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



                    FAITH UNDER FIRE: AN EXAMINATION
                    OF GLOBAL RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                    THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                           AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 25, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-72

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability





                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

54-069 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023









               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                                 ------                                

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
             Kaity Wolfe, Senior Professional Staff Member
         Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
                      Lisa Piraneo, Senior Advisor
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                                 ------                                

   Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

                  Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman

Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Robert Garcia, California, Ranking 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Minority Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Dan Goldman, New York
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Maxwell Frost, Florida
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Vacancy
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Vacancy








                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page
Hearing held on October 25, 2023.................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Mr. David Curry, President and CEO, Global Christian Relief
Oral Statement...................................................     5

Dr. Eric Patterson, President, Religious Freedom Institute
Oral Statement...................................................     7

Dr. Meaghan Mobbs, Senior Fellow, Independent Women's Forum
Oral Statement...................................................     9

Ms. Amanda Tyler (Minority Witness), Executive Director, Baptist 
  Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Oral Statement...................................................    11

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Article, Providence, ``Biden Administration Promotes LGBTQI 
  Rights in Foreign Policy''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.

  * Article, The Heritage Foundation, ``Congress Must Stop 
  Biden's Misuse of U.S. Foreign Aid''; submitted by Rep. 
  Grothman.

  * Opinion, Newsweek, ``Biden Administration Weaponizes 
  Diplomacy Against Conservative Hungary''; submitted by Rep. 
  Grothman.

  * Statement for the Record, for Sikh Coalition; submitted by 
  Rep. Grothman.

  * Opinion, Trump, POTUS, et al v. Hawaii, Justice Kennedy, 
  Supreme Court; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Opinion, Trump, POTUS, et al v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas, 
  Supreme Court; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Opinion, Trump, POTUS, et al v.  Hawaii, Justice Syllabus, 
  Supreme Court; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.









 
                    FAITH UNDER FIRE: AN EXAMINATION
                    OF GLOBAL RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, October 25, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

   Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, Foxx, Sessions, 
Biggs, Fallon, Garcia, Goldman, Moskowitz, Porter, and Frost.
    Also present: Representative Raskin.
    Mr. Grothman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on National 
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order.
    Welcome, everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    And, without objection, we are going to have Representative 
Luna of Florida waived on to the Subcommittee for the purpose 
of questioning the witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
    I recognize myself for the purposes of an opening 
statement.
    Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on National 
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs' hearing on examining 
global religious persecution.
    Today's hearing will address one of the most fundamental 
and pressing issues that transcends borders and boundaries: 
international religious freedom. It is an issue that speaks to 
the very core of our values as Americans and a basic principle 
of human rights.
    During my time in Congress, I have been deeply committed to 
this cause and believe the United States can take a leading 
role in championing religious freedom on the global stage.
    It is the right of every individual to worship, express, 
and practice their religion freely without fear. However, we 
must recognize that religious freedom is not universally 
recognized and respected in all parts of the world. In too many 
corners of the world, individuals and entire communities face a 
stark reality of violence, displacement, and discrimination.
    Look at what is happening in Nigeria today. Last year, 90 
percent of Christians killed globally because of their faith 
were Nigerian. Boko Haram, or sub-Saharan ISIS, continue to 
slaughter Christians that refuse to convert to Islam, creating 
chaos and fear.
    Yet the Biden Administration removed Nigeria as a Country 
of Particular Concern, a designation subjecting Nigeria to 
greater congressional scrutiny. Why did the Administration 
remove this designation?
    In Azerbaijan, ethnically Armenian Christians are being 
forced to flee their homes because they are facing genocide. 
And, tragically, as we have witnessed over the last several 
weeks, terrorist groups like Hamas will use their extreme 
versions of religion to justify committing horrible atrocities 
against civilians of different ethnicities and faiths.
    Religious freedom is also fundamental to our national 
security interests. For example, our enemies not only suppress 
religious freedom but often support terrorist proxy groups that 
target people based on their faith.
    This Subcommittee recently held a hearing where witnesses 
described the Iranian regime's assistance to terrorist 
organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah that have now invited 
more terror, conflict, and instability.
    For years, Iran has been supplying Hamas with funding, 
weapons, and support, all of which were leveraged for the 
recent slaughter of innocent Israeli citizens. Make no mistake: 
Iran holds an equal share of responsibility for all the deaths 
and kidnappings Hamas has inflicted on Israelis.
    Yet the Biden Administration continues to give humanitarian 
assistance to Gaza without any plans or guarantees that 
taxpayer dollars will not go to terrorists such as Hamas.
    Similarly, the Biden Administration continues to supply 
humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, which, under Taliban control, 
oppresses women and girls.
    Additionally, the Biden Administration continues to send 
foreign assistance to countries suffering from religious 
persecution on the condition that the receiving country adheres 
to progressive policies. It is completely inappropriate for the 
Administration to be pushing their policy preference on other 
nations.
    The United States has a long history of addressing and 
advocating for human rights and religious freedom around the 
world. We have the tools and the influence to help those abroad 
who are subject to religious persecution.
    America itself is a very religious country. And it is 
important--while we do send missionaries from various faiths 
around the world, it is important that the United States not 
weigh in with kind of an anti-religious agenda.
    I hope to hear from our witnesses today that we use the 
power to help better the lives of religious minorities and 
promote religious freedom around the world, as well as not, 
kind of, impose or encourage the kind of anti-religious feeling 
a lot of American elites have. A world which encourages and 
promotes religious freedom is a more peaceful world.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and I look 
forward to your testimony.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Garcia for the purpose of 
making an opening statement.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
again, and I want to thank all of our witnesses also for being 
here. Appreciate you all joining us.
    And I want to just start by just adding that, you know, we 
know that, across the world, minority communities, including 
Jewish people, Muslims, Christians, so many others, face 
intimidation of violence and unequal protection under the law.
    Just this month, of course, we have seen disturbing anti-
Semitic and Islamophobia attacks just here in the United States 
due to the rising conflicts happening in the Middle East.
    Wadea Al-Fayoum, who was only 6 years old, was stabbed 26 
times Saturday by his family's landlord in Plainfield Township, 
Illinois, for being Muslim. His mother, Hanaan Shahin, also 
suffered more than a dozen stab wounds. And I know that all of 
us, our heart breaks for that tragedy and that horrific attack 
of hate.
    Now, as both a Catholic and a proud member of the LGBTQ+ 
community, I know how vulnerable minority communities can be 
here at home but also abroad. And that means that the United 
States has a critical voice in that work.
    I think President Biden said it well in his inaugural 
address, that we will lead not merely by the example of our 
power but also by the power of our example. And freedom of 
religion, of course, is core to who we are as a country.
    Now, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no 
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof. Now, every Member of this Committee took 
an oath to uphold that constitutional principle, and I am proud 
that in the last few years we have expanded the cause of 
religious freedom across the world.
    We are building our State Department in this important 
work. Our work abroad, which had been decimated under the 
previous Administration, has expanded in the rebuilding of the 
State Department.
    We have restored our global strategies so we can lead 
global coalitions of righteousness across the world. We have 
halted discrimination on the basis of religion in the U.S. 
immigration system by ending the bigoted Muslim ban.
    And the President, of course, established the Protecting 
Places of Worship Interagency Policy Committee. And 
congressional Democrats voted to provide the largest ever 
increase in funding for the physical security of nonprofits, 
including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other 
houses of worship.
    Deborah Lipstadt, a Holocaust expert, is also serving as 
the first Ambassador-level envoy to monitor and combat anti-
Semitism across the world. Her work, of course, is needed now 
more than ever.
    The Administration has done outstanding global faith-based 
outreach, like launching USAID's first-ever Strategic Religious 
Engagement Policy. And religious engagement abroad is also a 
key priority, including for really critical programs like 
PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which, 
of course, is a coalition of faith and community initiatives 
that has saved millions of lives.
    Extremist groups and authoritarian governments work hard to 
spread their message of hate and attack the vulnerable, and, of 
course, we confront that wherever that happens. And we also 
work to protect innocent people from danger wherever they are, 
and, of course, as anti-Semitism rises, especially as we are 
seeing today.
    We also intend to stand up to China as they continue to 
repress the Uyghurs. The Democratic Congress passed the 
bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was signed 
and implemented by President Biden. And we will continue to 
confront domestic extremist groups which threaten our religion 
and constitutional freedoms.
    Now, violent religious nationalism has been used to fuel 
human rights violations all over the world, including in 
Russia. We all know the role of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch 
of Moscow in legitimizing the Russian war in the Ukraine.
    I also just want to note, just because I am also Catholic, 
I just want to touch on sometimes the narrative that seems to 
be growing in some parts of the extreme right that the Justice 
Department somehow is an anti-Catholic organization. Members 
have attempted to confront our Attorney General, whose family 
escaped religious persecution in Europe, with this allegation 
in hearings just last month.
    To be clear, the DOJ has never targeted traditional 
Catholics and I do not believe ever will. This is yet another 
attack to discredit the Department of Justice, as we know, and 
to shield the former President.
    Our religious freedom is too important to be used as a 
political football. It is critical for our country; it is 
critical for the world. And I want to thank you all for being 
here today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today.
    David Curry is the President and CEO of Global Christian 
Relief, an international ministry that advocates on behalf of 
those who are persecuted for their Catholic faith. He also 
serves as a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan 
Federal Government entity established by Congress to monitor, 
analyze, and report on religious freedom abroad.
    Eric Patterson. Dr. Patterson serves as president of the 
Religious Freedom Institute. His academic interest is in the 
intersection of religious liberty and national security. He has 
a long history of government service, to include two stints at 
the U.S. State Department in the Bureau of Political-Military 
Affairs and over 20 years as an officer and commander in the 
Air National Guard.
    Meaghan Mobbs is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's 
Forum with a focus on defense, national security, military, 
family, and health-related issues. She holds a master's from 
George Washington University and a doctorate from Columbia 
University. She is a former paratrooper and combat veteran and 
a graduate of West Point.
    And, finally, Amanda Tyler is the Executive Director of the 
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, an organization 
that promotes the historic Baptist principle of religious 
liberty. She is a member of the Texas and U.S. Supreme Court 
bar.
    Again, I want to thank all four of you for being here 
today.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Let the record show the witnesses all answered in the 
affirmative.
    Thank you. You can take a seat.
    I appreciate you being here today and look forward to your 
testimony.
    Let me remind the witnesses, we have read your statement 
already. Please see if you can limit your oral statement to 5 
minutes.
    As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that you can hear, we know that the microphone 
is on. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will 
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. And 
when 5 minutes have expired, we will ask you to please try to 
wrap up your testimony.
    I now recognize Mr. Curry for his opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID CURRY

                           PRESIDENT AND CEO

                        GLOBAL CHRISTIAN RELIEF

    Mr. Curry. Thank you, Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member 
Garcia, and all the Members of the Committee, for inviting me 
to testify today on behalf of Global Christian Relief.
    I would like to begin my testimony today by showing you a 
picture of a woman named Abigail. She is a young mother of 
three who, until last year, lived in a small Christian village 
in northern Nigeria, which I will be visiting just next week.
    On the night of March 22, 2022, Islamic gunmen stormed 
Abigail's village, shooting dozens of her friends and family 
members. After the attack, Abigail was nowhere to be found.
    It would be days afterwards that the terrorists would call, 
using the villagers' own stolen cell phone, to let her know--
let folks in her family know that Abigail and others had been 
kidnapped.
    She is one of just 8,000--almost 8,000 Christians who have 
been abducted in the last 3 years in Nigeria. And she remains 
missing today as I testify before you.
    Her story is emblematic of the truly horrific levels of 
violence many people face today because of their faith--the 
faith that they have chosen to follow.
    Contrary to popular belief, religious persecution is not a 
thing of the past. It is a major and growing challenge around 
the world, with billions of people living in nearly 80 
countries that maintain high levels of government restrictions 
or social hostility toward people of faith. Faith really is 
under fire today.
    For Christians specifically, the numbers are staggering. 
Approximately 360 million Christians globally are experiencing 
high levels of persecution or discrimination just for their 
beliefs.
    In Abigail's home country of Nigeria, terror groups driven 
by extremist ideology have killed 12,793 Christians since 2019. 
We know that all these victims are explicitly targeted for 
being Christians, both because the killers and kidnappers often 
expressly say so and because Christians are suffering killings 
and abductions at a rate vastly disproportionate to other 
faiths in the region.
    In China, over 100 million Christians must practice their 
faith under an almost totalitarian system of laws and 
surveillance. Refusing to join the government-controlled church 
is illegal, but as many as 60 million Chinese Christians choose 
to do so regardless of the cost, risking their freedom and 
social standing to worship and hear sermons not dictated for 
them by the Communist Party members.
    Some governments and especially U.S. adversaries choose to 
co-opt religion to support violent aggression against their 
rivals and engage in religious persecution.
    As Ranking Member Garcia mentioned, the Russian Government 
has formed what I call an ``unholy alliance'' with the Russian 
Orthodox Church, whipping up religious support to justify its 
invasion of Ukraine and the persecution of other Christian 
denominations. According to one report, nearly 500 religious 
buildings and sacred sites in the Ukraine have been destroyed 
by the Russian military since the start of the war last year.
    In Iran, the government uses Islam as a pretext to imprison 
Christians and others attempting to run non-Islamic places of 
worship. And those who attempt to convert from Islam to other 
faiths, make up their own mind about what they believe, face 
severe repression from friends and family--repression that 
Iranian officials willingly overlook and even encourage.
    Of course, Iran's intolerance of people of faith does not 
stop at its borders. Hamas and Hezbollah, both supported by 
Iran, not only terrorize those of non-Muslim faith but prevent 
Muslims who live under their control from choosing the religion 
for themselves.
    Now, what is the answer to these overwhelming challenges? 
The answer, in short, is religious freedom.
    At Global Christian Relief, we are working to bandage and 
heal those who are broken by persecution, but we also advocate 
for religious freedom for everyone, because its implementation 
means the end of the most severe forms of persecution. When 
religious freedom is protected, no one is killed or abducted 
for their faith and people are free to pursue truth without 
fear.
    The advancement of religious freedom is also important to 
U.S. national security interests, as we are seeing every day in 
the news. When religious freedom is not protected, extremism 
and authoritarianism flourish. The more the U.S. can do to 
advocate and advance this critical freedom, the more we will 
deter the very groups who wish to do us harm.
    And with this in mind, I would like to offer three 
recommendations.
    First, I would encourage this Committee to encourage the 
Biden Administration to appoint a Special Advisor for 
International Religious Freedom to the National Security 
Council. This position was first recommended by Congress with 
the passage of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious 
Freedom Act in 1998, but it has only been filled once by a 
dedicated official. And that would be a major step forward.
    Second, the Members of this Committee should consider 
sponsorship of House Resolution 82 that calls on the Department 
of State to redesignate Nigeria as a Country of Particular 
Concern.
    The CPC designation, as it is called, is reserved for the 
worst violators of religious freedom. And despite the failure 
of Nigeria's Government to prevent the targeted killing and 
abduction of thousands of Nigerians on the basis of faith, the 
State Department removed this designation from Nigeria in 2021, 
and I believe this is unacceptable.
    I want to thank Representative Congressman LaTurner and 
other Members of this Subcommittee who have already sponsored 
this resolution, which also calls for a special envoy for that 
region that will be able to help bring resolution between the 
many countries in the Sahel region that need this help from 
extremism.
    And, third, I recommend that the Committee directly 
encourage officials at the State Department to give the 
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom greater 
leeway in calling out violations of religious freedom.
    So, thank you so much for this time to testify. I 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Grothman. Dr. Patterson?

                      STATEMENT OF ERIC PATTERSON

                               PRESIDENT

                      RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INSTITUTE

    Mr. Patterson. Thank you.
    Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Garcia, and Members of 
the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak a bit 
about the global crisis of religious freedom and its 
implications for American national security.
    At the Religious Freedom Institute, our mission is to 
advance a broad understanding of religious freedom as a 
fundamental human right, as a source of individual and social 
flourishing, and as a driver of national and international 
security.
    When considering America's national security imperatives, 
the analytical lens of religion and religious freedom is often 
essential, especially when considering regions of instability 
and our strategic competitors. Just look at what they say and 
what they do.
    More specifically, how do governments and other 
organizations behave in four key areas: How do they treat their 
own people on religious freedom? How do they treat their 
neighbors? What is the ruling ideology or philosophy when it 
comes to religious freedom? And what do they say and do on the 
international stage?
    Take Iran, for instance. The Government of Iran has a 
political theology that sees religious minorities as a threat. 
At the same token, they oppress their own majority. It is 
noteworthy that observant Muslim women have been in the 
vanguard of challenging the regime's tyrannical behavior and 
that they have done so by using religious symbols and religious 
texts.
    The ayatollahs have imposed a system that is the opposite 
of one that values human dignity and religious freedom. 
Instead, they provide religious justifications for destruction 
and violence, from sending in their own young men as human 
minesweepers in the 1980's to destruction across the region and 
terrorism in countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, 
Yemen, and elsewhere.
    When it comes to what they say and do, countries like 
Russia and China have state ideologies that see religious and 
ethnoreligious minorities as challenges to the regime. My 
colleague earlier mentioned some of these problems in both 
China and Russia.
    A second worrying type of case, though, are democracies 
with civil liberties that seem to be on a downward spiral, 
notably Nigeria and India. They have democratic institutions; 
they have some civil liberties. But what we are seeing is 
increased violence against religious minorities.
    In India, it is Hindu nationalists attacking Christians and 
Muslims and provinces across the country imposing so-called 
religious freedom laws that are actually designed to target 
religious minorities.
    In Nigeria, we see a toxic situation with violent Islamists 
in the north, violence against Christians in the Middle Belt, 
and sharia courts in over a dozen provinces that do not give 
equal due process to Nigerian citizens if they are from a 
religious minority.
    I have mentioned these countries--Russia, Iran, China, 
Nigeria--because they are major players on the global stage and 
in the regions, and understanding the religious freedom 
dynamics are key to helping us think through the national 
security decisions that the United States needs to make.
    Now, let me pause for a moment and take a look at what the 
Biden Administration is doing specifically on these areas of 
international religious freedom. They have appointed a well-
regarded public servant who has served Republican and 
Democratic administrations as the Ambassador at Large for 
International and Religious Freedom. They continue to publish a 
useful annual report from the State Department on international 
religious freedom.
    But I would say that the Administration's lack of a 
consistent commitment to advancing religious freedom stalls 
real progress.
    My written testimony provides a number of concrete 
recommendations, including some ones that are very similar to 
Mr. Curry's. But I would like to point out two things for 
sharper action as we go forward.
    First, the Biden Administration, like its predecessors, 
routinely waives taking any formal legal action, such as 
economic sanctions, against Countries of Particular Concern. 
These are provided under the bipartisan International Religious 
Freedom Act of 1998.
    It goes a step further in places like Nigeria by ignoring 
the facts on the ground. And we have to think about this from a 
national security perspective. If Nigeria descends into chaos, 
civil war, as we have seen in DRC, Libya, in Rwanda and 
elsewhere, the results would be catastrophic for its own 
people, for its region, for global energy markets, and for the 
U.S. and our allies.
    Second, the Biden Administration is harming American 
interests and our international relations by its aggressive 
export of its controversial domestic sexual-orientation and 
gender-identity policies, targeting highly religious societies.
    Now, this began only 2 weeks into the Administration with 
National Security Memorandum No. 4 prioritizing these policies 
being directed in U.S. foreign policy. Now, this came before 
any executive order on national security addressing vital U.S. 
interests such as China, energy security, Russia, et cetera.
    Now, let me be clear: Every individual around the world has 
fundamental human rights and human dignity. What I am talking 
about, though, is the relentless pressure that our 
international partners feel coming from Washington on these 
matters.
    A case in point is Vice President Harris's recent tour of 
Africa, where she criticized African societies for their deeply 
held, widely agreed-upon religious convictions.
    My organization and others routinely hear from citizens in 
these countries, ``Why is the U.S. pushing its domestic 
policies on us? Are we going to lose PEPFAR and other vital 
support if we hold to our convictions?''
    So, on the one hand, the Administration has done little in 
terms of concrete effective action, such as sanctions, to push 
back on ethnoreligious violence and the persecution of faith 
communities, from Nigeria to Afghanistan; and, at the same 
time, they bully our friends in highly religious societies like 
Kenya, Zambia, and Ghana.
    So let me conclude by saying: Religious freedom is a 
hallmark of America's ordered liberty, and it is a right and a 
blessing that people yearn for around the world.
    We in the U.S. have a responsibility to do our part to 
enhance international security by understanding the religious 
dimensions of global affairs and championing religious freedom.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Dr. Mobbs?

                       STATEMENT OF MEAGHAN MOBBS

                             SENIOR FELLOW

                       INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM

    Ms. Mobbs. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Garcia, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for convening a hearing 
on such an important and critical issue.
    My name is Dr. Meaghan Mobbs. I sit before you as a woman 
and the mother of two young girls and a representative of 
Independent Women's Forum, a nonprofit that works every day to 
engage and inform women about how policy issues impact them and 
their loved ones. We celebrate women's accomplishments and 
fight to expand women's options and opportunities.
    I lead with this as it is imperative we explicitly define 
what a woman is. A woman is an adult female human. While we 
appear to struggle with that definition in the West, oppressive 
regimes, authoritarians, and fanatics all over the world do 
not, as they use that very biological fact as a means to 
identify, subjugate, and tyrannize women and girls.
    Religious women, globally, endure distinct forms of 
violence and persecution due to their sex and their capacity to 
bear future generations. The very ability to procreate--
something only women are capable of--is used as a tool to 
oppress. Women, simply because they are women, face rape, 
forced marriage, and sterilization.
    Women belonging to religious minorities are particularly 
vulnerable. Their persecution tends to be more violent, 
complex, and hidden. Riddled with shame, these women and girls 
often bear in silence the horrors visited upon them. These 
evils are perpetuated against them for the alleged crime of 
simply believing in something different than their tormentor 
and their gift of reproduction.
    Hamas's attack on Israel and the targeted violence against 
young women is an all-too-recent example. The entire world bore 
witness to young women paraded around half-naked, their pants 
soaked in blood from repeated rape. A morgue worker for the 
military reported, quote, ``There is evidence of mass rape so 
brutal that they broke the victims' pelvises--women, 
grandmothers, children.''
    If we do not have the moral courage to define what a woman 
is, how will we have the fortitude to do what is necessary to 
protect them around the world?
    The last 2 years have revealed the perilous state of our 
safety and security. In less than 24 months, we have witnessed 
the biggest attack on a European country since World War II and 
the deadliest days for Jews since the Holocaust.
    There is war in Europe, and there is war in the Middle 
East. Six central African nations have experienced military 
coups since 2021. And Latin America is facing surging gang 
violence and crime.
    The entire world witnessed the ethnic cleansing of the 
Christian Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. In the last 
30 days, almost all of the estimated 120,000 ethnic Armenians 
were violently moved from their homes. This forced migration 
followed a months-long siege and intentional starvation of this 
population.
    This week, non-emergency personnel were ordered to evacuate 
the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, and this is the seventh evacuation of 
a U.S. embassy abroad in this Presidency.
    All the while, our greatest adversary, China, grows 
stronger and bolder.
    In short, we are in a new era of conflict and violence. The 
tense global climate has concurrently borne a precipitous 
uptick in violations of religious freedom. In 2023, countries 
where religious freedom was violated were home to over 4.9 
billion people.
    The persecution women face often manifests in forced 
marriages, which saw a 16-percent increase, and physical 
violence, which rose by over 31 percent.
    More than 350 million Christians suffer high levels of 
maltreatment and discrimination for their faith. Christian 
women and girls, in particular, face violence and degrading 
forms of victimization, with sexual violence reported in 90 
percent of the top 50 countries where Christians face the most 
extreme persecution.
    Christians and Jews are not the only religious groups to 
bear the weight of oppression. At this very moment, as we sit 
here, the Uyghurs, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority group 
residing in China, have been subjected to severe human rights 
abuses by the Chinese Government.
    Described as a ``quiet genocide,'' the treatment of Uyghurs 
includes arbitrary detentions, torture, slave labor, 
reeducation, and forced sterilizations. Regarding the latter, 
the Chinese Government poured $37 million into forced 
sterilizations and IUD implantations meant to rapidly decrease 
Uyghur birth rates. Again, their crime was their faith and 
their sex.
    Tragically, recent foreign policies and aid decisions have 
placed the most vulnerable in worse conditions. Beginning with 
the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, women and girls 
around the world increasingly suffer from persistent and 
devastating human rights violations. There have been 
regressions in access to education, the ability to move freely, 
and restrictions on their ability to practice their chosen 
faith.
    International religious freedom, once a fundamental and 
bipartisan aspect of U.S. foreign policy, appears to have been 
relegated to a second-tier right. The downgrading of religious 
freedom as a foundational principle is extremely concerning. 
This reorientation in U.S. foreign policy underscores a 
nuanced, yet very consequential, shift in which certain rights 
are prioritized or deprioritized alongside the rise of 
religious discrimination, armed conflict, genocide, and 
atrocities.
    America must return to the exportation of freedom, not 
ideological indoctrination. This can be accomplished by 
congressional focus and commitment to fund bipartisan 
traditional elements of democracy and human rights promotion.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Ms. Tyler, you can go over if you want, obviously.

                       STATEMENT OF AMANDA TYLER

                           EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

             BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

    Ms. Tyler. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Garcia, and Members of the Subcommittee.
    I am Amanda Tyler, Executive Director of Baptist Joint 
Committee for Religious Liberty and the lead organizer of 
Christians Against Christian Nationalism.
    For 87 years, BJC has worked to defend and extend God-given 
religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist witness 
to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, 
neither advanced nor inhibited by government. As Baptists, we 
are concerned about the infringement of religious freedom 
against people belonging to any religious group and 
nonreligious people too.
    International religious freedom has long been a bipartisan 
priority in Congress, and this hearing is another great example 
of congressional commitment to this crucial element of our 
Nation's work. For 25 years, Democratic and Republican 
administrations have faithfully implemented the International 
Religious Freedom Act.
    We are concerned about blasphemy and apostasy laws, which 
stifle religious expression, undermine human rights, and foster 
religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence. 
Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and others have been fined, 
imprisoned, tortured, and executed for blasphemy offenses. BJC 
applauds both the House and Senate for passing the resolution 
calling for the global repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and 
apostasy laws in 2020.
    Faith is, indeed, under fire around the world, and the best 
way that we can make a difference is by not adding more fuel to 
the fire of religious extremism and nationalism. Instead, we 
should focus on being a role model to the world by ensuring the 
institutional separation of church and state which protects all 
of us.
    As we examine religious persecution globally, I hope we 
will also examine how well we are living up to this value at 
home. The single greatest threat to religious liberty in the 
United States today, and, thus, our reputation as leaders in 
the fight for religious liberty to the rest of the world, is 
Christian nationalism.
    Christian nationalism is a political ideology and cultural 
framework that seeks to fuse American and Christian identities. 
Christian nationalism seeks to privilege Christians and 
Christianity in law and policy.
    We see what happens when religious nationalism in a country 
is allowed to flourish and use the power of the state to 
attempt to force a set of religious beliefs or create only one 
accepted form of religious belief.
    To oppose Christian nationalism is not to oppose 
Christianity. In fact, a growing number of Christians--and I am 
one of them--feel a religious imperative to stand against 
Christian nationalism.
    More than 35,000 Christians have signed their names to a 
unifying statement of principles at the heart of the Christians 
Against Christian Nationalism campaign, which includes this 
language, quote: ``Conflating religious authority with 
political authority is idolatrous and often leads to the 
oppression of minority and other marginalized groups as well as 
the spiritual impoverishment of religion. We must stand up to 
and speak out against Christian nationalism, especially when it 
inspires acts of violence and intimidation, including 
vandalism, bomb threats, arson, hate crimes, and attacks on 
houses of worship against religious communities at home and 
abroad,'' end quote.
    It is deeply alarming that a Member of the U.S. House of 
Representatives openly identifies as a Christian nationalist. 
Yet all of us who care about religious freedom should be able 
to quickly and definitively reject Christian nationalism.
    What happens abroad has an impact on the daily lives of 
Americans. We have sadly seen increased religious bigotry in 
the United States because of the war between Israel and Hamas. 
It is up to all of us to reject anti-Semitism and Islamophobia 
in all of its forms.
    An example of Christian nationalism and Islamophobia in law 
and policy is the prior Administration's enactment of a series 
of travel bans aimed at Muslim-majority countries. On the first 
day of the new Administration in 2021, President Biden issued a 
proclamation overturning the Muslim ban, stating, in part, 
quote, ``Those actions are a stain on our national conscience 
and are inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people 
of all faiths and no faith at all,'' end quote.
    BJC praised the Biden Administration's decision to overturn 
the Muslim ban, but we also recognize that there cannot be any 
future attempt to ban immigrants based on their religion. This 
year, former President Donald Trump has stated on multiple 
occasions that he will reenact his Muslim ban policy if 
reelected.
    Religious freedom is at a crossroads today. Religious 
persecution around the world coupled with the resurgence of 
Christian nationalism at home means we must redouble our 
efforts to protect religious minorities and the nonreligious, 
both domestically and globally.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    I will start out with a question for--well, let us start 
with Dr. Patterson.
    We have a lot of Marxist, communist countries around the 
world. Could you explain a little bit, by definition, what 
their attitude is toward religion in general and religious 
minorities in particular?
    Mr. Patterson. Thank you.
    Amazingly, despite the fall of the Soviet Union and the 
West's victory at the end of the cold war, there are a number 
of communist countries left around the world, the largest of 
course being China, but we have practitioners of that in 
Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere.
    And these governments practice a form of secular 
materialism that what it really privileges is, is allegiance of 
the citizens--or, better, subjects--to the state, to the 
state's ideology, to its demagoguery leadership, and the like. 
And so religious people are often seen as lacking allegiance, 
because Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious people 
have a higher authority that they worship and that they hold 
to.
    So, this is why China cracks down on Uyghurs, Falun Gong, 
Christians----
    Mr. Grothman. Are you--I am sorry. I only have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Patterson. Sure.
    Mr. Grothman. Are you aware, are you allowed to be a member 
of the Communist Party if you are not an atheist?
    Mr. Patterson. What we have seen--in the past, there have 
been religious people who have been in the lower levels of the 
Communist Party. But under President Xi, what we have seen is a 
great hardening within the party. No senior official is going 
to be a publicly observant person of faith.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Dr. Mobbs, the Biden Administration has been treating U.S. 
foreign aid as a global platform from which to implement 
overseas a rigidly progressive ideological agenda to counter 
some nations' religious beliefs.
    In March, Secretary of State Blinken repudiated the prior 
Administration's elevation of religious freedom as a U.S. 
priority, declaring there is no hierarchy that makes some 
rights more important than others, and placed religious freedom 
as a co-equal to progressive policies.
    Could you elaborate on the historical context and the 
policies that were in place under the prior Administration?
    Ms. Mobbs. I think the critical point here, Mr. Chairman, 
is that we have to get back to having that as a standalone 
right.
    Religious freedom as a standalone right has a bipartisan 
and historical consensus in the community. And, unfortunately, 
what has happened is, that has been taken away and brought to 
what my colleague said here, on par with domestic policies and 
the exportation of ideological beliefs.
    And what we need to do is recentralize individual religious 
freedom as that central and historical right to ensure that we 
can export a values-based approach unrelated to domestic 
ideology.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Could you--there is sometimes some concern, both in Central 
America and Eastern Europe, that America is not necessarily 
favorable to certain religious beliefs.
    Could you comment on that a little bit? Is that a concern? 
Are we kind of sticking our nose in, in other countries, as far 
as how they should handle their religious beliefs?
    Ms. Mobbs. I think what you may be referencing is what 
looks like the exportation, again, of our domestic belief 
systems--flying the pride flag over our embassies in certain 
countries--like, Hungary is an example that occurred last 
year--in which these nation-states felt as though we were 
imposing upon them our domestic belief system rather than just 
flying our Nation's flag.
    And so, yes, I do think there has been evidence, as 
evidenced by the Prime Minister of Hungary explicitly stating 
that they felt that was the case.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. So, kind of a hostility to the United 
States because of our anti-Christian kind of world view?
    Ms. Mobbs. Correct. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Curry, your organization, Global Christian Relief, is 
working diligently to assist persecuted Christians in Nigeria.
    Can you give us just a quick overview of what is going on 
to Christians there, really quick?
    Mr. Curry. The persecution of Christians and moderate 
Muslims is driven by extremist groups there--Boko Haram, ISIS 
in that region, and the Fulani, which have typically been seen 
as a tribal group but also have a shared ideology, they have a 
dogma.
    And the Fulani, who are often, you know, sort of positioned 
as arguing over land, really are telling the government, when 
there are public statements, that they are attacking these 
Christian villages because of their faith.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Curry. So, there is a unified extremism there.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Dr. Mobbs, one more time. I would like you to focus a 
little bit on South America, maybe the Caribbean. Has the U.S. 
at all weighed in there on domestic policies that may affect 
what they feel are Christian laws?
    Ms. Mobbs. Mr. Chairman, I do not feel qualified to answer 
that question.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. The answer to that, sir, is yes in a number 
of instances. Perhaps the most famous one was a leaked memo 
from the U.S. embassy in a Central American country saying that 
the U.S. Government wanted to push as much as possible in the 
direction of a candidate that was pro-abortion and other things 
rather than the candidate who ultimately won in that election.
    So, there is a sense in many of these highly religious 
societies that, when it comes to matters of life and family, 
that the United States is eroding their national positions.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Yes, I think I had one Congressman tell 
me that a representative from one of those countries felt that 
every time the foreign aid was conditioned on behaviors in 
those countries, it made their country less Christian.
    OK. Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
    I want to broadly just start by saying, I also believe that 
there is a lot of work to be done as far as it relates to the 
rights of women, of young girls across the world. I probably 
love few people more than my sister, as well. But I also want 
to be clear: I do not like--there were some veiled, I think, 
transphobic comments that were made, and I just want to be 
clear also that trans people do exist in our country. Trans 
women do exist in our country. And trans people also face 
stigma, harassment, discrimination, and physical violence 
oftentimes much more than other communities or persecuted 
people. So, I just wanted to say that as well.
    Ms. Tyler, I do have a couple of quick questions for you.
    Since we are talking so much about religious freedom and to 
ensure that folks have the ability to say and feel free to 
worship as they would like to, do you think it advances the 
cause of religious freedom for a Member of Congress to claim 
that the Catholic Church, of which I am a member of, is 
controlled by Satan?
    Ms. Tyler. I think that kind of rhetoric really is a threat 
to religious freedom. I think we have to understand that words 
matter. And it is particularly concerning when it comes from a 
member of government. I think one of the protections that we 
have in the United States--and, again, we are the envy of the 
world in many ways in the legal protections we have for 
religious freedom----
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Ms. Tyler [continuing]. Is that our government stays 
neutral when it comes to religion.
    Mr. Garcia. And what about saying--this same Member said 
that Catholic bishops are destroying the United States by 
advocating for policies that support migrants and refugees--
that the Catholic bishops are doing that, by the way, 
destroying the United States by advocating for policies that 
support migrants. How do you think that advances the cause of 
religious freedom?
    Ms. Tyler. Well, again, I think we have to be cognizant 
that words matter, and that rhetoric can threaten religious 
freedom in ways that can lead, again, as we saw, can lead to 
violence in other----
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
    Ms. Tyler [continuing]. In other places.
    Mr. Garcia. And those comments were actually made by a 
Member of this broader Committee, of the Oversight Committee, 
which I think are, obviously, repulsive comments.
    Ms. Tyler, did it advance the cause of religious freedom to 
try to ban Muslims from entering the United States?
    Ms. Tyler. Absolutely not. And I spoke to that----
    Mr. Garcia. And let me--no, that is----
    Ms. Tyler. Sure.
    Mr. Garcia. I am sorry. And if we are trying to protect 
persecuted religious communities around the world, what is the 
impact of domestic actions like President Trump's Muslim ban, 
just briefly, please?
    Ms. Tyler. Well, I think from--you know, as we have talked 
about, I think that oppressive policies can have impact on 
national security, but it also impacts the stature of the 
United States and our ability to advocate for religious freedom 
in other countries.
    The problem, of course, with the Muslim ban and why it is 
an attack on religious freedom for all is, it singles out one 
faith for disfavored----
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Ms. Tyler [continuing]. Treatment----
    Mr. Garcia. And I want to--no, that is exactly what I 
wanted to hear. Thank you.
    Now, this week, Donald Trump promised to restore and expand 
his bigoted ban, he said, and I quote, ``on day one.'' He said 
that, as President, he stood up for, and I quote again, 
``Judeo-Christian civilization,'' which is, I believe, a slap 
in the face to many other religious traditions which are part 
of our country and make up the beautiful fabric of who we are 
as a country.
    Does this support religious freedom, for a leader to say 
that a mob that chanted, quote, ``Jews will not replace us'' 
and included ``very fine people''--what do we think of that, 
for a leader to say that? Do you think that is something that 
is not--not great?
    Ms. Tyler. Again, I think that words matter and that that 
kind of violent rhetoric has a direct cause to threatening the 
lives of people in our country and----
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And I think we all know that Donald 
Trump, of course, said that after the Unite the Right rally in 
Charlottesville, which were some really horrific remarks.
    Do we think that Donald Trump was upholding religious 
freedom when he posted that, quote, ``liberal Jews . . . voted 
to destroy America and Israel,'' unquote, when they voted 
against him, which he just did last month?
    Ms. Tyler. I think those are violent, anti-Semitic remarks.
    Mr. Garcia. I would agree with you. Thank you, Ms. Tyler. 
And I am just raising these points. I think they are very 
important.
    I also just want to say that, as a Catholic, I also find it 
very troubling to see religious freedom invoked to not just 
justify bigoted policies but also to justify discrimination 
against other LGBTQ+ people like myself.
    Ron DeSantis and many other Governors across the country 
have signed laws which allow healthcare workers to discriminate 
against members of the community, particularly also around 
gender-affirming care, if workers cite religious objections. I 
believe that is dangerous. I believe that is misguided.
    And I, Ms. Tyler, would hope you agree that LGBTQ+ 
protections and religious freedoms can be complementary. I 
think that you agree with that.
    Finally, just to the panel, just briefly, a ``yes'' or 
``no'' question. I will start with Mr. Curry.
    Do you believe, as far as LGBTQ rights abroad, should the 
U.S. remain silent when someone can be executed for who they 
love abroad? Yes or no?
    Mr. Curry. Should--no. The U.S., I think, needs to speak 
out. And I also believe----
    Mr. Garcia. Well, that is it, sir. So, you agree that if 
someone is LGBTQ+ as far as--the U.S. should not remain silent 
if they face execution or persecution abroad?
    Mr. Curry. No, we should not remain silent.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. The U.S. should not remain silent.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Dr. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. The U.S. should not remain silent.
    Mr. Garcia. And Ms. Tyler?
    Ms. Tyler. The United States should not remain silent.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
    And I want to thank all of you for that answer. I think 
that is absolutely correct.
    And, for the record, all of our witnesses agreed that the 
U.S. should not remain silent when someone can be executed for 
who they love somewhere else across the world.
    So, thank you for reaffirming that belief.
    Mr. Grothman. Dr. Foxx.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I thank our witnesses for being here today.
    Dr. Mobbs, it has been 2 years since the Taliban seized 
control of Afghanistan amid the Biden Administration's chaotic 
and deadly withdrawal from the country. It has been reported 
that the status of women and girls' rights in Afghanistan has 
reverted to that of the pre-2002 era when the Taliban last 
controlled the country, effectively erasing progress on women's 
rights in the intervening 20 years.
    Has the Biden Administration taken any actions to preserve 
the gains made for women in Afghanistan?
    Ms. Mobbs. Unfortunately, no, they have not, ma'am.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
    The United States spent nearly $1.8 billion on programs 
supporting Afghan women and the rule of law. Was that money 
totally wasted?
    And are there any efforts the U.S. can take to protect the 
Afghan women and girls that do not involve providing money to 
the Taliban?
    Ms. Mobbs. As a U.S. veteran who served in Afghanistan, it 
is difficult for me to ever comment on the use of funds during 
our time in Afghanistan, because I do not want to say my time 
or any of our servicemembers' time was wasted in Afghanistan. 
However, unfortunately, the way that we allocated and utilized 
money in Afghanistan ended up being wasteful and was in pursuit 
of goals that we could not accomplish.
    Unfortunately, currently, the aid that is also being 
provided does not have enough protections on it to ensure that 
it is actually going to humanitarian goals and reaching the 
people that need it, like starving children, and also the 
education of women and children.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much for your service, by the way.
    Again, Dr. Mobbs, last week, President Biden announced the 
U.S. would send $100 million in humanitarian assistance to 
provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza and the West 
Bank. The President also warned Hamas not to steal or divert 
the humanitarian aid that countries around the world are 
funneling into the region.
    In your opinion, is there any way to ensure effectively 
that U.S. taxpayer funds will not be siphoned off by Hamas for 
its military operations?
    Ms. Mobbs. The reality of what we have seen is, 
unfortunately, there is not a highly effective way, as the bulk 
of humanitarian aid that has gone to Palestine has 
unfortunately been siphoned off to Hamas through a variety of 
different means. There is false charities; there are bank 
accounts set up to do so. It is extremely difficult to do so.
    And, certainly, sending out such a large amount of money in 
a short period of time prevents what would be substantial 
oversight to ensure it is actually going to where it needs to 
go, which is to the human rights for the children and the 
women.
    Ms. Foxx. In the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, 
has Hamas targeted women and girls in its attacks? And how is 
it targeting them?
    Ms. Mobbs. Yes, ma'am, of course. They targeted women and 
children in Israel. They also use schools and hospitals and 
children as human shields.
    Ms. Foxx. Yes. It is really disgusting, what is going on 
there, and I think we should speak out more and more and more. 
No one should be assassinated or kidnapped for his or her 
religious beliefs--no one. I do not care--or their chosen 
gender or their race or for any reason. And what is happening 
in Israel, the atrocities committed by Hamas, every Member of 
Congress should speak out against those.
    Mr. Curry, a Country of Particular Concern is a designation 
by the Secretary of State of a nation engaged in severe 
violations of religious freedom under the International 
Religious Freedom Act. The Trump Administration had designated 
Nigeria as one Country of Particular Concern. However, the 
Biden Administration removed Nigeria from that list.
    Why did the Biden Administration remove Nigeria from the 
list? And do you believe that the move was warranted?
    Mr. Curry. I do not believe it was warranted. The waivers 
that are often used on Countries of Particular Concern do not 
require a reasoning behind it, and I have not heard any 
justification as to why Nigeria was removed.
    But I think that we have to look at these waivers as a 
whole, because it really weakens the law that was passed that 
really would allow us to put pressure on these countries that 
allow religious extremism and persecution.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    All over the world, there are people in prison right now 
for having been accused of and found guilty of violating 
blasphemy, heresy, or apostasy laws, which are of course 
unconstitutional in America.
    In 2020, the House passed a resolution, which I had 
introduced, denouncing the blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws 
and calling for this to be a central plank in U.S. foreign 
policy, to free religious prisoners and to strike these laws 
down.
    Do all of you agree--maybe we can just go down the line--
that these laws are a threat to religious freedom and human 
rights all over the world?
    Ms. Tyler?
    Ms. Tyler. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Dr. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. And Mr. Curry?
    Mr. Curry. Yes, I absolutely agree.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    And does anybody want to say a quick word about what their 
group is doing to try to overturn these laws?
    Would you perhaps, Ms. Tyler, take a second?
    Ms. Tyler. Yes. So, BJC did endorse your legislation, Mr. 
Raskin, for H.R. 512 to send a signal to the State Department 
to prioritize countries getting--or not enforcing their 
blasphemy laws. Because one-third of countries around the world 
do have blasphemy laws, although not all of them enforce them.
    I think a point that is important to make is that blasphemy 
laws do not only hurt the religious freedom of religious 
minorities in those countries but also co-religionists, because 
it tries to enforce a single view of a religion that----
    Mr. Raskin. They do, indeed, and I am going to have 
something to say about that.
    Religious freedom in our country means two things. Our 
Framers rebelled against centuries of religious warfare, wars 
between the Catholics and the Protestants every bit as vicious 
as wars between the Shia and Sunni today. They rebelled against 
holy crusades, inquisitions, witchcraft trials, you name it. 
And they came up, in our Constitution, with two parts of 
religious freedom: free exercise that every citizen has and, 
also, no establishment of religion. The government cannot 
establish religion. And these two values stand best when they 
stand together. They reinforce each other.
    Just very quickly, does everybody agree that we need to be 
promoting both of these values in our foreign policy?
    Ms. Tyler?
    Ms. Tyler. Yes, and beginning at home.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Dr. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. And Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. Yes, with a caveat: that we could imagine 
societies where a vast part of the majority are part of one 
religious orientation and where they have free exercise for the 
common people, for other citizens from religious minorities, 
and yet they may--due to their history, religion, and it being 
a large majority, where there may be a favorable treatment 
toward one religion, but where religious minorities could 
freely practice.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. OK. I am not sure about what you just 
said. That sounds to me like setting a predicate for religious 
persecution.
    Just because a large majority of people believe in a 
particular religion does not give them the right to legislate 
that and compel against other people, right?
    Mr. Patterson. What I am talking about is countries that 
may be on a historical trajectory toward increasing religious 
liberty over time, particularly smaller countries that have a 
large religious population that is pretty homogenous.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Mr. Curry?
    Mr. Curry. I would agree with your statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly.
    Well, look, I belong to the Tom Lantos Human Rights 
Commission. I have adopted numerous prisoners of conscience. I 
would challenge and encourage all of my colleagues to do what I 
have done. Sometimes, if you feel like you are not able to move 
a huge institution like the U.S. Congress, you can save 
somebody from spending the rest of their life in prison.
    I adopted a religious prisoner in Pakistan, Abdul Shakoor. 
He was an 82-year-old bookstore owner who the Pakistani 
Government had imprisoned for heresy, simply for religiously 
subversive thoughts, allegedly. And we got him out. And he is a 
Muslim himself, but he practiced the Ahmadiyya faith.
    I advocated for the release of Kunchok Tsephel, who is a 
Tibetan writer who created a website promoting and celebrating 
Tibetan culture. Chinese authorities sentenced him to 15 years 
in prison. He was released just last year, 13 years into his 
sentence.
    So, for those of you who really believe in religious 
freedom and understand how persecution is a danger to people 
all over the world, colleagues, you can do something by joining 
the Lantos Human Rights Commission and adopting religious 
prisoners of any faith, because every faith is being 
discriminated against and persecuted somewhere. And our job is 
to try and champion the American value of religious toleration 
for everyone of any religious belief--or no religious belief at 
all, because that is part of religious freedom too.
    Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I will 
yield back to you.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    I want to thank each of you for being here today.
    I think that the indications that you have really provided 
deep details about--every American is aware that there is 
conflict around the world. We even see conflict here in the 
United States.
    And I believe that your insight--for instance, Dr. Mobbs, 
you probably have a lot of insight in some areas where perhaps 
the Taliban or others would be directly in confrontation with 
not just human rights but, really, religious intolerance and 
the use of the various elements of violence against people on 
that measure. And I would like to vet this issue, if I could, 
for just a minute.
    Mr. Curry, I did not have my trusty pen out when you spoke 
about a resolution that you would like Members of this body to 
be in tune to, but you mentioned an H.R. number that you felt 
like outlined good consideration of good policy. Would you mind 
giving that to me again?
    Mr. Curry. Yes. That is House Resolution 82 that calls on 
the Department of State to redesignate Nigeria as a Country of 
Particular Concern.
    It has a request that we appoint a special envoy which 
would be able to mediate between Nigeria, Niger, Mali, all of 
these countries in the Sahel region which are now affected by 
these extremist groups who all have a shared ideology even 
though they battle amongst themselves for power.
    This would be a critical, critical thing for us to see pass 
and would really, I think, help aid religious minorities in the 
north of Nigeria.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
    Dr. Mobbs, we are engaged in watching, literally, on our 
TVs every day the Palestinian conflict with America's ally 
Israel. And it is based on not only hatred and bitterness but, 
really, on annihilation of the right of the Israelis and Jewish 
people to exist.
    You evidently came into conflict--or saw this conflict 
firsthand in Afghanistan and in the Middle East. Could you talk 
with us about a wise way to look at how we should look at this 
conflict and, in particular, where religion is the key element 
of discrimination against people who do not read the Bible or 
the Koran exactly the same way you do?
    Ms. Mobbs. Sir, I would say that, when people tell you what 
they believe, we should believe them. As you mentioned, Hamas 
believes in the eradication of the Jewish people and the Jewish 
State, and we should take them at their word that they will go 
to every end to reach those end states.
    And so, a wise policy would be to take them at their word 
and support our ally Israel in their eradication of this 
population that only serves to end them.
    Mr. Sessions. So, in other words, we would try and 
encourage anyone that did not follow that ideology to leave 
what I will say is Gaza and let the battle ensue.
    Ms. Mobbs. Of course, I think that the protection of the 
innocents is always paramount, and I think that a humanitarian 
corridor must be established for those to leave so that they 
are not going to be subjected to conflict.
    I think that absolutely should occur and that is the best 
path forward. And we should support Israel, as is their right, 
to go after the terrorists who perpetuated the evil upon them.
    Mr. Sessions. And that self-protection that they would be 
allowed to--so that in 2 weeks or 6 months or 4 years they were 
not faced with this same problem again.
    Ms. Mobbs. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sessions. Good.
    Dr. Patterson, you have provided us a lot of what I think 
is really good information about violators, people who came and 
have used religion in those circumspects against people.
    Talk to me again about the Chinese experiment. Are they 
pushing forth and sending out across the world their ideas 
about the same things that they do to their own people?
    Mr. Patterson. Thank you, sir. Let me mention two things 
about that.
    The first one is that China's reach, for instance, against 
Uyghurs and other minorities, specifically Uyghurs though, is 
not just internal; they have pushed on countries like Turkey 
and others across Central Asia to repatriate Uyghurs, Kazakhs, 
and others to China for detention, imprisonment, and who knows 
who else----
    Mr. Sessions. Would that include the New York City issue 
where the Chinese have police stations?
    Mr. Patterson. Yes, this New York situation, of course, is 
insidious. And what we have seen is this type of Chinese 
infiltration in many places around the world.
    The other side of China's influence is that many poorer 
countries look at the United States and say, ``If we take aid 
from you, you are going to make us do all of these new, novel 
social ideologies you want to impose on us. The Chinese, they 
will give us a low-interest loan, no questions asked.'' And our 
organization has heard that very dichotomy from people in 
Africa and Latin America.
    Mr. Sessions. My thanks to the panel.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Religious prosecution and violent extremism globally are 
very serious threats to U.S. security and human rights abroad. 
Today, on my line, I want to focus in and hone in on religious 
extremism happening here in the United States, domestically, 
because I believe it is also a very important part of this 
conversation.
    Christian nationalism is a form of religious extremism 
making its way into our policies and undermining our democracy. 
These extremist actors are co-opting the language of 
Christianity and religious freedom to push an undemocratic 
agenda that seeks the very opposite of what they claim to do.
    And I want to start off by saying, I am a man of faith. I 
was raised Southern Baptist. I love potlucks. I was in Awana. I 
got the Sparky Award. I was in youth band for about 10 years. 
This is a huge part of my life and part of the reason why I am 
so passionate about it.
    As a man of faith, I know that Christianity is not 
Christian nationalism. I oppose my faith being used to 
whitewash a racist, violent, and dangerous ideology.
    Ms. Tyler, I have a few questions for you, but let us start 
with this: How does religion differ from religious extremism? 
And why does religious extremism, specifically Christian 
nationalism, threaten the safety and lives of people in our 
communities?
    Ms. Tyler. Well, I think that religious nationalism is this 
tendency to merge our religious and national identities. And it 
can occur along a spectrum but can also be co-opted by those in 
power to enforce a certain religious viewpoint on everyone 
else. And that is why it is such an urgent threat to religious 
freedom.
    But it is also, as you point out, an urgent threat to 
democracy. And it is because it is taking this increasingly 
violent aspect.
    And we saw that on January 6 in the way that Christian 
nationalism was used as a permission structure and as a uniting 
ideology for people who were here at the Capitol that day in 
search of a political cause that was then infused with 
religious fervor.
    Mr. Frost. And what would you say the relationship is 
between White supremacy and Christian nationalism?
    Ms. Tyler. Christian nationalism often overlaps with and 
provides cover for White supremacy and racial subjugation. That 
is because the ``Christian'' in ``Christian nationalism'' is 
not so much about theology as it is about an ethno-national 
identity.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    And Christian nationalists have played vital roles in very 
violent attacks, even recently--the killing of 11 people 
attending services at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh; 
the killing and murder of 9 people attending a bible study at 
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South 
Carolina, the ``Emanuel Nine''; the killing of 33 people 
shopping at Walmart and Tops in El Paso and Buffalo.
    Ms. Tyler, how does Christian nationalism pose a threat to 
our democratic institutions?
    Ms. Tyler. Well, I think all of those examples are what 
happens when this ideology of Christian nationalism is used by 
White supremacists to try to justify their violence. It uses 
the symbols and the language of Christianity to try to justify 
what is indefensible. And it turns, again, their hatred into a 
religious cause, into something that they believe is ordained 
by God.
    Mr. Frost. Most Christian nationalists claim to support 
religious freedom while at the same time working to have the 
exact opposite of that happen.
    Have you noticed a coordinated attempt in America to co-opt 
the right of religious freedom to try and justify stripping 
rights away from people?
    Ms. Tyler. Well, I do think that language really matters 
here, and definitions. And, too often, we hear the language of 
religious freedom being used for what is really religious 
privilege or Christian nationalism.
    True religious freedom requires equality for all people 
regardless of religious belief. And that is why it is so 
important, as our Constitution promises, that the government 
will stay neutral when it comes to religion to allow all 
religions to flourish.
    Mr. Frost. And this threat to democracy has made its way to 
Congress. I mean, my colleague Representative Marjorie Taylor 
Greene has said, quote, ``Christian nationalism is `actually a 
good thing'''. It is an ``identity that Republicans need to 
embrace'' and ``I am being attacked by the godless left because 
I said I am a proud Christian Nationalist,'' end quote.
    My colleague Representative Lauren Boebert said, quote, 
``The church is supposed to direct the government. The 
government is not supposed to direct the church. I am tired of 
this separation-of-church-and-state junk,'' end quote, ``junk'' 
being the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    The Bible itself, in Second Corinthians, actually warns us 
against this. Paul warned against this. He warned us against 
people who would preach of a Christ that differs from the true 
Christ that we learn about in the Bible. That is exactly what 
Christian nationalism is doing.
    I condemn religious extremism everywhere, globally and 
domestically. And we have to recognize the threat it poses to 
our most sacred freedoms and root it out everywhere.
    And I think it is incumbent especially upon us as 
Christians, and me as a Christian, to be at the forefront of 
the fight to ensure that White nationalism and Christian 
nationalism does not see the light of day.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank the panelists for being here today.
    Dr. Patterson, I want to ask you first--and maybe we will 
expand it. We will see how it goes.
    A number of nations have been listed as particularly 
pernicious in their persecution of people of faith--China, 
Iran, Nigeria, et cetera. My question to start off is, do you 
know how many of the nations that we are concerned with today, 
as we sit here, have actually signed on as signatories to the 
International Criminal Court?
    Mr. Patterson. I do not know how many have signed on to the 
International Criminal Court.
    But on this specific issue of religious freedom, most 
countries around the world, including terrible violators like 
Afghanistan, have signed the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights, which has strong religious freedom 
language protecting religious freedom for institutions and 
organizations.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, the reason I ask about the International 
Criminal Court is because the International Criminal Court, 
last I heard, has about 48 signatory nations, and I am curious 
what the number is here.
    I happened to be at the Rome conference where the document 
was drafted, and I will tell you that there was indicia of--I 
should not say ``indicia''--there was a crime of genocide 
recognized in the International Criminal Court, which would 
allow prosecution of violators both as state actors and non-
state actors.
    And what we see in Nigeria could be characterized, I 
believe, as genocide under the ICC. I also believe that what is 
happening to the Uyghurs could be categorized as genocide under 
the ICC.
    But I am not sure--I do not believe China has signed on. I 
am not sure about Nigeria. And in our own state, we have never 
ratified membership in that. In spite of what the ICC said, 
just because--just because 48 nations ratified it does not mean 
anybody else is underneath that.
    So, I want to expand a little bit and get into some of your 
recommendations, Dr. Patterson. And I would like Mr. Curry and 
then Dr. Mobbs to actually comment on this.
    These recommendations, like the GAO to assess and publicly 
report on the implementation of IRFA of 1998, are you aware of 
any report having been done? And tell us what you think should 
be done and what should be assessed, what should be included in 
that assessment.
    Mr. Patterson. Certainly.
    I do not know of a report like this that has been done, at 
least not in recent years.
    A couple of things that could be assessed is, first, 
justifications for waivers--year after year after year of 
waivers.
    A second thing that could be looked at here is: What 
programs that the U.S. has put money into have actually reaped 
actual, tangible results promoting religious freedom? Where do 
we see actual difference anywhere on the ground?
    Mr. Biggs. And so, to that point, do you see any place 
where our funding and our non-imposition of our own domestic 
policies on these nations have actually produced more religious 
freedom in any of these nations that we are looking at?
    Mr. Patterson. Well, in some cases what you are doing is 
just trying to keep the door open or open new doors.
    But one case--and Congressman Chris Smith has a lot to say 
on this specific case. The one time where we did a binding--a 
semi-binding compact, almost like a Millennium Challenge 
Corporation type of thing but on religious freedom, the one 
time was with Vietnam. And Vietnam came off the CPC list 
because they promised to do some things. They had about a year 
or two of progress. They actually went back on the CPC list 
eventually because they reneged on that.
    But there is a case of success.
    Mr. Biggs. OK.
    And I hate to bring this up, but, as one of the witnesses 
has said, words do have consequences, they have meaning. And 
the implication--to call the travel ban a religious travel ban 
continues to be a narrative that actually is a vile lie. That 
narrative is a vile lie.
    The travel ban of 2019 was imposed originally under the 
Obama Administration in 2015. They undertook a great deal of 
study. Fifty nations were included in that original ban, 
including Chad. But after Chad increased its ability for us to 
share and vet people coming in from Chad, Chad was removed from 
that list.
    The Supreme Court addressed this, and they concluded that 
the proclamation was neutral on its face regarding religion and 
applied to people of all faiths.
    So, it undermines one's credibility to continue with this 
pernicious lie.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Appreciate it. 
Appreciate the conversation.
    In 2022, the Anti-Defamation League said there were 3,697 
anti-Semitic incidents in the United States. That was a 36-
percent increase from 2021, just a year before.
    I think it was an excellent decision by President Biden to 
elevate the position of the head of the Special Envoy to 
Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism to an ambassador at large.
    You know, when my Republican colleagues cozy up to neo-
Nazis and the Proud Boys and White supremacist groups----
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I find that 
offensive, that the gentleman would make a broad statement like 
that. And I think that he should back that up with any 
individual but not a broad group. That would be inappropriate 
for me----
    Voice. It is not true.
    Mr. Sessions [continuing]. And untrue----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Do not worry, I am getting to the part you 
will like.
    Mr. Sessions. Well, I do not--perhaps you are. I find it 
offensive that you have used this forum----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Sure, no problem. Donald Trump--Donald Trump 
had dinner with a Holocaust denier at his house. Do you want 
more facts?
    Mr. Sessions. Then use that, sir.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Sure. No problem.
    When my Republican colleagues support a President of the 
United States who is having dinner with a Holocaust denier at 
his house and they remain silent, silence is complicity.
    When there are Nazis----
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Moskowitz. When there are Nazis----
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Grothman. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Moskowitz. I would like my time back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Reclaiming my time----
    Mr. Sessions. Well, I am sure you will get that back.
    Broad statements are inappropriate and are not worthy of 
this hearing.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I know you are in denial that he had dinner 
with a Holocaust----
    Mr. Sessions. I was unaware of it. So, for you to assume--
--
    Mr. Moskowitz. It was national news for, like, a week.
    Mr. Sessions. That matters not.
    What I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is, this hearing 
needs to stay very cordial and very much on the level. And 
attacks like this are exactly why our country is going through 
what we are going through. And----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, there needs to be--there needs to 
be a point of order, actually, on this.
    Mr. Moskowitz. There is no point of order. I----
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I called nobody out, other than the former 
President of the United States, Donald Trump.
    Mr. Sessions. That is not correct, sir. You referred to 
``Republicans.'' That is----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, there needs to be a point of 
order, please.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you please 
admonish the people of this Subcommittee that we are trying to 
make progress together----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, there needs to be a point of 
order.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Yes. And I would like my time back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. We need a point of order.
    You will get your time back. We are not running the clock.
    OK. If there is no point of order, just continue.
    Mr. Moskowitz. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So, I will go back to what I was previously saying, is 
that, when Republican colleagues, not all of them, but some 
Republican colleagues cozy up to neo-Nazis and the Proud Boys 
and White supremacist groups----
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would like for you to 
please----
    Mr. Raskin. Sir, there is no point of order here.
    Mr. Grothman. We need a point of order.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I know this is----
    Mr. Grothman. OK.
    Mr. Moskowitz [continuing]. Uncomfortable, but I want to 
get through this. So, it is just a paragraph, and we will be 
fine. So--so much for free speech.
    When some of my Republican colleagues cozy up to neo-Nazis, 
Proud Boys, and White supremacist groups because they are their 
voters, and when President Trump hosts Holocaust deniers at 
Mar-a-Lago, sometimes we hear silence from our friends on the 
right.
    When Nazis are holding rallies in the streets, when mass 
murderers go into synagogues or grocery stores and have Nazi 
symbols or anti-Semitic dossiers under White nationalism or 
Christian nationalism, we actually do not hear silence; we hear 
denial.
    But do not worry, I want to make this Committee bipartisan. 
Because this is a bipartisan issue. Anti-Semitism is 
bipartisan. And there is plenty of bipartisan silence on what 
is happening to Jews in this country on the left.
    ``Gas the Jews.'' ``Kill the Jews.'' ``Glory to the 
martyrs,'' celebrating Hamas killing innocent people, at GW 
last night, my alma mater. ``Glory to the martyrs''--glory to 
the people that raped women, that killed babies in their cribs, 
glory to those people.
    ``Bring back Hitler.'' ``Jews are not wanted.'' ``No wonder 
the Germans killed them.'' ``Zionism is a mental illness.'' 
``No wonder why Hitler wanted to get rid of them.'' ``Fuck the 
Jews.''
    Posters of children hostages being pulled down all over the 
country. Swastikas coming back, not just at rallies, but people 
are just wearing them. Cheering in the street after rape, 
killing babies. Using rape as a cause of resistance. Burning 
people alive, like they did in concentration camps, to bring 
back the smell of burning Jews.
    We are constantly told that you can be critical of Israel's 
policies without being anti-Semitic--except that is not what we 
are seeing in the street. We are not seeing from the 
progressive left them saying, you know, ``Israel.'' No, they 
are saying ``the Jews,'' right?
    We are constantly told, ``No, no you can criticize a 
country's policies and positions. It is not about a religion. 
It is not about an elimination of people.'' Except that is not 
what they are saying; that is not what they are doing. All 
being done in the cause of ``resistance'' or ``progressive 
values.''
    And, again, while it is not all of my Members, silence from 
the progressive left.
    You know, I get it; Jews do not look like the usual victim. 
We do not look like victims. No, we look more like oppressors. 
And in social media, where everything is, you know, binary--
right?--we do not like complicated arguments--right?--and where 
facts do not matter anymore because folks like Elon Musk took 
away all of the guardrails, and where anti-Semitism and racism 
and hatred is just breeding on social media, it is no wonder 
why what we are seeing now scares the Jewish community, because 
we have not seen this since the Holocaust.
    You know, it is because Jews are subhuman. That is--that is 
what it is. It is a double-standard that is only applied to us.
    And both parties are failing, because you know what? Each 
of them have no problem calling out anti-Semitism when the 
other side does it, right? The Republicans will call out ``the 
squad.'' Democrats will call out, you know, Republican Members 
when they say, you know, Jews and space lasers.
    No, no, we have no problem doing it on the other side, 
because that is easy. Super-easy to criticize the other side. 
No, but it is much harder to do it when it is within your own 
ranks--much harder to do it within your own ranks. That is when 
we see the silence.
    And so--I will conclude, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, Jews have often wondered why it took so long for 
people to come to their aid during the Holocaust, why millions 
of people were slaughtered before people came to their aid. Now 
we know. Now we know why it took so long.
    And we also now know--because we see it in this country, in 
the streets and in the halls of Congress--we now know who those 
people are who would not come to our aid now if that happened 
again.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do appreciate 
the opportunity to talk about this. It is so vitally important.
    There was a Prussian diplomat, Klemens Wenzel Furst--and we 
know him by his last name--von Metternich. And he said that 
when France sneezes the world catches a cold. And now that term 
has been applied to the United States, of course. When we 
sneeze, the world catches a cold.
    So, what we do here really does matter. And it is not just 
for the 340 million people in this country, but it is for 
billions across the world.
    I had a friend of mine in my twenties. He is an American. 
He was born in Iran. His father still lived in Iran. And he 
said he cannot go back because they might press him into 
military service and might punish his father and just take all 
his possessions, after working for 50 years of his life, 
because that is what theocracies, authoritarian theocracies, 
tend to do.
    And it really opened my eyes, as somebody that has 
experienced the blessings and bounties of this country, when we 
have a big moat called the Atlantic and a bigger one called the 
Pacific, and we are protected. And we do not realize that you 
do not have to go back to 1500 or 1000 AD to see this kind of 
religious oppression and persecution. It is happening right 
here in this world in 2023.
    So, we not only live in the right place, we do live in the 
right time. But some people live in the wrong place, and still, 
in 2023, for some folks it is the wrong time.
    Nothing to me is more important than a human being able to 
worship the Almighty to the dictates of their own conscience. I 
think that is why we are all here. That is why it was a little 
upsetting to hear this kind of partisan gutter-politics that 
then morphed into something sane.
    So, what I wanted to do is ask a couple of questions 
about--because I really would hope this would be bipartisan. 
And our office is going to draft a letter that hopefully will 
get Republicans and Democrats to sign on to it.
    So, the International Religious Freedom Act, which allows 
the Secretary of State to designate countries that commit 
systematic and ongoing egregious violations of religious 
freedom, these Countries of Particular Concern, CPCs.
    Mr. Curry, in Afghanistan, if you are born--or, you are 
raised Muslim and you leave that faith, can you face egregious 
consequences?
    Mr. Curry. Absolutely. In many countries, including 
Afghanistan, you are not allowed to change your faith. In some 
countries, you are forced to register and never--you cannot 
choose a faith of your own. But, both culturally and 
politically, it is not allowed in Afghanistan.
    Mr. Fallon. What if somebody wanted to build a--I would ask 
Mr. Patterson, or Dr. Patterson--sorry. If you wanted to build 
a Jewish temple in Kabul today under the Taliban, what do you 
think would happen?
    Mr. Patterson. Yes. Impossible.
    Mr. Fallon. It would not happen.
    Mr. Patterson. And you would probably face the death 
penalty.
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    So that is pretty egregious, wouldn't you all agree?
    Dr. Mobbs? Yes.
    Ms. Tyler, you would agree? Yes.
    Mr. Curry, is Afghanistan designated as a CPC?
    Mr. Curry. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. It is? OK. What other countries would you feel 
are--should be designated and are not?
    Mr. Curry. Well, I think, you know, one country that I 
would highlight for you that has been designated as a CPC but 
has been given waivers would be India.
    This is a country that we want to have strong partnership 
with, we have lots of business relationships with, but, 
surprisingly, this democracy is one of the foremost persecutors 
of religious minorities. Christians and Muslims in India face 
great repression from the political movement there.
    And so, if I could highlight anything as it relates to CPC, 
it is India, countries like it, which are designated but there 
is no teeth to it because the State Department continues to 
waiver--waive the consequences.
    Mr. Fallon. Dr. Mobbs, Russia, of course, is in the news 
every day because of their illegal and grotesque invasion of 
Ukraine.
    Why do you--so the Russian Orthodox Church--Putin, who was 
a secularist for his entire life and then suddenly embraces 
Christianity--why do you think they are persecuting 
particularly Jehovah's Witnesses so severely?
    Ms. Mobbs. I think they are just willing to persecute 
anyone that does not do exactly what he says.
    Mr. Fallon. Just, if you get out of line? So, you could 
be--if you are a Russian Orthodox, is it more just toward just, 
kind of, accentuating the Russian identity and ethnicity?
    Ms. Mobbs. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will yield back.
    Thank you all.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Dr. Patterson, could you summarize the purpose 
of this hearing as it was intended to be held?
    Mr. Patterson. The purpose of the hearing, as I understand 
it, is to look at the national security implications of U.S. 
international religious freedom policy and the state of the 
globe.
    Ms. Porter. OK.
    And Dr. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. That is my understanding as well.
    Ms. Porter. OK.
    So, the summary that I have says, ``This hearing will 
examine the Administration's oversight of assistance to 
organizations promoting religious freedom for oppressed 
religious minorities and others persecuted. The hearing will 
also examine how global religious persecution presents national 
security concerns.''
    So, one of our top goals today is to have the U.S. 
Government stop organizations that persecute religious 
minorities, correct?
    So, if we want the United States to be successful in that, 
we need to understand exactly what religious persecution looks 
like. And many of you have given helpful examples today. I want 
to consider a different example.
    Let us say, like, that an organization creates a list of 
people that it fears is going to commit crimes. And we have 
that organization--that organization says in writing that it is 
not using religious affiliation; it is just about crimes. But 
we see the list, we do the analysis, and we can confirm that 98 
percent of the people on the list are part of a single 
religious minority.
    Dr. Patterson, could that be an example of the type of 
religious persecution that we are trying to prevent with this 
hearing?
    Mr. Patterson. If I understand the parameters of what you 
just said, I think one of the things that we would be concerned 
about was that, as I understand it, you are talking about 
preventing a future wrong by going after this group rather than 
them having committed any crime in the first place. And, of 
course, that is a much larger legal principle, that we do not 
want to go after preventing someone that we might think might 
do something down the road.
    Ms. Porter. And definitely not based on their--if the main 
guiding fact seems to be, to get on this list, being a 
particular religion, as opposed to anything that someone has 
done, we would be concerned about that.
    Dr. Mobbs, what do you think about that? Would you want to 
know more at least?
    Ms. Mobbs. I would want to know more.
    Ms. Porter. OK.
    Ms. Tyler, how about you?
    Ms. Tyler. Yes, I mean, I think that hypothetical talks 
about how one could use religion as a proxy for a security 
threat--which is a way of singling out a single religion for 
government disfavor.
    Ms. Porter. Dr.--Mr. Curry? Excuse me.
    Mr. Curry. As I understand it, yes, I agree.
    Ms. Porter. OK.
    So, at the beginning of this hearing, we said it is the 
United States' duty to do oversight of religious persecution. I 
gave an example that we think could at least raise concerns.
    Let us say we find out that the organization making this 
list is the FBI and that the religious minority is Muslims.
    This is a real-life example. A copy of the FBI's terrorism 
watch list was leaked, and an analysis showed that 98 percent 
of the names on that list are those of Muslim people.
    Now that we have the specifics, are you still--do you still 
think that we should do oversight and the Administration should 
do diligence to make sure that the FBI watch list is targeting 
people based on risk and not on religion?
    Ms. Tyler?
    Ms. Tyler. Absolutely. I think if we are to defend 
religious freedom around the world, we must be sure that our 
government is also defending religious freedom here at home.
    Ms. Porter. Dr. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. Absolutely. Being placed on a list should be 
based on behaviors, predictions, risk analysis, and should not 
be predicated on religion at all.
    Ms. Porter. Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. I concur. And I think it is exactly right 
for Congress to be doing oversight in the first place over the 
executive branch.
    Ms. Porter. Mr. Curry?
    Mr. Curry. Yes.
    Ms. Porter. So, we have a strong consensus here, and I hope 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join with me 
in asking that the Administration would give us more 
information about how they have constructed this list and why 
the list seems to be based on religion, and if it is not true, 
that they are able to explain that and answer that to us.
    We have a duty as a country to do that kind of oversight to 
stop persecution. And we do not have credibility, 
internationally, to take on the kinds of challenges that you 
have described today if we are not doing it here.
    We have heard it today from witnesses, Republican and 
Democrat alike, that religious persecution harms our national 
security. And that is just as true when we may be missing or 
under-identifying national security threats to our own country 
internally because we are using religion as a basis to identify 
people for the terrorism watch list.
    The Committee needs to keep pressing, on a bipartisan 
basis, to do oversight on the FBI's terrorism watch list until 
this issue is fixed or until our questions are answered.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Mr.--oh, first of all, I would like to submit 
for the record three articles here on these topics: one from 
Heritage Society [sic], one from Newsweek, and one from The 
Providence Journal.
    Mr. Grothman. And then Mr. Gosar.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate the Committee's interest in protecting people 
of faith abroad. Sadly, this Administration's persecution of 
Christians here at home strips them of any credibility 
whatsoever in fighting religious discrimination abroad.
    The Department of Justice under this Administration has 
indicted at least 34 people for protesting outside of abortion 
clinics under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. 
Many pro-lifers face years behind bars. One man, Mark Houck, 
was arrested in front of his wife and seven children in an 
unnecessary and brutal raid where FBI agents brandished their 
weapons at the family.
    Multiple FBI field offices worked together to construct a 
memo that encouraged the infiltration and targeting of Catholic 
worshippers.
    The DOJ threatened states that passed laws protecting 
children from mutilation and harmful chemical infusions.
    Biden signed a law last year that perverted the Federal 
definition of marriage.
    The U.S. military refused to grant thousands of brave 
servicemembers a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine.
    Health and Human Services is seeking to limit the ability 
of employers to oppose providing contraceptive coverage for 
religious reasons to refrain from violating their conscience.
    January 6 prisoners have claimed that Federal prison 
officials have prevented them from attending religious 
services.
    Meanwhile, rioters have destroyed property to the tune of 
$2 billion in the ``summer of love,'' and pro-abortion 
terrorists who firebombed pro-life pregnancy centers roam free.
    This Administration should start with itself when it comes 
to eradicating religious freedom.
    Now, a question.
    Mr. Curry, does the persecution of Christians here at home 
by this Administration undermine the ability of advocates to 
help prosecuted Christians abroad?
    Mr. Curry. Congressman, I am sorry. I beg your pardon. My 
expertise is on international persecution. I would----
    Mr. Gosar. Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. Would you mind saying the question one more 
time.
    Mr. Gosar. Yes. Does the persecution of Christians here at 
home by this Administration undermine the ability of advocates 
to help persecuted Christians abroad?
    Mr. Patterson. I would say that the persecution of people 
of faith at home does undermine our efforts abroad.
    Mr. Gosar. Would with you agree, Dr. Mobbs.
    Ms. Mobbs. I would agree, yes.
    Mr. Gosar. Ukraine has taken procedural steps to ban their 
Ukrainian Orthodox Church over alleged ties to Russia. 
Zelenskyy has sanctioned several leaders of the Church of 
Ukraine. Ukraine's Constitutional Court unilaterally changed 
the name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. A government body 
meddling in the affairs of a church to the extent of renaming 
should be utterly anathema to any person of goodwill.
    A Christianity Today article from just a couple days ago 
claims that the Ukrainian national police, known as the SBU, 
have accused 68 Church of Ukraine priests of collaboration, 
treason, and other offenses. The Ukrainian citizenship of 20 of 
these priests was revoked.
    Are you concerned, Dr. Mobbs, that the Ukrainian Government 
is violating the religious liberty of its citizens.
    Ms. Mobbs. I would say, anytime you have any violation of 
anyone's religious liberties, we should be concerned.
    Mr. Gosar. How about you, Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. I agree with that statement.
    Mr. Gosar. Since it is international, Mr. Curry.
    Mr. Curry. Yes. Both the Russian side and the Ukrainian 
side are using religion as a wedge, and it is unacceptable.
    Mr. Gosar. I see the same thing. You are exactly right.
    The Ukrainian Security Service orchestrated a raid on the 
Russian Orthodox Christian monastery in Kyiv in November 2022. 
Is this what a democratic country that respects the freedom of 
religion looks like?
    Dr. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. Unfortunately, I do not know anything about that 
raid, sir.
    Mr. Gosar. OK.
    How about you, Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. I do not know about that specific case.
    Mr. Gosar. No? OK.
    Well, the Media Research Center recently broke a story 
detailing how the Department of Homeland Security approved of a 
grant to Dayton College under a program meant to fight all 
forms of terrorism and targeted violence. Money from the grant 
was used to produce a seminar where a DHS agent included the 
Christian Broadcasting Network, along with other conservative 
entities like The Heritage and FOX News, in a ``pyramid of far-
right radicalization.'' Another presenter of this group was an 
Antifa member, who admitted proudly that his group often breaks 
the law.
    I am curious to get the panel's take on how protecting 
religious freedom at home will complement congressional and 
executive pressures to protect the people of faith abroad.
    Could you comment on that, Dr. Mobbs?
    Ms. Mobbs. I think that it is very clear that what we do 
here echoes elsewhere. So, in order for us to be a model around 
the world, we have to ensure that we are doing what we say we 
are doing here at home, which is allowing religious freedom and 
protecting all of the constitutional rights enshrined in our 
Constitution.
    Mr. Gosar. How about you, Dr. Patterson?
    Mr. Patterson. I agree with that statement. And it is 
particularly worrying when people glorify lawlessness and 
violence as if that is somehow something that is positive. We 
cannot hand that on to our children.
    Mr. Gosar. Well, I applaud the lady from--the gentlelady 
from California, because she is right on target with where this 
needs to go. Because we have to look at home as well as abroad. 
And our law enforcement agencies are no dissimilar person; they 
have to be looked at very intensely.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I thank our witnesses for being here.
    I want to give a little bit of a perspective from an 
American Jew right now, from New York City, which has the 
highest population of Jews, outside of Israel, in the world.
    What happened on October 7 was an effort by an extremist 
jihadist terrorist organization to kill as many Jews as 
possible. And for someone like me, who has grown up in this 
country, hearing about stories of the Holocaust, stories of the 
pogroms in Europe from which my grandmother escaped to come to 
the United States, it has always been historical. But, today, 
we are living with the reality of the same thing.
    And it is difficult being a Jew in America right now. There 
are mass protests against Jews who suffered from a terrorist 
attack. There are dramatically increased threats. And, in many 
ways, it feels very isolating.
    And so, in large respect, I appreciate having this hearing 
today, because we do need to make sure that we are addressing 
the persecution and discrimination and hate against all 
religious groups.
    And I appreciate that my colleague from Arizona raised some 
issues in terms of some of the Christian groups, but obviously 
it is not limited to Christians. There is horrific anti-
Semitism and there is horrific Islamophobia that is going on, 
including the awful, awful murder of a 6-year-old Palestinian-
American boy in Illinois.
    And, Dr. Patterson, I think your statement is right; we 
cannot pass this on to our children.
    And so, I am grateful that you are all here to discuss what 
has to be a unified anti-hate platform among all religions, 
among all ethnicities, among all races, so that we get back to 
the foundational principles of this country and of this great 
democracy--that we are all created equal, and we all have an 
opportunity to succeed and to thrive regardless of our 
religion.
    I want to ask just a couple of questions, Ms. Tyler, 
because this is a global fight, but it is obviously also a 
domestic fight, and there is domestic extremism that we are now 
seeing on both sides.
    And I am curious what you think we can do in Congress to 
assist the Administration's efforts to ensure that people of 
faith are free to worship without fear of attack here in the 
United States.
    Ms. Tyler. I mean, I think it starts with the rhetoric that 
is used in Congress. I think that people follow what they hear 
here.
    And so, it is important that we as a country live up to the 
values that we have established in our Constitution and also in 
who we are as a people--that we do not use rhetoric that 
dehumanizes other people, that we do not claim that God is on 
the side of any--of any side of any war, and that we take care 
of civilians and we do not equate civilians with the 
governments of their countries.
    And I think any attempt to try to use religion or religious 
people to justify a particular government policy has the 
ability to, first, harm religion but, also, to spread violence 
and hatred in the country. And so, I think that Congress has a 
very important role to play, both in debate that happens here 
and also in the instructions and the oversight that Congress 
plays with the administration.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you for that thoughtful response.
    And, Mr. Curry, in my last few seconds: Because of your 
expertise in the international realm, I am curious how you 
think or how you perceive domestic religious extremism and 
discrimination has an impact abroad.
    Mr. Curry. I think anytime we look at international 
religious freedom, what I am trying to do is hold up the 
international standard that people have the freedom to 
associate, to choose their own faith, and to practice it 
freely. I would say that standard should hold for us, as well, 
here.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    I think what I am going to do is--we will just go to 
closing statements.
    Mr. Garcia, do you want to say anything?
    Mr. Garcia. No. I just want to thank the witnesses again.
    But I do want to just reiterate the point earlier that I 
think the Biden Administration is and the State Department is 
rebuilding a lot of these programs. I do want to commend them 
for calling out, particularly at this really difficult moment, 
anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and all the attacks on other 
minorities happening across the world in countries.
    So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you.
    I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.
    I wish we would have spent a little bit more time focusing 
on Americans' involvement in what are normally religious 
matters in other countries.
    I once met a woman here, who was appointed by President 
Trump, who felt that the pushing of, let us say, a Planned 
Parenthood agenda in Africa was largely racially driven but was 
certainly opposed by the primarily Christian churches in Africa 
at the time.
    I think Dr. Patterson--I wish I would time to do a followup 
question, but--pointed out that apparently some loans that 
Western--or, the United States was giving out, as opposed to 
Chinese loans, were conditioned upon things that were sometimes 
against religious beliefs held in these third-world countries.
    We have talked about the concern in Hungary for kind of an 
anti-traditional Christian worldview held by the United States. 
I think there were some kind of outlandish statements made by 
people on the other side.
    But right now, I think we are seeing around the world anti-
Semitism, but, to a certain extent, an anti-Semitism born of 
kind of an anti-Western world view. And for whatever reason, 
young people, very disturbingly, are drawn into that, for 
whatever psychological reason. I think I saw kids with T-shirts 
that were just shocking in our own Cannon Building the other 
day. You know, kind of hard to believe why young people would 
be drawn into this, but I think there is kind of a self-hatred 
toward Western values here that young people are drawn to.
    But, in any event, I encourage people to pay a little bit 
more attention to the United States. They are getting involved 
in what are normally religious issues or religious beliefs in 
other countries. And I think that there is an element of kind 
of an atheistic, humanistic world view that is kind of becoming 
the official religion of some people around the United States, 
and that is a horrible thing.
    But, in any event, I know you guys took a lot of time out 
of your busy days to be here today, so thank you one more time.
    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                             [all]