[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28391-28394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     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;

[[Page 28392]]

       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.

[[Page 28393]]

  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

[[Page 28394]]

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.

                          ____________________