```

[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     THE DIRE STATE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 
                              AROUND THE WORLD

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH,
                        GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
                      INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 18, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-40

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        

       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
56-739                     WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                        

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California             GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida                  AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California                COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              SARA JACOBS, California
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    American Samoa                   SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                    Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida               JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, Jr., New Jersey         JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida                  JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas

                Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
              Sophia A. Lafargue, Minority Staff Director

                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International 
                             Organizations

               CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania, Ranking 
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,           Member
    American Samoa                   AMI BERA, California
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                SARA JACOBS, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
JOHN JAMES, Michigan

                Mary Vigil, Subcommittee Staff Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               WITNESSES

                                                                   Page
Panel I:
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Chair, U.S. Commission on International 
  Religious Freedom..............................................    10
Eric Patterson, Ph.D., President, Religious Freedom Institute....    21
Reverend Susan Hayward, Associate Director, Harvard Divinity 
  School's Religion and Public Life Program......................    39
Panel II:
The Honorable Rashad Hussain, Ambassador-at-Large for 
  International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State......    79

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................   101
Hearing Minutes..................................................   103
Hearing Attendance...............................................   104

                        MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Material for the record: Statement from His Excellency Wilfred 
  Chikpa Anagbe..................................................   105
Material for the Record Submitted by Representative Smith........   108

                 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions for the record from Ambassador Hussain to 
  Representative Smith...........................................   110
Responses to questions for the record from Rabbi Abraham Cooper 
  to Representative Smith........................................   153
Responses to questions for the record from Mr. Eric Patterson to 
  Representative Smith...........................................   158

 
          THE DIRE STATE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AROUND THE WORLD

                              ----------                              

                         TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023

              House of Representatives,    
Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human
           Rights, and International Organizations,
                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in 
Room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 
Smith [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order and good 
morning to everyone, my good friend and colleague, Ranking 
Member Wild. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Global Health, 
Global Human Rights and International Organizations on the dire 
state of the religious people around the world will come to 
order.
    Today we will examine religious freedom around the world or 
the lack thereof, and we will focus on several countries where 
religious freedom is under serious assault.
    I point out that on June 22, our subcommittee focused on 
anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli bias in the United Nations, 
Palestinian authority in the NGO community.
    We heard from the heroic human rights champion, the man who 
was in a league of his own, Natan Sharansky, and an amazing 
panel of leaders. I point out that the rising tide of anti-
Semitism worldwide is cause for serious alarm with no sign of 
abating. Jewish men, women, and children continue to suffer 
bias, hate, and violence simply because they are Jewish. And 
that this pernicious manifestation of evil needs to be exposed 
and more effectively combated. The purveyors of anti-Semitism 
never take a holiday, nor should we.
    Today we continue to focus on anti-Semitism and the dire 
state of religious freedom around the world. Tragically, 
billions of people around the world, half of the world's 
population, are not able to practice their faith freely. Many 
are persecuted by oppressive governments or extremist groups, 
literally attacked, tortured, jailed, and even slaughtered for 
their beliefs.
    I have chaired over 40 Congressional hearings and authored 
four major laws on religious freedom. I led human rights trips 
to many countries to meet with the oppressed and to advance 
their cause with the oppressor.
    Today I am more concerned than ever about the further 
deterioration of religious freedom. Religious liberty, as we 
all know, is one of America's founding ideals, a cornerstone of 
our democracy, and it is internationally recognized as a 
fundamental human right. It is the right to practice one's 
religion according to the dictates of one's own conscience.
    This God given right, like all fundamental human rights, 
flows from the dignity and value of every human being, and it 
deserves to be protected everywhere without exception.
    Promoting religious freedom remains the pillar of the U.S. 
foreign policy. Assaults on religious freedom are a major 
threat to U.S. national security, and they are intensifying. 
The worst violators of religious freedom globally are often the 
biggest threats to our nation and that is no coincidence.
    Authoritarianism is on the rise. Oppressive governments are 
cracking down on religious minorities that are seen as a 
challenge to power. The Chinese Communist Party has undertaken 
the most comprehensive attempt to manipulate and control or 
destroy religious communities since Chairman Mao Zedong made 
the eradication of religion a goal of his disastrous cultural 
revolution more than a century ago.
    Now Xi Jinping, apparently feeling the power of independent 
religious belief as a challenge to the Communist party's 
legitimacy, is trying to radically transform religion into the 
party's servant, employing a Draconian policy known as 
Sinicization. Under Sinicization, all religions and believers 
must comport with and aggressively promote Communist ideology 
or else.
    To drive home the point, religious believers of every 
persuasion are harassed, arrested, jailed, or tortured. Bibles 
are burned, churches destroyed, crosses set ablaze atop church 
steeples. Now under Xi Jinping, religious leaders are required 
to install facial recognition cameras in their places of 
worship.
    New regulations have expanded restrictions on religious 
expressions online and prohibit those under the age of 18 from 
attending services. Just the other day, we had the leader of 
the Mayflower Church here in Washington who, thankfully along 
with his church, escaped this tyranny. One of the driving 
forces was this whole terrible concept that you cannot mentor 
or talk to a child about faith.
    The Chinese Communist Party has committed horrific crimes 
against believers, including genocide against Uyghur Muslims 
and other religious and ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. At a 
hearing that I chaired along with Marco Rubio from the China 
Commission, which I also chair, we heard from a woman who had 
been forced to try to renounce her faith. She was a Uyghur.
    And while she was being tortured horrifically, she asked 
her torturer, why are you doing this? And he gave two answers, 
one you're a Uyghur, the other, you're a Muslim. I mean, it 
couldn't be clearer. I mean, she prayed to God. That's how 
horrible the torture was. Thankfully, she got out eventually 
and made it to our hearing room to tell a horrible tale of 
torture under Xi Jinping.
    In Vietnam, the Communist government's crackdown on 
religions, including the Catholic Church, has worsened in 
recent years. I'm glad to see they are now placed on the State 
Department's special watch list in 2022, although I strongly 
believe that Vietnam needs to be designated as a country of 
particular concern.
    In May of this year, I reintroduced the Vietnam Human 
Rights Act, which parenthetically passed the House four times 
in the past, only to die in the Senate. And one of the 
provisions talks about re-establishing the CPC designation for 
Vietnam.
    Do you remember why they got lifted from that? During the 
Bush Administration, in order to facilitate the trade, 
bilateral trade agreement, they lifted the CPC designation of 
Vietnam, I thought prematurely. And then it never went back, 
even though the tyranny continued unabated.
    In Afghanistan, religious freedom has severely deteriorated 
under the Taliban's brutal regime. Christians live in fear of 
persecution as Taliban foes go door-to-door trying to discover 
them. A Taliban spokesman has even claimed, there are no 
Christians in Afghanistan, which is demonstrably false but 
points to the Taliban's efforts to erase the faith completely.
    Other religious minorities like Sikhs, Hindus, Hazara Shia, 
and other Shia Muslims are also unable to freely practice their 
faith in the aftermath of the Taliban's takeover.
    While the State Department designated the Taliban as an 
entity of particular concern in the 2022, I urge the Department 
to do more to hold the Taliban accountable for its gross 
violations of human rights, including religious freedom.
    In Nigeria, I see firsthand the aftermath of Boko Haram's 
destruction of churches in Moscow. I visited Archbishop Kagame 
in Jos several years ago. We went from church to church that 
had been fire bombed by Boko Haram terrorists. This 
unbelievably holy leader of the Catholic Church had nothing but 
concern for his people who had been killed or the survivors, 
but he also prayed for the oppressors. It was, really, 
absolutely remarkable.
    Extremist groups like Boko Haram and ISIS, West Africa, 
commit indiscriminate violence against those they consider to 
be infidels. In the Middle Belt, Fulani Muslim extremists 
targeted and killed predominantly Christian farmers, also in 
brutal raids.
    I am alarmed to say that the government's deliberate 
Fulanization of Nigerian institutions, encouraging ethno-
religious supremacy, and I cannot overstate the amount of 
respect ethno-religious supremacy has in that country. I was 
shocked that the State Department failed to designate Nigeria 
as a country of particular concern in 2022 and was shocked when 
Secretary of State Blinken removed Nigeria as a CPC country in 
November of 2021.
    There was a chorus of criticism by the faith community in 
Nigeria and from the diaspora here and from members of Congress 
on both sides of the aisle. So, hopefully, they will get that 
right and designate Nigeria as a CPC.
    I would be remiss not to mention the threat to religious 
freedom in our own hemisphere, including the Ortega regime, who 
promoted persecution of the church in Nigeria. In fact, the 
very first hearing of this subcommittee was titled, The Ortega 
Morello Regime's War Against the Catholic Church in Civil 
Society in Nicaragua.
    Bishop Alvarez, political prisoners and prisoners of 
conscience. I remain deeply concerned, along with my colleagues 
for Bishop Alvarez, who was recently released, only to be 
rearrested for bravely refusing to leave his country. The 
Ortega regime has attempted to silence the Catholic Church as 
the single most important independent institution remaining in 
Nicaragua, but it will not succeed. I and my colleagues are 
committed to doing everything possible to urge the release of 
all Nicaraguans imprisoned for their faith or for their 
political beliefs.
    I am convinced that there is more the United States can do 
to protect and promote the freedom of religion worldwide. That 
is why I offered the Frank R. Wolf International Religious 
Freedom Act, which was enacted in 2016 into law to strengthen 
our government's efforts.
    And I want to pay special, special tribute to Frank Wolf, 
who wrote the original 1998 International Religious Freedom 
Act, IRFA, which created the entirety of what we are building 
on now, and he is surely a champion.
    That is also why I authored the Special Envoy to Monitor 
and Combat Antisemitism led so effectively by Ambassador 
Deborah Lipstadt. Unfortunately, I am concerned that the U.S. 
State Department is not using all of the tools provided to hold 
guilty parties accountable.
    Time and again, violators of religious freedom are given a 
pass in the Department's country of some particular concern, a 
designation that just, reasonable people can disagree on. But 
UCRIF does seem to get it right in pointing to problems with 
countries and no diplomacy or to get in the way of calling it 
for what it is.
    When a country is engaging in serious religious 
persecution, they need to be designated CPC. And what follows 
after that in terms of sanctioning, that is exclusively up to 
the Administration, but call it the way it truly is. I am very 
happy that Ambassador-at-Large for the Office of Religious 
Freedom Rashad Hussain will be part of our second panel. And 
I'm looking forward to his testimony and again before we 
introduce this great panel, I would like to turn it over to my 
good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Wild.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and a special thank you 
for convening this hearing. Thank you to our distinguished 
witnesses for being here today and thank you to all of the 
interested observers who are here in our audience showing us 
just how important this issue is across cultures, across 
ethnicities, across religions so thank you all.
    In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Franklin 
D. Roosevelt articulated a powerful vision, anchored around 
what he described as the four freedoms, freedom of speech and 
assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom 
from fear.
    Understanding that these rights are inextricably linked, 
Roosevelt gave rise to an aspiration for universal rights and 
dignity here at home and around the world that remains far from 
realized but as urgently needed as ever before.
    The challenge we face today is clear, to protect and expand 
freedom of conscience, the ability to freely believe or not to 
believe in the face of the forces of authoritarianism and 
exclusion that have gained momentum in far too many corners of 
the world, including right here at home.
    I am convinced that people of all faiths and backgrounds 
can find common ground in our most precious common resource, 
our democracy. Together let us understand that foundational 
principle, the separation of church and state.
    The protection of all religious communities and non-
believers alike offers a way forward toward a future in which 
every person has fundamental rights, and dignity. And when 
authoritarian forces attempt to use religion as a weapon to 
target specific groups of people or to target our multiracial, 
multicultural democracy itself, let us reject those forces with 
one voice across religious, political and social lines.
    I look forward to a constructive hearing, Mr. Chairman, and 
with that I thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so much. Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Manning. 
Thank you, ladies. It is my privilege now to introduce our 
distinguished panel, beginning first with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, 
who is the chair of the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom. He was appointed by Senate Minority leader 
Mitch McConnell and is Associate Dean and Director of Global 
Social Action for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish 
human rights organization with more than 400,000 family members 
and a true force. He is a force, but so is the Wiesenthal 
Center.
    We have turned to them countless times asking for insight, 
information, and actionable plans as to what we should be doing 
to combat religious persecution including antisemitism. So, I 
want to thank him for that leadership.
    He has been a long time leader. As I said he is a force for 
Jewish causes and human rights causes. In 1977, he went to Los 
Angeles to help Rabbi Marvin Hier find the Wiesenthal Center. 
Together with Rabbi Hier, Rabbi Cooper regularly meets with 
world leaders including Pope Francis, Presidents, Foreign 
Ministers to defend the rights of the Jewish people to combat 
terrorism and promote multifaith relations worldwide. Thank you 
for being here.
    We then will hear from Dr. Eric Patterson, who serves as 
president of the Religious Freedom Institute. Dr. Patterson is 
past dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent 
University and a research fellow at Georgetown University's 
Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, where he 
previously served full-time.
    He holds a PhD in clinic science from the University of 
California at Santa Barbara. Dr. Patterson's interest in the 
intersection of religion, ethics, and foreign policy is 
informed by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Political 
and Military Affairs with work in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Congo, 
Angola and elsewhere. He has significant government service, 
including over 20 years as an officer and commander in the Air 
National Guard and serving as a White House fellow working for 
the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel and Management.
    We will then hear from the Rev. Susan Hayward, who is the 
associate director for Religious Literacy and Professions 
Institute in the Religion and Public Life Program at Harvard 
Divinity School. In this role, Rev. Hayward developed and runs 
the Certificate and Religion and Public Life Program for the 
Harvard Divinity School and graduate schools, for careers in 
public life including government, organizing media and 
humanitarianism.
    Prior to joining Harvard, Rev. Hayward spent 14 years with 
the Religion and Inclusive Societies Program at U.S. Institute 
of Peace, leading efforts to understand religious dimensions of 
conflict and advanced efforts engaging religious actors and 
organizations and peace building.
    Her former work for the U.S. Institute of Peace focused on 
Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Colombia, and Iraq. She holds a bachelor's 
degree in comparative religions from Tufts University and a 
master's degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 
and Harvard Divinity School.
    She is currently pursuing her doctorate in theology and 
religious studies--I don't know where you get the time--and 
religious studies at Georgetown University focusing on Buddhist 
and Christian responses to authoritarianism and conflict in 
Myanmar.
    I would like to now turn the floor to Rabbi Cooper. And I 
know the clock says five minutes, but all of your testimonies 
are so important, please feel free to go a little longer If you 
like.

 STATEMENT OF RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER, CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON 
INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; DR. ERIC PATTERSON, PRESIDENT, 
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INSTITUTE; AND, REV. SUSAN HAYWARD, ASSOCIATE 
  DIRECTOR, RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE, HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL

               STATEMENT OF RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER

    Rabbi Cooper. That's a very dangerous suggestion to members 
of the clergy.
    Ms. Wild. As someone who sits on the subcommittee, trust 
me, these are often long hearings because of the courtesies of 
our chair.
    Rabbi Cooper. Well, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, 
and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Abraham 
Cooper.
    Thank you for inviting me to speak on behalf of the United 
States Commission on International Religious Freedom, or 
USCIRF, where I currently serve as chair.
    Before I get to my remarks, allow me just one personal 
comment. In Judaism, the term for teacher and mentor is rebbi. 
Chris Smith has been the rebbi for people like me in human 
rights for a long, long time. I think I had hair when we first 
met. It goes back a long way. He continues to be an amazing 
mentor and inspiration to all of us and it is a special 
privilege to be here this morning.
    USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. advisory body 
that monitors and reports on religious freedom abroad. Under 
USCIRF's mandate in the International Religious Freedom Act of 
1998, or IRFA, the commission issues a report by May 1st each 
year, with recommendations to the President of the United 
States, the U.S. Secretary of State, and the U.S. Congress.
    These recommendations include our assessment regarding 
which countries merit the State Department's designation as a 
Country of Particular Concern, or CPC, for inclusion on its 
Special Watch List.
    The standards for such designations are clear under IRFA. 
CPCs are countries whose governments engage in or tolerate 
``systematic, ongoing, and egregious'' violations of religious 
freedom. The SWL is for countries where the violations meet 
two, but not all three, of those CPC standards.
    USCIRF uses our annual report to make a compelling case for 
each country which we determine is deserving of CPC or Special 
Watch List status. We supplement it with publications and 
events throughout the year that provide nuanced analyses of 
religious freedom conditions, and trends.
    Before I go into some of the details, I want to bring to 
the attention of this committee a development from today in 
Egypt. USCIRF maintains a Crucial Victims List of those 
imprisoned for their beliefs or advocacy on behalf of religious 
freedom worldwide.
    Unfortunately, that list has now surpassed 2,000 entries 
and in fact we just received word this morning that a court in 
Egypt has cruelly sentenced one of those victims, Patrick 
George Zaki, Z-a-k-i, three years in prison for an article he 
wrote in 2019 about the challenges that many Coptic Christians 
face in that country.
    We called at USCIRF for his immediate release just as we do 
for all victims of such religious freedom and human rights 
violations. And I know we're in the right location to first 
bring this to the attention of the American people.
    In this year's 2023 Annual Report, USCIRF recommended 17 
countries for CPC status, of which 12 were designated by the 
State Department in November 2022, Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, 
Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, 
Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
    The five countries we recommended for CPC which were not 
designated include Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, Syria, and 
Vietnam.
    We further recommended that the State Department maintain 
on its Special Watch List Algeria and the Central African 
Republic, while adding nine other countries, including 
Azerbaijan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Sri 
Lanka, Turkey, and Uzbekistan.
    My purpose today is not to reiterate these lists. Instead, 
I'd like to highlight key areas of both discrepancy and 
alignment between USCIRF's recommendations and the State 
Department's ultimate designations.
    Allow me to first turn to the discrepancies, best 
represented by two countries which USCIRF profoundly disagrees 
with the State Department, Nigeria, and India.
    First to Nigeria, I had the honor of visiting Nigeria just 
before COVID where together with my colleague and friend, 
Reverend Johnny Moore, we debriefed some 90 survivors of 
Islamic terrorism in that country, including a nine-year-old 
girl.
    In Nigeria, religious freedom conditions have remained 
abysmal, with state and nonstate actors committing particularly 
severe violations against both Christians and Muslims. While 
some officials have worked to address drivers of religious 
freedom violations, others actively infringe on the religious 
freedom rights of Nigerians, including by enforcing blasphemy 
laws. Criminal activity and violent armed group incidents 
impacting religious freedom have continued to worsen.
    Sadly, Nigeria has become a country steeped in religious 
freedom violations, where people of faith, and those of no 
faith at all, increasingly live in fear of harassment, 
imprisonment, and violence. It meets clearly the CPC standard 
under IRFA--as evident in the State Department's own IRF 
report, released in May.
    It is also why USCIRF recommended the appointment of a 
Special Envoy for Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin to maximize 
U.S. diplomatic efforts to address the atrocity risk and 
religious freedom violations.
    Our recommendations are supported by Members of Congress in 
H. Resolution 82 introduced by you, Mr. Chair, Chris Smith, 
earlier this year.
    Meanwhile, India, the world's largest democracy and long 
one of its most vibrant, has continued its descent into 
discriminatory religious nationalism and worsening religious 
freedom. Government actions, including the passage and 
enforcement of discriminatory policies such as hijab bans, 
anti-conversion laws, and anti-cow slaughter laws, have created 
a culture of impunity for threats and violence by vigilante 
groups, especially against Muslims and Christians. Meanwhile, 
the government has increasingly repressed critical voices, 
especially religious minorities and those advocating for them, 
through surveillance, harassment, and prosecution.
    Like Nigeria, the State Department's own reporting 
corroborates these worsening conditions, setting in stark 
relief its failure to name India as a CPC or Special Watch List 
country.
    Despite these obvious oversights, USCIRF appreciates the 
State Department's naming two key countries where we have also 
identified worsening religious freedom conditions, Nicaragua 
and Vietnam.
    In Nicaragua, the State Department's recent reporting has 
closely followed our own, including its designation as a CPC in 
2022. We agree that the Government of President Daniel Ortega 
has escalated its campaign of harassment and severe persecution 
against the Catholic Church by targeting clergy, eliminating 
church-affiliated organizations, placing restrictions on 
religious observances, and engaging in anti-Catholic hate 
speech.
    Regarding Vietnam, which USCIRF has long recommended for 
CPC designation, the State Department acknowledged recent 
backsliding by naming it to the Special Watch List in 2022. 
While we maintain that Vietnam merits a CPC designation, we 
appreciate recognition that religious freedom conditions there 
have been trending in an alarming direction.
    And our own engagement in Vietnam, including a constructive 
delegation visit there in May, demonstrates that U.S. IRF 
policy makes a real impact and, we hope, leading to positive 
change when we present a united front, including Congress where 
Chair Smith introduced the Vietnam Human Rights Act, H.R. 3001, 
in calling out bad behavior and urging substantive improvement.
    All of these challenges come, of course, in addition to the 
myriad of other vulnerable communities around the world who 
face religious persecution of the most severe order, 
Ahmadiyyahs in Pakistan, Uyghurs in China, Rohingyas in Burma, 
Yazidis in Iraq, Baha'is in Iran, and sadly many others.
    As I said before, USCIRF maintains a Crucial Victims List 
of those imprisoned for their belief or advocacy on behalf of 
religious freedom. And we will do everything we can in the 
future to put a human face on each of the 2,000 of those 
entries.
    The plight of these individuals and communities remains an 
important point of agreement in reporting and advocacy between 
USCIRF and the State Department, and we are grateful for its 
partnership in working to bring greater religious freedom to 
those individuals, families, and communities.
    On behalf of all of our, all nine commissioners of USCIRF, 
thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee 
this morning. And I look forward to your questions and 
comments. God bless.
    [The statement of Rabbi Cooper follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Rabbi Cooper, thank you so much for that 
tremendous work that you are doing and for your testimony 
today. It's deeply appreciated. And, again, we need to follow 
up on that Egyptian--can you say that name again just so it's--
--
    Rabbi Cooper. The name is Patrick George Zaki, Z-a-k-i.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Dr. Patterson.

                STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC PATTERSON

    Dr. Patterson. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
represent the Religious Freedom Institute and testify about the 
ongoing global crisis of religious freedom and what can be done 
about it.
    My testimony here focuses attention on Vietnam and India 
with a few comments based on a recent trip to Africa. In the 
written testimony, there is additional material on Nigeria and 
some specific recommendations for U.S. religious freedom policy 
more generally.
    As we look at the testimony today, are the ones who 
couldn't be with us in person, like Bishop Anagbe. These are 
people who face persecution and violent threats day in and day 
out. Hopefully, my testimony will honor those who cannot be 
with us today.
    Let's turn to Vietnam. A country such as China and Vietnam 
espouse a common ideology that is often intertwined with a 
nationalistic or racial hierarchy, whether it's Han Nationalism 
in China or Viet Nationalism in Vietnam.
    The result is a totalitarian society where the government 
demands ultimate loyalty in all things. And that's why 
totalitarian governments like these view religion, religious 
people and especially ethno-religious minorities as threats 
that must be controlled, contained, or even eliminated.
    Although Vietnam's Constitution guarantees robust religious 
freedom, and although Vietnam is a party to the internationally 
binding International Covenant of Civil and Political rights, 
it restricts and controls religious liberty. Here are a few 
examples.
    Hanoi surveils and cyber monitors religious people. It 
deports Muslim leaders back to China at the request of Beijing. 
It bans and arrests unregistered or unauthorized religious 
celebrations of more than five persons.
    It harasses and discriminates against ethno-religious 
minorities such as the largely Christian in the Hmong in the 
mountain yards to the north.
    It imprisons prominent civil society and religious actors 
on the pretext that they violated tax laws or on abusing 
Democratic freedom. You know, despite all of this, Vietnam is a 
mixed case study. As Congressman Smith mentioned earlier, 
almost every year USCIRF has called for it to be a country of 
particular concern. And it was labeled one in 2004 and 2005.
    What happened is that the State Department came up with a 
written agreement with Vietnam with benchmarks on religious 
freedom. And it came off the list.
    Now Vietnam quickly back slid as Representative Smith 
mentioned earlier. And the U.S. has not responded in kind. We 
need to. We strongly recommend that the Secretary of State 
reconsider designating Vietnam as a CPC and that Congress 
carefully consider and support Congressman Smith's Vietnam 
human rights legislation.
    Let me turn briefly to Africa. I recently returned from a 
trip to East Africa, Nairobi, and elsewhere. Many Africans I 
met with are deeply disturbed by what they understood to be 
threats to humanitarian assistance, particularly the U.S. 
President's emergency fund for Aids Relief for what we call 
PEPFAR and other vital assistance should their governments 
refuse to concede to new demands from the U.S. and other 
Western governments to expand abortion, redefine marriage, and 
enable transgender procedures.
    When the U.S. or unelected UN agencies promote these 
ideological agendas, they are attacking the deeply held 
religious convictions of the majority of the people in these 
societies as well as their legal structures and mechanisms. 
This is a form of Western cultural imperialism, and it is 
detrimental to U.S. national security.
    Now let me be clear. The U.S. should tirelessly advance and 
defend internationally recognized human rights around the 
world, and this includes the right of everyone not to be 
subject to violence or unjust imprisonment, whatever they 
ascribed to themselves about their sex or sexuality.
    But a robust U.S. freedom agenda led in the Department of 
State's International Religious Freedom Office under IRFA, a 
wise foreign policy in general, should generally respect the 
sincerely held religious convictions of foreign societies and 
focus attention on persecution and violations of legally 
binding international covenants rather than attempting to 
threaten and force changes in matters of faith.
    Let me turn briefly to India. India is a land of tremendous 
religious diversity. Following partition in 1947, India's early 
leaders developed a constitutional order that was largely 
religion neutral, treating all citizens and all faiths equally. 
Of course, and unfortunately at times, violence along ethnic 
and religious lines has broken out.
    Particularly in the last decade, an exclusivist ethno-
religious nationalism has targeted religious minorities with 
vitriol and with violence. To be clear, among others, the 
reigning BJP party and other Hindu nationalist organizations, 
notably the RSS have revived and exacerbated into religious 
tensions.
    Worryingly, this type of prejudicial rhetoric and activity 
can result in beleaguered minorities turning to violence in 
self-defense or out of revenge. And that creates a downward 
spiral of instability, not just for India but for its region.
    Human rights activists report recurring instances of 
violence against religious minorities, particularly Christians 
and Muslims. There are state laws that contravene India's 
Constitution banning offensive religious speech and conversion. 
There is impunity and lack of law enforcement activity in cases 
of Hindu violence on religious minorities.
    We all saw last month or in late May violence that broke 
with Christians and Hindus in the northeastern state of 
Manipur. Reports indicate that at least 100 people were killed, 
300 injured and 26,000 displaced from their homes. Over 3,000 
homes were destroyed, close to 300 churches were burned or 
damaged.
    USCIRF has recommended designating India as a CPC in its 
past four annual reports. And we at RFI agree, the U.S. should 
reconsider the CPC designation out of consideration for the 
health and the safety of all Indians regardless of their 
ethnicity or their faith tradition.
    A vibrantly religious India can be a peaceful, pluralistic 
democracy and a force for good in its region.
    In closing, the United States should be proud of its long 
record of bipartisan commitment to international religious 
freedom as a common good for everyone around the globe. In 
general, U.S. laws compel U.S. foreign policy to be a good 
neighbor by calling on foreign governments to hold their 
commitments under their own national Constitutions and under 
their international treaty obligations.
    The International Religious Freedom Act, the Frank Wolf Act 
and other U.S. efforts to promote religious liberty are a force 
for good in our world. Thank you.
    [The statement of Dr. Patterson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Dr. Patterson. I would 
like to now recognize Rev. Hayward for such time as she may 
need.

                STATEMENT OF REV. SUSAN HAYWARD

    Rev. Hayward. Good morning and thank you to Chairman Smith 
and to Ranking Member Wild for the invitation to speak and 
thank also to Rabbi Cooper and to Dr. Patterson for your 
remarks.
    My name is Susan Hayward, and as Chairman Smith said at the 
top, I am from Harvard Divinity School's Religion and Public 
Life Program. Prior to that I spent 14 years with the U.S. 
Institute of Peace here in DC.
    So my remarks are drawn from my experience as a 
peacebuilder working worldwide with diverse communities as well 
as my research into the religious factors and actors that shape 
peace, conflict, and human rights. My remarks do not represent 
the position of my places of employment, past or present.
    I want to start by thanking the thousands of U.S. foreign 
service officers who regularly monitor the status of the 
fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief and who 
compiled the 2022 annual report and the staff of USCIRF who do 
similarly.
    As the report and the title of this hearing convey, there 
are many concerning and discriminatory trends worldwide related 
to religious freedom, reflecting broader threats to democracy 
globally. It is critical the U.S. support vulnerable 
communities, many of which have been mentioned already, Uyghurs 
in China, atheists in Pakistan and Baha and Iran for example.
    In my remarks today, rather than focusing on individual 
cases, and I'm grateful to my co-panelists for focusing on 
individual cases. I am, instead, going to step back and seek to 
address the U.S. approach to religious freedom advocacy broadly 
and offer three recommendations that I believe can help 
strengthen it.
    First, U.S. advocacy for religious freedom must be 
conflict-sensitive manner so as not to render already 
vulnerable communities more vulnerable nor exacerbate religious 
dimensions of conflict.
    Second, approaches to religious freedom must reinforce 
overlapping human rights and governance concerns in order to be 
sustainable.
    And third, the U.S. government must ensure its approach to 
religious freedom is wildly, comprehensively inclusive.
    On this first point regarding conflict-sensitive approaches 
to religious freedom, in my work as a peacebuilder worldwide, I 
have seen firsthand how the U.S. approach to religious freedom 
promotion has sometimes heightened inter-communal tensions 
local, making already vulnerable communities more vulnerable 
while obscuring other critical power dynamics and factors that 
are driving violence and oppression against particular groups. 
The result can be policy prescriptions that are limited at best 
and counter-productive at worst.
    Religious freedom violations often occur in a complex 
context of political and social conflict where political and 
movement leaders may use religious identity and language to 
mobilize communities and legitimate unjust policy, a whole 
gamut of unjust policies.
    As outsiders, by defining and responding to these dynamics 
solely through the lens of religious freedom, we may reinforce 
religious competition, contribute to the hardening of religious 
identity divides and amplify religious power dynamics. We may 
even introduce trans-national religious currents that fuel 
these kinds of competition on the ground.
    And this can make vulnerable communities even more 
vulnerable to hard line extremists in their country who accuse 
them of foreign sympathies.
    Meanwhile, diagnosing complex issues narrowly as religious 
freedom issues may distract us from addressing salient economic 
and political drivers of religious discrimination.
    I'm going to offer one example. There were several more in 
my written statement. If we interpret the genocide of the 
Rohingya Muslim community in Burma, primarily through the lens 
of religious freedom, we fail to take account for the economic 
issues, particularly the interest in building an oil pipeline 
that China had that drove their displacement and land grabbing 
by the military.
    We fail to see how the Rohingya were a tragic casualty of 
growing and fierce competition between the National League of 
Democracy and the military that foreshadowed the 2021 coup. And 
we create greater competition among ethnic and religious 
minorities in Burma vying for attention and support from the 
international community, rather than promoting solidarity among 
them.
    The solution is absolutely not to ignore the targeting of 
these groups based in part on their religious identity nor 
their restricted ability to practice their religions, or not, 
in alignment with their conscience. Rather, and particularly in 
places of complex violence, what I am arguing for is to place 
specific religious freedom concerns within the broader context 
in order to develop sustainable, conflict-sensitive, and 
effective policy response that can enhance and support larger 
peace efforts.
    My second point is that religious freedom cannot be 
addressed in isolation from other human rights concerns and 
challenges to democracy more broadly that we are seeing around 
the world. The rise in religious freedom violations we have 
seen comes at a time when there has been a concurrent rise in 
human rights violations and threats to democracy and that is no 
coincidence.
    For this reason, I believe that an approach that frames 
religious freedom as the first right, or one primary to other 
human rights, is unhelpful. An approach to addressing religious 
freedom must recognize threats to it as part of larger and 
interrelated threats to other human rights in order to ensure 
civic strengthening as a broader outcome of religious freedom 
promotion.
    I believe this interconnected approach will be more 
successful ultimately in promoting sustainable religious 
freedom for all people. It can also better ensure that 
religious freedom efforts are framed and addressed in ways that 
will be locally meaningful, rooted in recognition of their 
manifestation within a complex context where multiple rights 
are likely to be under simultaneous attack.
    Our policy approaches to religious freedom advocacy, 
including who we partner with or amplify in this work, should 
not inadvertently fuel the suppression of other human rights 
and freedoms, which is often motivated by the same power 
calculations and interests that fuel violence against religious 
minorities or free-thinkers.
    And third, our approach to religious freedom advocacy must 
be as inclusive as possible. So let me describe two ways that I 
think the U.S. can do this better.
    First, the government's definition of religion has 
sometimes been limited to what is popularly known as the world 
religions. In our foreign policy, the religious freedom needs 
of the approximately 475 million Indigenous people have often 
not been sufficiently recognized. This fuels criticism of the 
U.S. privileging certain groups over others in its religious 
freedom advocacy. It weakens our moral authority.
    Let me offer one example to consider. If we decry the 
destruction of great places of worship as a religious freedom 
violation, which we should and we do. In their Earth 2022 
Report it criticizes the military for so doing, the churches 
and mosques in Burma for example.
    And should we not consider President Bolsonaro's 
destruction of Amazonian Rain Forests that are considered 
sacred to Brazilian Indigenous communities, like the Yanomami 
and necessary for their land-based ceremonies, a violation of 
their religious freedom as well. And yet I did not see this 
mentioned in the report.
    Similar violations are occurring worldwide from the 
Philippines to Tanzania to Canada where Indigenous sacred lands 
and burial grounds are being confiscated or destroyed, often 
due to destructive industry or economic interests thereby 
undermining this group's ability to practice their land-based 
ceremonies and to transmit traditional knowledge to future 
generations. This is a religious freedom issue that deserves 
greater attention from the United States.
    Second, religious minorities face particular and serious 
vulnerabilities as we have heard today. It is unhelpful to 
speak of religious freedom as synonymous with minority rights, 
I think. Religious freedom and minority rights are very 
overlapping but separate issues. And I feel our completion of 
them has done a disservice to understanding how best to protect 
all minorities, both religious, racial, ethnic as well as 
sexual and gender minorities while sometimes keeping us from 
highlighting or advocating equally for the needs of those 
within the majority communities who face oppression or violence 
as a result of their particular religious or non-religious 
beliefs and practices.
    Ultimately, you must remember that religious freedom is 
meant to protect all individuals. Religious minorities who face 
particular vulnerabilities, those within majority communities 
who believe and practice outside what is considered orthodox or 
in a way considered a threat to the political and social order 
and non-believers and the unaffiliated seeking freedom from 
religious imposition by the state.
    As such, the right to free belief and practice extends to 
Christian sexual and gender majorities in Uganda prevented them 
from creating worship spaces where they feel safe to practice a 
theology that affirms their dignity.
    It extends to humanists in Nigeria like Mubarak Bara who is 
now in his third year of imprisonment. It extends to young 
Buddhists in Burma who criticize their religious leadership for 
colluding with military elites and who are then arrested for 
supposedly defaming Buddhism. It extends to Jewish women in 
Israel who seek to pray at the Western Wall and are prevented 
from doing so by state security forces. It extends to Iranian 
women who don't want to be forced to wear the veil, French 
women who want the freedom to do so, and the Bhikkunis or 
ordained nuns from Sri Lanka who are denied national identity 
cards, passports and bank accounts.
    We must surely recognize the plurality of interpretations 
and practices within any religious tradition, those both 
majority and minority, and ensure the pre-exercise of these 
plural interpretations in our advocacy without privileging any 
one of them.
    So as I conclude, allow me to summarize these points with 
reference to a particular idea I believe helpful, the idea of 
right-sizing with our understanding of religious freedom issues 
and our approach to addressing them in any given context.
    Specifically, religious freedom cases, we must right-size 
our understanding of what religious identity or interests 
specifically have to do with the violence or oppression taking 
place, and we must right-size for this freedom promotion in a 
diplomatic response by not under nor overemphasizing it and by 
ensuring we did not address it in isolation from broader 
challenges to democracy and human rights.
    In so doing, I believe we can be even more successful as a 
global leader of efforts to protect and advance the freedom of 
religion or belief for all people.
    Again, I want to thank my panelists and the House Foreign 
Affairs Subcommittee members and staff for the invitation to 
speak today. Thank you.
    [The statement of Rev. Hayward follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Mr. Smith. I would now like to just begin the questioning. 
First to Rabbi Cooper, thank you for this tremendous report 
which I have now read. And it's just filled with information, 
recommendations, insights. And I think it is particularly 
fitting that you have dedicated the cover to Mahsa Amini, this 
unbelievably brave woman in Iran who was arrested, beaten, and 
mortally wounded because of her visible hair that violated the 
government's religiously head scarf law.
    As we all know, that sparked so many women and girls taking 
to the streets to protest her unbelievably horrible and cruel 
mistreatment. And it is so fitting, I think, that USCIRF has 
dedicated and honored her in such a way in this important book. 
So thank you for that. I think we need to do more on that 
ourselves. It's just really laid out so well. So thank you.
    Rabbi Cooper. Chair, I just want to use this opportunity to 
thank people who don't usually get thanked. We have a 
tremendous staff of young scholars who have chosen a path, a 
professional, personal path to make sure that we know the 
truth, put it into the appropriate context, and hopefully be 
able to work on it.
    And so far as the modern woman on the front of the cover, 
we also need to be honest with ourselves. Right now basically 
the Iranian authorities are back to harassing women on the 
streets of that country. And unfortunately, the world's 
democracies, led by the United States, have failed the women of 
Iran. That's just the truth.
    Mr. Smith. I couldn't agree more. And we need to do more as 
well. Let me ask about some of the target areas. How often do 
you interface with the people over at the International 
Religious Freedom Office, including Ambassador Hussain? I mean, 
you make recommendations that are absolutely based on 
tremendous scholarship, and investigations. I mean, when Frank 
Wolf, and I held all the hearings for his bill. And I was 
shocked myself at the attitude taken by the U.S. Department of 
State at the time, that would be 1997 and 1998 that they didn't 
want this bill, his bill, his landmark historic law. They said 
it would create a hierarchy of human rights, which it never 
did.
    I said I was for combating apartheid in the 1980s and for a 
while, at least, it put me at odds with the Reagan 
Administration, but I felt that egregious violation of human 
rights was so horrible that we needed to really single out and 
sanction South Africa. But those laws did not impair or impact. 
It was only value-added to all of our other human rights law. 
And I argued the same thing for the IRF, the Intentional 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
    And yet they persisted. They almost killed the bill. It 
almost died in the Senate. We found that many of our very 
distinguished and very highly educated foreign service officers 
had literally no training in religious freedom issues. And we 
remedied that. And my bill reauthorized his bill and expanded 
law put a greater emphasis on that as well so we have a very 
much enlightened and informed, and I hope motivated group of 
foreign service officers.
    So do you get to talk to them? Do they reach out? I mean, 
you present a great report, and I hope it's taken seriously. We 
do know that the State Department, and they do this with 
trafficking because I wrote the trafficking laws of the United 
States, TVPA of 2000. And I was shocked and dismayed when--and 
there were problems with all administrations in terms of 
implementing, but 14 countries were falsely given passing 
grades purely for political reasons by the Obama 
Administration.
    I held two hearings on it. And it was Reuters that broke 
that story. You know, they did an investigative report and 
found out that they falsified in order to incur favor with 
Cuba, incur favor with Oman, which helped with the Iran talks.
    So I say that, you know, we shouldn't mince words or get it 
wrong with CPC designations. And as you had pointed out, and I 
couldn't agree more, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, and 
India have earned that terrible label which has sanctions 
attached to it if they are motivated enough to impose it. So 
what kind of interface do you----
    Rabbi Cooper. So two quick comments. First of all, we are 
very lucky that we were able to install as our moral GPS Frank 
Wolf, who is one of the commissioners to help guide us. He has 
not lost a step, thank God, and really is an amazing American 
icon, really, in terms of human rights.
    Secondly, Ambassador Hussain is here. He is a friend. He 
will be grilled in the second session. To speak bluntly, he's 
not the problem. The buck stops above him. And that's with the 
Secretary of State.
    I think we have a colleague here who is available to us. He 
knows what it is that we've suggested. You would have to ask 
him if he--his internal conversations, part of the supply chain 
within the State Department, whether his recommendations 
parallel those of ours.
    I don't think communication is the problem. I just think 
that there are working assumptions that somehow we can't pursue 
our national security interests, our foreign policy and 
economic interests and human rights interests.
    I think the distinguished members of this panel and many 
other elected officials know that's not the truth. It just 
means it's more difficult, it's more challenging, but that's 
one of the center pieces of American life.
    So the way I approach this is I'm not sure we can change 
the culture at the State Department. And certainly speaking for 
you, sir, if we are going to increase our interaction with the 
535 members of the Senate and the Congress who were more 
directly elected and, you know, try to replicate this morning's 
proceedings in many different and relevant ways.
    I think the fact that this is a sold out hearing is also an 
indication that this might be one of the few areas, maybe the 
only one right now in which a bipartisan sense of commitment, 
whether Democrat or Republican really does exist across 
religious, political, and social lines.
    We should take full advantage of it in order to promote 
freedom of religion, human rights here at home and abroad.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. The countries that were not included, 
and I have it raised it with Secretary of State Blinken on at 
least two occasions at hearings, and, again, without any 
evidence whatsoever, gave Buhari a pass then got rid of CPC 
designation for Nigeria. And now with the new president, 
Tinubu, who has risen to power, won the election, he needs to 
be told and admonished that we take religious freedom 
seriously. So, I hope, again, the message to the administration 
is: just go where the facts take you and, with regards to 
Nigeria, it is to be a CPC----
    Rabbi Cooper. Our vice chair, Reverend Fred Davey, myself, 
and other members, other commissioners, have been, in various 
times, in Nigeria. It is one of the most frustrating 
experiences because what we see is a democracy structurally. 
They have got courts, vibrant free press, well-trained police, 
military; and, yet, when it comes to the fundamental 
protections of life and limb and religious liberty, there is 
always an excuse that leads to death, destruction, and mayhem. 
It is simply not acceptable. And I think If we reject the idea 
that we can't fully pursue our security concerns in Africa, and 
they're significant, while also insisting that the citizens of 
Nigeria be protected and that freedom of religion is instituted 
under their laws, actually be a fact of life. Right now, it is 
not.
    Mr. Smith. I am especially grateful you put India on the 
list of countries that ought to be CPC. You point out the 
Christians, the Muslims, the Dalits, and others are seriously, 
seriously harmed because of their faith. The anti-conversion 
laws are an anathema to all things about religious freedom, 
punishing people If they change their faith.
    And you raise, you point out that religious freedom issues 
should be raised by Congress and everyone else in the U.S.-
India bilateral relations. Modi was just here. I don't think 
anybody--I had no chance to talk to him; I would have. I would 
point out that he is the only person under IRFA that was 
sanctioned because of serious allegations of killing Muslims 
before he became the head of the state who was denied a visa, 
and it was President Obama who reversed that, but there should 
be some additional conditionality, certainly a CPC designation. 
We just looked the other way, and I think that is outrageous.
    Rabbi Cooper. Well, we're friends of India. It is the 
largest democracy in the world. And, you know, friends have to 
be honest with friends. India has done better in the past and 
has to change course because the cycle downward, the spiral, a 
country of that importance and the number of people who are 
involved, it is frightening.
    So we are hoping that, now that the trip has taken place 
and the victory lap has been earned and taken, there will be a 
serious review. And, certainly, USCIRF, and myself included, on 
a personal level, I consider myself a friend of India, we are 
continuing to lobby with our friends over there that this is 
not, the idea of religious discrimination should not be a 
matter of national pride.
    Mr. Smith. Just to underscore that this is as non-partisan 
as it can be, on the Vietnam issue, when the Ambassador-at-
Large for Religious Freedom told me, and I met with him several 
times, that there were deliverables from Vietnam, that they had 
promises it would happen, and just get rid of CPC, let the 
bilateral trade agreement go through which would not have gone 
through if the CPC was still there. And the day after the vote, 
the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry put out very strong statements 
about there is no linkage whatsoever to religious freedom and 
human rights, we are going to do whatever we want, but we just 
want to trade. And I went right back to the White House, right 
back to George W. Bush's administration, and said reimpose it, 
you have got to do it, and they wouldn't do it and we haven't 
had it since.
    So, it is very discouraging because, you know, forced 
conversions, all the things that they have done against the 
churches, the faith people there, including the Buddhists. I 
met with The Venerable Thich Quang Do in his pagoda, and here 
is a man who is the real leader of the Buddhists, as opposed to 
those that have been put up by the government, and he told me 
as I was leaving, as we were walking out of his place, he says 
that is as far as I can go; If I take another step, all those 
secret service, he didn't call them secret service, those 
police will be on me pushing me back in. That is how repressive 
it is. And these people are so strong and heroic; they don't 
complain; I wish they would more. And it hasn't changed; it has 
only gotten worse.
    So, again, to the administration, please, and I would just 
say that, you know, my good friend and colleague, Ms. Jacobs, 
who is the prime democratic co-sponsor of our resolution on 
Vietnam, my hope is--on the one on Nigeria; I'm sorry, Zoe 
Lofgren is the co-sponsor of the Vietnam Human Rights Act. So, 
this is bipartisan, and I just hope, again, we speak truth to 
power.
    I have a lot of questions, but I will yield to my 
colleague, Ms. Wild.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Before I start 
with the questions I already had prepared, I wanted to follow-
up, Rabbi Cooper, on what you said a few minutes ago about 
democracies, including the United States, have failed the women 
of Iran. My question to you is, because I was often asked by 
people what more could be done to help the protesters and 
specifically the women in Iran, what more could have been done 
and should have been done?
    Rabbi Cooper. If you are asking me what should have been 
done in realtime when the women, teenage girls, led the way for 
such a sustained period of time, we needed the voices from the 
top of the United States, our president, our secretary of 
state, our influencers, to be explicit in their realtime 
backing for the heroism of the women of Iran. I think it is 
pretty clear that the overriding concern of the administration 
for negotiations over a potential nuclear deal quieted, tamped 
down, and maybe even eliminated those discussions. And when we 
are talking about the Iranian regime, they understand one 
thing: sanctions. Their goal was, and they have achieved most 
of it to get billions in terms of oil and others release so 
they can pursue their own agenda. We never played that card, 
and we didn't play it, Britain didn't play it, Berlin hasn't 
done it, and the Iranians basically not only got away with it 
then but, the fact that we are now seeing public reverting of 
going after the women on the street now by the authorities, 
they feel that they won the day, they can act with impunity, 
and we have probably, I mean, failed a generation of Iranians 
and, I think, endangered a significant number of people who 
were hoping against hope that the U.S. would lead the way as a 
voice of freedom and also to put some teeth behind it. And the 
truth is it simply did not emerge as a priority. The Iranian 
regime understood that, and that is where we are today.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. It was a very upsetting event, and I 
felt, I will tell you that I felt somewhat helpless in the face 
of watching it unfold in terms of what could be done. But I 
understand what you are saying.
    While I am with you, Rabbi, I want to switch to Hungary 
where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has cultivated his political 
base by depicting the country and so-called Christian values as 
being under attack. That is a tactic that we have seen 
throughout history. Can you tell us has Orban's rhetoric and 
political project contributed to antisemitism in Hungary, and 
can you describe whether that has been on an upward trajectory, 
as it is in many places?
    Rabbi Cooper. So for one thing, in terms of USCIRF's work, 
Hungary is not, per se, on our radar screen. So speaking on 
behalf of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for a moment, obviously, 
one of the key issues across Europe is the question of 
migration, economic and refugees, the kind of overwhelming and 
kind of lightning rod for all sorts of political ideologies, 
including some in power and extremists who are looking to take 
advantage of the dislocation.
    Orban has been someone who has been consistent. Our and 
others have pushed back early on when he was initially allowing 
for the rehabilitation of World War II figures who were not 
just antisemitic but aiding and abetting the mass murder of 
Jews. I think, overall, what we have seen is that, when there 
is a consistent pushback, there is a muting of that kind of 
activity. But at its base, you know, he is a populist, and I 
don't see that that is going to change any time soon, 
especially If there isn't a broader, let's say, resolution 
insofar as the refugee impact across the countries in Europe 
and, of course, you also have Erdogan playing his card, as 
well, from Turkey.
    So as long as those dynamics are in place, the Viktor 
Orbans of the world are going to continue to, I think, increase 
their base of support.
    Ms. Wild. Well, speaking only for myself, I will tell you 
that I was dismayed that CPAC decided to have its conference in 
Hungary for all of these reasons. And I would note that Orban 
recently earned international condemnation for his comment that 
we do not want to become peoples of mixed race and has said 
that multiracial societies are no longer nations, they are 
nothing more than a conglomeration of people, which, of course, 
reflects his concern about economic migration and so forth.
    Rabbi Cooper. Right. Well, and the echoes of the past of 
the 1920s and 1930s of racial purity, whether we are talking 
about Naziism or Mussolini's fascism, to see that kind of 
language put back in the main stream is extremely 
disconcerting, obviously, not only for Jews but for the whole 
identity of Europe and European nations going forward.
    Ms. Wild. It certainly takes us back to our darkest 
moments. And he doesn't restrict his comments or his actions 
just to multiracial situations. He has advanced many autocratic 
measures: stifling Hungary's judiciary, restricting freedom of 
the press, limiting LGBT rights, and curtailing academic 
freedom.
    At that CPAC conference I referenced before in 2022, he 
said, in order to win, it is not enough to know what you are 
fighting for, you also have to know how you should fight. My 
answer is play by your own rules, which I find to be deeply 
distressing words from a head of state and I see a real 
connection between the rejection of democracy in these kinds of 
words. Would you agree?
    Rabbi Cooper. Well, of course I agree 100 percent, 
especially now representing USCIRF. The way that we look at the 
world is we look at human rights and its promotion through the 
lens of religious freedom, and the kinds of rhetoric that you 
just invoked and quoted flies in the face of everything that 
our democracy stands for and, you know, should not be a 
political football in debate or discussions in our own society.
    Ms. Wild. I would hope.
    Rabbi Cooper. When you have leaders who talk that way, they 
make very clear which camp they fall in when it comes to the 
question of democratic values.
    Ms. Wild. And that is our aim, I think, as I said in my 
opening remarks, to fight that sort of approach or attitude 
with one voice.
    I would like to direct my next question to Reverend Hayward 
and pick up on Mahsa Amini and the young Iranian woman who was 
arrested and killed because her visible hair violated the 
regime's head scarf law. You heard my question to Rabbi Cooper. 
From your perspective, is there something more that democracies 
around the world should have done when those protests, those 
very brave protests were taking place?
    Rev. Hayward. I mean, 100 percent, I agree with what Rabbi 
Cooper said in ensuring there was a strong diplomatic response 
in support of the women, the very brave women in Iran. A couple 
of the points that I would add on to that. One, part of what 
the Iranian regime did was to present these women as anti-
religion or anti-Islamic, and we need to reject those false 
binaries presenting support for a secular state and a non-
government enforcement of a particular theological 
interpretation or jurisprudential school against a position 
against that kind of government imposition of theological 
interpretation as anti-religious.
    A lot of those women who were a part of that movement would 
identify as deeply religious themselves, and it was very much 
their Muslim faith and beliefs in justice and mercy and care 
that led them to make those brave statements. So we need to be 
very careful with the U.S. government and, as others seeking to 
support these women and others around the world, not to 
reinforce that very dynamic that the regime is trying to use to 
discredit these women as then being anti-religious, which gets, 
as well, to my larger point that I was making in my statement 
that the government, the U.S. government needs to be careful 
not to only recognize one religious interpretation as an 
authentic representation of deeply-held religious beliefs, 
recognizing that there's always a plurality of contested 
dynamic going on on the ground within any religious transition. 
There is no one religious position in any religious tradition, 
so we need to reject that kind of presentation as one authentic 
religious position in all cases.
    Ms. Wild. Well, thank you for saying that. In so doing, you 
have answered the question that I was going to ask, which was 
about the concerns of protecting freedom of conscience in its 
entirety, the freedom to adhere to religious customs and 
traditions, as well as the freedom not to. So thank you very 
much.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith. The Chair recognizes French Hill.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this long overdue hearing on an important topic, and 
thank you for channeling those who have gone before us and the 
good work of Tom Lantos and Frank Wolf over the years. Thank 
you for being an outstanding champion for religious freedom. It 
is something that has been important to me over the past eight 
years I've served in the House and glad to now sit on this 
important committee and be able to advocate more formally as a 
member of this committee. And no matter how lucky we are to be 
able to talk about these issues today, we still are in the 
shadow of the daily atrocities that are happening in Ukraine 
and, as the Rabbi noted, pervasive antisemitism, not only in 
the halls of the United Nations but right here in the halls of 
Congress, and, obviously, dealing with the daily imprisonment, 
indoctrination, and genocide in China, the resurgence of 
religious extremism in Afghanistan, and, as we've discussed 
today, the attacks by terrorists on innocent Christians in 
Nigeria where truly a rot of religious intolerance is deep and 
growing.
    I am very disappointed that Bishop Anagbe couldn't be with 
us today. I regret that. I did have the opportunity to visit 
with him a couple of weeks ago.
    Reverend Hayward, I really appreciated your description of 
the complexity of this issue and that it is a multifaceted 
responsibility that the ambassador and the State Department 
have in advocating, but that is why we have the independent 
commission approach, to try to take into account all those 
facets and deliver a view. And I remind so many of my 
colleagues that are single-minded about their definitions in 
this areas that, even in our own First Amendment, we have the 
freedom of religion, but nobody ever remembers the second part, 
which is the free exercise thereof. And I was recently in 
Kurdistan in the north of Iraq a few weeks ago listening to a 
State Department official lecture a person of religious faith 
there about the importance of same-sex marriage as critical to 
the future of the north of Iraq, and it made me think about the 
points you made and the points that all three of you addressed 
that, that we need to keep our perspective here, whether we're 
in Uganda or Iraq or maybe even right here in the United 
States.
    Rabbi Cooper, my staff and I have tracked USCIRF's annual 
report for years. I want to thank you for continuing your 
excellent research and also taking your personal time to serve 
as chair of this bipartisan commission. Do the commissioners 
often disagree among themselves on the finding and 
determinations that appear in the annual report?
    Rabbi Cooper. Well, you know, there is a saying about the 
Jewish people: you have two Jews and three views and four 
synagogues. Well, we have a great representation across the 
board, multi-faith, imams, rabbis, and everything about the 
meetings reflects what is greatest about the United States. It 
is an internal democracy. But I will say, in the founding 
document upon which we are here, we mandated to act in a 
bipartisan fashion.
    So what I found to be tremendously empowering is you have 
nine commissioners, none of whom needs the well-paying job of 
no dollars and no sense, for the two or four years that they 
serve, we're brought together as Americans. We don't have to 
park our religion or philosophies at the door. But for 
starters, If you have over 2,000 innocent people rotting in 
jails because of their religion around the world, that, for me, 
is enough of a motivation. Let's figure out how do we tap into 
the best of what America is and how can we impact in a positive 
way and in a global way.
    And, frankly, this is a time also of increased hate crimes 
in the United States, a tsunami of violent hate crimes against 
Jews here. I already know when I go to visit an ambassador or 
go overseas their first question: you guys are coming here to 
lecture us about religious violence or religious freedom, what 
about what's going on right in the United States? And the 
answer is show us whether you have an August body like this 
committee and the robust NGO world in your country so that when 
we have these terrible challenges we can confront them, we can 
deal with them, and we can defeat them.
    So we have to be honest with ourselves. It is not a great 
time to go around lecturing people overseas when a lot of those 
same problems are impacting here. But we do act on a bipartisan 
basis, and we are very much committed to try to get, you know, 
practical solutions and strategies out there in the field. And 
I think it is, you know, with a few million more dollars, it 
has been a long time since we ever got a raise.
    You mentioned Vietnam, but we were able to send a number of 
commissioners there a few months ago. We would be able to do a 
better job on behalf of the American people if we had the 
budget to send commissioners to different countries so Vietnam 
right now, as far as I can see, is somewhere, it can go one of 
two ways. In some ways, we are worried they are beginning to 
take the China model of complete state control of religious 
expression as possibly the path they are going to go. On the 
other hand, they were extremely welcoming our commissioners who 
were well prepared for these meetings. So the U.S.'s continuing 
concern and pressure can have realtime impact.
    So, you know, we are ready to do our share. We could use a 
little bit more help. And I think, overall, with the help of 
someone like Frank Wolf and Chairman Smith, we are on a good 
path. We know what we are doing, and we try to make the right 
people nervous at the right time, even in the administration.
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, Rev, for that. And I think you are 
right: the proper dollars to advance this mission is important 
and the use of sense, so dollars and sense in your remarks are 
put in perspective in that regard. We need the good sense of 
the commissioners in making these recommendations.
    You referenced Patrick George Zaki in Egypt was in Minya 
Province the 1st of May following up on your recommendations 
that Minya Province is one of the most egregious forms where 
Coptic Christians are in deep trouble there. There is six 
million people that live in that province in Egypt, and two 
million of them are Coptic Christians. But I was informed by 
the governorate there, the governorate leadership, the deputy 
governor, that there is no religious freedom problem in Minya 
Province and that all members of religions are tolerant there, 
that all religious festivals are carefully protected, and that 
it is just working well. How is Egypt doing in this report?
    Rabbi Cooper. Well, I would say, insofar as Egypt is 
concerned, when you have the president of Egypt who goes to a 
Coptic church, you know, for Christmas services, that is a 
great thing. That sends a very powerful message. The disconnect 
between that kind of an event and any criticism of the 
government and others insofar as Coptic Christians leading to 
the three-year sentence of an article that has just been 
written, there is obviously a disconnect there.
    And the Egyptian government has made overtures to some 
religious minorities, and those promoted, quote-unquote, 
religious tolerance as part of its five-year national strategy 
for human rights, systematic and ongoing obstacles to religious 
freedom remain unchanged.
    So I am sure you are not shocked that when you come to a 
location and meet with the authorities, they are going to say 
what problem, but I can also assure you, Congressman, that your 
presence does make, it does make and did make a difference.
    Mr. Hill. We want to continue that advocacy, and, Mr. 
Chairman, I hope that we will pursue this investigation of 
Patrick George Zaki and consider the right approach on that in 
regard to communication with the State Department.
    Finally, Nigeria's lack of designation is of deep concern 
to me and I think everybody in this committee, and the State 
Department's most recent report stated banditry and other 
criminality, not animosity, between particular religious groups 
on the basis of religion were the primary drivers of inter-
communal violence. You know, in my research and study on this, 
in talking to researchers both in the Untied Kingdom and here, 
I just don't find that to be an accurate statement. I would 
like your perspective.
    And then to Reverend Hayward's complexity of multifaceted 
responsibility of the government, this administration and the 
United Nations' passion of the secular religion of a single 
focus on climate change, no matter how important climate change 
is, that has to be addressed uniquely in each country and each 
specific area. And in Nigeria, to destroy their economy, which, 
for the most part, is based on fossil fuels, is going to send 
200 million Nigerians heading to Europe, and I think that ought 
to be taken into consideration by the State Department, as 
well.
    But give me your view about this issue that it is banditry 
and criminality is causing priests and parishioners to be 
murdered in the south of Nigeria.
    Rabbi Cooper. When I visited Nigeria and met with our 
ambassador a few years ago, that is pretty much what we heard 
from the top that this was a matter of tribal conflict, et 
cetera, which no doubt contributes in many of the areas. But 
without a doubt, the targeting of Christians, usually around 
the time and including the time of their holy days, Christmas 
and Easter, the kidnappings that take place, the recent murder 
of a Christian pastor who was burned to death, and the use of 
Allah Akbar and other kinds of religious exclamations by 
criminals who are using theology in order to pursue their game 
plan, I think that the many, many people in this country, 
including people in positions of responsibility, have 
difficulty in coming to grips with the fact that religion and 
theology does play a strong role. And continuing, the 
Christians of Nigeria are understandably deeply worried about 
their future and deeply concerned about their physical safety.
    And as I said, I mean, what I saw there, and I have 
traveled extensively around the world, it is kind of like a 
slow-motion genocide. And when you look around, it doesn't 
really seem to compute because all of the right institutions 
are in place. But in the meantime, people are being killed, 
mayhem, are dislocated, and we should be doing a lot more. We 
have got a lot of leverage with----
    Mr. Hill. Thank you, thank you, Rabbi. Thank you for your 
leadership. Thank you for that compelling testimony. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Rabbi Cooper. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. We should follow 
up perhaps with a letter, a bipartisan letter on behalf of 
Patrick Zaki and also invite Ambassador Zahran to the Hill or 
we will go see him. Thank you for flagging this for us.
    I would like to now yield to Ms. Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wild, 
and thank you to everyone here. You know, as the proud sister 
of a trans brother and a gender-nonconforming sibling, another 
freedom that is really important to me is the freedom for 
everyone to be and the freedom to love. And, Dr. Patterson, I 
know you talked about the recently-enacted law in Uganda. I 
think we are recently seeing a real backsliding in LGBTQ+ 
freedoms both here at home and abroad.
    Reverend Hayward, you very plainly said in your testimony 
that, when the focus on religious freedom advocacy comes at the 
expense of other human rights, this can undermine our broader 
efforts to support democracy and justice. Can you expand upon 
this point? What correlations, If any, do you see between 
challenges to respect for religious freedom and challenges to 
human rights more broadly and how this interplays with LGBTQ+ 
rights?
    Rev. Hayward. Thank you for the question. I think there is 
always going to be times when human rights come into tension 
with one another, whatever the human rights issues are. And 
those are the times that we precisely need to have more rich 
engagement and dialogue to ensure that, at the end of the day, 
we are protecting the rights of individuals across the board. 
That's essentially what human rights are supposed to do, right? 
Protect individuals from government enforcement of policies or 
practices that are violent, that impinge on full liberty and 
freedoms, and so on.
    So when it comes specifically to the issue of religious 
freedom and gender equality or the rights of sexual and gender 
minorities, there has been some great reports that have been 
put out by the former UN Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion 
or Belief, Ahmed Shaheed, I think last year or the year before, 
as well as when it recently came out for the Independent Expert 
on freedom from discrimination and violence for sexual and 
gender minorities in the intersection of freedom of religion 
belief that just came out a month or so ago. So I encourage you 
to take a look at those. I think both of those reports engage 
legalistically but also very thoughtfully about this.
    One of the things that comes out in both of those reports 
that, again, amplifies or reinforces what I was saying earlier 
to Ranking Member Wild is that I think in our own advocacy we 
cannot privilege one religious position over another. So 
oftentimes, just like those women activists in Iran who are 
framed by the Iranian regime as anti-religion, oftentimes, 
sexual and gender minorities are framed as anti-religious or as 
sort of secular enemies of religious positions. And we need to 
recognize that the vast majority of sexual and gender 
minorities are themselves religious and have particular 
religious views and religious practices that we need to honor 
and protect them as individuals and, at the same time, hold 
that the government should not be enforcing religious practices 
on those who hold different views, more conservative views, on 
gender and sexuality. The government should not be enforcing 
particular religious practices on them that would go against 
their conscience, as well. The rights of individuals need to be 
what come out of that, not requires a rich engagement, but we 
should not compromise with an assumption that there is one 
religious position and one deeply-held sincere religious belief 
on positions related to sexuality, reproductive rights, and 
gender more broadly.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. And, Rabbi Cooper, the Commission's 
report discusses a number of violations of LGBTQ+ rights. Can 
you discuss how basic human rights have been impinged upon in 
the name of religious freedom and how actions in the name of 
religious freedom have been used to persecute and attack the 
LGBTQ+ community?
    Rabbi Cooper. I'm not exactly sure. Can you maybe give me 
another shot at the question? I'm not quite sure where you are 
going with this. I just need to frame it appropriately.
    Ms. Jacobs. Sure. In the Commission's report, there were a 
number of violations of LGBTQ+ rights that were discussed.
    Rabbi Cooper. Listed. Correct.
    Ms. Jacobs. Yes. I want to hear from you how you feel like 
this intersects with religious freedom.
    Rabbi Cooper. So I think, in this case, I would agree with 
Reverend Hayward and with something Dr. Patterson said, both 
speakers, meaning we are representing American U.S. 
commissions, U.S. law, U.S. practices. We don't apologize for 
that. We have our own social mores, and we go forward 
projecting those ideals.
    There are certain locations, certain countries where, If 
you come in and say we think you need to adhere specifically to 
our rules, we probably wouldn't even have a chance to get our 
points of view across. I think, once we have those meetings, we 
should do our best to reflect what those mores are. Again, for 
USCIRF, and you said correctly that it is mentioned a number of 
times, we look at human rights through the lens of religious 
freedom, and when those lines are crossed, when it involves 
LBGTQ, they will be in our reports, they will be in our 
interactions.
    To the broader question of are we in a universal position 
with 192 countries to get them to adopt where the United States 
currently is and where our society is at insofar as this 
important social issue, I think anyone who says that is not 
based in reality. And I think human rights activism and those 
who are promoting freedom and religious freedom, we need to 
also be realistic. I hope that helps.
    Ms. Jacobs. A little bit. I also want to note that it is 
important that the U.S., and it is actually in the law, that 
U.S. supports both theists and nontheists alike, and that, you 
know, in line with the Frank Wolf Religious Freedom Act. So, 
Reverend Hayward, how would you assess the U.S. government's 
support for nontheists, and is it on par with the support for 
followers of theistic faiths?
    Rev. Hayward. Thanks. And I appreciate you saying that 
because it also allows me to give the opportunity to say that 
we shouldn't just be advocating for the rights of sexual and 
gender minorities who are of faith but also those who have been 
driven away from their religious traditions, often because 
those religious traditions or institutions have been non-
affirming of their dignity.
    I think that, If you read through the report that the State 
Department put out that was published in May 2022, you will see 
plenty of examples of cases in which nontheists and atheists 
and free thinkers have been persecuted, have been politically 
imprisoned, and so on. So I think it is there in the reports.
    I would say that there is a perception that I think is 
based on some reality that, generally, we tend in our rhetoric 
and in our diplomatic policies and so on to kind of make the 
nod to nonbelievers and the freedom from religious imposition 
by the government, but we don't necessarily do as much of a 
visible or vigorous campaigning on behalf of nontheists, 
atheists, and free thinkers, and so on. So I think that's a 
place where we could make some moves to be more inclusive, as I 
was saying, in our approach to FoRB.
    Rabbi Cooper. Representative, can I add a point here? Can I 
say something positive about the State Department? Is that 
okay? [Laughter.]
    So exactly on this point, so what is quite interesting is 
that the State Department signed an MOU with Bahrain. Bahrain 
has its own list of challenges, but if you visited there, and I 
have, what is really interesting, when you go through downtown 
Manama, there is a 200-year-old Hindu temple. The day I 
happened to be there, 10,000 Hindus were praying not far, you 
know, from the Shia mosque and the Christian.
    Seeing that kind of interplay, meaning taking the examples 
that do exist around the world, I wish there were many, many 
more of them, but when you see that kind of multi-faith, 
including theistic faiths, et cetera, especially in this case 
in the Arab world, in the Muslim world, I commend the State 
Department for sort of developing that relationship, creating 
an MOU. And I think everywhere those of us who carry the banner 
of religious freedom can point to examples around the world of 
other societies maybe getting that piece of it right. That 
helps us, you know, promote the ideals that we believe, of 
course, are fundamentally American.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. And, you know, I represent San 
Diego, which, as you probably know, has a very large Chaldean 
community, religious minority group, refugees from Iraq. So 
thank you for all the work that you do. I know it is very 
meaningful to my constituents. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Dr. McCormick.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is interesting, 
just an observation, how many people think they are victims. I 
mean, and it is to different accounts. I will give you a 
perfect example. White Anglo-Saxon males right now in America 
think they are victims, and think about that. Let that sink in 
for a second. Everybody has their own perspective. I have yet 
to meet anybody who thinks they didn't have a tough childhood, 
and I'm seeing smiles from the audience right now, like 
everybody is like, yes, I had a tough childhood. Everybody 
thinks they had a tough childhood. But not all discrimination 
is equal. I think we can agree on that. There is a big 
difference between being called a name or being denied a 
service by a billion dollar industry or being hunted down and 
killed because of your faith.
    Now, ironically, in my faith at least, I found that my 
faith propagates and multiplies when it is persecuted because 
it kind of weeds people out and it leaves only the most zealous 
people to spread and propagate. That said, I don't want to see 
that. I don't think that should ever be our goal. But when we 
are addressing the bias in society, whether it be something as, 
and I don't want to devalue that we take as offense, but a 
crazy person in society now can get on the internet and ruin 
the whole day for everybody because they are one person out of 
330 million people that calls me a name and everybody is like, 
oh, my gosh, this a horrible country, versus countries that 
literally have people hiding in the woods at nighttime to avoid 
being kidnaped and killed that may have something to do with 
their faith or somebody who has a faith that believes that they 
are going to kidnap these children and put them in that faith. 
That is what we are dealing with.
    And whether it be talking about the Congo or Nigeria or 
places in Africa where you can see massive shifts in religious, 
not only their freedoms but also in the way that they are 
believing, or where you are seeing developments in different 
countries around the world, my question is, when we have 
governments that we are dealing with overseas that don't see 
the same world the same way as I or you, that don't want to 
change. Like in our country, I believe that most people, not 
all people, most people condemn bigotry and hatred. Most 
people. We have our people. Every country does. But most 
people, when we see hatred, we push back and we say that is not 
right. I think most people in America are fairly moral and get 
it.
    But you have certain countries, like, the government 
sponsors it, condones it, funds it, and participates in the 
hunting down of people who don't see the way the way they want 
to. How do we bring our force to bear the way we are? You say 
we are not doing enough. I don't now how we legislate that, and 
I don't know how we fight that in a way that is meaningful when 
we literally still do business with these people and buy lots 
of products from them, when they do things that are in 
direction violation of our principles. I throw that out to the 
panel.
    Mr. Patterson. Maybe I can say one thing as a principle, 
and thank you for that. So a fundamental principle about 
religious freedom is that it is usually a check, first and 
foremost, on state power. And one of the things where there is 
large agreement on the panel today, whether we are talking 
about the Iranian women who are making a religious symbolic 
statement, they are contesting a religious set of symbols, as 
faithful Muslims against tyranny or many, many of the other 
examples that we have talked about.
    You know, one of the real keys is to recognize that the 
U.S. government, in its relationship with other governments, 
can be the champion of the fundamental rights of the majority 
of the population in that country. I mean, that is really the 
story of Nigeria, corrupt government. But it is not that we are 
against the government, it is that we pro the people of the 
country. Now, that is not a tactical level action, but it is a 
founding principle for thinking about how religious freedom 
becomes a national security lens or foreign policy lens is what 
we are going to do is be looking for opportunities to champion 
the fundamental rights and the freedoms and that nest of 
liberty, starting with religious freedom, but speech, 
conscience, assembly, the right to convert, the right to change 
religions, the right to have freedom of thought. All of that 
package, it really starts with the recognition that the U.S. 
national interest is best served by being a champion for the 
rights of the citizens in those countries and not falling into 
a false foreign policy dichotomy that says, well, there is kind 
of high politics and low politics, and these human rights and 
religious freedom considerations, they are secondary, so it is 
not going to interfere in that trade relationship.
    You know, it may mean that we do something differently when 
it comes to trade with countries like China. Honestly, it is 
about time for that. Thanks.
    Mr. McCormick. A follow-on question. This is an open-ended 
question also. We want to have freedom of religion. We want to 
have recognition of people seeing things. And the ultimate 
minority is the individual. In America, we value that very 
much. It may be one of the fundamental things that we all agree 
on. But what about when, as a society, frown upon--I'll give 
you a perfect example. There are certain religions that may 
condone circumcision of a female as a baby. That is a religious 
belief, and it is a true belief for whatever reason. And I am 
not condoning it, I'm not condoning or vilifying it. I am 
merely stating when society says, no, I don't think that is a 
good idea for that little baby, how do we reconcile that 
freedom of religion from society's standard in America? Tough 
one, right?
    Rev. Hayward. It is. There is two things I would say to 
that. Well, first of all, let me just say, in response to your 
first question, one thing I would humbly suggest is that we 
don't invite leaders who are violating religious freedom in 
their own countries to offer addresses to joint sessions of 
Congress.
    But, secondly, this particular issue, I think that, again, 
this is a place where there can be, one, a plurality of 
different religious interpretations. So even in those places 
where you might, where some might argue, some religious 
authorities might argue that this is allowed and permitted and 
endorsed within my religious tradition, you will find other 
voices who say the complete opposite, right? And so, as the 
U.S. government, we shouldn't be endorsing one theological 
interpretation over the other. We shouldn't, in general, be 
engaging in theological debates of that sort and endorsing one 
theological position.
    So I think lifting up the fact that there is plural 
positions. Oftentimes, you also see on that particular issue 
that there is a complex intersection of cultural issues and 
religious issues and that sometimes they get conflated between 
the two. So it is also needing to be conscious of the ways in 
which sometimes cultural practices are being presented as 
religious practices and then being legitimated and argued for 
on the basis of religious freedom. We shouldn't fall into that 
trap.
    Mr. McCormick. You have a great future in politics the way 
you stated that. [Laughter.]
    Rev. Hayward. Which part?
    Mr. McCormick. Comprehensive but understanding it is a 
complex, it not an easy thing to answer, right? I mean, we get 
that. This is where the crux of the issue is, though. On an 
individual basis of religious freedom, when one person has a 
strong belief and another person has an opposition to that or 
society has, there is no easy answer. With that, I yield.
    Rabbi Cooper. Congressman, If I could just quickly go to 
two points. You mentioned something about that we do business 
with a lot of the countries. The responsibility for human 
rights is not just government's responsibility. We live in a 
free society, and there is a lot that individuals and 
communities can do when they are upset about a particular 
business or going about and pursuing certain relationships with 
supply chains with China for example. You know, it is not a 
good idea to raise generations of Americans and say you just 
wait, Congress or the government or the president will deal 
with it. It is a democracy, and democracy means that everyone 
should be putting their shoulder to whichever wheel they are 
behind.
    The other point I would like to make, it is not about 
United States but an incident that I had about eight-nine years 
ago in Germany when I met with the justice minister in Germany 
because, in one of the states, they actually started to bar the 
circumcision of eight-day-old Jewish babies, the boys. And the 
end of the meeting, she said to me, Rabbi, don't be worried, 
the German state will give the right to German Jews to 
circumcise their boys. And I said, with all due respect, Madam 
Minister, you don't have the right, God gave us the right. You 
are there to protect our rights. It is not from the state. The 
state is there to protect our religious freedoms and the other 
God-given freedoms that we have here in the United States that 
allow us to speak this way with each other. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith. And thank 
you, Ranking Member Wild. Thank you to all our witnesses today. 
I am very glad that our committee is considering the state of 
freedom of religion or belief around the world. And I would 
also like to take a moment to recognize and congratulate my 
good friend Susie Gelman on her appointment by President Biden 
to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. She 
is a great leader. I know she will make an excellent addition 
to the commission.
    We have serious issues of religious freedom today in our 
own country, and I refer specifically to the rise of violent 
and hateful antisemitism, which was documented in the FBI's 
amended 2021 hate crimes report and in the 2022 statistics 
presented by the ADL. Now, the difference, of course, between 
issues of religious freedom in the countries listed in your 
reports and in the United States is that here the issue of 
violent antisemitism is not state sponsored or state sanctions. 
And I want to thank Chairman Smith for his opening remarks 
about this issue, and I want to say how honored I am to co-
chair with you the House Bipartisan Task Force to Combat 
Antisemitism.
    I also want to acknowledge and thank the Biden 
administration for issuing the first ever U.S. National 
Strategy to Combat Antisemitism. And for those of us who have 
read it, it is a lengthy and a comprehensive strategy with more 
than a hundred action steps, a time line, and accountability. 
And I am particularly pleased to see that the U.S. Commission 
on International Religious Freedom includes, as a 
recommendation to Congress on page six of your report, that 
members of Congress should join our Bipartisan Task Force to 
Combat Antisemitism, so we should be ready, Chris, for many 
more members to come on our caucus. And I just want to note 
that I am endeavoring to address the specific steps that are 
listed for Congress to take in that national strategy. So we 
are taking the strategy seriously, and we are going to try to 
enact all of the legislation that is suggested that Congress 
should enact.
    Rabbi Cooper, one of the laws that Congress enacted decades 
ago to help those fleeing antisemitism and other forms of 
religious persecution was the Lautenberg Amendment. It served 
as a lifeline for Jews, Christians, and other religious 
minorities fleeing persecution, and I know that USCIRF has long 
been a strong supporter of this program. So I was surprised 
that the House Appropriations Committee's report did not 
include language extending the Lautenberg Amendment in order to 
allow the Committee of Jurisdiction to consider this extension.
    So I would like to ask you, Rabbi Cooper, and If the others 
want to join in, would you support extending the Lautenberg 
Amendment?
    Rabbi Cooper. Thank you, Representative Manning. And we are 
looking forward with bated breath to have Susie Gelman with us 
not just by Zoom. She will be a fantastic addition to a really 
great group of commissioners.
    Two comments. Number one is the big game changer called 
social media because we can wind up doing everything right on a 
particular problem, we are not necessarily there yet, and find 
that that is not enough. Social media has destroyed boundaries 
and borders. That is the good news. It is also the bad news. 
And that kind of hate speech, as we know, inspires individuals 
like the shooter in Pittsburgh to go out and do heinous deeds.
    So I am glad that you raised the issue within the context 
of the United States, our own society here, because it is not 
only a standalone in a multi-headed hive of antisemitism and 
hate here, but it is connected globally to rhetoric and other 
organizational pieces.
    Insofar as the Lautenberg initiative is concerned, If I 
understood, Chairman Smith, you had the Mayflower Church here 
the other day. So there are a lot of people, including at the 
State Department, who really went out of their way to try to 
make sure that the members of this church wouldn't be 
repatriated back to China where God knows what would have 
happened to them. It was very, very close. The reason why you 
had all these extraordinary efforts being made by different 
individuals, I think, in particular, is because the Lautenberg 
Amendment has not been extended, to my knowledge. And this 
would be a perfect example in which you have a group of people 
whose lives hang in the balance. And If they can't get to the 
United States, you know, we might be talking about them in the 
past tense.
    So, unfortunately, these kinds of situations do come up. 
America has always taken the lead in these areas. And just 
speaking as a taxpayer, I absolutely endorse its extension.
    Ms. Manning. Do our other witnesses have comments on that? 
Would you also support the extension of the Lautenberg 
Amendment?
    Mr. Patterson. In this form or in a revised form? This type 
of opportunity for the most persecuted people to come here is 
something that is part of America's greatness and its 
generosity in the past. You think back to the 70s with Soviet 
Jews and Soviet Pentecostals coming to the United States which 
were these very, very similar dire situations. Our organization 
worked with many others on the Mayflower Church and just really 
rejoiced that this was a win; but these wins shouldn't be so 
hard and having that organizing framework is very, very 
important so it is not ad hoc.
    Ms. Manning. Rabbi Hayward. I mean Reverend Hayward.
    Rev. Hayward. Thank you for the elevation. I absolutely 
will endorse any legislation that is going to support offering 
sanctuary to those who are facing persecution and violence.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. And I am going to ask one more 
quick question. I don't know if we will have a chance for a 
second round. But, Rabbi Cooper, you mentioned Bahrain, which, 
of course, brought to mind the Abraham Accords. And we have all 
been asking what more can we be doing to promote religious 
tolerance around the world, and I am wondering if you believe 
the Abraham Accords, which I think has the potential to be 
transformational in the Middle East, if the Abraham Accords 
could be used to promote religious tolerance in that 
particularly difficult region of the world.
    Rabbi Cooper. Well, I think people who want to invest in 
peace have to take the long view. Our first visit to the UAE 
was around 2010, and our first meeting with His Majesty in 
Bahrain was 2017.
    I would say two things. First, soft power counts. The truth 
is that religious groups, cultural outreach, humanitarian 
efforts from hospitals and others, that is really where the 
real DNA of peace is going to take root, no matter whatever 
happens in terms of the geopolitical reality.
    As far as business is a concern, when you meet a business 
person, they just want government to get out of the way so they 
can go and make money.
    So that leaves, of course, the geopolitical considerations, 
and I think what the Abraham Accords proved is that, A, peace 
is possible and sustainable and, B, it has to be nurtured. And, 
again, this is one of the issues that I believe that many 
Americans don't view as a Democrat or a Republican issue. They 
just see if there is a way to improve peace and expand that 
peace, we should endorse it. Republicans, Democrats, 
independents, for better, for worse, people around the world, 
especially in that region, still look to the United States as 
the global leader. So what we say and don't say, what we do and 
don't do, impacts in realtime what is going on there.
    But, again, I would just point to a tiny little country, 
about a million people, of Bahrain. I felt their most important 
contribution was just by virtue of how, going back a couple of 
hundred years, you had an Arab society in which people of 
different religions were able to live in peace and interact 
with each other. Having that kind of an example there in the 
region makes a huge difference. It is not just a matter of, you 
know, American imperialism importing its model. It is a matter 
of holding up existing models that maybe most people didn't 
know about.
    But there is a lot of work to be done, not just by Congress 
but by your constituents, to get involved in expanding the DNA 
of peace.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Schneider.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And, Rabbi, I appreciate your 
comments. I am going to touch on and, actually, I have to 
leave, so I am not going to be able to stay for the second 
panel. I am going to touch on the second panel and come back to 
this panel, but you gave me the segue.
    Before I do that, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of my colleague both in welcoming Susie Gelman to the 
commission and thank her for her leadership on the Combating 
Antisemitism Task Force, which I am proud to be a part of.
    You mentioned Bahrain. I have the privilege of being one of 
the co-chairs of the Abraham Accords Caucus here in the House.
    Rabbi Cooper. Thank you.
    Mr. Schneider. A region that not often do you get to see 
glimmers of hope. I think the Abraham Accords, Mr. Patterson, 
you used the term rejoice, I'll use that here. It is something 
that we can all rejoice in.
    Earlier this year, in Abu Dhabi, they inaugurated Abrahamic 
Family House. To your point, hosting the St. Francis Church, 
the Imam Al-Tayeb Mosque, and the Moses Ben Maimon Synagogue. 
It is part of a larger process of the normalization we are 
seeing between Israel, Bahrain, UAE, Morocco, and hopefully 
other countries soon, which make up the Abraham Accords.
    One line in the declaration of these countries' sign reads 
we encourage efforts to promote interfaith and intercultural 
dialogue to advance a culture of peace among the three 
Abrahamic religions in our community. Moreover, within the 
Abraham Accords, one of the six working groups of the Negev 
Forum dedicated to furthering the accords is focused on 
education and coexistence. We have already seen impressive 
strides in removing hate from schools and promoting existence, 
and I hope that Ambassador Hussain will discuss this in the 
next panel.
    But I want to go back to rejoicing because I think over my 
lifetime, 60-plus years, there have been moments we have 
rejoiced religious freedom around the world. I think of the 
work, Rabbi, you were probably involved, as well, of trying to 
save Soviet Jewry and the refuseniks and their ability to hold 
on to their faith in really dire consequences. But for all of 
the successes, I also know that we have seen far more 
challenges, and you have touched on them in this hearing.
    And, Rabbi, you mentioned a couple of words, phrases that I 
think really resonate for me, the idea that it is incumbent 
upon us to protect religious freedom. Religious freedom is not 
something that is granted. It is something that we need to 
protect and project that protection through, again, what you 
said, Rabbi, soft power counts, and the soft power of the 
United States is unparalleled and something that we should 
jealously protect and not be afraid to use. And I think that is 
what we are doing here.
    What we created in 1998 with legislation, early 80s with 
legislation, we strive, I know there is so much more to do. So 
maybe in my two minutes left here, I will ask the panel, giving 
counsel to us on this committee and Congress as a whole, what 
should be the things that we most focus on in the near term and 
even into the medium term to work to protect religious freedom 
around the world and advance the rights of people who are 
otherwise severely oppressed. Rabbi.
    Rabbi Cooper. I see you mentioned Soviet Jewry, and it is 
true I grew up in the Soviet Jewry movement a long time ago, 
another century. But what we need to reclaim, and this not just 
can be done by fiat, but we need to reclaim, when it comes to 
human rights and these precious freedoms, a sense of 
bipartisanship in Washington. We have to recreate it and, going 
forward on these core issues, whatever our political 
orientation is, we need to start projecting again across the 
board, not just through the State Department but through 
Congress, that kind of across-the-board firm commitment in 
terms of human rights. That is something I mentioned earlier. 
When you look at the history of USCIRF, of our group, which is 
about to, believe it or not, 25 years, I think its moral power 
comes from the fact that we are actually mandated by Congress 
to act in a bipartisan way. That's, to me, the most attractive 
element of all----
    Mr. Schneider. I couldn't agree more.
    Rabbi Cooper [continuing]. Is getting great people 
accomplished. And if we went out for a beer afterwards and 
started arguing, we can go long into the night----
    Mr. Schneider. I just want to watch the time, so I want to 
give Dr. Patterson----
    Rabbi Cooper. So that would be the key thing.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. Dr. Patterson.
    Mr. Patterson. Sure. Two things,--what are the concrete 
steps--I'd say first is continue being a witness in the places 
where there's no one else to be a witness about how terrible it 
is. Places like North Korea--important role in being the one to 
continue doing these reports, continue bringing pressure to 
bear. If the U.S. isn't leading in that, then our allies don't 
follow in that. There is not a next leader in this movement.
    I think the second thing is to be really thoughtful about 
targets of opportunity. Targets of opportunity are often 
smaller countries or middle-range countries that are tottering. 
Tunisia is one of those such countries right now. I would say 
that Iran, when President Obama first became president, was in 
a different place than it is now. Remember the street protests, 
the summer of '09, and the president in June gave that Cairo 
speech, an open hand to the Middle East calling on all these 
rights. I will say that the Iranian people felt that then what? 
Zero from that administration at the time. Why? Because the 
administration was really focused on a nuclear deal no matter 
what. That was a moment of opportunity lost to side with the 
people of Iran.
    I think about Nicaragua in our own hemisphere, a terrible 
actor in the Ortega, a little country with people who are 
suffering. A place like that or Venezuela in the previous 
decade are places where the U.S. should use all the tools of 
sanctions and friendly and coercive diplomacy to push them in 
the right direction, not only looking at the Chinas, looking at 
those smaller powers where we can wield positive influence.
    Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you. Reverend.
    Rev. Hayward. I will second the recommendation to ensure 
that this policy issue does not become partisanized or any more 
partisanized than it is on the international religious freedom 
front. That is one of the strengths of the approach to it on 
the Hill.
    In addition to what I have in my written statement for 
recommendations, namely an inclusive approach to it, I just 
want to double down on the need to ensure that religious 
freedom is not addressed as a niche issue and ensuring that it 
is considered as part of larger economic policies, larger 
development issues, and so it kind of mainstreamed into 
consideration of larger policies because, at the end of the 
day, it is not just about sort of personal prejudice, it is 
about state institutions and structures that are unjust and are 
fueling this kind of violence. And so there needs to be 
transformation of some of those larger, political, and economic 
structures in order to ensure the human rights more generally 
but also religious freedom, particularly for all people in each 
country.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. If I summarize it into three Bs, 
it is bipartisan, it is broad, and it is bold. And, hopefully, 
we can do all three. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much and thanks for joining 
us. I really appreciate that. We do have a hard stop at 1:30, 
so I do have other questions, as do other members, so we are 
going to ask if you could respond in writing to those.
    [The information follows:]
    Mr. Smith. I was wondering, Reverend Hayward, you mentioned 
not inviting heads of state. Are you talking about Modi, Prime 
Minister Modi? I appreciate that. Thank you. I didn't go either 
for that reason.
    And I would just underscore, before inviting our next 
distinguished witness to come forward. You know, we meet at a 
time when there is an actual genocide taking place. We all know 
it, we all speak out against it. We have had several hearings 
in the China commission, which I also chair, and the 
administration has to do more. We have to do more, but the 
administration has to do more, as well. I mean, a genocide in 
2023 against Muslims. We have got to speak out, and we have got 
to stop it. And I hope the UN and everyone else joins in that 
effort. No more slaps on the wrist for Xi Jinping. He needs to 
be held to account, and I think severe economic sanctions is 
the only tangible way to do it. I introduced the bill that 
would reimpose conditionality on most favored nation status, 
now called normal trade relations. In other words, they get a 
break on any tariffs. And to make it, there needs to be serious 
and sustained progress in the area of human rights, or they 
lose it.
    Bill Clinton had it right in 1983, but then he reversed it 
in 1984 when he separated trade from human rights. It was a 
terrible, terrible mistake, but we need to rectify it in the 
current day to say we are not going to enable a dictatorship 
that is committing every kind of human rights abuse imaginable, 
forced organ harvesting, which is an atrocity that is 
reminiscent of the Nazis. Josef Mengele didn't even do that, 
and he did horrible things to his victims. And it is happening 
tens of thousands of times every year, killing 28 years old on 
average. I have a bill that passed, it is pending in the 
Senate, we don't know if it will ever get out of the committee 
that would go after that supply chain for organs, because they 
are being so terribly procured by killing young people. Falun 
Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, some Christians, and Buddhists in 
Tibet, but primarily Uyghurs and Falun Gong. They are targeted 
because they are hated, and they are hated because of their 
religious beliefs, and that's the consequence that they face.
    So thank you for your testimonies. I deeply appreciate it, 
the Committee does. And I now would ask for our next panelist, 
a panel of one, if he would make his way to the witness table.
    We are pleased to welcome Ambassador Rashad Hussain before 
our subcommittee today. Ambassador Hussain serves as principal 
advisor to the secretary and advisor to the president on 
religious freedom conditions and policy. He leads the 
department's efforts to monitor religious freedom abuses, 
persecution, and discrimination worldwide. He also oversees 
policies and programs to address these concerns and works to 
build diverse and dynamic partnerships with the broadest range 
of civil society with equitable and meaningful inclusion of all 
faith actors globally.
    Prior to his appointment, Ambassador Hussain was director 
at the National Security Council's Partnership in Global 
Engagement Directorate. In 2015 and 2021, he served as senior 
counsel to the Department of Justice's National Security 
Division.
    President Obama appointed Ambassador Hussain to serve as 
Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or 
the OIC; U.S. Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism 
Communications; and deputy associate White House counsel. In 
his role as envoy, Ambassador Hussain advised on foreign policy 
issues and worked with multilateral organizations to expand 
partnerships and education, entrepreneurship, health, 
international security, science, technology, and other areas. 
He also spearheaded efforts on countering antisemitism and 
protected Christians and other religious minorities in Muslim 
majority countries.
    He received his JD from Yale Law School where he served as 
an editor of the Yale Law Journal and master's degrees in 
public administration and Arabic and Islamic studies from 
Harvard University.
    Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. The floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RASHAD HUSSAIN, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE 
 FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ambassador Hussain. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, 
Chairman Smith. I want to thank Ranking Member Wild and the 
members of the subcommittee. It has been an honor to serve as 
Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom for the 
past 18 months, and it really is a privilege to appear before 
you today to talk about my work and the work of our office, the 
Office of International Religious Freedom. I am grateful to 
President Biden, to Vice President Harris, and to Secretary 
Blinken for continuing to place their trust in me to pursue 
this work on behalf of the American people, and I am also 
grateful for the longstanding bipartisan collaboration that we 
have spoken so much about this morning for protecting religious 
freedom globally.
    I want to thank you in particular, Chairman Smith, for your 
decades-long really sincere commitment to standing up for those 
who are persecuted on account of their faith and for your 
strong collaboration not just with our office now but over the 
25 years since the passage of the International Religious 
Freedom Act.
    Ever since Congress passed IRFA 25 years ago, we have 
greatly benefitted from both ongoing and consistent engagement, 
advocacy, and support from both Republicans and Democrats. The 
cooperation is crucial not only to support the work of the 
office that I now lead, it also sends a message to both 
oppressors and to the oppressed that no matter which party has 
the majority in Congress or holds the White House, we stand 
united as Americans for the sake of those who suffer due to 
their religion or beliefs.
    I have now spent 15 years as a public servant working in 
all three branches of our government in both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, upholding our Constitution, 
including as a national security attorney in law enforcement 
and as a diplomat. Collaborating with civil society from across 
the political spectrum to protect religious freedom around the 
world continues to be among the most rewarding work of my life.
    This year marks the 25th anniversary of the original 
signing of the International Religious Freedom Act, 25 years of 
protecting a human right that is fundamental to the history of 
the United States, integral to our national identity and 
governance as expressed in the First Amendment and a core 
component of our foreign policy. I continue to work closely 
with my predecessors, Ambassador Sam Brownback and Ambassador 
David Saperstein and others, and I believe that it sends a 
powerful signal around the world that the United States has 
been represented by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Americans in 
our efforts to promote religious freedom.
    Using the resources that Congress has allocated to us, we 
work toward this goal in three related ways to expose, counter, 
and prevent restrictions on the fundamental human right of 
religious freedom. First, we seek to shape a foreign policy 
that protects U.S. interest and security by engaging civil 
society and faith communities and addressing laws and policies 
that impact religious freedom around the world. We work closely 
with civil society, what the diaspora communities, and leaders 
in our government and foreign governments and multilateral 
institutions, including on educational efforts and prevention 
efforts.
    We work on individual cases of oppression. We often get 
notified in the late hours of the night or the early morning 
that there are individuals who are being persecuted or who have 
been arrested or wrongly detained, and we realize that every 
minute that we wait to make our first call or to make our first 
move in that case can cost someone their life. We train foreign 
and civil service officers and locally-employed staff, and we 
do this work wherever it is needed and whenever it is needed.
    This year, the International Religious Freedom office 
worked extensively with the Shenzhen Holy Reformed Church or 
with the Mayflower Church, as we have been discussing this 
morning, to protect their members' right to freedom of religion 
or belief in the face of relentless pressure from the Chinese 
Community Party, even after they fled China. On April 7th, as a 
result of our efforts in the IRF office and broader department 
efforts, in coordination with Congress and other U.S. 
government agencies and NGOs, I was honored to welcome members 
of this church as they arrived to the United States at DFW 
Airport and was pleased that they celebrated Easter at a Texas 
church in safety.
    On May 16th, following an IRF-coordinated diplomatic and 
social media pressure campaign with civil society, UN, and 
USCIRF partners, we welcomed the release of Shamil Khakimov, an 
ailing Jehovah's Witness wrongly imprisoned in Tajikistan. We 
have been deeply involved in working to address the Ortega-
Murillo regime's increasing repression of Christians and 
churches in Nicaragua. On February 9th, when the United States 
welcomed 222 individuals that had been imprisoned by the 
government of Nicaragua for exercising their human rights and 
endured lengthy unjust detentions, our staff were on hand when 
they landed in the United States and provided interpretation 
and support.
    We also continue to address the scourge of antisemitism and 
the rise in anti-Muslim hatred. Earlier this year, I traveled 
with Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff and with Ambassador 
Deborah Lipstadt to the Holocaust site for International 
Holocaust Remembrance Day. And earlier in my career, I've made 
similar trips to the Holocaust sites with Imams from the United 
States and from around the world. And whenever we have the 
opportunity to do so, we raise our concerns regarding the 
increase in antisemitism, which, unfortunately, we are seeing 
globally.
    The two most recently-designated genocides, as we address 
anti-Muslim sentiment, as you know, involve Muslim majority 
populations, the Uyghur and Rohingya, and we continue our work, 
which I hope to discuss more today during our hearing.
    Second, we cast a light on persecution around the world 
with our international religious freedom reports, globally 
recognized as a gold standard on reporting on religious 
freedom. If anyone in the world ever wonders whether the 
religious persecution of any group in any part of the world 
escapes our attention, the reports are our answer. The country-
by-country reports go through the religious freedom conditions 
in every country in the world in a very detailed manner.
    Our government and civil society partners also deploy the 
IRF reports in critical ways. As an example, in April, the FBI 
arrested two individuals in connection with opening and 
operating an illegal overseas police station in Manhattan which 
targeted Falun Gong practitioners and other members of the 
Chinese community on U.S. soil. In building its case, the FBI's 
indictment specifically cited a 2021 IRF report noting the 
Chinese Communist Party maintains an extralegal party-run 
security apparatus to eliminate the Falun Gong movements, using 
methods ranging from harassment to imprisonment.
    Third, we provide information and expertise on the status 
of international religious freedom and related policy to the 
secretary as he makes the determination which countries and 
entities meet the threshold to be designated as countries of 
particular concern, special watch lists, or entities of 
particular concern.
    Under the IRF Act, the secretary also takes recommendations 
from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. We 
work very closely with Chairman Cooper and other members of the 
commission, and we also consider other sources when making the 
administration's formal designations.
    Later this year, we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of 
the International Religious Freedom Act and its impact. And we 
will also be celebrating the legacy of our country's conviction 
that everyone should be free to follow the religion that they 
choose.
    As we do this work of advocating for people around the 
world, we are sometimes asked who are you, as the United States 
or as Americans, to speak to other countries about their human 
rights conditions and to get involved in what they often refer 
to as their internal matters. Well, I believe that we are 
uniquely situated to stand up for religion freedom around the 
world for a number of reasons. We are ourselves a country that 
was founded on religious freedom and by individuals fleeing 
religious persecution themselves. Our founders felt so strongly 
about this fundamental right that they enshrined in the First 
Amendment in our Constitution's Bill of Rights. And we are a 
country of immigrants. People come here from all around the 
world, from every corner of the planet, and demand that their 
elected representatives and government officials promote our 
values in their homelands. They would have it no other way.
    So who are we to stand up for religious freedom around the 
world? In many ways, we are representatives of the rest of the 
world gathered right here in the United States. We are 
motivated by the unshakeable commitment to the idea that saving 
even one person or even improving one life is well worth our 
effort, and we continue to follow that conviction with the same 
uncompromising determination Congress showed in passing the law 
in 1998. And we will be sure to include Congress in our 25th 
anniversary celebration.
    I thank you again for your attention and guidance and for 
allowing me to speak with you today.
    [The statement of Ambassador Hussain follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, so much for your 
testimony and for your leadership. I just want to touch on a 
few issues, and one of them, you know, after the passage of a 
bill that I introduced on forced organ harvesting, the Chinese 
embassy here in Washington sent an email to us, to me, saying 
that China fully protects the rights and interests of all 
ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs in Xinjiang. They went on 
to say they were against it, they said there is no such thing 
as forced organ harvesting, which is an absolute lie. But they 
said, to my shock, that the people in the foreign ministry, Mao 
Nine, said that they, too, feel there is nothing to hide in 
Xinjiang and that people are welcome to come there to visit.
    So I wrote a letter to Xi Jinping on April 14th, I would 
ask for unanimous consent it be made part of the record, asking 
to visit Xinjiang, to go there, to go to the concentration 
camps, to visit, and it's not without precedent, that Frank 
Wolf and I, right after Tiananmen Square, got into Beijing 
prison number 1, which had 40 Tiananmen Square activists with 
shaved heads who were making jelly shoes for export, which was 
all the rage back then being sold in our department stores, and 
socks. And we got an import ban on it, thankfully, but they 
closed it up and moved it somewhere else in terms of its 
operations.
    But it pointed out to me that, you know, if they're going 
to say it's completely open, come see us, we have nothing to 
hide, I want to go. Now, I would hope maybe we could go 
together. It would be a tremendous opportunity. You're saying 
you've got nothing to hide, we want to go. I have written them. 
We have called over to the embassy. We are going to write them 
again saying we still haven't heard.
    But I would hope that, you know, you might want to speak 
now, especially to this ongoing atrocity personally fermented 
and led by Xi Jinping. We know from the materials that were 
garnered from a consortium of journalists, as well as the New 
York Times, that he said show no mercy towards the Muslim 
Uyghurs and the other people in that region but primarily the 
Uyghurs, and they have shown no mercy whatsoever.
    What are your thoughts? Are we doing enough? We have passed 
the Uyghur Forced Labor Act, which needs some amending and some 
changes because it has not been, you know, despite good will 
efforts, they are breaching our ability to stop those imports 
from coming in from Xinjiang. So, if you could, speak to this 
ongoing atrocity, a modern-day crime against humanity the likes 
of which we have not seen since World War II.
    Ambassador Hussain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
for your leadership on confronting the genocide that is 
ongoing. I also want to express my appreciation for Congressman 
Wolf who we continue to work with closely. We worked with him 
on the Mayflower Church and, of course, continue to work with 
him on China and so many other issues. You may also know the 
previous chairman of the International Religious Freedom 
Commission, Nury Turkel, his family was directly impacted, and 
we have been working very closely with him. The Secretary of 
State has raised cases involving his family directly with the 
Chinese government, and we continue to raise a number of those 
cases, including by making strong statements. From time to 
time, we even post the pictures of those that have been 
detained, and we meet with their family members here in the 
United States to let them know that they're not forgotten and 
we'll continue to be relentless in our effort to bring those 
cases to justice and to make sure that they can be free and 
they can be reunited with their families.
    China continues to be one of the worst abusers of human 
rights in the world. The statement that was sent to you the 
email statement, is patently false. We have, for that reason, 
continued to designate China as a country of particular concern 
since 1999, and we have determined that China's treatment of 
Uyghurs constitutes genocide and crimes against humanity.
    You mentioned a Uyghur Forced Labor Act. We are continuing 
to evaluate the impact, but we believe that it is making 
inroads. It has economic teeth to it, which is what I think is 
partly what is needed to make sure that we're showing strength 
as we use our whole range of tools to address the situation of 
China, whether it is our diplomatic tools, whether it is visa 
restrictions, financial sanctions, the report that we use to 
expose what is happening there. And it's not just our report. 
There is international consensus, you may have seen the report 
of Michelle Bachelet, the long delayed report, which also 
called out the abuses that are occurring in China. There has 
been so much evidence that has been generated, including 
satellite imagery of what is taking place there.
    I myself had the opportunity to travel around 2012 when I 
was Special Envoy to the OIC, and we could see even at that 
time what was beginning to take shape. And the Chinese 
government, of course, was very particular in ensuring that we 
only went to particular places and saw certain things, but our 
team managed to go to other places, as well, within Xinjiang 
and to see what was taking place, and we had the opportunity to 
speak to people there that were already starting to bear the 
brunt, whether it is restrictions even on things like fasting 
during Ramadan, which they told us that they were being 
pressured not to do. And some of them were completely 
disallowed from doing so.
    So I would very much welcome the opportunity to travel with 
you, Mr. Chairman, to China and to see firsthand and to express 
our concerns directly to the government----
    Mr. Smith. In follow up to this hearing, perhaps we could 
do a joint letter because, again, this is what Mao Ning, a 
foreign ministry spokesman, said on March 27th of this year: 
The door to Xinjiang is always open. People from all countries 
are welcome to visit.
    Ambassador Hussain. Let's take him up on that.
    Mr. Smith. Let's take him up on it. Exactly. So, I look 
forward to traveling with you. I hope we get permission.
    Let me ask you, if I could, in regard to the five countries 
that were not designated as CPC countries, Nigeria, 
Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, and India. I think each one of 
them, the evidence clearly suggests they ought to be CPC, and 
not just designated but there needs to be the application of 
the myriad of sanctions that were put into the law, about 18 of 
them, starting with a simple demarche but to go far beyond 
that.
    With regards to Nigeria, I did raise with Secretary Blinken 
my profound disappointment that he took them off as a CPC 
country when he visited Abuja. I think it was a very, very 
serious mistake. You know, the faith community reacted with 
horror about that. Afghanistan, it should be a no-brainer 
because, you know, the Taliban were an entity of particular 
concern and, certainly, now the government is the Taliban.
    Vietnam, it is time to jettison the mistake that was made 
by the Bush administration to lift CPC status from them. They 
have only gotten worse. You have heard testimony today. Syria, 
in like manner. India.
    If you could, tell us you or your office, have you 
recommended that those five countries be added as CPC 
countries.
    Ambassador Hussain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me be as 
specific as I possibly can be in addressing your question. 
First of all, I share your concerns. I don't think we have much 
disagreement in terms of the substance of what's happening on 
the ground. We share USCIRF's concerns. As the Chairman of 
USCIRF, Rabbi Cooper, mentioned, we work with them very 
closely.
    Our annual report, which goes through every single country, 
had a very detailed section of each of the five countries you 
mentioned, ranging from 18 pages to 49 pages for those five 
countries. So our concerns are clearly outlined in the report 
and in numerous other publicly-available interviews, remarks, 
and other materials that we have issued.
    We are beginning our process for determining designations 
this year. We just issued our report in May, and we will be 
making our designations later this year. And I am happy to be 
in close communication with your office.
    I want you to know that I have directly engaged with the 
governments or civil society in all of these five countries at 
a high level, including a meeting with former President Buhari, 
including a delegation that we had to Vietnam, we took to 
Vietnam to engage in a human rights dialogue where we raised 
our concerns very directly, including individual cases which we 
discussed directly with the government of Vietnam, and in our 
conversations with the Indian government, as well.
    I also want to be clear about the fact that the CPC 
designation is one of the tools that we have. There is a myriad 
of tools that we are using to address the situation, and we 
will continue to do so because we continue to be concerned 
about the religious freedom conditions in all of these 
countries.
    First of all, of course, I mentioned the report a number of 
times which exposes the challenges that we are seeing, exposes 
the oppression that so many people face. We have the diplomatic 
tool that we use of speaking directly to governments. We do 
that at a bilateral level and at a multilateral level, 
sometimes openly, sometimes in private, whatever we think is 
the most strategic approach in a particular situation. We work 
very closely with civil society leaders, including we have a 
unit in our office called Strategic Religious Engagement Unit 
whose job is to deal directly with the religious actors in 
countries around the world and that includes Nigeria. I have 
had a chance to visit Nigeria a number of times throughout my 
career. We plan to be visiting again later this year, and we 
would welcome again the opportunity to travel with you or your 
team to Nigeria to see the situation firsthand on the ground. 
So that work with civil society is very important, as is the 
programming funds that we have to deal directly with civil 
society, primarily in a number of these countries.
    Another tool that we use is we work in multilateral fora, 
and we have an international religious freedom or belief 
alliance now, which started under my predecessor, Ambassador 
Brownback. We have continued that, and we are right up to 
around 45 countries now in terms of membership. And they have 
issued statements on Nigeria, on Vietnam, on the situation 
facing Christians around the world. We continue to work 
actively with them.
    Of course, there are other parts of our government that I 
believe have had the opportunity to testify here and in other 
settings, as well, in terms of our military approaches, our 
humanitarian approaches, what the U.S. Agency for International 
Development is doing.
    So all of that is a part of our whole-of-government effort 
to address the situation there, but we continue to take it very 
seriously. I have focused a significant portion of my human 
rights work in my career on the use of blasphemy laws, the use 
of apostasy laws. We have seen how they have been applied in 
Nigeria, for example. And when I met with President Buhari, I 
specifically asked him, since he was getting ready to leave 
office, that he use that opportune time as an opportunity to 
pardon some of those individuals. And we asked him about those 
cases, Mubarak Bala's case, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu for example. We 
talked about the murder of Deborah Samuel and others through 
mob killings that we believe were facilitated, in part, by the 
mood created by tools that are used in Nigeria, such as 
blasphemy laws, and we continue to follow up with his national 
security team later in the year.
    These are efforts that we will continue in Nigeria and 
around the world, regardless of the designation status. But as 
I mentioned to you, we are now in the process of looking at the 
designations, again, after issuing the report----
    Mr. Smith. And when do you think those designations will be 
made?
    Ambassador Hussain. If I had to estimate, last year it was 
around November, so around the same time line this year.
    Mr. Smith. And just for the record, because I was there 
when Frank wrote the original law, any time you think facts 
warrant it, you can designate a country to be CPC. Yes, it is 
done normally on an annual basis, but it can also be done based 
on the record. So, I would hope, you know, with those five 
countries, it would be an accelerated effort to try to get that 
done. And I think it would send a clear message to President 
Tinubu that we mean business. Maybe you could tell us why they 
were taken off the list as Secretary Blinken made his way to 
Abuja. I can't figure it out.
    Ambassador Hussain. Yes, there is a process that is used 
and our office, this was at a time before I came into the 
position 18 months ago, but it remains true today that there is 
a process in which our office feeds all of the information that 
we have. As you said, we instruct our team to follow the facts, 
and so, based on the facts, we provide our inputs into the 
process. And as that process considers a number of factors, we 
come to a final decision on that. So I would be happy to try to 
get a little bit more information for you on the specifics of 
that particular determination, but we are going to be going 
through that process again just to learn more about all the 
details----
    Mr. Smith. And before I yield to my good friend, Ms. 
Salazar, the issue of Bishop Alvarez.
    Ambassador Hussain. Absolutely.
    Mr. Smith. Could you really speak to that? I mean, we are 
all--we had two hearings in this committee at which we heard 
from two of the political prisoners, first their wives a couple 
of years ago and then two of them who got out. But, obviously, 
I remember that so well. It was a joint hearing with my good 
friend and colleague of the Western Hemisphere chairwoman, and 
I'm wondering, you know, we can't let up the pressure. I mean, 
this man is an incredibly brave man of God, and he is being 
persecuted horribly.
    Ambassador Hussain. We call for the unconditional and 
immediate release of Bishop Alvarez, and he has been unjustly 
sentenced to more than 26 years. And we believe that he should 
be allowed to do his work as a prominent and respected 
religious leader with a huge following in Nicaragua. And last 
November, the secretary designated Nicaragua as a CPC, a 
country of particular concern, for the first time, and we are 
deeply concerned about the increase in the repression of the 
Catholic Church there and its followers, unjust detentions, 
forced exile, spurious charges and harassment. So we will 
continue to call for his immediate release.
    When we traveled to the Summit of Americas in Los Angeles 
last year, we had the opportunity to meet with diaspora 
communities and leaders from Nicaragua and hear firsthand the 
situation there, and that was part of what led to the 
designation, hearing directly from those communities, the CPC 
designation. We will continue to work on this.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. Chairwoman Salazar.
    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 
to be here in your subcommittee, and thank you, Mr. Hussain, 
for your leadership in wanting to help those who are dedicating 
their lives to promote the faith, their faith, whether it is 
Christian or otherwise.
    So you are the Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, 
and you are the top official in the United States government 
for monitoring religious persecution around the world, and we 
thank you for that. On the map, I have a map out here just to 
put things into context, that shows the Catholic Church itself, 
a report indicating religious persecution in the Western 
Hemisphere. Unfortunately, Nicaragua isn't red, is one of those 
countries that isn't red. And as we were talking, Monsignor 
Alvarez, the Bishop of Matagalpa, he has been in jail for one 
full year, and, recently, when they wanted to kick him out, he 
decided to stay because his honor tells him to stay in his 
country and not go into exile because he knew that he cannot 
come back.
    Unfortunately, we know that Nicaragua and Chile are two of 
the most religious or most Catholic countries or closer to the 
Catholic faith in Latin America, and we do not understand how 
come the Ortega regime has dared to do things that no other 
regime and before have dared, including the dictatorship of 
Somoza or other authoritarian regimes in Nicaragua have dared 
to do. So that is very, very dangerous.
    And my first question would be do you know about the 
condition, the physical condition, the mental condition of 
Monsignor? Have you been able to have any type of access, you 
meaning the United States government?
    Ambassador Hussain. Yes. We are in touch with those close 
to him. If we are able to have a conversation in a more closed 
setting, we can give you a little bit more details. I just want 
to make sure that we are protecting the information that allows 
for our efforts to do as much good as possible.
    But we are very concerned about his well being, and we have 
called for that reason for his unconditional release. And 
because of his case and other cases, we have designated 
Nicaragua as a CPC.
    Ms. Salazar. Okay. So nothing that you can share with us in 
public, so we would have to do that in private. All right. So 
as you were saying, when you say CPC, for those that don't 
understand, the State Department has two blacklists: countries 
and entities. And Nicaragua has been placed on the countries 
blacklist, which you called countries of interest or something 
like that. But for the average American, you are on the 
blacklist as a country when you are persecuting people of 
faith.
    So my question is would you consider putting the Frente 
Sandinista de Liberacion, meaning the political party 
established by the Ortegas, would you consider putting that 
organization on the blacklist of entities? Because we know that 
Rosario Murillo, who happens to be the vice president of 
Nicaragua, who happens to be the wife of Dictator Ortega, is 
satanic. She is a woman that everyone knows that she belongs to 
the world of Satan. So is there anyway that this country can 
send a message and put Frente Sandinista on that list?
    Ambassador Hussain. We have had close to a dozen entities 
or so around the world that we have designated as entities of 
particular concern. We would be happy to take that information 
from you and work with your team. I will, myself, look into 
this particular party, as you mentioned----
    Ms. Salazar. But have you considered that possibility 
before?
    Ambassador Hussain. I am not aware that we have considered 
it before, but that is something that going into----
    Ms. Salazar. And would you be prone to consider the 
possibility of putting Frente Sandinista on the list of those 
entities that are on the blacklist of the United States, not 
politically, not economically, but religiously speaking?
    Ambassador Hussain. We are always following the facts, and 
if that is what the facts are, and it sounds like from what you 
are saying that there is a very strong case to be made, then we 
will follow the facts and make that very serious consideration.
    Ms. Salazar. And what needs to happen in order for the 
State Department to determine, yes, we are going to put Frente 
Sandinista on the list of the entities that we have 
blacklisted? What needs to happen?
    Ambassador Hussain. Well, we take a look at all of the 
available information, the data. We talk to civil society on 
the ground. We look at the press reports, we look at the 
reporting from civil society organizations. We would love to be 
in further communication with you and your team----
    Ms. Salazar. Let me just tell you three things that the 
Sandinistas have done in the last few years. In 2018, the 
Sandinista police locked protestors in a parish in Managua and 
fired on them while they were inside the church. I think that 
is pretty steep.
    Not only that, in '22, Ortega expelled 18 nuns from the 
Mother Theresa organization, the Missionaries of Charity. These 
nuns were saints, and they were helping all over Nicaragua. 
Kicked out. Something that no one would have ever thought 
because the nuns, you know, those nuns, who do they harm? On 
the contrary, they help.
    So those are just two, and there have been over 400 attacks 
on the Catholic Church in Nicaragua in the last four years. So 
I am saying, so I, once again, would like to have you on record 
saying that you would consider strongly to put Frente 
Sandinista on the list of entities that are on the blacklist 
for the State Department because, you know, that the United 
States, it is still the beacon of hope for this hemisphere and 
sending that very strong message will be recorded by other 
countries not to mess with those people who are dedicating 
their lives to the faith. I mean, what else can be more noble 
to give your life to serve the Lord Almighty?
    Ambassador Hussain. Absolutely. And for the same reasons 
why we designated Nicaragua as a country of particular concern, 
we will take a close look. And this is another example of why 
we cherish our collaboration with Congress so much because we 
take very, very seriously those types of recommendations, and I 
pledge to you today that we will take a look at that very 
closely. And any information that you can continue to share 
with us, in addition to the very compelling facts that you have 
provided, which are very, very disturbing, today, we will take 
those into consideration.
    Ms. Salazar. And I would send a message today to the Ortega 
and Murillo regime that If they were to release Monsignor 
Alvarez right now, we would then consider the possibility of 
not putting them on the list. But everything is predicated upon 
the freedom of this Monsignor Alvarez from Matagalpa. Do you 
like that idea?
    Ambassador Hussain. That is a very significant step that 
could be taken. And, of course, when we are making those 
determinations, it is not just based on one particular case, 
but that is a very significant case and we would definitely 
take that----
    Ms. Salazar. So I want to send that message to them in 
Spanish, If you allow me.
    [Speaking foreign language.]
    Ms. Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Hussain. And we will 
definitely be in touch with you because we know that what is 
happening in Nicaragua in every front, politically, 
religiously, economically, human rights, it is despicable. And, 
unfortunately, the United States is not responding and your 
administration is not responding with the force that it should 
to send the message to the Rosario Murillo and the Ortega 
regime that they cannot play with human rights and with 
religious rights. And I thank you very much once again for 
wanting to work with us.
    Ambassador Hussain. Absolutely.
    Ms. Salazar. Very grateful.
    Ambassador Hussain. We will continue to raise----
    Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairwoman Salazar. Let me just, you 
know, with regards to Ortega, back in 1984, Frank Wolf, Bob 
McCue, and Tony Hall, and I visited Ortega on a human rights 
mission. We met with him for about two hours. We raised the use 
of torture. Tomas Borge, who was a minister of interior, and so 
many others were using torture to extract information but, more 
importantly, just to be cruel. And we raised all those issues 
with him. We had documentation about everything we were talking 
about. And he served us tea. One person didn't drink it, three 
of us who did, we all got very sick. I mean, very sick, like 
two weeks of--I mean, he did that to the students, you might 
recall, and they sent in food, they sent in food that was 
poisoned. We didn't die, obviously, but we got very sick. I 
will never forget it, and, you know, Tony Hall didn't drink it 
and he didn't get sick.
    So, we are talking about a guy that stoops to a lot of bad 
levels. And for the people of Nicaragua, including Bishop 
Alvarez, life is just awful.
    I wrote to President Ortega and asked if I could visit with 
Bishop Alvarez. We haven't heard back. Not to overstay my 
welcome with you, but if we could ever get a meeting to go 
there and visit with him together, I think that would be a 
very, very useful meeting. So, it is something to take back and 
to give some consideration to because, you know, I have gotten 
into gulags all over the world. People say how do you get in. 
We got into Perm Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains in the Soviet 
Union back in the 1980s. Everyone said it was impossible, it 
took two years. And, again, the ICRC is not visiting him, 
independent human rights monitors are not seeing him. We just 
need to do everything we can to make sure that he is okay and, 
hopefully, ASAP, is free.
    So thank you, and thank you, Chairwoman Salazar, for your 
work and your comments just a moment ago.
    Just let me ask you one question about providing funding to 
atheist groups in South Asia. We understand something on the 
order of 494,000 has gone to Nepal and some to Sri Lanka. Are 
we funding atheist groups?
    Ambassador Hussain. Our office is relentless in protecting 
and fighting to protect the religious freedom of people of all 
backgrounds all around the world. I think you have seen that 
from the over a dozen countries that I have traveled to so far 
in this role, in our activity in multilateral institutions, in 
the cases that we are raising of persecuted Christians and the 
work that we are doing on antisemitism and addressing anti-
Muslim hatred, in addressing attacks against Hindu communities 
for example, Buddhists, Sikh communities. I was just speaking 
this week at a large gathering of six.
    So all our work is characterized by a level of consistency 
that we are very proud of. And as you know from being the 
architect of the 2016 act, we do have an obligation also to 
protect those people who don't have any particular faith. And 
so we have been active. I have spoken at the Humanist 
International events. I have spoken with a number of people who 
are facing persecution because of the lack of their faith, and 
one of the dozens of programs that we have that is designed to 
protect against persecution, people that don't have faith, is 
the one that you mentioned.
    So in no way are we doing anything to promote one form of 
belief over any other belief, but it is consistent with our 
longstanding practice in our office. And, incidentally, this 
was also a program that was initiated prior to my arrival in 
this role. It's an ongoing program, but it is a consistent part 
of what we do to protect people and their right to freedom of 
religion or belief around the world, and we are happy to 
continue to stay in touch with you----
    Mr. Smith. Could you provide us with a breakdown on those 
grants?
    Ambassador Hussain. Yes. We will definitely send you--we 
sent a letter also to the committee, to Chairman McCaul, as 
well going in great detail. So I would also point you to that 
letter, as well.
    Mr. Smith. I mean, did any of these groups that we are 
funding cross the line of demarcation between saying somebody 
is being persecuted because they won't believe, or they then 
turn and say religion is a farce and they attack----
    Ambassador Hussain. Well, that is not consistent, that type 
of advocacy is not consistent----
    Mr. Smith. Because I wrote the language into the bill that 
you have a right to believe or not to believe. It was in the 
findings section, but, you know----
    Ambassador Hussain. Of course.
    Mr. Smith [continuing]. I didn't anticipate that this would 
be, and I am sure.
    Ambassador Hussain. And that type of advocacy would be 
inconsistent with what----
    Mr. Smith. Is that being monitored----
    Ambassador Hussain. Yes, it is. That would bear on whether 
or not the grant could continue going forward because, as I 
understand, the conditions of the grant do not allow for the 
attempt to establish a particular religion. So our----
    Mr. Smith. Well, I just say because the American Humanist 
Association branded all those who went to National Prayer 
Breakfast, and that's a totally bipartisan, every religion 
under the sun is there, as Christian nationalists.
    Ambassador Hussain. Right.
    Mr. Smith. I mean, you know----
    Ambassador Hussain. That is not an assessment that I would 
agree with.
    Mr. Smith. Okay. If you could let us know further how that 
is being monitored to ensure that they are not, you know, that 
antagonism. I mean, I have gone to that many times. Presidents 
go to it and give remarks of both parties.
    Ambassador Hussain. We are happy to continue to share 
information on that. Again, the letter that we sent, we really 
try to be as detailed as possible, and I will make it my 
personal commitment to make sure that, if there is any lines 
being crossed in the administration of that grant money, that 
we take appropriate action.
    Mr. Smith. Anything else you would like to add?
    Ambassador Hussain. We just greatly appreciate a 
bipartisan----
    Mr. Smith. I do have one final question, if I could. With 
Deborah Lipstadt, who is, of course, our Ambassador-at-Large 
for Combating Antisemitism, and with Rabbi Cooper who just 
testified, and thank you for listening to that panel. Not 
everyone does that. They come late, and you came and heard it 
all. How often do you meet? Do you have roundtables and with 
other, you know, players? Because I read the reports. I haven't 
read all of yours. I have read certain countries, you know. 
That is as far as I got, but it is pretty far. And I did read 
the USCIRF report. But to read it is great, you had good 
summaries, but the interaction, I think, could be very helpful. 
Do you meet?
    Ambassador Hussain. So I just came back a few days ago from 
a trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina to commemorate, to mark the 
massacre at Srebrenica with Ambassador Lipstadt. So we were 
there together for three days. We traveled together to the 
Holocaust sites. And we are in regular communication on a whole 
range of issues, along with a number of other senior officials.
    And I do want to specifically thank and commend the Second 
Gentleman, Douglas Emhoff, who has really taken a strong and 
leading role in combating antisemitism. We did an event 
together at the Kennedy Center, the Kennedy Presidential 
Library up in Boston, and we did an event together at the USIP, 
I mentioned the trip that we took to the Holocaust sites. And 
so we continue to collaborate very closely with him and his 
office. He has been a very strong champion.
    And with regard to the commission, I mean, we have a 
meeting on the books tomorrow with Rabbi Cooper. We have met 
all together with the commissioners, with the Secretary of 
State, and we are in touch very closely with them. We have 
monthly meetings, and I often participate in those meetings, 
and it has been a very collaborative partnership with them and 
very open. You know, I got to know Nury Turkel very well, I am 
getting to know the Rabbi very well, and it is a very 
productive relationship and partnership and we are looking 
forward to continuing it.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. I, too, have spoken at the Srebrenica 
remembrance, and I went with the president of Bosnia 20 years 
ago and what a moving experience. And a lot of the women who 
lost their husbands were there for that. They actually had a 
reinterment ceremony. It was frightening. That was a genocide 
committed by the Bosnian Serbs.
    Anything else you would like to add before we close?
    Ambassador Hussain. I greatly appreciate your cooperation. 
We will be in touch with you on all of the important topics 
that we discussed today, and we will provide more information 
on the 25th anniversary celebration that we have coming up in 
October.
    Mr. Smith. I look forward to traveling with you to 
Xinjiang.
    Ambassador Hussain. All right. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Smith. The hearing is adjourned. Before we adjourn, 
members have five legislative days to provide statements for 
the record, and we probably will have a few members who want to 
ask additional questions, if both our first panel and you could 
respond to those in a timely fashion.
    Ambassador Hussain. Absolutely.
    Mr. Smith. The hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
                           [all]
```