|
LOBBYING REPORT |
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page
2. Address
Address1 | 42020 Village Center Plaza |
Address2 | Suite 120-200 |
City | Stone Ridge |
State | VA |
Zip Code | 20105 |
Country | USA |
3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2)
City | Chantilly |
State | VA |
Zip Code | 20152 |
Country | USA |
|
5. Senate ID# 91650-12
|
||||||||
|
6. House ID# 368070000
|
TYPE OF REPORT | 8. Year | 2016 |
Q1 (1/1 - 3/31) | Q2 (4/1 - 6/30) | Q3 (7/1 - 9/30) | Q4 (10/1 - 12/31) |
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report | Termination Date |
|
11. No Lobbying Issue Activity |
INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12. Lobbying | 13. Organizations | ||||||||
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period was: | EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying related income for the client (including all payments to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client). | 14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See instructions for description of options. | ||||||||
Method A.
Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code |
Signature | Digitally Signed By: Greg Mitchell |
Date | 1/23/2017 5:30:47 PM |
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code FOR
16. Specific lobbying issues
On behalf of 73 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter in support of H.R. 1150, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, made contacts in support of a swift markup and passage of H.R. 1150 out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; then in support of Senate passage; and finally in support of House passage of the amended version passed by the Senate. H.R. 1150 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 7; passed out of the Senate on December 10; and passed out of the House on December 13. The President of the United States signed it into law on December 16, 2016.
We believe H.R. 1150 strengthens IRFA at a critical time when assaults on religious freedom around the world are systemic and growing. In fact, the current state of international religious freedom is one of deepening crisis-according to the Pew Research Centers latest annual study on global restrictions on religion, 74% of the worlds population live in countries with a high or very high overall level of restriction on religion.
We must work to create a context where people can peacefully live with their deepest differences. The turmoil and bloodshed in Syria, Iraq and Nigeria-including the Islamic States genocide against Christians, Yazidis, Shia Muslims, Turkmen (Shia), Shabak and others-offers the latest examples of what happens if we do not.
The Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act would:
Give the Administration and the State Department new political tools, strengthen the standing of the International Religious Freedom Office and the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom by making clear that the Ambassador reports directly to the Secretary of State.
Clarify the Ambassador-at-Larges role in distributing project grants to protect religious freedom globally.
Create a Special Watch List and automatic downgrade to a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for states on the list for three straight years.
Clarify that CPC designations will occur annually.
Require designation of non-state actors as Entities of Particular Concern.
Direct the President to focus sanctions on individuals who carry out or order religious restrictions.
Set a floor at 25 full-time employees in the International Religious Freedom Office.
Require curriculum for training all Foreign Service Officers in the strategic value of international religious freedom.
Prioritize IRF programming for groups that seek to strengthen investigations, reporting, and monitoring of religious freedom violations, including genocide.
The passage and implementation of H.R. 1150 will result in a strengthened IRFA, as well the integration of this foundational human right into U.S. foreign policy and national security strategies. In so doing, the United States will send a clear and urgent message regarding the inherent dignity of every human being, while advancing global security in the fight against persecution, religious extremism and terrorism. This legislation is consistent with the best of our values, and has the added benefit of practically protecting our national interests as well.
On behalf of 31 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of House Resolution 290, a bi-partisan measure that promotes the rights to freedom of religion, belief and expression by calling for the global repeal of blasphemy laws.
We all agree that blasphemy laws are antithetical to modern, prosperous societies, and must be abolished worldwide. Blasphemy laws are used to silence internal critics and alternative interpretations of the faith of the majority religious community, causing minority religious groups and the non-religious to suffer terribly. In an era when fundamentalist religious belief is leading to terror attacks and armed struggles throughout the world, it is more important than ever that we protect freedom of religion and belief. Blasphemy laws do precisely the opposite.
H. Res 290 recognizes that many countries have blasphemy laws that punish expression deemed blasphemous and that blasphemy laws are inconsistent with international human rights standards, as they protect beliefs over individuals and often result in violations of the freedoms of religion and expression.
The resolution also:
Calls upon the President and State Department to make the repeal of blasphemy laws a priority in its bilateral relationships with all countries that have such laws through direct interventions in capitals and multilateral fora;
Encourages the President and State Department to oppose any efforts at the United Nations or other international or multilateral fora to create an international anti-blasphemy norm, or to expand the international norm on incitement to include blasphemy or defamation of religions;
Urges the President and State Department to designate Pakistan and Egypt each as a country of particular concern under the International Religious Freedom Act for perpetrating and tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom; and
Urges the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries to amend or repeal their blasphemy laws, to release unconditionally persons imprisoned on charges of blasphemy and, once released, ensure their safety and that of their families.
Blasphemy laws and similar restrictions on speech regarding religion exist in at least 44 countries, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew has also found that countries with laws against blasphemy, and apostasy were more likely to have high government restrictions on religion, as well as social hostilities based on religion, than countries that do not have such laws.
The United States government is in a unique position to promote the rights to freedom of religion, belief, and expression around the world. This country was founded on respect for the principles of religious freedom and tolerance for difference of opinion, and as a leader in the global community we have a moral duty to advance these principles around the world. Congress in particular can play a significant role in promoting freedom of religion, belief, and expression around the world by passing H. Res 290, which would bring more attention to the troubling use of blasphemy laws and related measures, place deserved attention on worst offenders, and press the administration to make their repeal a more central focus of their foreign policy.
On behalf of 93 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts to express our deep concern about Federal Laws № 374-ФЗ and 375-ФЗ, On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to establish additional measures to counter terrorism and ensure public safety (the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law); and to urge U.S. government leaders to engage the Russian government and urge its leaders to ensure the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law is not used against peaceful spiritual groups.
The Federal Anti-Terrorism Law further restricts religious freedom. We are particularly concerned about the amendments that introduce an entire new section to the Religion Law, imposing strict limits on sharing beliefs, including where and who may share them, and increase extremism punishments.
We are aware of the fact that Russia has to be vigilant in order to prevent extremism, violence and terrorism. But you must fully consider and understand the impact of these amendments on social cohesion and national security. The need to counter violent extremism is pressing, but cracking down on religious freedom is a dangerous and counterproductive response.
This conclusion is increasingly bolstered by empirical research. An exhaustive study by academics from Harvard, Notre Dame and Georgetown found that religious communities are most likely to support democracy, peace and freedom for other faiths, and least likely to take up the gun or form dictatorships, when governments allow them freedom to worship, practice and express their faiths freely and when religious communities in turn renounce their claims to permanent offices or positions of policy-making authority. Dr. Brian Grim, a noted expert on society, the economy and religion, has found a strong correlation between government restrictions on religion and religiously-motivated violence.
Further, the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law poses threats to the fundamental human rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by Russias Constitution and its international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) human dimension commitments, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
When evaluated within these legal frameworks, the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law raises a number of serious problems. It restricts the dissemination of beliefs in public to registered groups and organizations, and bars even informal sharing of beliefs by individuals acting on their own behalf. Perhaps most concerning, it restricts the beliefs that can be shared, limits the places where sharing beliefs can happen and explicitly bans sharing beliefs in residential buildings, "except as provided for by Article 16, Part 2 of [the Religion Law]." Article 16, Part 2, states that worship services and other religious rites and ceremonies may be freely held in residential premises, as well as in premises owned or rented by religious organizations. It is therefore unclear what this part of the amendment will mean in practice.
On behalf of 28 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts to express our continuing deep concern about rising restrictions on religion in the Republic of Kazakhstan; and to urge U.S. government leaders to engage Kazakh President Nazarbayev and leaders of his government regarding the 2011 Religion Law and related amendments to the Criminal Code and Administrative Code, and urge them to amend the 2011 Religion Law and related articles in these Codes in order to bring them into conformity with international human rights standards, Kazakhstans international commitments, and its own Constitution.
Related to this, shared the Kazakhstan report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which recommends reforms to the 2011 Religion Law. The brief summary of this formal report on his mission to Kazakhstan stated:
While acknowledging a general appreciation of religious diversity in the country, he noticed adverse attitudes towards some non-traditional religious communities. The State monitors religious activities strictly, with a view to preventing extremism and to combating sects deemed destructive to peoples well-being. Many of the measures adopted for this purpose are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, the mandatory registration of religious communities, in conjunction with tightly knit stipulations, largely hampers free religious practice, which takes place in an atmosphere of legal insecurity.
Further, the Special Rapporteurs conclusions include:
66. the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations shows restrictive features that are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. The most obvious problem concerns the mandatory status of official registration. Failure to obtain this status means that a religious community is deemed illegal, which has far-reaching negative repercussions on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, even those communities which are registered suffer to some extent from legal insecurity, inter alia due to the official confinement of permitted religious activities to certain predefined issues and territorial boundaries. In general, the 2011 Law is based on the assumption that the exercise of core aspects of freedom of religion depends on specific acts of Government approval - thereby turning the relationship between freedom and limitations, as generally understood in the framework of human rights, upside down.
67. While Kazakhstan has broadly embraced religious pluralism, members of non-traditional small religious communities, frequently branded as sects, continue to experience suspicion, mistrust and discrimination in society. Moreover, some provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code on Administrative Offences - both the existing and the new Codes - which are aimed at combating religious hatred or religious extremism - are defined only vaguely, thus creating a climate of legal insecurity, which is further exacerbated by shortcomings in the handling of criminal procedures, long pretrial detention and related problems. Similar problems are associated with the 2005 Law on Countering Extremism.
Finally, the Special Rapporteurs recommendations include:
(a) The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government consider amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution to bring them into line with article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(b) The Government should bring its constitutional provisions pertinent to freedom of religion or belief fully into line with article 18 of the Covenant and other relevant international human rights standards.
(d) Above all, the Special Rapporteur would like to recommend far-reaching reforms of the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations based on an understanding that registration should be in the service of freedom of religion or belief which, due to its status as a universal human right, inheres in all human beings, prior to - and independent of - any specific acts of administrative approval. The most important consequence would be that registration should be an offer, not a mandatory requirement, for religious community practice. Non-registered communities must be able to operate free from discrimination and free from fear of intimidation.
Also shared a recent UN Human Rights Committee decision that adopted views and conclusions that an individual-Viktor Yakovlevich Leven (the author)-was a victim of violations by Kazakhstan of his rights under Article 18 of the ICCPR. In the Consideration of the merits section of this decision against Kazakhstan are the following three points:
9.2 In the present case, the Committee notes that, not having been registered as a foreign missionary on behalf of his church, the author was convicted for conducting missionary activity, which consisted of preaching and praying and conducting meetings and religious rituals among the followers of the church
9.4 The Committee concludes that the punishment imposed on the author, and in particular its harsh consequences for the author, who is facing deportation, amount to a limitation of the authors right to manifest his religion under article 18, paragraph 1; that the limitation has not been shown to serve any legitimate purpose identified in article 18, paragraph 3; and neither has the State party shown that this sweeping limitation of the right to manifest religion is proportionate to any legitimate purpose that it might serve. The limitation therefore does not meet the requirements of article 18, paragraph 3, and the Committee accordingly finds that the authors rights under article 18, paragraph 1, have been violated.
10.The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it discloses a violation by the State party of the authors rights under article 18 of the Covenant.
Also shared the UN Human Rights Committee's second periodic report of Kazakhstan. On July 11, 2016, the Committee adopted principal matters of concern and recommendations, including:
13.The Committee is concerned about the broad formulation of the concepts of extremism, inciting social or class hatred and religious hatred or enmity under the State partys criminal legislation and the use of such legislation on extremism to unduly restrict freedoms of religion, expression, assembly and association. It is also concerned about reports that counter-terrorism activities continue to target in particular members or presumed members of banned or unregistered Islamic groups, such as the Tabligh Jamaat.
14.The State party should bring its counter-terrorism and counter-extremism legislation and practices into full compliance with its obligations under the Covenant, inter alia by revising the relevant legislative provisions with a view to clarifying and narrowing the broad concepts referred to above, to ensure that they comply with the principles of legal certainty and predictability and that the application of such legislation does not suppress protected conduct and speech
47.The Committee is concerned about undue restrictions on the exercise of freedom of religious belief, including in the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations, such as the mandatory registration of religious organizations, the ban on unregistered religious activities, and the restrictions on the importation and distribution of religious materials. The Committee is further concerned about the use of broadly formulated crimes and administrative offences in the Criminal Code, including of articles 174 and 404, the Administrative Code, and the legislation on combating extremism to punish individuals exercising their freedom of religion and belief with severe sanctions.
48.The State party should guarantee the effective exercise of the freedom of religion and belief and freedom to manifest a religion or belief in practice. It should consider bringing article 22 of its Constitution in line with the Covenant and revise all relevant laws and practices with a view to removing all restrictions that go beyond the narrowly construed restrictions permitted under article 18 of the Covenant.
Also shared the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) call for Kazakhstan to make revisions to the Religion Law. The call came in its Preliminary Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Legal Framework On Countering Extremism and Terrorism in the Republic of Kazakhstan, issued on 6 October 2016:
80. UN human rights monitoring bodies have recently reiterated their concerns about undue restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief imposed by the 2011 Law On Religious Activities and Religious Associations of Kazakhstan the Law On Religious Activities and Religious Associations should be revised to ensure that religious groups/organizations can be formed and operate freely even in the absence of registration or without the States prior approval.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None
U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, State - Dept of (DOS), U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area
First Name | Last Name | Suffix | Covered Official Position (if applicable) | New |
Greg |
Mitchell |
|
|
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None
Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed.
20. Client new address
Address |
|
||||||
City |
|
State |
|
Zip Code |
|
Country |
|
21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20)
City |
|
State |
|
Zip Code |
|
Country |
|
22. New General description of client’s business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
|
|
||||||||
1 |
|
3 |
|
||||||
2 |
|
4 |
|
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Internet Address:
Name | Address |
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country) |
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client
1 | 2 | 3 |
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities:
Name | Address |
Principal place of business (city and state or country) |
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities | Ownership percentage in client | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
% |
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization
1 | 3 | 5 |
2 | 4 | 6 |