U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

56–739 WASHINGTON : 2024

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 

( 

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 

or http://www.govinfo.gov 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN MAST, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 

MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

RONNY JACKSON, Texas 

YOUNG KIM, California 

MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 

American Samoa 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

JIM BAIRD, Indiana 

MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida 

THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey 

MICHAEL LAWLER, New York 

CORY MILLS, Florida 

RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia 

NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas 

JOHN JAMES, Michigan 

KEITH SELF, Texas 

GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 

Member 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

TED LIEU, California 

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania 

DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota 

COLIN ALLRED, Texas 

ANDY KIM, New Jersey 

SARA JACOBS, California 

KATHY MANNING, North Carolina 

SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, Florida 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania 

JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida 

JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois 

SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California 

JIM COSTA, California 

JASON CROW, Colorado 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

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 

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 

American Samoa 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia 

JOHN JAMES, Michigan 

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania, Ranking 

Member 

AMI BERA, California 

SARA JACOBS, California 

KATHY MANNING, North Carolina 

MARY VIGIL, Subcommittee Staff Director 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
(III) 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

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 antiSemitism 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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
2 

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, 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
3 

only to die in the Senate. And one of the provisions talks about reestablishing 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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
4 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
5 

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 fulltime. 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
6 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
7 

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-ki, 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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
8 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
9 

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:] 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
10 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 56739A.001
11 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 56739A.002
12 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 56739A.003
13 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 56739A.004
14 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 56739A.005
15 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 56739A.006
16 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 56739A.007
17 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 56739A.008
18 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
19 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
20 

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:] 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
21 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 56739A.009
22 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 56739A.010
23 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 56739A.011
24 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 56739A.012
25 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 56739A.013
26 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 56739A.014
27 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 56739A.015
28 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 56739A.016
29 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 56739A.017
30 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 56739A.018
31 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 56739A.019
32 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 56739A.020
33 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 56739A.021
34 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 56739A.022
35 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
36 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
37 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
38 

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:] 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
39 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 56739A.023
40 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 56739A.024
41 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 56739A.025
42 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 56739A.026
43 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 56739A.027
44 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 56739A.028
45 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 56739A.029
46 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 56739A.030
47 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 56739A.031
48 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 56739A.032
49 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 56739A.033
50 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 56739A.034
51 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 56739A.035
52 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 56739A.036
53 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 56739A.037
54 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 56739A.038
55 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
56 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
57 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
58 

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 cosponsor 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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
59 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
60 

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 deeplyheld 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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
61 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
62 

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 careVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:31 Dec 10, 2024 Jkt 056739 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A739.XXX A739

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
63 

fully 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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
64 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
65 

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 freeVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:31 Dec 10, 2024 Jkt 056739 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A739.XXX A739

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
66 

dom 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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
67 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
68 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
69 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
70 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
71 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
72 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
73 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
74 

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 ecoVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:31 Dec 10, 2024 Jkt 056739 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A739.XXX A739

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
75 

nomic 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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
76 

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 govVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:31 Dec 10, 2024 Jkt 056739 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A739.XXX A739

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
77 

ernments 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 antiMuslim 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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
78 

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:] 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
79 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 56739A.039
80 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 56739A.040
81 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 56739A.041
82 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 56739A.042
83 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 56739A.043
84 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 56739A.044
85 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 56739A.045
86 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 56739A.046
87 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 56739A.047
88 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 56739A.048
89 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 56739A.049
90 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
91 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
92 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
93 

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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
94 

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 beVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:31 Dec 10, 2024 Jkt 056739 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A739.XXX A739

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
95 

fore 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 Liberacio ́n, 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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
96 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
97 

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. Toma ́s 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 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
98 

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—— 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
99 

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. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
100 

[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARING
101 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 56739A.050
102 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 56739A.051
103 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 01 here 56739A.052
104 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 56739A.053
105 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 56739A.054
106 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 56739A.055
107 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 56739A.056
108 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 56739A.057
109 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 56739A.058
110 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 56739A.059
111 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 56739A.060
112 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 56739A.061
113 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 56739A.062
114 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 56739A.063
115 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 56739A.064
116 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 56739A.065
117 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 56739A.066
118 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 56739A.067
119 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 56739A.068
120 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 56739A.069
121 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 56739A.070
122 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 56739A.071
123 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 56739A.072
124 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 56739A.073
125 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 56739A.074
126 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 56739A.075
127 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 56739A.076
128 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 56739A.077
129 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 56739A.078
130 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 56739A.079
131 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 56739A.080
132 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 56739A.081
133 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 56739A.082
134 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 56739A.083
135 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 56739A.084
136 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 56739A.085
137 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 56739A.086
138 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 56739A.087
139 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 56739A.088
140 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 56739A.089
141 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 56739A.090
142 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 56739A.091
143 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 56739A.092
144 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 56739A.093
145 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 56739A.094
146 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 56739A.095
147 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 56739A.096
148 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 56739A.097
149 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 56739A.098
150 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 56739A.099
151 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 56739A.100
152 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 56739A.101
153 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 56739A.102
154 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 56739A.103
155 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 56739A.104
156 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 56739A.105
157 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 56739A.106
158 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 56739A.107
159 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 56739A.108
160 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 56739A.109
161 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 56739A.110
162 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 56739A.111
163 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 56739A.112
164 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 56739A.113
165 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 56739A.114
166 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 56739A.115