coming out for parliamentary elections late last year in 

favor of the opposition. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Sires. 

Mr. Perry is recognized. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Ambassador, I want to focus a little bit of attention on the 

rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and the fact that it seems to be enshrined in the U.N. Human Rights Council by their votes and actions. 

I am wondering if you could advise us as well, Mrs. Schnetzer, 

on what you think the United States should do to leverage our position to curb that financially, if you think that that is something, 

or otherwise. Because what I see, it is almost unbelievable that we 

just stand for it and allow it to continue. 

Ambassador LAGON. Look, I have very open eyes about the U.N.’s 

problems, which is the main place where people attack Israel and 

sometimes express anti-Semitism. 

Mr. PERRY. Sometimes? Sometimes they don’t. 

Ambassador LAGON. It is regularly a place where Israel is focused on more than any other nation for criticism. However, it is 

my view, as someone who is involved in the negotiation of creating 

the U.N. Human Rights Council, that for all of its faults, it is better for the United States to be in the room and to create an atmosphere in which there is more balance rather than less balance. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay, so we are in the room, but how are we stopping it? 

Ambassador LAGON. The United States is the only nation that 

not only can assert its vote, but actually form coalitions and browbeat other nations into moving in the right direction. It is a worse 

situation for Israel at any U.N. body if the United States is not 

there. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. If I could, Mrs. Schnetzer, any thoughts 

quickly? 

Ms. SCHNETZER. Yes, sir. So, I think it is important to note that 

in the Middle East today there are two democratic countries, Tunisia and Israel. I think it is important to continue to find ways to 

stand by those countries that are our democratic allies and supporters——

Mr. PERRY. Agreed. 

Ms. SCHNETZER [continuing]. And those that are moving in the 

right direction, but still have a long way to go. 

I do think that it is important for the United States and for Government and for Congress to find those opportunities for leveraging 

influence. I am disturbed about the trends that we see in Europe 

today. I am disturbed about some of the rhetoric in our own country today, and to find the opportunities for leverage and influence 

is important. 

Mr. PERRY. Let me just tell you from this policymaker’s standpoint it doesn’t seem like we have a plan or a vision to tangibly 

do that. It is a goal, but we are looking for some opportunity that 

shows up at some point, and then, we will take advantage of the 

59

opportunity. That is hoping on chance and luck, and I would like 

to see us do a better job. 

I have a limited amount of time, so I appreciate that. 

Mr. Bromley, listening to your statements, I am wondering about 

your organization’s position on Sharia and its treatment of the 

LGBT community in the countries where Sharia is strictly enforced, if there is such a community in those communities. I have 

heard of a lot of funding, advocacy for a lot of funding, but other 

than reports, not a whole lot of deliverables. And I am just wondering about your—we can get into that, but what is your organization’s public position and statements on that issue of Sharia, not 

only the treatment of women, but the LGBT community, in particular? 

Mr. BROMLEY. Certainly. Thank you for the question. 

The most radical interpretation of Sharia does include the death 

penalty for LGBT individuals, and that, obviously, is a grave 

human rights——

Mr. PERRY. I know that. I want to know what your position is. 

What are your public—and I don’t mean to be short, but I have got 

a limited amount of time. So, I am trying to get the information. 

Mr. BROMLEY. I mean, we have condemned the death penalty 

that was adapted in Brunei as part of a Sharia reform in Brunei, 

and we have been quite critical of that and believe, actually, that 

that raises serious questions about whether Brunei should be 

in——

Mr. PERRY. So, you only condemn the death penalty portion of 

Sharia or you condemn the actions of Sharia as they——

Mr. BROMLEY. No, absolutely other actions of Sharia, including 

lesser penalties that are still corporal penalties or any penalty for 

consensual same-sex relationships is a violation of fundamental 

human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Mr. PERRY. And what about those practitioners that would wish 

to enact and practice Sharia in America with the same prohibitions 

for women and for the LGBT community? What is your organization’s public position? 

Mr. BROMLEY. Well, with respect to the LGBT community, you 

know, any strict enforcement of Sharia would be a violation of the 

U.S. Constitution, and we obviously——

Mr. PERRY. And you have made those statements in that regard? 

Mr. BROMLEY. I would be happy to. I am making them now. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. That is important. 

Mr. BROMLEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. PERRY. It is important to make sure people are aware, if you 

are going to have this message, to have it out there, not just have 

it reactively when asked, but have it proactively as an advocate for 

human rights for every single person on every single continent, including this one. 

Mr. BROMLEY. No, absolutely. There are mixed systems that 

don’t interpret Sharia that way. But a strict interpretation of 

Sharia would be a violation of the Constitution of the U.S. and certainly a violation of U.N. human rights. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield. 

Chairman ROYCE [presiding]. Thank you. 

We will go to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

60

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

again and Ranking Member Engel for holding this hearing. 

I also want to thank Representative Lowenthal who I know rearranged his schedule at another subcommittee hearing to be here 

today, and I appreciate that very much. 

Thank you to our panelists. This testimony has been really helpful and I think illustrates how serious human rights issues are 

around the world. And we could probably have you here all day 

and continue this discussion, but I will try to get to my questions. 

First, the State Department report on human rights cited a pattern of abuse against LGBT people around the world from police 

or other security forces in countries around the world. And this is 

a really serious issue. 

As an example, the report states that 82 percent of people surveyed in Bolivia claim that they or someone they knew had been 

detained arbitrarily by police because of their sexual identity. So, 

Mr. Bromley, would you speak to this issue, and Mr. Ambassador, 

about what we can do and what we are doing successfully to help 

sensitize police on protection rather than persecution of LGBT individuals around the world, and how we can do that more effectively? 

Mr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. I think this is an absolutely important question. I do think police violence is really the 

key to a lot of other forms of persecution and subjugation of LGBT 

individuals in many countries. 

I think the key is really trying to find opportunities to work with 

police forces to ensure that they see tolerance and respect for 

LGBT individuals, and, indeed, all minorities, including religious or 

ethnic minorities, as a point of professionalism. To do that, we have 

seen U.S. Embassies reaching out and supporting international visitor programs, for example, for senior police officers. There have 

been a number of senior police officers who have come to the 

United States from Jamaica, where there are high levels of violence 

against the LGBT community. And that opportunity to come here 

and to talk to other police officers in the United States, and understand that professionals don’t do this and that it is simply not acceptable, I think those really are making a difference, those visitor 

programs. 

And there are ILEAs, International Law Enforcement Academies, that are rolling out hate crime trainings through all of the 

ILEAs this year. Again, I think that makes the point that this sort 

of violence is not professional, it is not acceptable, and it is not 

going to result in promotion to higher levels of your profession. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Lagon? 

Ambassador LAGON. So, in law enforcement you see problems, a 

sense of omission and a sense of commission. If law enforcement 

do not hold to account those who would commit violent acts of hate 

against the LGBT community, then justice isn’t real. If they are actually complicit in committing violence against the LGBT community or harassing them, that is a horrendous problem. 

You asked about how we can improve the situation. One, I think 

that the envoy that exists at the State Department for LGBT 

issues should be codified. I commend you for trying to make that 

61

position a permanent one, one that doesn’t have to depend on a 

particular President or a particular Secretary of State. 

And then, secondly, we have talked about the Global Equality 

Fund. Freedom House is the coordinator of a consortium called Dignity for All that gives emergency assistance to LGBT persons and 

activists who are under duress. That is exactly the kind of investment that makes sense to help those who are most vulnerable. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

I have two final questions. A number of ASEAN countries criminalize homosexuality, including Brunei, Singapore, Myanmar, and 

Malaysia. Other than Thailand, there is no country in the ASEAN 

group that has anti-discrimination laws that guarantee equality of 

all citizens regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. 

What strategies could the U.S. Government employ in our engagement with ASEAN and these countries, in particular, to encourage these governments to address these human rights challenges? 

The second question is, what countries are LGBT persons most 

under threat and where should we be kind of paying attention in 

the next year or two that might not be on our radar? 

So, I will ask you, Mr. Ambassador and Mr. Bromley. 

Ambassador LAGON. Yes, I will go first this time. 

I think when you look at the ASEAN countries, we should think 

of the voice of the United States as twofold, from the U.S. Government but, very importantly, from the business community, since 

the United States has such reach. 

So, having an envoy that is dedicated for these issues and making sure that, when there is a dialog at the Secretary of State level 

or the Cabinet level, that these issues be brought up, including by 

those who are conducting the trade relationship. That makes sense. 

The business community knows that they will not have as dynamic an investment atmosphere or a labor force if it doesn’t include everybody who has talent, including the LGBT community. 

So, U.S.-headquartered multinational corporations have been and 

should all the more speak up with ASEAN nations: You need to 

have greater assets in your economy and not to sideline LGBT people. 

Mr. BROMLEY. For ASEAN, I would definitely echo that. I think 

in that region our business relationships are stronger than some of 

our political and diplomatic relationships. And certainly, I know in 

the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership these issues have 

been raised. I think however that goes forward, whether it is renegotiated or goes forward as is, we need to continue to leverage 

that trading relationship, that economic relationship to move forward. 

It is absolutely unacceptable that Singapore recently told multinational corporations that they should not be supporting their 

LGBT employees or Pride events in Singapore. As the hub of multinational business in Asia, that is just not acceptable, and we need 

to make that clear both diplomatically but economically as well. 

In terms of your other question on countries to look toward in 

the coming years, I do think Turkey is really important. It is the 

one country in the Middle East where we have seen a vibrant 

LGBT civil society community. It is the country where we have 

62

thousands, tens of thousands of LGBT refugees from the entire region. 

Unfortunately, the trends have been in the wrong direction. The 

past 2 years the Pride parades have been prohibited. Parliamentarians from Europe who tried to attend have been arrested. I think 

the trends are really concerning, but I think it is the country where 

we really need to figure out how to turn that around and to encourage a pluralistic view in a Middle Eastern country that has such 

a large geopolitical significance. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. 

We go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank you for holding this hearing on such an important topic. 

I believe that the cause of human rights must be a larger priority 

in our foreign policy agenda. The administration’s requests for 

human rights and democracy and governance funding are lower 

every year, and Congress has had to fill in the gap by providing 

more for these programs on its own. 

On top of that, the sanctions laws, which are designed to hold 

human rights violators accountable, are not being enforced the way 

that they should be. For example, the Venezuela Defense of Human 

Rights and Civil Society Act authorized the State Department to 

deny visas, freeze the assets of Venezuelan officials responsible for 

human rights abuses. Yet, the State Department has only pulled 

approximately 60 visas and the last and only time that anyone was 

sanctioned was in March 2015, when seven individuals, only seven, 

were designated. We can do better. We must do better. 

In my native homeland of Cuba, human rights have not been improved one bit as freedom of expression remains severely restricted. 

People are still being harassed. They are being beaten, imprisoned 

for speaking out against the regime. 

But, rather than using the tools at our disposal in these countries and everywhere to hold regimes accountable, restrictions are 

instead being lifted, putting more money into these authoritarian 

regimes and, then, used to repress the people of Cuba, for example. 

We see it also in places like Iran where, despite abundant evidence of human rights violations and multiple laws that allow the 

State Department to sanction responsible officials, the laws are 

simply not being enforced. 

In places like Egypt, where we have an important ally, our inability to program funds for human rights and other development 

challenges has created a backlog of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Promoting and defending human rights worldwide is one of our 

core values. That is what we stand for as a country. It is crucial 

to both our economic and national security. They are all intertwined. 

So, while it is proper and correct that we continue to appropriate 

funds and pass sanctions laws with these goals in mind, if they are 

not going to be used, if they are not going to be enforced, we are 

only damaging our own interests while abandoning all of those who 

are still suffering. 

63

So, I ask three questions in general and anyone can answer. How 

effective can we be at promoting and defending human rights if we 

aren’t programming the funds set aside for this purpose or even enforcing the laws designed to hold human rights violators accountable? Secondly, how can we ensure that people living under repressive regimes who need our assistance, they need it the most, are 

getting the help that they need? And lastly, how can we hold the 

administration, any administration from any party, responsible 

when it refuses to enforce the sanctions laws that Congress passes? 

Ambassador? 

Ambassador LAGON. Let me address the group of your questions 

this way: On programming, I think it is very important that Congress took the step in the appropriations bill of fencing off funding 

for democracy and governance. Because anytime that there is a 

Presidential initiative, and it may be worthy, Power Africa or whatever, the funding that Congress would like to see spent on our values and the basic interests, as I argue in my testimony, found in 

democratic governance, those funds get raided. So, it is a great 

thing that Congress took that step. 

To address your first and your last questions, sanctions, it is not 

a panacea, but I am a strong advocate of the Global Magnitsky 

Sanctions Act because, especially if it is in its strongest versions of 

the legislation, Congress has an opportunity to nominate those who 

ought to be subject to those sanctions as officials responsible for 

corruption and repression. If Congress is concerned about the executive branch using sanctions, the strongest version of the Global 

Magnitsky bill gives Congress that voice. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

am sorry I have to have a phone call. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ileana. I 

appreciate it. 

Alan Lowenthal from California. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to compliment you and commend you for holding this hearing on the 1-

month anniversary of tragic events in Orlando. 

And it is so important that, as we talk about the siege on human 

rights throughout the world, that we have spent a great deal of 

time and energy on the human rights of the LGBT community. I 

want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this. 

I want to move on to Mr. Bromley and follow up on what the Ambassador said about the creation of the special envoy position. I 

worked on that with Senator Markey when we first introduced last 

session the International Human Rights Defense Act. And now, we 

have a bill with many Members of Congress as cosponsors to codify 

that and make it permanent. 

I want to state on the record I think Mr. Berry has done an excellent job. He has traveled throughout the world crisscrossing, 

speaking to everybody. I think he has been bold in his message 

that LGBT rights are human rights. It is a difficult task and he 

has done an amazing job. I really wish to commend him and his 

professionalism. 

I would really like to know what you believe is the significance 

of this special envoy position and what it has meant to the interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071216\20741 SHIRL
64

national LGBT community. And how important is it that we make 

this a permanent position at the State Department? 

Mr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, and thank you for 

your leadership in supporting that position. 

We absolutely agree with you that the position should be codified. It is an important position. And we also agree that Randy 

Berry, the special envoy, has done a remarkable job in that position. In just 1 year, he has been to 30 countries. I think his focus 

has been really thoughtful. He has been to some of the difficult 

countries, but he has been to many of the countries that we consider to be in the movable middle, countries where some one-on-one 

diplomatic engagement in the right way with the right tone, often 

behind the scenes, really can make a difference; where we can talk 

to countries like Vietnam that actually are starting to go in the 

right direction, not on other human rights issues, but at least on 

this one. And I think those conversations have been incredibly important. 

Initially, we were not supportive of creating a position at the 

very beginning of this administration when the Human Rights Bureau was really starting to look at how to integrate LGBT issues 

in a more holistic way into our human rights policies. And we 

thought that, if you created a position right away, it would likely 

be, you know, it could impact that integration of the issue across 

the Department. 

But the Human Rights Bureau has really led a thoughtful integration effort, and it came to the point, with your support and others, where we really needed a focal point to ensure that the integration that is happening in the regional bureaus, in the functional 

bureaus, that there is some coordination and that there is a person 

out there traveling the world, representing our values on these 

issues. So, we think it is incredibly important. Randy Berry has 

done a fantastic job, and we absolutely would like to see this codified. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I would like to return and change the subject 

a little bit to Vietnam and Cambodia. You just mentioned Vietnam 

and some of the advances. I think it was the Ambassador who said 

that human rights should be an integral part of our foreign policy. 

You know, recently, President Obama visited Vietnam. The administration lifted the lethal weapons sale ban to Vietnam. I 

thought this was supposed to be tied to improvement on human 

rights. Have you seen any evidence, have any of you seen any evidence that lifting the lethal weapons sales ban was justified by 

human rights improvement? Was this a decision that was based 

upon what we have seen? Because I have not seen any dramatic 

human rights improvement. 

Ambassador LAGON. If I were President Obama, I would be pretty angry because, when he visited Vietnam, that government went 

to great lengths to embarrass him by putting pressure on human 

rights defenders precisely when he went there. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. That is exactly right. 

Ambassador LAGON. I happen to be in favor of the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership. I think openness helps. I happen to be encouraged 

that Vietnam and Burma want better relations with the United 

States because of trying to counteract China in the region. But we 

65

should not let nations like Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia off the 

hook on human rights and human trafficking because of some alleged strategic interests. We aren’t doing anybody a favor thinking 

counterbalancing China or free trade is a reason to lose the leverage to talk about human rights. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, just in conclusion, you know, this discussion that we 

are talking about, about human rights, comes at the same time 

that Dr. Kem Ley, a prominent political advocate and anti-corruption activist, was shot and killed in Phnom Penh in Cambodia. At 

the same time, there is this repressive crackdown by the Government of Cambodia against all political opponents. 

My question is, are we doing enough to promote a democracy and 

the rule of law in Cambodia? I know we are going to be looking at 

a markup this week. But I would just like to end by saying, in the 

midst of all of this, we are seeing, I agree, some changes. We have 

had a wonderful hearing today. But I am also seeing some of the 

most repressive activities going on throughout the world. 

With that, I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Alan. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. And thank you for your leadership on the Cambodia resolution. 

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate it very much, Mr. Lowenthal. 

We will now go to Dan Donovan from New York. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for my 

tardiness. I was chairing a homeland security hearing at the same 

time this began. So, a lot of the things that you spoke about I 

missed. So, I would rather ask a general question to all of you, 

rather than repeating a lot of the things you probably already 

spoke of. 

You know, our country is based on freedom of religion, freedom 

of assembly, freedom of speech. Not every country is. We respect 

human rights, maybe not so well at times, but the lesbian, gay, 

transgender, bisexual community, for women’s rights. We don’t exploit children for the most part, I believe. That is our belief, whether it be sexually or in the workplace. But other countries do and 

other countries don’t have the same beliefs that we do. 

Are we able to change the mindset, the culture of other countries? Do carrots work, like trade agreements, as you said, Mr. Ambassador? Or do sanctions work, as we spoke about, some of my colleagues spoke about earlier, sanctioning countries that exploit people and don’t recognize human rights? 

I was just curious about your general opinion about whether or 

not we, as a nation, can change the way of life in other nations to 

more conform to our beliefs and our way of life. 

Ambassador LAGON. Let me be brief. It is such a big and important question. 

Mr. DONOVAN. That is why I asked the question. 

Ambassador LAGON. But I think we should just be careful, when 

we talk about cultures, that we don’t kind of become resigned that 

things can’t change. 

You know, these things are universal. To quote former President 

Bush, it is a form of bigotry of having low expectations for certain 

cultures, that they can’t support human rights or they won’t supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071216\20741 SHIRL
66

port human rights or that they are not ready for democracy. We 

should try to encourage before we turn to sanctions, I think to 

show that countries will benefit themselves from more open economies, and being inclusive, including all the assets in those societies, 

is the way to start. 

But, ultimately, if they are flagrant human rights abusers, we 

should be willing to use sanctions. And we should be careful that 

countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, that we treat as allies in 

a global struggle against terrorism, are not so flagrantly engaging 

in repression, including in Saudi Arabia against a certain brand of 

Muslims, Shia, that, in fact, it is not serving our interests. 

Mr. FARR. Mr. Donovan, if I could just quickly respond to that 

as well? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, please. 

Mr. FARR. I agree with Mark that sanctions are an important 

part of the toolkit, but they can’t be the only one. In the region of 

religious freedom, the sanctions have been pretty much the only 

arrow in the quiver for these 20 years almost since the International Religious Freedom Act was passed. I think it is an important arrow and it is being strengthened. 

But, in order to change countries at a cultural level, you have to, 

in my view, go to their self-interest. I think there are arguments—

we have discussed some of them here today—on the issue of religious freedom. If you want stable democracy and you are a highly 

religious society, it simply won’t work without religious freedom. If 

you want economic growth and development in your country and 

you are a highly-religious society, you can’t do it without religious 

freedom. 

Our Founders understood this. William Penn said, ‘‘Come to 

Pennsylvania. We have religious freedom. It is good for business.’’

So, this isn’t rocket science, but we don’t do a very good job at 

making these arguments to countries that they can accept that 

leapfrogs some of these cultural boundaries. There are self-interest 

arguments that we have to make. 

Ms. SCHNETZER. Thank you, sir, for that important question. 

I work at the Bush Institute. We start with one basic principle, 

that freedom is a universal human right. So that, regardless of 

where you are born on the earth, what language you speak, what 

religion you practice or don’t practice, there is something innate in 

the human being that wants to be free and wants to exercise that 

freedom. 

And so, there are sort of two sides, I think, to the answer of your 

question. One is, with governments that repress their own people, 

what are the tools of influence and leverage that we can use to encourage them to move in the right direction? 

The other side of that is, what support can we give to the individuals who are on the frontlines of advocating for freedom and 

human rights in their countries? And so, funding and other kinds 

of support to them is critical. Whether it is in Burma or Cuba or 

in the Middle East, those human frustrations I think are the same. 

And it is important to remember them, but also use those tools of 

influence that we have as well. 

Mr. DONOVAN. So, you would suggest, besides external influences 

like the United States Government, supporting the internal influVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:13 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\071216\20741 SHIRL
67

ences on trying to change the suppression of human rights is equally as important? 

Ms. SCHNETZER. Yes, sir, I do. I think it is important to provide 

support and encouragement and the spotlight, and all the things 

that we can do for those who want that support. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bromley, 2 seconds because the chairman is ready to shut 

down. 

Mr. BROMLEY. Absolutely. And in the LGBT context, changing 

hearts and minds is a long-term objective, but it is one that we are 

making progress on. U.S. ‘‘carrots’’ diplomatically are working. And 

when the President travels and speaks about LGBT issues, it really 

does make a difference. When he traveled to Kenya last year and 

spoke at State House about LGBT issues as a fundamental human 

right, that really did change the discourse in Kenya. And there 

were some really nasty bills that were moving through the Parliament in Kenya that have disappeared. 

It does make a difference. The U.S. is a thought leader, and 

when we speak, people do pay attention. 

Mr. DONOVAN. That is good to know. 

Thank you all for your answers. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. 

We go to Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Farr, I wanted to follow up on Mr. Sires’ earlier question 

about Egypt and the state of affairs there for Coptic Christians, in 

particular, but religious minorities overall. I wondered if you could 

just expand on your statement a little bit. 

I had a chance to visit there probably a little less than a year 

ago, met with some Coptic Christian leaders and families who felt 

that the situation has improved dramatically. But I just wonder if 

you could qualify your comments and expand on that a little. 

Mr. FARR. Sure. I was in Egypt under the regime of Mubarak 

and met with a number of Egyptian Coptics and others, including 

Muslims at the Al Azhar University. At the time the Coptic Christians were saying pretty much the same thing. ‘‘We’re doing okay. 

We have to keep our heads down. We have periodic problems. But 

please don’t come in and make trouble for us.’’

That was followed, of course, by the so-called Arab Spring, where 

things were completely turned upside down for Coptic Christians 

and other minorities. Now they do seem to have stabilized. 

My only point is that I think it is a mistake to be too shortsighted or at least look at a short horizon. We don’t know what is 

going to happen in Egypt. I don’t think we should be turning it upside down ourselves, but I do believe we should be planning for the 

future and planting more seeds than we are for the idea that, 

whatever happens in Egypt, you have to have religious freedom for 

all these citizens. You have to allow everyone to participate in this 

country. 

Egypt fancies itself an emerging democracy, I believe, not a dictatorship. So, I think we could be doing more to play into that over 

the long-term. 

I hope that answers your question. 

68

Ms. GABBARD. Yes. Thank you. 

And forgive me if you have already covered Bangladesh. I was 

not here earlier. But I wanted to bring up the recent hackings, attacks, and other horrific violence that has occurred, in particular, 

amongst the Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, LGBT, secularist 

communities. You know, these attacks have been highlighted more 

in the news recently, but, in fact, in 2013, Hindu temples, 700 to 

1500 homes were vandalized or burned, 47 temples destroyed. We 

are seeing similar trends in the years since and, of course, most recently, different seculars, bloggers, and others have been attacked 

in the street. Clearly, the Government of Bangladesh is not in control of the situation there. It continues to get worse. 

For whomever would like to comment, what can be done to get 

the Government of Bangladesh to take the necessary action to quell 

these attacks that are creating such a terror-like atmosphere for 

the citizens there? 

Ambassador LAGON. If I may, I think there is a problem throughout South Asia, not only in Bangladesh, of religious groups or people because of their gender identity being targeted. 

Freedom House, in assessing human rights in countries around 

the world, not only looks at how governments act and how they 

treat or persecute groups, but how freedom is felt in societies. In 

places like Bangladesh, you are in danger, under threat, or vulnerable. 

We must not only insist that governments not repress the voice 

of opposition or minorities, but, in fact, that they implement justice. Laws on paper or treaties that have been ratified are meaningless if governments do not make sure that people are not subject 

to violence or that people have true access to justice. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. If I might just add to that? 

Ms. GABBARD. Please. 

Mr. FARR. When people abuse others for religious reasons, that 

is religious persecution. So, it is very important to understand why 

this is happening. Often, it is because of an extremist interpretation of Islam. 

Sometimes it is governments are complicit; sometimes they are 

not. And so, sorting this out is very important in constructing a response. 

I would mention again that H.R. 1150, which this committee has 

passed out and the House has passed, creates something called an 

entity of particular concern, which is added to the countries of particular concern list, which would identify entities within country, 

terrorist groups or otherwise, who are responsible for this kind of 

abuse. 

It also calls upon the State Department to construct a list of foreign individuals who engage in gross violations. So, this is refining 

the stick, if you will. 

But, at the end of the day when people are abusing others for 

religious reasons, one of the answers has to be to free, if you like—

I don’t particularly like this word—but the moderates within that 

tradition, wherever it is. They cannot speak out in most of these 

countries because of the laws and practices. 

69

So, promoting religious freedom is focusing on that problem as 

well, and we don’t do a very good job of it. We need to do better. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much, Tulsi. 

Thank you to our witnesses here, to Ambassador Lagon and 

Amanda Schnetzer and Dr. Farr and Mark Bromley. We very much 

appreciate the work, also, that you have done, Ambassador, that 

your organization has documented that this is the 10th year of decline of global freedom. 

This committee has moved legislation to try to address some of 

these issues. The Global Magnitsky Act was one that we recently 

passed out of committee. We also, on the subject of human rights 

in North Korea, passed the legislation here that we feel helped create that environment in which the administration, complying with 

that law, spoke out on North Korean human rights and worked 

with the United Nations in order to try to take action there. 

But there is so much work to be done here. And so, we want to 

continue to encourage each of you. You have given us a lot to consider. And I also appreciate the insights that came from many of 

our members here testifying and in their cross-examination with 

you witnesses here today. So, thank you very much. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(71)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

72

f


20741n.eps
73


20741m-1.eps
74

f


20741m-2.eps
75

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


20741e-1.eps
76


20741e-2.eps
77


20741e-3.eps
78


20741e-4.eps
79


20741e-5.eps
80

f


20741e-6.eps
81


20741f-1.eps
82


20741f-2.eps
83

f


20741f-3.eps
84


20741g-1.eps
85

f


20741g-2.eps
86


20741h-1.eps
87


20741h-2.eps
88

Æ


20741h-3.eps