[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  PRESIDENT YELTSIN'S ANTICRIME DECREE

                                 ______


                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 29, 1994

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Russian President Boris Yeltsin recently 
called his country a ``superpower of crime.'' On June 14, he moved to 
combat this growing menace, by issuing a decree that, among other 
things, authorizes 30-day police detentions, empowers the police to 
enter premises and seize documents, and permits the introduction of 
special control in regions particularly ravaged by criminals.
  The urgency of the measure is understandable. Statistics from the 
Ministry of Internal Affairs about crime in Russia, especially street 
crime and the upsurge of brazen murders, make chilling reading. Even 
more alarming, however, are reports about organized crime taking over 
control of the economy, monopolizing the benefits of privatization, 
demanding protection money from entrepreneurs, and, through its close 
ties with corrupt government officials, beginning in some respects 
actually to displace the state. Yeltsin has described crime and 
corruption as the gravest threat to Russian statehood. Considering the 
scope of the danger and the relative weakness of the law enforcement 
apparatus, it would seem that extraordinary methods are in order.
  But these types of measures, imposed by decree, are more typical of a 
police state, rather than a society premised on rule of law. Virtually 
all of Russia's political parties--even Russia's Choice, which is most 
supportive of Yeltsin--strongly oppose the initiative, claiming that it 
violates the constitution, threatens human rights and foreshadows a 
future crackdown on political pluralism and hard-won liberties in the 
name of battling an omnipresent criminal enemy. Last week, the Russian 
Duma voted by a huge margin for a resolution urging Yeltsin to suspend 
his decree, which, omniously, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, chairman of the 
ludicrously misnamed ``Liberal Democratic Party,'' backs fully.

  Everyone acknowledges that Russia's authorities must act against 
crime, but it is preferable to govern by law than by presidential 
decree. Russia's parliamentarians, rather than merely objecting to 
Yeltsin's measures, should quickly craft anticrime legislation that 
attacks the problem while safeguarding basic human rights. Crime in 
Russia threatens all branches of government; this should be one area 
where the executive and legislative branches, and a frightened society, 
can cooperate instead of seeking advantage.
  Russia lacks laws like RICOH, which have proved so useful in this 
country. The U.S. legislative experience, which has had success against 
organized crime in recent years, could be helpful in this respect, and 
we should offer our assistance. But nothing will work if Russia's law 
enforcement apparatus remains underpaid, susceptible to bribes or 
threats from criminals, poorly trained and armed, and sees no civic 
value or personal benefit in protecting society from hoodlums. Unless a 
sense of order can be restored in Russia--in a legal manner--Russia's 
experiment with democracy could well fail, with consequences that would 
be disastrous not only for Russia.

                          ____________________