The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“URGING RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO WITHDRAW LEGISLATION RESTRICTING ESTABLISHMENT OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H11621-H11624 on Dec. 14, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
URGING RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO WITHDRAW LEGISLATION RESTRICTING
ESTABLISHMENT OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) urging the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations, and activities of domestic and foreign nongovernmental organizations in the Russian Federation, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 312
Whereas Russian Federation President Putin has stated that
``modern Russia's greatest achievement is the democratic process (and) the achievements of our civil society'';
Whereas the unobstructed establishment and free and autonomous operations and activities of nongovernmental organizations and a robust civil society free from excessive government control are central and indispensable elements of a democratic society;
Whereas the free and autonomous operations of nongovernmental organizations in any society necessarily encompass activities, including political activities, that may be contrary to government policies;
Whereas domestic, international, and foreign nongovernmental organizations are crucial in assisting the Russian Federation and the Russian people in tackling the many challenges they face, including in such areas as education, infectious diseases, and the establishment of a flourishing democracy;
Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation has proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations, and activities of domestic, international, and foreign nongovernmental organizations in the Russian Federation, including erecting unprecedented barriers to foreign assistance;
Whereas the State Duma of the Russian Federation is considering the first draft of such legislation;
Whereas the restrictions in the first draft of this legislation would impose disabling restraints on the establishment, operations, and activities of nongovernmental organizations and on civil society throughout the Russian Federation, regardless of the stated intent of the Government of the Russian Federation;
Whereas the stated concerns of the Government of the Russian Federation regarding the use of nongovernmental organizations by foreign interests and intelligence agencies to undermine the Government of the Russian Federation and the security of the Russian Federation as a whole can be fully addressed without imposing disabling restraints on nongovernmental organizations and on civil society;
Whereas there is active debate underway in the Russian Federation over concerns regarding such restrictions on nongovernmental organizations;
Whereas the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly play a central role in the system of checks and balances that are prerequisites for a democracy;
Whereas the first draft of the proposed legislation has already passed its first reading in the State Duma;
Whereas President Putin has indicated his desire for changes in the first draft that would ``correspond more closely to the principles according to which civil society functions''; and
Whereas Russia's destiny and the interests of her people lie in her assumption of her rightful place as a full and equal member of the international community of democracies: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) urges the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw the first draft of the proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations, and activities of domestic, international, and foreign nongovernmental organizations in the Russian Federation, or to modify the proposed legislation to entirely remove these restrictions; and
(2) in the event that the first draft of the proposed legislation is not withdrawn, urges the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly to modify the legislation to ensure the unobstructed establishment and free and autonomous operations and activities of such nongovernmental organizations in accordance with the practices universally adopted by democracies, including the provisions regarding foreign assistance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Con. Res. 312, introduced by the very distinguished chairman of our full committee, Chairman Henry Hyde, urging the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have a chilling effect on civil society in that country.
Amazingly, as Russia prepares to assume leadership of the G-8 and the Council of Europe next month, Russian lawmakers have been working feverishly to subordinate pockets of independent thought and action to state control. The focus of recent days has been on nongovernmental organizations, especially those working in the fields of human rights and democracy. In essence, the provisions would require all nongovernmental organizations to re-register with a government commission empowered with invasive powers to monitor NGO activities.
The Duma has passed amendments to the Law on Public Associations by a vote of 370-18, but the measure must go through further readings scheduled for next week and signed then by Vladimir Putin before it becomes law. In mid- November, members of the Helsinki Commission, which I am cochair of, sent a letter which I will make a part of the Record to the Speaker of the Russian Duma, Boris Gryzlov, urging the Duma to reject the pending proposed amendments, purportedly crafted with input from Putin's advisers.
The move against NGOs, Mr. Speaker, is not occurring in a vacuum, but is calculated to move in a lead-up to the critical parliamentary elections that are scheduled for 2007 and a presidential contest the following year to replace Putin, who is prevented from seeking another term.
In response to expressions of concern from the United States and others, some modifications to the draft are apparently being considered, though it is still unclear the extent to which the amendments will be revamped. We will not have a full picture until next week. By then, it may be too late to change before landing on President Putin's desk. Thus, consideration of Chairman Hyde's measure comes at a critical time for the House to be on record opposing the burdensome compulsory registration requirements being proposed.
As originally drafted, the proposed amendments will require Russia's approximately 450,000 NGOs to re-register with a government commission under a complicated registration procedure and would expand the ability of the government to deny registration permission.
Financial auditing, a tactic currently used to harass opposition NGOs, would also become more intrusive under the bill's provisions. No doubt there would be negative impact on foreign-based organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and the Carnegie Foundation, while increasing controls over NGOs of Russian origin.
Mr. Speaker, whatever package of amendments to the legal framework for NGOs in Russia finally emerges, they must be evaluated in light of that country's commitments as a member of the Council of Europe and participating state in the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe. Do the proposals under consideration in the Russian Duma fully respect the right of individuals to freedom of association, or do they undermine that fundamental freedom under the guise of fighting corruption and terrorism? That is the key question. This resolution gets us on record, and hopefully it will have some sway with the Duma and with President Putin.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter I referred to earlier to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma, Boris Gryzlov.
Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2005.Hon. Boris Gryzlov,Chairman, Russian State Duma, 2 Okhotny Ryad, Moscow, Russian
Federation.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As Members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, we urge you to seek rejection of the proposed amendments to the Law on Public Associations pending in the State Duma that would have a chilling effect on civil society in the Russian Federation, including the functioning of non-governmental organizations focused on human rights and democracy.
These proposals would seriously undermine the rights of individuals in Russia to freedom of association, subordinating this fundamental right to excessive and intrusive control by organs of the state. Besides apparent conflicts with provisions of the Russian Constitution, these burdensome compulsory registration requirements run counter to numerous international commitments concerning the right of individuals to form, join and participate effectively in nongovernmental organizations, including longstanding OSCE provisions. If adopted, these proposals would jeopardize the very existence of a number of well-established human rights NGOs, cripple the non-governmental sector and undermine effective public oversight of governmental activity and policy. History has shown that a vibrant civil society and economically prosperous nation cannot long withstand such intellectual stagnation.
Under the guise of fighting corruption and terrorism, the amendments would in fact deal a potential death blow to Russian civil society, reversing important advances made since the institution of glasnost. Enhanced enforcement of the existing criminal code should suffice to address any genuine security concerns. Indeed, the pending proposals reflect an attitude toward independent political activity that is reminiscent of Russia's Soviet past. Adoption of these amendments would send a particularly negative signal at a time when Russia is preparing to assume leadership of the G-8 and the Council of Europe.
Mr. Chairman, we know that you and your colleagues aspire to a democratic and prosperous Russia, and trust that you recognize that further restrictions on civil society would lead Russia away from that goal.
Sincerely,Christopher H. Smith, M.C.,
Co-Chairman.Sam Brownback, U.S.S.,
Chairman.Benjamin L. Cardin, M.C.,
Ranking Member.Frank R. Wolf, M.C.,
Commissioner.Joseph R. Pitts, M.C.,
Commissioner.Mike Pence, M.C.,
Commissioner.Christopher J. Dodd, U.S.S.,
Ranking Member.Russell D. Feingold, U.S.S.,
Commissioner.Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S.S.,
Commissioner.Mike McIntyre, M.C.,
Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend, the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, for introducing this resolution of which I am the principal Democratic cosponsor. I also want to thank my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his strong support.
Mr. Speaker, under Vladimir Putin, Russia is marching back towards its totalitarian past. It has rejected democratic institutions, undermined democratic procedures, and reversed the progress made as the Cold War came to an end. Not long ago, the world looked with hope and optimism towards the emergence of a truly democratic Russia, but then Putin came to power. Under Putin, the Kremlin first focused its attention on stifling independent television, restricting open, free and unrestricted news coverage. That was followed by a heavy-handed effort to intimidate the business community.
The leaders of Russia's largest, most successful and most transparent private corporation, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, were arrested on trumped-up charges, held in prison for many months, put in a cage and tried before a kangaroo court. Then they were sentenced to draconian prison terms and are serving as we meet here tonight in Siberia. Shades of the gulag.
The latest and in many ways one of the most insidious steps is an effort that will take Russia back to the era of the czars and the commissars: legislation was recently introduced in the Russian Duma that would severely restrict the establishment or the activities of domestic and foreign nongovernmental organizations within Russia.
Mr. Speaker, in countries around the globe, civil society is promoted by nongovernmental organizations, some domestic and some international. They foster the values and the virtues that are key to any modern society, limited government, democratic elections and the rule of law and respect for human rights. They promote free association and freedom of expression. They encourage the conditions that are essential for open market-oriented economies. They promote assistance for the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled. Such organizations foster political pluralism, individual liberty, and the rights of individual men and women.
{time} 2215
Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today was introduced by my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I was pleased to join him as the principal Democratic sponsor.
Our resolution is timely, and it is important. It urges the Russian government to withdraw proposed legislation that would restrict and limit the activities of nongovernmental organizations in Russia. It is in Russia's own interest to have a vigorous and energetic civil society to contribute to the richness and to the diversity of the country.
Mr. Speaker, Russia would like to be treated and to be seen as a leading democratic nation. It wants to be considered a member of the group of industrialized democracies. Putin wants to host the next round of meetings of the G-7 in St. Petersburg, but this is an organization to which Russia, marching towards authoritarianism, does not properly belong.
Russia is not an advanced industrial democracy. It is a resource-rich country whose economy is kept afloat by crude oil and natural gas revenues. As the actions of the Putin government continue to demonstrate, it certainly is not a democracy.
Mr. Speaker, our resolution is a warning to the government of Russia that it is taking a dangerous and counter-productive course, a course that is destructive of the goals that the government and its people seek. As the text of our resolution notes, ``Russia's destiny and the interests of her people lie in her assumption of her rightful place as a full and equal member of the Western community of democracies,'' but the proposed NGO legislation is ``incompatible with membership in that community.''
Let me also add, Mr. Speaker, that just recently we were profoundly disturbed that Russia agreed to sell to Iran, clearly the number one terrorist-supporting nation on the face of this planet, sophisticated air defense equipment. This is clearly not the action of a democratic and pro-Western society.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his eloquence on this matter.
I have been to Russia many, many times, and I believe it is always in the interest of peace between our two countries for us to keep an active dialogue, even on matters that are very difficult.
H. Con. Res. 312 urges the government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations and activities of foreign NGO's in the Russian Federation.
I would agree that there are many NGO's that do great work in civil society and peace and human rights, in workers rights, in the environment and in health care, but there are also some bad apples in the bunch, and we cannot ignore that. If the Russian government were, for example, to be looking at the role that the National Endowment for Democracy played in the April 2002 coup of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Russian government would have good reason to oppose foreign NGOs in their country.
The State Department's Richard Boucher acknowledged that the Bush administration provided ``funding to groups that promote democracy and strengthen civil society in Venezuela and around the globe.'' He further stated that the funds are ``for the benefit of democracy, not to support any particular political faction.''
According to the New York Times, the organization ``funneled more than $877,000 into Venezuelan opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt.'' More than $150,000 went to
``a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.'' That is from the New York Times.
The National Endowment for Democracy, over the years, has actively worked to destabilize governments in Central America and Eastern Europe. According to a book by former State Department employee, William Blum, entitled, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, the NED ``played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy Project Democracy network, which privatized U.S. foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other equally charming activities.''
So we in the United States have legitimate complaints about a variety of conditions in the Russian Federation and in other countries around the world, but I question whether we have the right to encourage the channeling of funds into NGOs who work as instruments of U.S. foreign policy. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to present this.
I have been to Russia many, many times and I believe it is always in the interest of peace between our two countries for us to keep on active dialogue.
H. Con. Res. 312, which urges the Government of the Russian Federation to withdraw or modify proposed legislation that would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations, and activities of domestic and foreign NGOs in the Russian Federation.
While there are many NGOs that do great work in civil society, in working rights, in peace, in environment, in human rights, in health care, there are some bad apples of the bunch and we cannot ignore that. If the Russian government were to look at, for example, the role that the National Endowment for Democracy played in the April 2002 coup of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Russian government would have good reason to oppose foreign NGOs in their country.
The State Department's Richard Boucher acknowledged that the Bush administration provided ``funding to groups that promote democracy and strengthen civil society in Venezuela and around the globe.'' He further stated that the funds ``are for the benefit of democracy, not to support any particular political faction.''
According to the New York Times, the organization ``funneled more than $877,000 into Venezuela opposition groups in the weeks and months before the recently aborted coup attempt.'' More than $150,000 went to
``a Venezuelan labor union that led the opposition work stoppages and worked closely with Pedro Carmona Estanga, the businessman who led the coup.''
The National Endowment for Democracy, over the years, has actively worked to destabilize governments in Central America and Eastern Europe.
According to a book by former State Department employee, William Blum, entitled Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower the NED ``played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy Project Democracy network, which privatized U.S. foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other equally charming activities.''
So we in the United States have legitimate complaints about a variety of conditions in the Russian Federation and in other countries around the world, we do not have the right to channel funds into NGOs who work as instruments of U.S. foreign policy.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), this is a Hyde-Lantos bill, for his leadership on this bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 312, to urge the Russian Government to alter or withdraw the proposed legislation affecting nongovernmental organizations, NGO's, operating in Russia. The Russian legislation would severely restrict foreign assistance to NGO's in Russia and would also force existing Russian NGO's to reregister with the government.
The draft Russian bill raises a number of serious concerns, and may violate Russia's commitments to the OSCE. Several hundred thousand nongovernmental organizations currently operate in Russia, representing all sections of society. By forcing all NGO's to reregister, the Russian Government will have the power to subjectively deny registration to some organizations and limit the activities of others. This legislation strikes at the heart of basic democratic freedoms: the right of individuals to freely associate and participate in society. Some of the provisions in this bill would also increase the oversight of financial auditing of NGO's, which the government could use to place restrictions on opposition groups.
Just months ago, the Russian President Vladimir Putin outlawed any foreign funding of political parties in Russia. This legislation goes further and affects human rights groups and other NGO's who are only seeking to improve the nature of Russia's civil society. Foreign organizations would be required to register as legal Russian entities, seriously hindering their attempts to promote democracy and accountability in Russia. Many organizations which have conducted prominent and important human rights work in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union would see their activities curtailed under the Russian bill, which may lead to the partial or complete closure of critical offices inside of Russia.
Last month, the State Duma in Russia approved the first reading of the bill by 370 to 18 votes, despite more than 1,000 NGO's appealing for the Duma to reject it. This Friday, December 16, the Duma has scheduled a second reading of the bill. As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission, I have worked closely with Commission Cochairman Chris Smith in opposition to this bill. The Helsinki Commission sent a bipartisan, bicameral letter in November--which I cosigned--to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma urging the rejection of this legislation. In particular, the letter emphasized the importance that nongovernmental organizations play in civil society and in fulfilling Russia's obligations as a democratic state and member of the international community.
Russia has made great strides since the end of the Cold War. There were serious concerns that Russia would not have a smooth transition to a fully functioning democracy. I am gravely concerned about recent developments in Russia. President Putin himself has said that ``modern Russia's greatest achievement is the democratic process (and) the achievements of civil society''. I therefore call on President Putin and the State Duma to be true to their word and reject this bill, to reaffirm their commitment to the democratic process and civil society.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reichert). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 312, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________
