Bill Overview
Title: To hold accountable senior officials of the Government of the People's Republic of China who are responsible for or have directly carried out, at any time, persecution of Christians or other religious minorities in China, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should promote religious freedom in China and makes statements of policy related to such freedom. In particular, the bill states that it is U.S. policy to consider senior Chinese government officials who are responsible for the persecution of Christians or other religious minorities in China to have committed (1) a gross violation of internationally recognized human rights for the purpose of imposing certain sanctions, and (2) a particularly severe violation of religious freedom for the purpose of determining whether such an individual is admissible into the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO-4]
Target Audience
Population: Religious minorities in China experiencing persecution
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill targets senior officials in the Chinese government responsible for the persecution of religious minorities.
- The primary impact of this bill is related to sanctions and visa restrictions, which primarily affect Chinese officials.
- The population indirectly protected or advocated for by this bill includes religious minorities in China, such as Christians, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and Falun Gong practitioners.
- There are an estimated 36-44 million Christians in China, and additional millions of other religious minorities including up to 12 million Muslims (Uighurs included).
- The bill might also affect family and associates of these officials who might face travel restrictions to the US.
Reasoning
- The target population in the US for this policy includes advocates for international religious freedom, and potentially Chinese Americans with ties to persecuted religious minorities in China.
- This policy primarily affects US domestic population indirectly, through social and psychological impacts rather than direct economic or health impacts.
- Expectations of the policy's effectiveness in curbing human rights abuses among international religious freedom advocates could influence their self-reported wellbeing, hence some might perceive a sense of satisfaction or validation from the policy.
- Given the budget constraints, the primary focus remains diplomatic and policy-related efforts. This means the impact is more symbolic or psychological than material.
Simulated Interviews
Human Rights Advocate (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe that the US should take a firm stance against persecution regardless of the budgetary constraints.
- This policy could set an important precedent for international human rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Pastor (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The announced policy is a step in the right direction to protect religious freedom.
- I hope this leads to real change for those persecuted in China.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this policy change will make a significant impact.
- It can be frustrating to see slow action even though it sends a message.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Diplomat (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is important, but without concrete actions, it might not change on-the-ground realities for persecuted groups.
- Support from other international players is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Academic Researcher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Symbolically, this policy signals a commitment by the US to religious freedom.
- Measuring the effectiveness of such policies is challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Social Worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For many families, policies like these offer some reassurance, though immediate impact is minimal.
- We need more grass-root support to bring about change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a chance for solidarity with Christians abroad.
- It's good, but we should be ready to push for more action.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Meaningful implementation may require broader international cooperation.
- Policies like these are needed but must be accompanied by diplomatic efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Businessman (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy has potential but I'm skeptical about its real impact without broader action.
- It's a start, but there's a long way to go.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Non-Profit Organizer (Denver, CO)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these show commitment to religious freedom, which is encouraging.
- Still, practical support for refugees is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- International diplomatic relations with China may be strained due to this policy.
- Monitoring and targeting specific foreign individuals offers complex challenges in enforcement.
- Public perception of U.S. stance on human rights and religious freedom can influence soft power.