[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 178 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE 2011 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 22, 2011

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week I held the first 
oversight hearing on the IRF Report since I chaired a hearing on the 
2006 Report in December of that year. It is one of a series being held 
by this subcommittee that is examining this critically important issue. 
In June of this year, we held a hearing on prioritizing international 
religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy in the context of amending the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, known as IRFA. We have 
also examined freedom of conscience and religion in the context of 
China's and North Korea's overall abysmal human rights records.
  A study conducted by Dr. Brian Grim of the Pew Forum on Religion and 
Public Life, who testified before this Subcommittee in June, found that 
almost 70 percent of the world's population lives in countries with 
high or very high restrictions on religion. Although this study was 
conducted between 2006 and 2009, it was apparent back in the late 1990s 
that the fundamental human right of religious freedom was under severe 
attack around the world.
  Congress gave expression to our commitment to international religious 
freedom with the passage in 1998 of IRFA, which concretely established 
the promotion and protection of religious liberties as a foreign policy 
goal. I was shocked at the time when IRFA was strongly opposed on the 
record by the Clinton Administration. John Shattuck, the former 
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, claimed 
during his testimony in this very room that it would establish a 
hierarchy of human rights, under U.S. law.
  I chaired the hearings on the legislation, and I as well as others 
pointed out that, for example, when we fought against apartheid and 
enacted laws to mitigate the abomination of racism in South Africa, we 
certainly did not detract from other human rights policies, it was 
always value added. Similarly, when we took up the cause of Soviet 
Jewry, and the Jackson-Vanik amendment was employed with such 
effectiveness, even though we risked superpower confrontation in order 
to effectuate the release of Jews who were being harassed and 
persecuted in the former Soviet Union, it did not detract. It was not a 
``hierarchy of human rights''; it was all value added.
  In like manner, the International Religious Freedom Act was an 
important addition to the overall effort to defend and promote human 
rights, by focusing the spotlight on one of the most fundamental human 
rights. We persisted, and eventually the bill, authored by my good 
friend and colleague Frank Wolf, was signed into law.
  A critical component of the law is the requirement that the State 
Department review foreign countries each year and submit a report on 
the status of religious freedom to Congress. Those countries found to 
be engaged in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious 
freedom during the preceding 12 months are to be designated as 
``Countries of Particular Concern'', CPCs.
  In September, the Department of State issued its report for the last 
6 months of 2010. The reason for the abbreviated report is to introduce 
a new reporting cycle that will be based on the calendar year instead 
of the previous July to June reporting period.
  The State Department also notified Congress in September that eight 
countries had been redesignated as CPCs: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, 
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. These are the same 
eight countries that previously had been designated by the Bush 
Administration on January 16, 2009.
  Pursuant to the IRF Act, the Secretary must impose new presidential 
actions, issue waivers, or authorize an additional 90-day extension for 
such actions against these eight countries by December 12. I and other 
Members of Congress are strongly urging the Administration not to 
double-hat sanctions against these countries as has been done 
previously, but to impose measures that have some teeth and that are 
likely to produce the desired effect. Any thoughts from our witnesses 
about what actions should be taken would be both timely and most 
appreciated.
  The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended 
several additional countries be added to that list. They include Egypt, 
Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. I also will be 
interested in hearing from our witnesses as to whether they agree with 
the Commission that any or all of these countries should be CPCs.
  Last week, I chaired a hearing of the Helsinki Commission on the 
horrendous plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. In July, the Foreign 
Affairs Committee accepted two religious freedom amendments that I 
proposed to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 2583. One 
calls on the Administration to include the protection of the Coptic 
Christian communities as a priority in our diplomatic engagements with 
the Government of Egypt, and the other prohibits increased non-
humanitarian assistance to Vietnam until its government makes 
substantial progress toward respecting the right to freedom of 
religion, among other requirements.
  I was also deeply disturbed by the assassination of Pakistan's 
Federal Minister of Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti on March 2 of 
this year. I met personally with Minister Bhatti when he visited 
Washington, D.C. and was extremely appreciative of his courage and 
commitment to promote the rights of religious minorities and harmony 
among all faith communities in his country. His killing was a tragic 
loss for all Pakistanis, and the ongoing failure of the Pakistani 
Government to identify his assassins and bring them to justice is a 
blatant and ongoing severe violation of respect for religious freedom.
  In closing, I would like to note that the State Department's 
Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Dr. Suzan 
Johnson Cook, was invited to testify at our hearing and present the 
report written by her office. Unfortunately, the State Department 
refused to allow her to appear without another State Department 
official on her panel. Given the important responsibilities assigned to 
the Ambassador-at-Large pursuant to the IRF Act, including advancing 
the right to religious freedom abroad through diplomatic 
representations on behalf of the United States, our Subcommittee looks 
forward to the opportunity to hear from Ambassador Johnson Cook when 
she is allowed to testify on her own.
  I thank the distinguished witnesses who have joined us last week.