    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    REVIEW OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN
                   PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 11, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-61

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                           http://oversight.house.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    30-292 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

                      Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
    Darrell E. Issa, California              Ranking Minority Member
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina         Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
    Justin Amash, Michigan                   Columbia
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona               Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
    Blake Farenthold, Texas              Jim Cooper, Tennessee
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
    Mark Meadows, North Carolina         Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
    Ron DeSantis, Florida                Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida              Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    Mark Walker, North Carolina          Val Butler Demings, Florida
    Rod Blum, Iowa                       Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia                Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Peter Welch, Vermont
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Will Hurd, Texas                     Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama              Jimmy Gomez, California
    James Comer, Kentucky
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan
    Greg Gianforte, Montana

                         Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
                        William McKenna General Counsel
                          Cordell Hull, Senior Counsel
                        Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                       Subcommittee on National Security

                        Ron DeSantis, Florida, Chairman
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair  Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts,
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee           Ranking Minority Member
    Justin Amash, Michigan               Val Butler Demings, Florida
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona               Peter Welch, Vermont
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia                Jimmy Gomez, California
    James Comer, Kentucky                Vacancy
                                         Vacancy

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on October 11, 2017.................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Michael G. Kozak, Senior Advisor, Bureau of
      Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State
        Oral Statement...............................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     8
    Ms. Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Vice Chair, Commission on
      International Religious Freedom
        Oral Statement...............................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14
    Thomas F. Farr, Ph.D., President, Religious Freedom Institute,
      Director, Religious Freedom Research Project, Georgetown
      University, Associate Professor, Walsh School of Foreign
      Service, Georgetown University
        Oral Statement...............................................    37
        Written Statement............................................    39
    Mr. Rob Berschinski, Senior Vice President, Policy, Human Rights
      First
        Oral Statement...............................................    43
        Written Statement............................................    45

                      REVIEW OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
                 IN PROTECTING INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, October 11, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
                     Subcommittee on National Security,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives DeSantis, Russell, Duncan, Foxx,
    Hice, Comer, Lynch, Demings, Welch, and Gomez.
        Also Present: Representatives Gowdy and Palmer.
        Mr. DeSantis. The Subcommittee on National Security would
    come to order.
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time.
        The right to practice your religion freely is one of the
    cornerstone freedoms we have in our country. In fact,
    demonstrating its importance, freedom of religion is in the
    very first amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
    Other countries take a narrower view of freedom of religion.
    Some impose an official religion, while others actively
    persecute those practicing a disfavored religion.
        We are pleased to have here today witnesses from the State
    Department; the U.S. Commission on International Religious
    Freedom, an independent, bipartisan government agency charged
    with monitoring the religious environment overseas; the
    president of Religious Freedom Institute; and a witness from
    the nonprofit group Human Rights First.
        In the State Department's most recent annual report on
    international religious freedom, the Department noted the U.S.
    Government promotes religious freedom because countries that
    effectively safeguard this human right are more stable,
    economically vibrant, and peaceful. The failure of governments
    to protect these rights breeds instability, terrorism, and
    violence.
        Looking at countries with more restrictive religious
    practices, one sees that many of them have significant national
    security concerns. One commentator, a former high-level State
    Department and NSC official, surveyed a number of conflicts in
    U.S. history and noted, quote, ``Including World War II, every
    major war the United States has fought over the past 70 years
    has been against an enemy that also violated religious
    freedom.'' As examples, he pointed to Nazi Germany, North
    Korea, North Vietnam, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as well as
    other sub-war conflicts, including the Cold War standoff with
    Soviet communism. The subcommittee is interested in hearing
    about the correlation between national security risks and
    restrictions on the freedom of religion abroad.
        We had a hearing on this issue in 2014, and there have been
    some developments since then. Just last December, Congress
    overwhelmingly passed the Frank Wolf International Religious
    Freedom Act.That law amended the 1998 International Religious
    Freedom Act, which made clear that international religious
    freedom is a national security issue.
        The Wolf Act contemplates using a whole-of-government
    approach, including our national security agencies, to
    encourage religious freedom abroad. One way we can do this is
    already enshrined in Federal law: allowing the denial of a visa
    to come into the United States for a foreign government
    official responsible for particularly severe violations of
    religious freedom.
        To help Congress and the American people better understand
    religious freedom abroad, both the State Department and USCIRF
    produce annual reports discussing countries' levels of
    religious freedom. By law, State is required to designate
    countries of particular concern. State's deadline this year is
    in mid-November, and I'm eager to see which countries are
    designated.
        The report listed countries of particular concern, but it
    also listed terrorist entities like the Islamic State, the
    Taliban, and Al Shabaab. It goes without saying that those
    enemies are hostile to the free exercise of religion and pose
    national security risks to the American people.
        Looking at the USCIRF list of countries of particular
    concern, there are a number of which are potential national
    security threats, including China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan,
    Russia, and Syria, among others.
        To help the United States' mission to enable religious
    freedom worldwide, the International Religious Freedom Act
    required the appointment of a Senate-confirmed ambassador.
    President Trump nominated former Senator and current Governor
    of Kansas Sam Brownback for the position, and he has had his
    confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee just last week.
        As this subcommittee discussed during the 2014 hearing, the
    ambassador position sat vacant for extended stretches during
    the Obama administration. It is important that the Senate move
    quickly to confirm Governor Brownback. The world must know that
    the United States takes its role seriously as a world leader in
    promoting religious freedom.
        Testifying today from the State Department is Ambassador
    Michael Kozak, Senior Advisor for Democracy, Human Rights, and
    Labor. Also testifying is Kristina Arriaga, who serves as Vice
    Chair on the U.S. Commission on International Religious
    Freedom.
        Joining us, as well, is Professor Thomas Farr, who is
    president of the Religious Freedom Institute, the director of
    the Religious Freedom Research Project at Georgetown
    University, and associate professor of the practice of religion
    at Georgetown School of Foreign Service. Finally, we have Rod
    Berschinski, a senior vice president of policy at Human Rights
    First.
        I want to thank the witnesses for their attendance. I look
    forward to your testimony today.
        And, at this point, I'd like to recognize the ranking
    member of the subcommittee, Mr. Lynch, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you
    for holding this hearing to examine the progress of U.S.
    Government efforts to promote international religious freedom.
        I'd also like to welcome and thank our panel of witnesses
    this morning for its willingness to come and help this
    committee with its work.
        The U.S. framework to address international religious
    persecution is based on our shared commitment to advancing
    religious freedom as a fundamental and inalienable human right.
        It also recognizes that the protection of religious freedom
    abroad is critical to our national security. As recently stated
    by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson--this is a quote--``Where
    religious freedom is not protected, we know that instability,
    human rights abuses, and violent extremism have a greater
    opportunity to take root,'' close quote.
        Similarly, the independent U.S. Commission on International
    Religious Freedom underscores that religious freedom is a vital
    element of national security and critical to ensuring a more
    peaceful, prosperous, and stable world.
        In furtherance of these objectives, the Office of
    International Religious Freedom at the State Department
    monitors religious persecution and discrimination worldwide and
    releases an annual report detailing the status of international
    freedom in each country. The office also identifies--and this
    is a particular term to the study--countries of particular
    concern for subsequent designation by the Secretary of State
    given their severe violations of religious freedom.
        In announcing the first annual report on religious freedom
    issued under the Trump administration in August of 2017,
    Secretary Tillerson highlighted the particular threat posed by
    the terrorist group known as ISIS as a result of its genocidal
    activities targeting Yazidis, Christians, Shia Muslims, and
    other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria. This
    latest report also notes that 10 nations were rightfully
    designated as countries of particular concern--those have been
    listed by my colleague, the chairman--in October of 2016,
    including, again, North Korea, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia--
    excuse me--and Saudi Arabia.
        As the State Department continues its work to identify
    countries of particular concern for 2017, the Office of
    International Religious Freedom should coordinate with the
    United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
    Congress has statutorily authorized this bipartisan and
    independent commission to conduct its own oversight in this
    area and develop policy recommendations to further inform the
    State Department's designation process.
        Importantly, the Commission has strongly recommended that
    the State Department add six countries to its list for 2017 due
    to their perpetration and/or tolerance of systematic, ongoing,
    and egregious violations of religious freedom.
        Chief among these additional countries is Russia. This
    year, in fact, marks the first time that the Commission has
    recommended Russia as a country of particular concern, in light
    of its continued religious freedom violations in the Russian
    mainland as well as activities in Ukraine and Crimea. According
    to the Commission's 2017 annual report, Russia presents a
    unique case in religious persecution, as the sole state to have
    not only continually intensified its repression of religious
    freedom but also to have expanded its repressive policies to
    the territories of a neighboring state by means of military
    invasion and occupation.
        The repressive policies implemented by the Russian
    Government include administrative harassment, arbitrary
    imprisonment, and extrajudicial killing, as well as the
    enactment of new laws in 2016 that criminalize all non-
    government-sanctioned private religious speech.
        Moreover, the Russian Supreme Court recently upheld a
    Justice Ministry order calling for the liquidation of the
    Jehovah's Witnesses denomination and prohibiting its operations
    as a so-called extremist organization. Russian security forces
    also continue to subject minority Muslim groups to fabricated
    terrorism charges, kidnappings, and disappearances.
        I strongly believe that the State Department should accept
    the Commission's recommendation and add Russia to the
    designation list.
        Reports of religious persecution and intolerance in Russia
    are not at all surprising, considering the impunity with which
    the Russian Government continues to conduct itself on the world
    stage. In January of 2017, our Nation's intelligence community
    issued an unclassified and unprecedented high-confidence
    assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an
    influence campaign aimed at the 2016 U.S. Presidential
    election. This malicious campaign included cyber breaches and
    other covert intelligence operations, as well as nefarious
    efforts undertaken by Russian Government agencies, state-
    sanctioned media, and even paid social-media users to spread
    Russian-desired messaging and to interfere in the election.
        To date, our committee has not held a hearing to examine
    that intelligence-community-wide assessment that Russia
    attempted to undermine our national security and compromise the
    very foundation of our democratic process.
        And, in closing, I just want to say that I am very happy
    that the name of Frank Wolf was resurrected in today's hearing.
    I had a wonderful part of my tenure serving with Frank Wolf,
    and I know he represented the 10th Congressional District in
    Virginia. It is great that we're carrying on the work of such a
    great champion of religious freedom.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing these and other
    issues with today's witnesses, and I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. DeSantis. I thank the ranking member.
        I have introduced the witnesses in my opening statement,
    but, just for the record, we do have Ambassador Kozak, we have
    Kristina Arriaga, we have Dr. Farr, and we have Mr.
    Berschinski.
        So we appreciate you all being here. Thank you.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
    before they testify. So if you could all please rise, raise
    your right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to
    give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
    so help you God?
        Thank you. Please be seated.
        All witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
    testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be
    made a part of the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of
    you shows your remaining time. The light will turn yellow when
    you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is up. Please
    also remember to press the button to turn your microphone on
    before speaking.
        And, with that, I would like to recognize Ambassador Kozak
    for 5 minutes.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

              STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. KOZAK

        Mr. Kozak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For you and members of
    the committee, thank you for holding this hearing to focus
    attention on international religious freedom--a cherished
    American value, a universal human right, and a Trump
    administration foreign policy priority.
        As you mentioned, President Trump has nominated Governor
    Brownback to be the Ambassador-at-Large for International
    Religious Freedom. Amongst his other accomplishments, he's
    coauthored two books on the subject and, as Senator, was a key
    sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act. We could
    not ask for a more distinguished nominee.
        President Trump has stated that the United States looks
    forward to a day when people of all faiths--Christians and
    Muslims and Jewish and Hindu--can follow their hearts and
    worship according to their conscience. Vice President Pence has
    said, under President Trump, America will continue to stand for
    religious freedom of all people of all faiths across the world.
        In August, Secretary Tillerson mentioned that conditions in
    many parts of the world are far from ideal. As was mentioned,
    he stated that ISIS is clearly responsible for genocide against
    Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims and is responsible for
    crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
        United States efforts to help include our leadership of the
    Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Coalition-backed forces have
    liberated more than three-quarters of the territory ISIS once
    controlled in Iraq and about two-thirds of the territory it
    once controlled in Syria. ISIS has not regained control of any
    of this territory due in part to the Coalition's work to
    stabilize liberated communities.
        But more robust steps must be taken in coming months so
    that Iraq's religious minority communities can provide for
    their own security. We continue to support the Iraqi
    Government's efforts to enhance local government and establish
    local security forces.
        Stabilization projects in Iraq include minorities ISIS
    targeted for genocide. In Sinjar District, a predominantly
    Yazidi area, the U.N. Development Programme has completed the
    rehabilitation of the Sinouni hospital and primary health
    clinic, seven schools, and seven water wellheads and pumps, and
    has more projects planned for later this year. In the historic
    Christian town of Bartella, trained explosive ordnance disposal
    teams have cleared schools, medical facilities, and other key
    infrastructure.
        These efforts are setting up conditions for displaced
    people to voluntarily return to their home. We will ensure
    stabilization assistance reaches all liberated areas as quickly
    as possible.
        Our bureau is working on programs that empower minorities
    to advocate on issues such as key pieces of legislation.
    Programs also promote stabilization efforts, more equitable and
    representative political participation, and access to services
    and governance structures. These programs engage the majority
    as well as minority communities, recognizing that preservation
    of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq cannot be sustained
    without support and understanding of their value within
    mainstream Iraqi society.
        Another global concern is our work to reform discriminatory
    laws that deprive many of their ability to exercise their
    religious belief. Iran, for example, has 20 individuals
    executed in 2016 on charges that included waging war again God.
    Members of the Baha'i community are in prison for abiding their
    beliefs.
        In Saudi Arabia, the government does not recognize the
    right of non-Muslims to practice their religion in public and
    has used prison sentences, lashings, fines for apostasy,
    atheism, blasphemy, and insulting the state's interpretation of
    Islam.
        In Turkey, non-Sunni Muslims face discrimination and
    violence. The United States continues to advocate for the
    immediate release of Pastor Andrew Brunson, who has been
    wrongfully imprisoned there.
        In Bahrain, the government continued to target Shia
    clerics, and members of the community were discriminated
    against in government employment, education, and the justice
    system.
        In China, the government tortures, detains, and imprisons
    thousands for practicing their religious beliefs.
        In Pakistan, two dozen people are on death row or life
    imprisonment for blasphemy.
        And, in Sudan, the government arrests and intimidates
    clergy.
        We appreciate the committee raising the connection between
    the state of international religious freedom and America's
    national security. Our efforts to defend religion, in brief, is
    in our national interest. Places where religious freedom is
    denied, left unattended, can become full-blown security crises
    with effects far beyond their immediate neighborhoods. Mass
    migration caused by persecution can be destabilizing. And
    resentment borne of discrimination and persecution for one's
    faith can create a fertile ground for radicalization to
    violence and terrorist recruitment.
        In closing, I would note that the International Religious
    Freedom Act calls on our government to stand for liberty and
    stand with the persecuted, to use and implement appropriate
    tools in the United States foreign policy apparatus, including
    diplomatic, commercial, charitable, educational, and cultural
    channels, to promote respect for religious freedom by all.
        We appreciate that these issues have always had strong
    bipartisan support, and we want to work closely with Congress
    to help persecuted minorities. Thank you again for holding this
    hearing to review the U.S. role in protecting international
    religious freedom.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Kozak follows:]
     [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        Ms. Arriaga, you're up for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF KRISTINA ARRIAGA DE BUCHOLZ

        Ms. Arriaga. Thank you. My name is Kristina Arriaga. I'm
    the vice chairwoman of the United States Commission on
    International Religious Freedom.
        Today, I'd like to offer three observations, which I
    explore more fully in my written testimony. Thanks for
    accepting it for the record.
        Number one, we ignore religious freedom at our own peril.
    The U.S. Government must factor into its foreign policy
    religious freedom, a foundational human right, a source of
    peace, stability, and economic vitality, and a key factor in
    countries worldwide. For example, those whose religious freedom
    has been violated can become susceptible to extremist
    indoctrination, and governments that commit violations or allow
    them to occur with impunity often sow the seeds of their own
    instability.
        Number two, some view religion as competition or as
    alternate source of authority. This is dangerous to the United
    States. These countries use national security concerns to
    justify violating religious freedom, they pit groups against
    each other to enhance their own power, they allow violators to
    act with impunity, and they incite vigilante groups and others
    to violence. However, by exercising control in these ways,
    governments in Russia, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan,
    for example, create more instability, not enhance authority.
        Number three, hit them where it hurts. No one who violates
    human rights in their own country should be granted a visa to
    come to this country. The U.S. Government has tools to address
    religious freedom violations, including the 1998 IRFA, the 2016
    Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, and the Global
    Magnitsky Act. However, we must have the political will to use
    these tools, and that is sometimes where we can fall short.
        Congress plays an indispensable role, including by holding
    hearings, passing new legislation, and appropriating ample
    funding, exercising oversight, focusing on accountability,
    continually creating and refining the tools needed to address
    challenges, including accountability for genocide and crimes
    against humanity, using your own bully pulpits to highlight
    violations, and advocating for those who are persecuted and
    detained.
        I will end by focusing on two issues dear to my heart:
    religious prisoners of conscience and women and religious
    freedom.
        I hope all members can support prisoners through the Tom
    Lantos Commission Defending Freedoms Project, launched in
    conjunction with USCIRF and Amnesty International USA. To do
    our part, each one of us are advocating for a prisoner as part
    of our Religious Prisoner of Conscience Project. I chose Fariba
    Kamalabadi, who is in Iran in prison simply because she's a
    Baha'i.
        Last week, during a USCIRF delegation visit to Turkey,
    Commissioner Sandra Jolley and I drove to the remote prison of
    Kiriklar to meet with Pastor Andrew Brunson. We were the first
    to see him besides his wife, attorney, and the consular
    officer. He has been imprisoned on fabricated charges.
        This picture--he doesn't look like this anymore. He's lost
    over 50 pounds. He has suffered tremendous psychological
    pressure. And we must continue to advocate for his immediate
    release.
        Finally, building lasting peace and security requires the
    participation of women. Especially during conflicts, women are
    often targeted for violence and discrimination, with religion
    or the excuse of religion used to disempower women. In fact, it
    is a betrayal of the very foundations of freedom of religion or
    belief whenever it's misused to justify inexcusable and harmful
    practices, such as female genital mutilation, child brides, and
    forced conventions. Unfortunately, this practice has been
    exported. In our own country, there are half a million girls at
    risk for female genital mutilation.
        My written testimony ended by quoting Martin Luther King.
    Here, I would like to quote Yogi Berra, who said, ``If you come
    to a fork in the road, take it.'' The United States must commit
    to travel the road of advocating for international religious
    freedom with determination, passion, and commitment.
        Thank you very much.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Arriaga follows:]
      [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        Dr. Farr, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FARR, PH.D.

        Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My message to you today is straightforward and hopeful.
    Advancing religious freedom more successfully in our foreign
    policy can help the victims of religious persecution abroad and
    increase the security of the American people. But if we are to
    succeed, we will need to change some of our thinking and
    strengthen some of our programs at the State Department.
        Growing evidence indicates that religious freedom can
    undermine religion-related terrorism. The evidence applies to
    violence that emanates from any religion, but the primary
    threat to U.S. national security and that of most other
    nations, especially Muslim-majority nations, is Islamist
    terrorism.
        Our approach to terrorism as a religious freedom issue has
    understandably focused on the minority religious groups
    victimized by the terrorists or by governments. The methods
    historically used by the State Department to address religious
    persecution consist in large part of annual reports and annual
    designations of the worst violators. The International
    Religious Freedom Act also authorized economic sanctions.
        These reports are important. They are vitally important.
    They are generally accurate and reliable. But they are entirely
    diagnostic in nature. They shine a light on the problem but do
    little to solve it.
        Unfortunately, economic sanctions are rarely effective.
    When they've been tried, they haven't worked. Governments are
    unlikely to change their religion policies because of sanctions
    alone. Additional policies are needed to supplement the
    leverage provided by sanctions or other negative incentives the
    United States might impose.
        State Department-funded programs are a good place to start,
    especially if those programs provide convincing reasons to the
    target nations why religious freedom is in their interests.
    Under former Religious Freedom Ambassador David Saperstein,
    program funding increased to $20 million a year. But even that
    amount pales in comparison to other programs intended to
    protect American national security.
        Unfortunately, the religious freedom programs that do
    exist, such as those mentioned by Ambassador Kozak, which are
    often splendid programs, are not part of a strategy, certainly
    not an all-of-government strategy. They are spread too thin.
    They are too ad hoc to have any appreciable impact on Islamist
    terrorism or to convince governments that religious freedom is
    in their interest.
        The unfortunate reality is that our religious freedom
    policy has been isolated from the mainstream of U.S. foreign
    policy. Until recently, it's been largely overlooked as a means
    of promoting stability and national security.
        Social scientists at the Religious Freedom Institute, where
    I work, are demonstrating something that America's founders
    understood instinctively: Religious freedom forms the basis of
    other human rights. It's necessary for the success of any
    society, especially highly religious societies.
        The evidence shows that religious freedom has a causal
    impact on social, political, and economic goods, such as long-
    term political stability, economic growth, and undermining
    religion-related violence. Societies that lack religious
    freedom are far more likely to incubate, experience
    domestically, and export internationally religion-related
    terrorism.
        The reverse is also true; societies that protect religious
    freedom generally do not incubate or export violence and
    terrorism. Several Muslim-majority states in West Africa, for
    example, have avoided the violent extremism that plagues other
    Muslim states. Each has significant legal protections for
    religious freedom of Muslims and non-Muslims. The result is a
    stabilizing religious pluralism that discourages religious
    extremism.
        Let me conclude with some practical recommendations.
        Religious freedom policy can advance U.S. national security
    by focusing less on rhetorical enunciations and combining
    practical incentives with convincing self-interest arguments.
        For example, the State Department recently announced the
    withholding of $290 million in aid to Egypt because of its
    harsh restrictions on religious communities and other human
    rights violations. This is a good start but unlikely to change
    things on the ground. Egypt is not going to change its
    religious freedom policies for $290 million.
        The U.S. should also provide the Egyptian Government with
    hard evidence that their repressive laws and policies--that
    altering their repressive laws and policies will benefit Egypt,
    for example, by reducing the violent extremism that is harming
    the country's all-important tourist industry.
        Iraq provides another opportunity. Since 2014, the U.S. has
    allocated nearly $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid to Iraq, but
    most of that aid has not reached the Christian minorities
    designated by us as victims of ISIS genocide. This is a U.S.
    national security problem as well as a humanitarian problem.
    Religious pluralism is a necessary condition for long-term
    stability in Iraq. If minorities do not return and stay, Iraq
    will likely become a perpetual Shia-Sunni battleground, where
    terrorism flourishes.
        Success in these efforts will not come easy, Mr. Chairman,
    but the long war against Islamist terrorism cannot be won with
    law enforcement and military force alone. America needs new
    ideas and new combatants to win this war, and religious freedom
    should be part of the mix.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        Mr. Berschinski, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ROB BERSCHINSKI

        Mr. Berschinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having me here today to testify.
        I work in an organization whose mission is to foster
    American global leadership on human rights, including religious
    freedom, not just as a moral obligation but also as a vital
    national interest. I bring this perspective to today's hearing
    and hope that it will inform discussion this morning in at
    least three ways.
        First, it's important to recognize that the U.S.
    Government's work to ensure that foreign governments do not
    encroach on an individual's rights to freedom of religion and
    conscience will be less effective if these efforts are divorced
    from work to uphold other fundamental freedoms.
        As several have mentioned, a review of the U.S.
    Government's list of countries of particular concern bears out
    this fact. In no state is religious intolerance an outlier to a
    more widespread pattern of abuses. Simply put, repressive
    governments tend to seek control over any organized body of
    individuals and to view those outside of the government's
    direct control as a threat to their power.
        Thus, attacks on religion and belief often relate to and
    sometimes stand in for attacks on political opposition, human
    rights activists and lawyers, as Ms. Arriaga mentioned, on
    women, on LGBT people, and on ethic minorities. This fact is
    worth bearing in mind as this committee considers the
    administration's ability to promote religious liberty and
    reduce attacks on religious communities.
        As this committee is no doubt aware, the administration's
    budget request of $37.6 billion to fund the State Department
    and USAID for fiscal year 2018 is roughly 30 percent lower than
    that which Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2017. The
    request for human-rights-related work, which includes funding
    dedicated to international religious freedom, seeks to cut even
    deeper. While both the House and Senate to date have largely
    rejected these draconian cuts, the fact that they were both
    proposed in the first place should raise questions.
        The administration deserves credit for nominating a
    distinguished public servant for the position of Ambassador-at-
    Large for International Religious Freedom. Yet the White House
    has yet to announce a nominee for the position of Assistant
    Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor or
    nominees to lead the Bureaus of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
    and Near Eastern Affairs, among others. These are areas of
    ongoing gross abuses against religious minorities, and we
    deserve to have appropriately credentialed leaders focusing on
    them daily.
        Secretary of State Tillerson recently wrote that, while he
    intends to retain the position of Ambassador-at-Large for
    International Religious Freedom and place other envoys under
    this position, he did not plan to have the Ambassador-at-Large
    report directly to him, which, in my analysis, does not appear
    to conform to the Frank Wolf Act.
        The Secretary also indicated that he sought to eliminate
    other positions working to advance religious tolerance. This
    includes the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic
    Cooperation, which was created during the Bush administration
    and has since performed a valuable, tangible function: to
    increase protections for believers and nonbelievers alike.
        Additionally, the administration has elected, through its
    various travel bans and recent decision to cap the number of
    refugee admissions at an all-time low, to take steps that will
    be seen by audiences around the world as not in keeping with
    America's leadership role in promoting religious freedom and
    protecting the most vulnerable.
        This brings me to my second point, which is that among the
    greatest challenges to religious freedom today is that foreign
    governments are acting in the name of countering terrorism to
    repress their citizens.
        As we have seen from countries as diverse as Azerbaijan,
    Bahrain, China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tajikistan,
    governments are increasingly conflating peaceful religious
    expression with terrorist activity in order to justify
    repression. Not only do such laws and policies regularly
    threaten religious communities and other peaceful civic
    organizations, they often have the effect of advancing the very
    radicalization that they are ostensibly meant to confront.
        In the Middle East, these actions contribute to the
    heightened sectarian nature of the wars in Syria, Iraq, and
    Yemen. Countries including Azerbaijan, China, and Tajikistan
    have moved aggressively against members of peaceful political
    opposition groups and religious communities, often justifying
    their actions on dubious counterterrorism grounds. And, as was
    mentioned, in Russia, recently amended anti-extremism laws have
    established a legal framework that allows the state to curtail
    essentially all forms of peaceful dissent as well as disfavored
    religious speech and practice.
        Concluding with a third point, I'd like to touch on an
    issue that deals with rising anti-Semitism in Europe, a trend
    that the U.S. Government should do more to address head-on.
        Examples of anti-Jewish violence from members of Muslim
    communities in France and elsewhere, as well as recurring
    credible allegations of anti-Semitic statements by members of
    the U.K.'s Labour Party, demonstrate that this is not a trend
    confined to a certain sector of European society or the
    political spectrum.
        That said, in countries ranging from France to Germany to
    Hungary to Poland, right-wing populist parties and governments
    are increasingly trafficking in and turning a blind eye to
    anti-Semitic rhetoric. They are thus engendering climates
    increasingly conducive to violence.
        In instances in which these parties have come to power, as
    in Hungary and Poland, they have embarked on a multifaceted
    effort to undermine the rule of law, weaken governmental checks
    and balances, and impair civil society. As these values
    underpin transatlantic security and prosperity, this should
    alarm us all.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Berschinski follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        The chair notes the presence of our colleague, the
    gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer. I ask unanimous consent
    that Mr. Palmer be allowed to fully participate in today's
    hearing.
        And, without objection, it's so ordered.
        The chair also had noted the presence of the full committee
    chairman, but I think he will grace us with his presence
    shortly.
        The chair now recognizes myself for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Farr and Ambassador Kozak, you both touched on some of
    the discrimination against people in places like Iran and Saudi
    Arabia. Mr. Berschinski had mentioned how sometimes the
    oppressing people based on religion can be a proxy for just
    political disagreements, but in Iran and Saudi Arabia the root
    of the discrimination is just based on a sharia-based society.
    I mean, the law is being applied to where, if you're not of
    that particular persuasion, you are disfavored, correct?
        Mr. Kozak. Yes. I mean, I think both are true, that you're
    disfavored because you're not of that persuasion, but it's also
    people who want to maintain political power make themselves the
    interpreters of what is the applicable religious doctrine. So
    they play off each other to a very bad effect.
        Mr. Farr. Couldn't agree more. This is religious
    persecution, plain and simple. It's motivated by a religious
    view that certain religious opinions and groups are not
    acceptable. Ms. Arriaga has talked about these Baha'i in Iran,
    these women who have been in prison for 10 years for nothing
    more than being Baha'i. That's religious persecution par
    excellence, if I can put it that way.
        Mr. DeSantis. So what--because you had mentioned some of
    the countries in Africa that don't have the same problems. What
    is the distinction between those?
        Because I noted, you know, the President of Egypt, el-Sisi,
    he gave a speech in front of some of the Islamic clerics, and
    he said, look, you can't have a faith that views its role to be
    at war with people who disagree with you. So he was, I think,
    trying to chart a course where, you know, you can have an
    Islamic-based society that doesn't necessarily do that.
        But what separates the Irans from the countries that, even
    though they have Muslim majorities, are not trying to
    discriminate against non---and it's not just non-Muslims. I
    mean, you've got to be this certain type of Muslim if you're in
    Iran.
        Mr. Farr. Precisely so. And I think the answer lies in the
    history of these countries, but it also, in these seven West
    African countries, has to do with the fact that they've
    discovered this works. I mean, it produces more economic
    growth, it produces more political civility, people are killing
    each other less, people are freer.
        So some of this is just practical. And what I've called for
    is for us to be a little bit more down to Earth in the way that
    we can convince governments that it's in their interest to
    allow greater religious freedom or at least religious
    tolerance. Move away from some of these crackdowns.
        Each government is tough--and you named the two toughest,
    frankly, other than North Korea: Iran and Saudi Arabia. They
    are very, very difficult. But it doesn't mean we should not be
    really trying to make the self-interest argument to them,
    particularly in Iran, where you have, it seems to me, a large
    number of younger Iranian citizens who are generally pro-
    American. They are open to some of these messages, but if they
    speak out, they're going to get hurt. We need to address those
    problems too.
        Mr. DeSantis. Well, I hope that--I mean, the practical
    point you make about the experience clearly is lost on the
    ruling elites in Iran. But, hopefully, throughout Iranian
    society, where I think you do have people who are much more
    pro-Western in terms of some of their values, that that could
    be an impetus to eventually go in a different direction with
    that society. Because, I mean, it's a totalitarian state.
        What about the suspension of the visas for people who are
    denying religious freedom? Ms. Arriaga, you mentioned it. It's
    in the law. I mean, my view is we ought to enforce that. I
    mean, if we're not going to enforce this stuff, then why are we
    even passing it?
        What has been done to do that? I mean, I think if we
    followed the law, it'd be very difficult for people from Iran
    and Saudi Arabia to get visas to come here, but yet that
    happens.
        Ms. Arriaga. We need to have a more comprehensive way to
    keep those lists. We know for a fact that there are thousands
    of the children of human rights violators around the world that
    come here to go to school and go to college here, and the Wolf
    Act precisely is asking for a more comprehensive list of
    violators as well as a more comprehensive list of conscience
    prisoners. So making sure that we have the correct information
    is a good place to begin.
        Mr. DeSantis. Ambassador Kozak, what's the answer?
        Mr. Kozak. Yes. No, we've found that the visa denial is a
    very effective tool, whether it's for human rights violations
    generally or religious freedom violations in particular.
        One of the complications of making lists is that there are
    multiple bases for denying people visas, and the consular
    officers tend to take the easiest one. So if you have someone
    who has committed extrajudicial killings or torture, they're
    banned anyway as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
    so they don't need to go to the question of did they do this
    for religious reasons or did they do this for human rights
    reasons. So it makes compilation of lists a little bit
    complicated.
        But it's a very effective tool, and we've deployed it, I
    think, to great effect in a number of places.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. My time is up, and I will
    recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let's take this from sort of a 30,000-foot level. I know
    that President Trump has recommended a 30-percent cut in the
    State Department budget. That's for the State Department and
    also USAID. Let me put it in the words of a Republican Senator,
    Lindsey Graham. He described that move, cutting the budget by
    30 percent, as, quote, ``radical and reckless.''
        Ms. Arriaga, your feelings on that?
        Ms. Arriaga. The United States Commission on International
    Religious Freedom makes recommendations to the State
    Department, but we do not take a position on its budget. I'm
    sure Ambassador Kozak will be happy to answer that question.
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Kozak, she just threw you under the bus, but
    go ahead.
        Mr. Kozak. I support the President's budget request----
        Mr. Lynch. Oh, do you?
        Mr. Kozak. --as any administration----
        Mr. Lynch. Okay.
        Mr. Kozak. --witness would. But----
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Berschinski, how about you?
        Mr. Berschinski. So, as I mentioned a little bit in my
    testimony, I think, overall, the budget cuts are pretty
    reckless. I think that they were made out of the gate, without
    appropriate understanding of the nature of diplomacy, the
    number of complex issues the State Department and USAID are
    working through. I think ultimately they're going to harm our
    ability to promote human rights and religious liberty as well.
        Mr. Lynch. Fair enough.
        So, Ms. Arriaga and Mr. Berschinski, you both bring up the
    situation of Russia in your written remarks. As you've both
    noted, last year, new Russian laws effectively criminalized all
    private religious speech not sanctioned, not approved by the
    Russian Government--sort of a government filter on religious
    speech.
        Also, the Jehovah's Witnesses were banned in the North
    Caucasus. Particularly in Chechnya and Dagestan, security
    forces continue to carry out arrests and kidnappings of people
    suspected of any link to, quote, ``nontraditional Islam,'' as
    defined by the government.
        So, Mr. Berschinski, do you think that Russia's repression
    of the religious rights of its own people and those of
    neighboring countries is something that should be of particular
    concern to the United States?
        Mr. Berschinski. I do.
        And I wouldn't limit it to just repression on religious
    grounds. In addition to all the things you mentioned, the
    Russian Government is involved in a widespread focus on
    repressing any actor or organization that can pose a challenge
    to state control.
        So we see that in terms of journalists and opposition
    politicians murdered and imprisoned. We see it in terms of
    broad-based attacks on NGOs working on human rights and
    religious freedom, certainly, but also on issues of health and
    the environment, forcing dozens to close, many more tarred as
    foreign agents, as traitors, harassed, raided, and so on.
        We see a media landscape that at one point had a fairly
    free and fair media environment that's now essentially a
    propaganda machine directed and controlled by the Kremlin. We
    see it in terms of what should be described as pogroms against
    gay people in Chechnya, detaining them illegally, abusing them,
    and, in some cases, murdering them.
        So we see this repression across the board right now in
    Russia. And I think that we can draw a tie between the
    repression that the Russian Government is enacting at home and
    its behavior abroad, some of which was mentioned earlier in
    terms of the invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, the
    attacks on the Tatar Muslim minority population there, as we
    all know, the Russian Government's involvement in Syria and the
    Russian Government's involvement in both the U.S. Presidential
    election and what seem to be continuing efforts to raise
    societal tensions in the United States and in countries across
    Europe.
        I think this is a continuing threat, and I feel that there
    is reason for the U.S. population to be concerned, because the
    repression at home is tied to some of these behaviors abroad.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        Ms. Arriaga, in the most recent report that I have on the
    U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, they talk
    about what's going on in eastern Ukraine and also in Crimea. We
    don't hear a lot about that. What is going on? That report
    seems to lay out some very repressive activity.
        Ms. Arriaga. Yeah. USCIRF continues to receive weekly
    reports of Putin's thugs acting with impunity. The Jehovah's
    Witnesses have even produced, for instance, videos, information
    being planted in their houses of worship. And, unfortunately,
    in Ukraine and Crimea, we have received reports of people being
    arrested arbitrarily and also being executed without a trial.
        John Ruskay, a fellow commissioner, has adopted a Muslim
    political prisoner from Russia. He was accused of studying
    pacifist Islam. His name is Bagir Kazikhanov. And we are
    advocating for individuals, humanizing the story and also
    highlighting what's going on in Crimea and the Ukraine.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
    Thank you for your courtesy.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        The chair now recognizes Chairman Foxx for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for convening this hearing.
        Ambassador Kozak, I believe the freedom-defending world can
    do more to prevent atrocity crimes if it can deter severe
    violations of religious freedom earlier on. The Frank Wolf Act
    amends the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act in several
    ways, including by creating the designating persons list and
    sanctioning mechanisms for non-state actors.
        Could you elaborate on how this provision of the act could
    be used to address violations of religious freedom,
    particularly those committed by Burmese security forces, non-
    state actors, and other nationalist groups and individuals
    against the Rohingya minority facing ethic cleansing?
        Mr. Kozak. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The act does give us some additional tools in being able
    to--I mean, obviously, we have spoken out against non-state
    actors who've committed these gross violations, as Secretary
    Tillerson did with respect to the genocidal acts of ISIS in
    Iraq, and we have been able to speak out against individuals.
    But I think this will give us an opportunity or an impetus to
    put them together more methodically.
        The Rohingya situation today is just appalling. The attacks
    with security forces and also societal attacks have resulted,
    at this point, in half of the people in Rakhine State, half of
    the Rohingya, leaving and living across the border in terrible
    conditions--murders, rapes, just every manner of atrocity
    committed against them.
        We have, as I think you know, been trying for years to find
    some way to throttle back people's behavior in this respect and
    have appealed to the government, appealed to the Burmese
    military to stop it. But it's a little bit what the chairman
    said: People in power--sometimes the argument as to what's in
    the best interest of the country doesn't resonate with them
    because it's not in their best interest in terms of maintaining
    their own power. And trying to find the right combination of
    carrots and sticks to persuade them to do otherwise is
    difficult.
        But it's something that's got to be done. It's something
    we've spent an awful lot of time and energy on, trying to find
    the right combination of programs, diplomatic activity, advice,
    pressure. And hopefully we will find a way to throttle it back,
    because it's a terrible situation that's getting worse.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
        Ms. Arriaga, I note in your testimony you highlighted how
    religion has been used to disempower women and that women and
    girls are often victims of religious freedom violations,
    extremism, and discriminatory personal status laws.
        Could you discuss the complexities and synergies between
    the rights of women and girls, freedom of religion, and what
    religious freedom advocates have been doing to address the
    issue?
        Ms. Arriaga. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        We at the Commission have issued a brand-new report
    precisely on the synergies between religious freedom and
    women's rights. We find that countries that fully respect
    religious freedom also ban child brides, they also allow
    communities to reject harmful practices such as female genital
    mutilation. Women who are divorced are not forced into poverty.
    Women are not forced to convert to the religion of the person
    they're marrying. Marriages are recognized.
        It's been, unfortunately, our experience that women's
    rights and religious freedom advocates were not working
    together. They thought that rights were pitted against each
    other. However, after we issued this report, we have met with a
    number of academics at Oxford, we have met a number of
    parliamentarians through the International Panel of
    Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, and we have
    found there has been a great reception. We think we can double
    the advocates for religious freedom if we take in advocates for
    women's rights as well.
        Ultimately, human rights are interdependent, and to take
    one out of the equation arbitrarily or artificially hurts the
    rights of everyone else. And every single human right should be
    considered in tandem as cooperating and collaborating with each
    other.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Gomez for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When I was sworn into Congress, I said that one of my main
    duties was to fight for my constituents, no matter where they
    were from, no matter what God they worshipped, no matter the
    color of their skin; if they came here, they believed in our
    values, contributed to our country, that they deserved a place
    here in the United States of America.
        And freedom of religion and freedom of expression are the
    bedrock freedoms on which our country was founded. It is these
    freedoms that should give us the authority and ability to do
    what we can to promote these freedoms with people around the
    world. It is the moral authority upon which our ability to
    promote international religious freedom rests.
        Unfortunately, religious freedom under this administration
    means nothing more than giving certain groups the license to
    discriminate against people of color, Muslims, people of a non-
    Christian faith, and the LGBT community. It is deeply
    disturbing to me that some people have used religious freedom
    as their basis to fire people who don't share the same
    religious beliefs or who are LGBTQ. Where I come from, that is
    just discrimination, plain and simple. There is no need to
    dress it up.
        I believe that this administration's repeated attempt at a
    Muslim ban, the normalization of racism by this Department of
    Justice, and the brazen attacks on the LGBT community undermine
    our moral authority and undermine our ability to promote
    religious freedom abroad.
        Quick question. Last week, Attorney General Sessions issued
    a directive to all Federal agencies which included the
    following guidance: ``To the greatest extent practicable and
    permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be
    reasonably accommodated in all government activity.'' The Human
    Rights Campaign, a national LGBT rights group, called these
    guidelines a, quote, ``all-out assault on civil rights'' and a,
    quote, ``sweeping license to discriminate.''
        Mr. Berschinski, do you believe that the rolling back of
    regulations protecting LGBT groups in the name of religion
    promotes religious freedom?
        Mr. Berschinski. Thank you, Congressman.
        What I would say in response to that is that I think that
    the protections for religious freedom that are enshrined in the
    First Amendment do not and should not give broad license to
    discriminate against any class of people.
        So, with the understanding that some of the memoranda that
    the Department of Justice has put out are long and complex,
    just came out and have yet to be fully analyzed, I would say
    that I would hope that the Department of Justice would act
    fully in keeping with that spirit.
        Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
        Commissioner Arriaga, you've mentioned that some people use
    discrimination against other religions as a way to promote
    their own self-interest. Have you seen any of that here in our
    country recently?
        You don't have to answer that question.
        Let me ask you one other question. The United States
    Commission on International Religious Freedom does not review
    repression of religious freedoms in the United States. How
    would the banning of a particular religious group affect your
    analysis of religious freedoms in this country?
        Ms. Arriaga. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question,
    please?
        Mr. Gomez. How would the banning of a particular religious
    group affect your analysis of religious freedom in this
    country?
        Ms. Arriaga. Mr. Gomez, my name is Kristina Arriaga. As a
    fellow Latino, I think I know a little bit of what you're
    talking about in terms of discrimination.
        The United States Commission on International Religious
    Freedom advocates for all religions in every single country. We
    find that banning one religion or granting preference to one or
    the other is generally not in accordance with the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.
        Mr. Gomez. Great.
        Mr. Berschinski, according to a recent report by the
    Council on American-Islamic Relations,there has been a, quote,
    ``91-percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes during the
    first half of the year compared to the same period in 2016.''
    Would a 91-percent increase in a foreign country over a 6-month
    period raise concerns for you?
        Mr. Berschinski. Yes, absolutely, it would.
        Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much.
        One of the things that I'm trying to highlight is that our
    ability to promote religion freedom abroad rests on how people
    view how we promote that same freedom in our own country.
    Anything that undermines it makes our ability less so and
    weakens our ability to protect religious freedom of individuals
    in other countries.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the vice chairman, Mr. Russell,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Russell. I thank the chairman.
        And I also thank the chairman for holding this important
    hearing. I think it's vital not only to, obviously, how we
    treat all human beings, but also it intertwines in so much of
    our foreign policy and our relations around the globe in making
    sure that these differences and these pretexts do not become a
    thing that divide and ultimately result in the slaughtering of
    thousands of innocent people, which seems to be the trend of
    history.
        Mr. Chairman, I guess I would like to speak a little bit
    about-- you know, having extensively traveled the globe and
    fought in several different places around it, while some of our
    colleagues may imagine that we have such religious oppression
    in this country, this is one of the greatest nations that we
    have as far as religious tolerance. Differences in religious
    opinion? Sure. Protected by the First Amendment? Also.
        But those opinions being forced upon religious groups to
    force them to violate their rights of conscience, which are
    also protected in the First Amendment, we can't use one group's
    pretext or agendas to violate the religious beliefs of another
    group. And in that, I think the United States does very well.
        As I look at this list of the CPC recommendation nations,
    there's a trend that I find kind of interesting. Sixty percent
    on the recommended list are Asian countries. And we often focus
    on, you know, the habitual troublemakers, you know, that we
    become accustomed to, but we're seeing 60 percent in Asia, 25
    percent in Africa, and 15 percent in the Middle East. And I
    find that intriguing because oftentimes we don't make the type
    of investments in Asia, and yet this is where we're seeing a,
    just on the CPC list, interesting trend.
        Along that line, too, on the Tier 2 countries, two key
    allies of the United States are on this list, one a NATO ally,
    which is of particular concern.
        And, Ms. Arriaga, you intrigued me with your visa
    restriction but extend that to the education piece, which I
    think would be useful.
        But, as I try to walk through that, one of the successful
    programs that we have is the international military exchange
    program, IMET. And, you know, in decades past, we're kind of
    darned if we do and darned if we don't. You know, if we try to
    promote human rights through the education of military
    officers, most of which will grow up to be major commanders and
    generals in that nation and, you would hope, would be trained
    in our values, you know, they can actually do some good. On the
    other hand, if you exclude them, then, you know, they will not
    be exposed to any of those Western things.
        And one of the things we see with Turkey right now, as they
    continue to oppress, is even ferreting out those that have been
    trained in Western countries, particularly the United States,
    out of their military. And that causes great alarm.
        So I've stated several observations here, and I would like,
    kind of, your commentary on that and anyone else that would
    like to opine on some of these observations and what concerns
    you might have. Thank you.
        Ms. Arriaga. Thank you, Mr. Russell.
        I just came back from Turkey 3 days ago. The situation
    there is extraordinary. There is an enormous amount of stress
    and anxiety on the Turkish people on the minority religious
    communities. As you know, Pastor Brunson has been incarcerated;
    it's been a year last Saturday. And, regrettably, as you also
    know, 24 hours before USCIRF's arrival to Turkey, a DEA
    officer, whose a Turkish national, was arrested.
        So I think right now Turkey stands as a NATO ally who's
    having great difficulties respecting human rights in that
    country.
        Mr. Russell. Which is part of the NATO charter, by the way.
    It's embedded in that alliance.
        Do you see resistance in calling out Turkey in these, you
    know, Tier 2 countries? Are you getting pushback on that?
        Ms. Arriaga. Well, USCIRF continues to be greatly troubled
    by the recent developments. And, unfortunately, when we see
    such a bad panorama for human rights in general, for all the
    journalists getting arrested, generally religious freedom also
    falls in the same category.
        We met with several religious communities in Turkey that
    still have no legal persona. Turkey has spent a great deal of
    the summer revising its textbooks. There is a mandatory
    religious education, which characterizes anyone from a minority
    religion as being outside of the spectrum of, many times,
    acceptable behavior. This is very traumatic for children.
        So we will continue to watch closely what's going on.
        Mr. Russell. Well, I thank you for that.
        And I would love to hear from the others, but,
    unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Hice, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank each of our panelists for being here
    this morning and for the role that each of you play in
    defending religious liberties around the world, regardless of
    what that religion may be.
        My background is that of a pastor for about 25 years before
    being in Congress. And I personally have seen a lot of what you
    deal with, and this has been an area of great concern of mine
    for a long time. And I appreciate the fact that y'all are on
    the tip of the spear in trying to deal with this and keep us
    informed.
        Religious liberty is a universal right, not just something
    that we cherish here in America. It should be something that is
    cherished around the world, regardless, again, of what the
    religion may be that is held by an individual. We've brought up
    today already some in the Muslim communities, be it in places
    like Burma or Russia or the Middle East, even, where the
    Yazidis--I mean, we're seeing that.
        The one area of concern for me, not so much with your work,
    but it seems at least with the media and otherwise that is
    largely missing is the persecution of Christians around the
    world that seems to largely go unnoticed.
        And I recall in November 2012 that, from Germany, Merkel,
    made the comment that Christianity was the most persecuted
    religion in the world. And, of course, that statement was met
    with a great deal of criticism, but it's backed up, and there
    have been many, many reports, as you well know, of the plight
    that Christians are facing in many places around the world.
        And, goodness, we can even look at some of the various laws
    of apostasy that many countries have, where, if someone
    converts to Christianity, the punishment can be extremely
    severe and torturous.
        And many of these countries you've mentioned, from Saudi
    Arabia to Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar--I mean, the list goes on
    and on and on and on. North Korea. We're seeing some horrible
    stories coming out of North Korea. China. In fact, I have a
    resolution to try to call China's hand on some of the
    catastrophes happening there.
        And, bottom line, we just can't allow these things to
    continue. They've got to be brought to the public's awareness
    and to be dealt with.
        Just a couple of questions within all that context.
        Ambassador, let me begin with you. When the State
    Department is considering which refugees are admitted to the
    United States, what role, if any, does the threat of religious
    persecution against an individual play in the determination as
    to whether or not they would be allowed to come to the United
    States as a refugee?
        Mr. Kozak. Thank you, sir.
        It's key. The definition of a refugee is somebody who has a
    well-founded fear of persecution based on religion or political
    opinion or several categories, ethnicity, but religion is one
    of them. So, to qualify as a refugee, if you say, I have a
    well-founded fear of persecution, that is the key thing you
    have to show.
        In terms of deciding, you know, how to allocate our refugee
    numbers around the world, they tend to look at what are the
    most vulnerable populations, the most at-risk populations. And,
    again, that can be based on people who are at risk because of
    their----
        Mr. Hice. Do you believe that allocation is properly
    manifested when it deals with Christians around the world? I
    mean, we've got--the studies I've seen--some 200 million
    Christians around the world suffering persecution in one way or
    another.
        Mr. Kozak. Yeah. And you've got, like, now we're usually in
    the order of 75,000 or 50,000 refugee numbers per year to
    allocate.
        It really depends on the particular area. In some
    countries, I think we've had a high percentage of the refugees
    coming in have been Christians because Christians have been
    persecuted there. In others, it gets----
        Mr. Hice. Let me ask my----
        Mr. Kozak. Yep.
        Mr. Hice. --final question. I've only got 20 seconds. What
    does Congress need to do to help achieve the goal of both
    awareness and of stopping religious persecution around the
    world?
        And I'll open that to anyone who would like to answer.
        Mr. Kozak. Well, I think you already have given us a
    tremendous amount of tools. The International Religious Freedom
    Report, which is mandated--and, as Dr. Farr said, it's
    diagnostic, but that's where you start. And we try to do a good
    job of saying what is the problem in each one of these places.
        Then you have the second set of, what do you do about it?
    And there, the tools that have been given--having an office
    with programming, having an ambassador-at-large who can go
    around the world and try to raise awareness of these issues,
    having sanctions that we can apply, whether it's on visas or on
    economic assistance or military assistance or other things--
    those are all the kinds of tools you would use for other
    diplomatic efforts. But it's putting the combination together,
    getting across-the-board effort from the government.
        I think one of the things that adds to that, though, is the
    efforts of individual Members of Congress. People do pay
    attention when they hear you and your colleagues speak up on
    these issues, because they know that decisions that affect them
    are made in Congress as well as in the executive branch, and it
    really amplifies the message we're trying to get across.
        Ms. Arriaga. If I----
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeSantis. Did you want to----
        Ms. Arriaga. Yeah. If I may add,H.R. 390 has passed the
    House;it's now in the Senate. In the Senate, it was amended to
    include assistance to the Syrian population. It would be
    terrific if this passed and there was more funding appropriated
    immediately for that, for genocide victims.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, did you want to ask questions?
        Mr. Gowdy. If the chairman would allow.
        Mr. DeSantis. I think I have no other choice but to allow.
        Mr. Gowdy. Oh, but you do.
        I want to thank you for having this hearing, Chairman
    DeSantis, and for your commitment to religious freedom.
        Dr. Farr, it's good to see you again.
        I asked you a question during the last administration, and,
    in the interest of fairness, I'm going to ask you the exact
    same question under this administration.
        Leave Congress out of it for a second;just focus on the
    executive branch. What are the three things that you would
    change, if you could, at the executive-branch level given the
    fact that we have had a change in administration?What are the
    first three things that should be done, from your perspective,
    in this sphere?
        Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Gowdy, speaking as a fellow South
    Carolinian.
        One of those things has already been done, and that is that
    the--this goes to something Mr. Lynch asked about earlier, and
    that is the budget cuts in the State Department. I agree with
    Mr. Berschinski that this was a bad idea.
        But one of the good things that has happened, in my view,
    is that the Office of International Religious Freedom has
    become larger. And so long as the positions that are being
    moved in there are being moved with the funds to support them--
    which I think is the case, but I'm not sure. As long as that is
    the case, that is a good thing. So what I am talking about is
    more staff and more oomph for the Office of International
    Religious Freedom.
        The second thing the Wolf Act requires, and that is that
    the Ambassador-at-Large report to the Secretary of State. Now,
    as has already been mentioned here--I forget who mentioned it.
    It may be my colleague to the left.
        Thank you for mentioning it.
        In the same letter where Secretary Tillerson proposed
    moving these positions under the Ambassador-at-Large, he said
    he is going to report to a lower-ranking official. Well, this
    is pretty clear in the law:The Ambassador-at-Large shall report
    to the Secretary of State.
        Why is that important? Is that a magic wand? No, it's not.
    It, in fact, however, improves the status of the Ambassador-at-
    Large in the office, in my opinion, for the governments out
    there and, just as importantly, for American diplomats, who
    have seen historically this position as sort of a, you know,
    just below a high level--let me put it that way--within the
    State Department. I think it's very important, and Congress
    should, in my view, insist that the Ambassador report to the
    Secretary of State.
        But the final thing, the third thing, Mr. Gowdy, is the
    subject of my testimony today,and that is that the
    International Religious Freedom policy of the United States is
    not yet aligned with our national security policy. It's not an
    all-of-government thing. It is still focused in a single
    office, with not enough oomph to do this.
        This may be changing under this administration. There may
    be something in the national security strategy of the United
    States, when it's produced, that draws religious freedom in, as
    I think it should be. But that is a major, major remaining step
    to take, in my opinion.
        Thank you for the question.
        Mr. Gowdy. Yes, sir.
        You touched upon what I find to be a fascinating dualism in
    your opening statement, that our national security interests
    are actually advanced when countries have more enlightened
    policies with respect to religious liberty.
        I like to anticipate arguments on the other side, and
    sometimes the other side--I don't mean Democrats. I mean the
    other side of this issue. Sometimes folks on the other side,
    which are both Republicans and Democrats, will make the
    argument that we need to be more patient with the following
    countries because they are of such significant national
    security interest that we should overlook the following things.
        You made the exact opposite argument, and I want to give
    you a chance to extrapolate on that.
        Mr. Farr. Well, thank you. It's pretty broad without
    focusing on a particular country, but the ones where this
    happens, such as Saudi Arabia--that's a very good example of
    where we need the support of the Saudis. We need cooperation,
    intelligence, military, and otherwise. And yet it is the mother
    lode of Islamist extremism. It is the place where the ideology
    that energizes Islamist extremism begins.
        We need to do both. There is no simple answer to any
    foreign policy question, let alone one that has to do with
    religion.
        I think we are deficient in providing to the Saudis reasons
    why it's in their interest to begin--not to adopt the First
    Amendment or move toward religious freedom in the broad way
    that we view it here, but toward religious tolerance, because
    it can begin to benefit them.
        And, in fact, we have opportunities. The regime itself
    talks a very good line internationally when it talks about its
    approach to their own religion. We should be working--and we
    are working, but I think we treat this almost as a boutique
    issue. We don't have enough resources working with the Saudis
    behind the scenes to convince them it's in their interest.
        The same would be true of Iran. It would be true of China.
    It would be true of any country where I believe we can make
    this an all-of-government effort to convince them it's in their
    interest.
        That's a broad answer to a broad question. I hope I'm being
    responsive.
        Mr. Gowdy. You did. Thank you, Dr. Farr.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The chair now recognize Mrs. Demings for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to our
    ranking member as well.
        And to our witnesses,thank you for being with us.
        According to a United Nations official, the Burmese
    Government has been carrying out a, quote, ``ethnic cleansing''
    of the Rohingya, an ethic group, as you all know, that
    primarily belong to the Muslim faith. According to the United
    Nations, 500,000 civilians have fled from Burma to Bangladesh
    since August 25th, 2017, alone.
        Commissioner, can you please speak to how the Burmese
    Government is essentially attempting to erase the Rohingya from
    Burma?
        Ms. Arriaga. We at USCIRF have monitored that situation
    with great concern. We received reports that some of the
    Rohingya Muslims were even walking barefoot over barbed wire to
    try to get to Bangladesh and flee. And, in fact, USCIRF is
    planning to have a delegation go to Burma and Bangladesh in the
    next few weeks precisely to address this issue. It is, without
    a doubt, an incident of ethnic cleansing without precedent in
    that country.
        Mrs. Demings. Burma has been listed as a country of
    particular concern by the State Department for over a decade.
        Commissioner, again, has Burma's appearance on the State
    Department's countries-of-particular-concern list had any
    affect on the regime's persecution of religious minorities?
        Ms. Arriaga. It's hard to tell. The developments in the
    last few weeks have, again, been unprecedented. We have watched
    them with great concern, and every single voice needs to rise
    to defend the Rohingya Muslims.
        Mrs. Demings. Dr. Farr, what do you believe the United
    States can do to stop the, quote, ``ethnic cleansing'' that is
    occurring?
        Mr. Farr. Well, I, frankly, prefer to call it religious
    cleansing. I mean, these are Muslims, and this is religious
    persecution of the first order.
        And you're quite right, they've been on the list for over
    10 years. I was in the Office of Religious Freedom when these
    lists were created by the law and began to implement them,so I
    think it's actually been longer than 10 years. And while I
    would never suggest that these lists are not important--I said
    in my testimony they are vitally important--they're just lists.
    They're just pieces of paper that list a bunch of countries on
    them.
        And we say we're looking at economic sanctions. As far as I
    know, there's only been one set of economic sanctions--I could
    be wrong about this, and Ambassador Kozak can correct me. But
    the last time I paid attention to this, there was only one
    country in the world that we had ever imposed new economic
    sanctions on because of the 20-year-old International Religious
    Freedom Act,and that, as I recall, was Eritrea. And, to say the
    very least, it didn't work. And that was part of my reason for
    arguing in my testimony that we need more than words and we
    need more than sanctions.
        So whatever we've tried in Burma has not worked. I think we
    have an opportunity now not only to condemn them, which we
    should be--we should be speaking out. We need Ambassador
    Brownback in that position so that he can go to Burma and speak
    about this, which I think he will. But we also need to begin to
    work with the Burmese to get in front of this problem, because
    it will happen again. And the fact that they're on this list
    won't make a bit of difference in the world, in my opinion.
        Mrs. Demings. Last week, while addressing the United
    Nations Security Council, the U.N. Secretary-General said this,
    and I quote: ``The situation has spiraled into the world's
    fastest-developing refugee emergency, a humanitarian and human
    rights nightmare.''
        Mr. Berschinski, should the United States enter into
    negotiations with Bangladesh to allow for a certain percentage
    of displaced Rohingya to resettle in America?
        Mr. Berschinski. Well, I wouldn't want to get out front of
    the United States' overall refugee resettlement program. As I
    understand it--and Ambassador Kozak can speak to this in more
    depth--there are, among other things, related to U.S. efforts
    on resolving the crisis, intensive talks going on right now
    with the Government of Bangladesh.
        But I think, to your larger point, perhaps, this speaks to
    the cap on refugee resettlement overall that the Trump
    administration has put in place. I would say that, were I able
    to respond to Chairman Gowdy's question along the lines of what
    three things could this administration do to improve the plight
    of persecuted religious minorities of all kinds, raising that
    cap would improve the lives of Christians, Muslims, and others.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
    Palmer, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    allowing me to participate in this very important hearing.
        Ambassador Kozak, the State Department's most recent report
    discusses a number of countries' failings on religious freedom.
    Many of those countries are a source of threats to the United
    States. But that list doesn't include non-state actors, does
    it?
        Mr. Kozak. The current list does not include non-state
    actors because they--those were added by the Wolf Act, which
    will kick in this year. So the list that will come out next
    month, I guess, at this point, will also include non-state
    actors.
        Mr. Palmer. So the list will? Does the State Department
    have any concern about including them on the list?
        Mr. Kozak. No, sir. It was simply that we were responding
    to the earlier mandate from Congress,and this has now
    broadened. In some ways, it actually helps to provide context,
    because, in many of these places, the worst atrocities are
    being committed by non-state actors. Witness the genocide
    committed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria. And it just didn't fit
    within the reporting mandate before, and now it does,and we're
    happy for it.
        Mr. Palmer. And you have the same thing with the Taliban
    and Boko Haram and those groups.
        Mr. Kozak. Right, any group that we find is a group of
    particular concern with respect to committing the most serious
    acts of countering religious freedom.
        Mr. Palmer. Those are the hard, extreme cases of the
    violation of religious freedom. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Kozak. Yes, sir. The way it's defined in the act is
    it's particularly severe violations, such as torture,
    extrajudicial killings, long-term imprisonment without charges,
    use of rape against people. So it's not, you know, the
    unfortunately run-of-the-mill thing, like refusing to register
    or provide legal status to a particular group or even the bans
    on allowing groups to worship. This is where it gets violent
    and people are being killed or----
        Mr. Palmer. There's softer forms of religious persecution
    or violation of religious freedom that would include
    discriminating against who they could hire or who they could
    associate with. Would you agree that happens as well?
        Mr. Kozak. Oh, absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Palmer. Would you agree that that happens in the United
    States? We had one of our colleagues make some----
        Mr. Kozak. Yeah.
        Mr. Palmer. --allegations along those lines. I'd just like
    to point out that, you know--and we're really focused on what
    goes on internationally, and I think appropriately so, but
    there's also violations that have occurred in the United States
    that violate an individual or a particular denomination or
    religion's right to free exercise.
        Mr. Kozak. Well, what we tend to say, sir, on violations
    internationally is that every country violates human rights,
    including the human right of international religious freedom,
    because countries are made up of humans. But the question is
    what does a country do about it when that happens. Do we have
    appropriate laws? Do we have appropriate enforcement
    mechanisms?
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I just want to point out----
        Mr. Kozak. And I think that's where we're proud of our own
    mechanisms.
        Mr. Palmer. --that here in the United States we're not
    immune to that.
        Dr. Farr, we've seen that, where Catholic Charities and
    nonprofit groups and other groups have been taken to court over
    their refusing to hire people who don't practice their faith or
    who don't believe the things that they believe. Does that
    concern you?
        Mr. Farr. It does.
        And to return to something that Mr. Gomez had said--and I
    completely agree with him, although I may not apply the same
    principle as he did--and that is that,if we don't understand
    what free exercise of religion is and what it means in this
    country, how can we convince other people abroad that it's of
    value to them?
        And you're quite right; in my view, the free exercise of
    religion is what this means. It means the full equality of all
    religious groups and citizens in our country and certainly the
    right of religious groups of all kinds to adhere to their most
    fundamental values and not be forced by government, whether at
    the State, local, or national level, to violate their
    consciences.
        So we do have a problem. We need to solve it.
        Mr. Palmer. And I think that's particularly true
    considering that it is in our Constitution as the First
    Amendment that our government will make no law prohibiting the
    free exercise.
        And I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we're not
    immune to this. And there was a particular example of this, a
    Supreme Court decision that was a unanimous decision against
    the United States Government, the previous administration,
    Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, in which members of the Supreme Court--
    again, 9-0 decision.This was a case in which our government
    argued that a religious organization or denomination could not
    have the freedom to hire who they wanted to, who practiced
    their religion, shared their beliefs. And in a 9-0 decision--
    you even had a couple of justices call it extraordinary or
    amazing, including Justice Kagan. I just think we need to be
    aware of that as well.
        I yield back. And I thank you again for allowing me to
    participate.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the panel for your testimony.
        In 2016, the U.S. Envoy to the Organization of Islamic
    Cooperation helped get this passed, the Marrakech Declaration,
    which, as you know, affirmed the support of over 250 Muslim
    leaders for defending the rights of religious minorities in
    predominantly Muslim communities.
        Dr. Farr, what's your view of the Marrakech Declaration as
    far as enhancing the national security of the U.S.?
        Mr. Farr. Thank you for that question, Mr. Welch.
        I think the Marrakech Declaration is a major step forward.
    It's realistic. It's not some pie-in-the-sky declaration of
    something that does not emerge from the heart of Islam. Sheikh
    bin Bayyah and the others who are behind this declaration, in
    my view, have constructed a modest but realistic declaration
    from the heart of Islam, which many Muslims agree with, that
    Islam is not a religion that has to put others at a
    disadvantage.
        Again, I want to--this is not a declaration of religious
    freedom as we would have it. But it does no good to have people
    put words out there that don't mean anything. So I am a big
    supporter of this because I think it is, in fact, precisely the
    kind of thing that our government should be behind, my
    religious freedom institute is behind, and we are, in fact,
    working with these very people----
        Mr. Welch. Thank you.
        Mr. Farr. If I could just get----
        Mr. Welch. Go ahead.
        Mr. Farr. --this one more--I know we've run out of time.
        Mr. Welch. Yeah.
        Mr. Farr. This is--they recognize they have a problem.
        Mr. Welch. Right.
        Mr. Farr. And we need to help them solve that problem, not
    by wagging our finger or putting them on a list, but by helping
    them see and perform the duty that they already see for
    themselves. Put it that way.
        Mr. Welch. Right. And that's called diplomatic engagement.
    And I know Secretary Tillerson, among other things, is focusing
    on a reorganization of the State Department. And I think it's a
    fair concern for any new Secretary of State to try to figure
    out how best to organize the Department and allocate its
    limited resources. But my understanding is that one of the
    proposals is eliminating the U.S. Special Envoy to the OIC.
        Ambassador Kozak, what's your view about the implications
    of that recommendation?
        Mr. Kozak. Well, first, let me say that I've worked very
    closely with our previous ambassadors, representatives to the
    OIC, who have been housed in different places in the State
    Department over the last couple of administrations and even
    some switches during the last administration.
        You know, I'm not going to predict where the Secretary is
    going to come out on the reorg plan, but my understanding is--
    or the redesign plan--but my understanding is that he wants to
    fold that function into the Office of Religious Freedom. It's
    currently part of the Office of Religion and Global Affairs,
    which in his letter--which is a straw man that he put out there
    for consultation with Members--would merge.
        So I think the function of having somebody engaged with the
    OIC is one that is intended to continue;it's a question of how
    you place it bureaucratically. And that's a fair thing to be
    juggling.
        Mr. Welch. Yeah. You know, you've had so much practical
    experience in this. There's a tension always in our foreign
    policy and in our State Department responsibilities, the
    realpolitik concerns of our engagement with another country.
    Sometimes they're in conflict with our advocacy for basic
    values like religious freedom. And it would seem to me that the
    job of the Secretary, among other things, is to try to balance
    those so that there's an ongoing engagement and outreach to
    protect the religious liberty of citizens around the world.
        So how would you recommend that we maintain that State
    Department commitment? It's got to be real. It's got to be
    people who are empowered. But it also has to coexist with other
    challenges that this country faces.
        Mr. Kozak. Yes. Well, I think as many of the witnesses have
    said and the chairman and other chairman alluded to, the
    respect for human rights, including religious freedom, is vital
    to getting countries to where they can stand on their own and
    not generate giant security problems for the United States. And
    we've seen that over and over again.
        And, as Dr.Farr points out, it's a question of how do you
    persuade them. Very difficult to persuade the leaders of a
    country that are bound and determined, who think their own
    status in power requires them to do repressive things.
        But that's where we try to, first, work with the society
    writ large. Our bureau, almost all of our programming goes to
    working with nongovernmental organizations to try to change
    societal attitudes and, through that, to try to convince
    governments.
        You also have to get--it's great to have specialty offices,
    like our own bureau, like the Office of Religious Freedom, that
    can develop the arguments and so on, but you do need to spread
    those out so that they're being made--and this, I think, is the
    case in this area--that they're being made by our military
    officers when they're talking to their counterparts to say,
    hey, there's a smarter way to fight this insurgency than the
    way you're doing it. You need to, you know, show greater
    respect for people's rights, you don't want to alienate people,
    and so on.
        So it's pulling that all together. Both within the
    Department and interagency, it's absolutely crucial.
        Mr. Welch. All right. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My first question is to Mr. Berschinski.
        In your testimony, you raised the important issue of rising
    anti-Semitism in Europe that is contributing to a climate of
    violence towards Jewish people in these countries.
        Do you believe that this trend has been exacerbated by the
    continued opposition to the state of Israel that we see at
    various international organizations, particularly the United
    Nations? And how do anti-Israel campaigns, such as the Boycott,
    Divestment, Sanctions, BDS, movement, play into the current
    climate of anti-Semitism?
        Mr. Berschinski. Thank you, Congressman, for that question
    and for raising the issue of anti-Semitism.
        I think there are a lot of different factors involved in
    what we're seeing in terms of anti-Semitism. My written
    testimony goes into this in some depth.
        I think that some of it is a matter of extreme governments
    that are coming into power and are interested in rolling back
    rights across the board in countries with histories of anti-
    Semitism, to include mass deportation and killing during the
    Holocaust.
        I think that there are elements related to Muslim
    communities in Europe and some of the anti-Semitic feelings
    that they bring.
        And to speak to your question directly, I also do think
    that there is a dynamic in which people are confusing
    opposition to Israeli Government policies with it being
    appropriate to harbor discriminatory views against the Jewish
    population. So, just like here in the United States, we can
    agree to disagree on various governmental policies, but one
    should never hold that against a religious or ethnic group.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you.
        Next question. Ambassador, does the State Department have
    any concerns with making non-state designations? And do you
    expect to declare non-state actors as EPCs going forward?
        Mr. Kozak. As to the first part of your question--and thank
    you for it--no, we have no problem with it. I had mentioned
    earlier, I think, actually, it helps us, because it's been
    difficult in the past to give context when some of the worse
    violations have been committed by non-state actors but the
    report was only focused on state actors. So, in that sense,
    it's helpful, and we look forward to it.
        As to, you know, whether and which organizations will be
    designated, I would say: Stay tuned. That's the Secretary's
    decision and one that he involves himself in very personally,
    so we'll see that in due course.
        Mr. Comer. Okay. Thank you.
        Let me follow up with this. The IRFA also outlines 15
    Presidential actions that may be initiated toward any country
    found responsible for particularly severe violations of
    religious freedom. How many times since 1998 has the State
    Department recommended a Presidential action be taken against a
    particularly bad religious freedom violator?
        Mr. Kozak. Thank you.
        I think we've had 11 countries over time that have been on
    the CPC list. The current 10, and Vietnam was on at one time. I
    believe in all but three of those countries we have applied
    Presidential actions. In some cases, they were waived. I'm
    thinking Saudi, in particular.
        As Dr. Farr alluded, though, oftentimes these are countries
    that have committed so many bad acts that we already have a
    wide array of sanctions against them. So sometimes putting them
    on the CPC list doesn't add an additional sanction; it double-
    hats an existing sanction.
        But that can become important, because when you go to start
    taking sanctions off in response to improvements in other
    areas, if they haven't improved on religious freedom, we're in
    the position of saying, look, we can't revoke that one until
    you make some improvements in this area.
        So the actions have been taken, but it is complicated by
    the fact that there are so many other aspects of the
    relationship that are also problematical.
        Mr. Comer. Okay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
        I want to thank our witnesses again for appearing before us
    today. I thought it was a good hearing, and there was a lot of
    good stuff put on the record.
        The record for the hearing will remain open for 2 weeks for
    any member to submit a written opening statement or questions
    for the record.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]