Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page

9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report

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 61 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of H.R. 1150, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2015; and in support of House passage. We must work to create a context where people can live with their deepest differences. The recent turmoil in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine-including the alarming spike in incidents of violence and persecution of Christians, Muslim communities, and other religious minorities-offers the latest examples of what happens if we do not. The purpose of the bill is to update the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) and improve the capacity of the U.S. government to advance religious freedom globally by giving the Administration and State Department new political tools to better counter violent extremism and sectarian violence, growing anti-Semitism and restriction on religious minorities (e.g., a tier system for IRF reports on countries of particular concern and a special watch list, annual actions on countries with severe IRF abuses, authority to sanction individuals responsible for committing severe violations of IRF or materially supporting terrorism or violent extremism, and the ability to designate non-state actors as part of the Country of Particular Concern list and a range of sanctions targeting individual members of such groups); expanding diplomatic training, counter-terrorism coordination, and foreign assistance efforts; and reauthorizing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) through 2021. With the passage and implementation of H.R. 1150, a strengthened IRFA and a stronger IRF policy-as integrated into U.S. foreign policy and national security-the United States will send a clear and urgent message regarding the inherent dignity of every human being, as well as our common global security in the fight against persecution and religious extremism, and terrorism. Doing so is consistent with the best of our values, practically protecting our interests as a result. On May 16, 2016, H.R. 1150 passed out of the House by voice vote.

On behalf of 64 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of S. 2878, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act; and in support of a swift markup of either S. 2878 or H.R. 1150 in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We believe S. 2878 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, 77% of the worlds population live in countries with a high or very high overall level of restriction on religion in 2013, up from 76% in 2012 and 68% in 2007. 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.
This legislation is the companion bill to the amended text of H.R. 1150, which passed out of the House by voice vote on May 16.
The passage and implementation of S. 2878 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 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 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 against Kazakhstan. In the Consideration of the merits section of this decision against Kazakhstan are the following three points:
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.
11.In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including review of his conviction and review of the cancellation of his residence permit. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future.
12.Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committees Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views, to have them translated into the official languages of the State party, and to have them widely disseminated.
Finally, shared an International Religious Freedom Roundtable submission to the UN Human Rights Committee. Provided this submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in connection with its consideration of the second periodic report of Kazakhstan regarding its compliance with the ICCPR on 22 and 23 June 2016. It lays out our concerns related to Kazakhstan and Article 18 - freedom of religion-and our recommendations.
The purpose of this submission was to summarize to date the IRF Roundtable engagement with the Kazakh government and interactions with the UN Special Rapporteur regarding religious freedom in Kazakhstan in light of the deteriorating situation, hopeful that a meaningful dialogue might be renewed-one that does not demonize the government or civil society. We believe this dialogue can be helpful in maintaining stability and peace in Kazakhstan while bringing the Religion Law and related articles of the Criminal and Administrative Codes closer to compliance with UN international standards articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None

U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None

​

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 GOV

16. Specific lobbying issues

On behalf of 14 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts to urge congressional leaders to ensure final passage of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform legislation in time to be signed into law on July 4, 2016, the 50th Anniversary of the original FOIA.
This legislation is important because FOIA remains a powerful tool for the public and the press to obtain information about their government, create and preserve government accountability, promote transparency, and ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of government policies and actions. Yet, FOIA requesters are facing persistent problems. In June, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held two days of hearings that showed how federal agencies are not fulfilling their FOIA obligations in the way Congress intended. The Committee heard from witnesses who documented long delays and procedural hurdles they face when using FOIA. FOIA must be updated to keep up with changing technology, to overcome an increasingly persistent mindset within federal agencies that information belongs to the government rather than the people, and to ensure that information withheld based on the deliberative process exemption is made available to the public after 25 years.
Faith-based, secular and human rights organizations that advocate on a variety of issues, such as international religious freedom, human rights, criminal justice reform and human trafficking, often use FOIA to monitor, evaluate and understand the executive decision-making processes that drive government policies and actions. This helps us exercise our global and national citizenships more responsibly as we perform our humanitarian work to contribute to the betterment of society.
Both the House and Senate have now approved bipartisan FOIA Reform Bills which are similar but not identical.
On January 11, 2016, the House passed H.R. 653, the FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act of 2016, or FOIA Act, by voice vote; and
On March 15, 2016, the Senate passed S. 337, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, by Unanimous Consent. And on March16, 2016, this bill was received in the House and held at the desk.
We hope the House and Senate will be able to work out the differences in these bills in the next few weeks. But if the differences cannot be ironed out in a timely fashion, we urge you to move forward and put S. 337 on the House floor for a vote on final passage, and then send it to the President for his signature on July 4.
S. 337 will strengthen FOIA in a number of ways, including:
It contains similar provisions to those passed by the House, including codification of the presumption of openness and prohibition of the withholding of records unless agencies can identify a foreseeable harm to one of the interests protected by FOIAs nine exemptions, or release of the documents is specifically prohibited by law.
Importantly, the Senate Bill does not mandate the withholding of records that would adversely affect intelligence sources and methods. That language was included in the House Bill and could arguably lead to greater secrecy. The language is also unnecessary because intelligence sources and methods are already protected by FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3.
The Senate Bill, like the House Bill, includes a time limit for how long agencies can withhold records that chronicle internal agency deliberations. Specifically, the bill prohibits agencies from withholding documents under the deliberative process privilege if they are more than 25 years old. This provision is an attempt to limit agencies reliance on Exemption 5, which has earned the nickname the withhold it because you want to exemption because it is so often misused to withhold records.
The Senate Bill places an emphasis on technology by calling for the creation of a central online FOIA portal that would allow the public to request records from multiple agencies simultaneously, and bolstering requirements for agencies to proactively disclose records in electronic formats.
Finally, the bill limits agencies ability to charge fees to FOIA requesters when they fail to fulfill the request within the statutes 20-day response deadline.

17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area

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

21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20)

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

ISSUE UPDATE

24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains

AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS

25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)

Internet Address:

26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client

FOREIGN ENTITIES

27. Add the following foreign entities:

28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization