|
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 | 2014 |
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, PRESIDENT |
Date | 07/21/2014 |
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 67 religious and human rights organizations and leaders of varying faiths, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter to leaders of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), made contacts with U.S. government leaders to express our deep concern about the recent report to PACE by Rapporteur Rudy Salles (France), The protection of minors against excesses of sects, with draft resolution and draft recommendation that was adopted by the Committee of Legal Affairs and...
Human Rights. We understood this report with draft resolution and draft recommendation would be presented to PACE for a vote on adoption. We respectfully urged U.S. government leaders to make public statements or engage in private communications with leaders of PACE to urge that this report with draft resolution and draft recommendation not be adopted by PACE. Instead, it should be sent back to the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights for further investigation and analysis of threats it poses to the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. When evaluated within the framework of the Convention as the cornerstone of PACE activities, and the need to secure these human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone within PACE's jurisdiction, without discrimination on any ground, the report with draft resolution and draft recommendation raised a number of serious problems. The draft resolutions recommended measures, if adopted, would result in rising government restrictions and social hostilities against minority religious organizations and communities, and pose serious threats to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of millions of members of minority faiths throughout the Council of Europe. If PACE would adopt this report as drafted, it would have taken a major step backwards in terms of religious tolerance and the rights of religious minorities in the 47 countries in the Council of Europe.
On behalf of 23 religious and human rights organizations and leaders of varying faiths, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter to U.S. government leaders, made contacts to strongly urge the Secretary of State to designate Pakistan as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) in accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. The Act requires the Secretary of State (delegated through Presidential authority) to designate any country that has "engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom" as a CPC. The IRFA notes that these violations must be systematic, ongoing, and egregious, such as the flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons. Religious minorities in Pakistan, including Hindus, Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, and Shia Muslims, face systematic persecution and violence, and their religious freedom is severely restricted by the government through discriminatory laws. The government has also tolerated large-scale anti-minority violence by radical militant organizations and allowed such groups to operate with impunity. Pakistan should therefore be categorized as a Country of Particular Concern under the IRFA, consistent with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)s annual recommendation for the past ten years.
Related to the above item, also made contacts to urge members of Congress to sign on to a congressional letter to the Secretary of State to respectfully urge him to name Pakistan as a "country of particular concern" under the IRFA for particularly severe violations of religious freedom. 14 members of Congress signed this letter because they believe the U.S. must bear witness to these horrible abuses. The letter made it clear that designating Pakistan as a CPC is simply the right thing to do. It is required by law and reflects American values.
On behalf of 24 religious and human rights organizations and leaders of varying faiths, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter to U.S. government leaders, made contacts to strongly urge the Secretary of State to request that the United States take a strong lead in promoting the implementation of the recommendations of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights (COI) in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), established by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in March 2013. In particular, we would ask that, as Secretary of State, he would officially endorse the recommendations of the report and take steps at the UN to refer the DPRK to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity, as recommended by the COI in its report published in February 2014. The COI's mandate was to investigate allegations of grave, systematic and widespread human rights violations in teh DPRK. The COI found that discrimination is embedded in the songbun system which dictates a person's social standing and is largely based on gender, family relations, religion and political opinions. The COI also investigated teh impact of human rights violations and acts of discrimination on particular groups, including women and children; these violations are widespread and systematic. In its conclusions the COI found an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the right to freedom of opinion, expression, information and associations. In the course of its investigation, the COI found evidence which suggest that "countless numbers of persons in the DPRK who attempt to practice their religious beliefs have been severely punished, even unto death."
On behalf of 5 religious and human rights leaders of varying faiths, including the client, who traveled to the Republic of Kazakhstan in early December 2013 to meet with Kazakh officials and citizens in order to discuss our concerns and increase our understanding of the 2011 Religion Law, made contacts with U.S. government leaders to send them our formal Trip Report. This is related to contacts made back in 2012, when 30 religious and human rights leaders of varying faiths, including the client, signed a multi-faith letter to U.S. government leaders to urge them to address rising restrictions on religion in Kazakhstan...
This Trip Report was sent to the Kazakh Embassy on May 15, 2014, and the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Roundtable delegation wanted to ensure U.S. government leaders have seen the report and were given the opportunity to meet with members of the delegation to discuss it. Here are some highlights from the Executive Summary and Conclusions: During its visit from 1-6 December, 2013, the delegation met with government officials, human rights activists and representatives of religious organizations, and attended a conference on religion, security and citizenship. The delegation had two goals: to assess the accuracy of critical foreign government and NGO reports, especially those concerning the 2011 Religion Law, and to explore possible avenues of cooperation with the Kazakh government to address these issues. In their meeting with Kazakh officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Agency for Religious Affairs and the General Prosecutors Office, members of the delegation made the point that Kazakhstan must fully consider and understand the impact of the Religion Law on national security. The need to counter violent extremism is pressing, but cracking down on religious freedom is a dangerous and counterproductive response. The human rights activists with which the delegation met were highly critical of the law, and validated some of the criticisms of Western governments and human rights groups. While it understands that most Kazakhs support the Religion Law, the delegation believes the Religion Law is unnecessarily restrictive and could put the security situation in Kazakhstan at risk, and is generally a liability for the Kazakh government on the world stage. The situation in Kazakhstan is complex and is influenced by social, economic, political and religious factors. Therefore, a simplistic narrative that demonizes the government and the Religion Law will not work. However, there are ways Kazakhstan can work to improve the Religion Law, as well as its security situation in general, and begin to rehabilitate its image in the West. To this end, the Roundtable delegation respectfully offered several recommendations. Participants of the Roundtable will continue their engagement with the Kazakh government on these issues as well as those listed in the recommendations section of this report.
Related to the above item, made contacts to communicate our belief that the most important points to focus on are these (which provide a constructive path ahead): 1. The Kazakh government could follow through on its idea (which they communicated to the Roundtable delegation) to establish a working group to review the 2011 Religion Law, and as part of this review, this working group could accept the forthcoming recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. 2. This review could develop what the UN Special Rapporteur recommends (in the Concluding Remarks of his presentation of preliminary findings of his trip to the Republic of Kazakhstan): far-reaching reforms to the Religion Law based on an understanding that registration should be optional and in the service of freedom of religion or belief. As he said, for limitations on the freedom of religion or belief to be legitimate, they must meet cumulatively the criteria set out in article 18, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. This review could also be coordinated with the currently ongoing reform of the criminal code, which the UN Special Rapporteur said (in the Concluding Remarks of his presentation of preliminary findings): a. Offers an opportunity to revise articles which, as numerous practical examples indicate, have proven to be detrimental both to freedom of expression and to freedom of religion or belief. This particularly concerns articles 164 and 337-1 of the Criminal Code. b. It will be important to discuss and monitor the reform of the criminal code to ensure the new provisions will be fully in line with freedom of religion or belief, in conjunction with freedom of expression and other communicative freedoms. 4. The Kazakh government should build on its tradition of fostering religious tolerance by: a. Expanding the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions to include leaders of non-traditional faith communities, and to female leaders of faith communities. b. Continuing to support international conferences on topics such as religion and the rule of law; religion, security and citizenship; and the interpretation of secularism in Kazakhstan. c. Allowing for the establishment of safe spaces for ongoing dialogue between government and civil society leaders to publicly discuss and debate these interconnected issues.
On behalf of 41 religious and human rights organizations and leaders of varying faiths, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter to U.S. government leaders, made contacts to urge members of Congress to cosponsor and support swift passage of H.R. 4653, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Reauthorization Act of 2014. H.R. 4653 will reauthorize USCIRF for five years through September 30, 2019. The bill also takes common-sense steps toward improving USCIRFs ability to perform its functions. The reauthorization legislation is important because USCIRFs voice is needed now more than ever before to expand the appeal and relevance of religious freedom in the U.S. and worldwide. Religious freedom is not only the right thing to doas consistent with our founding and valuesit is also in our national interests. As Secretary of State John Kerry recently stated, Attacks on religious freedom are therefore both a moral and a strategic national security concern for the United States. USCIRF should continue to diligently report on violators of religious freedom and work cooperatively with the NGO community and other stakeholders to find new and innovative ways to promote the inherent dignity of every human, as proclaimed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it should continue to expand its coordination with the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department to engage every sector of...
society and government in the practical promotion of religious freedom. We believe that USCIRF can thereby help the U.S. government institutionalize religious freedom as an essential element of U.S. foreign policy and national security, integrating it into the promotion of democracy as well as the fight against religious-based extremism and violence. With stronger religious engagement and IRF policies, the U.S. will have a much greater opportunity to reduce the high levels of religious repression, persecution, violence, and terrorism around the world. And we will all be safer as a result.
On behalf of 22 religious and human rights organizations and leaders of varying faiths, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter to U.S. government leaders, made contacts to organize a multi-faith meeting to start a meaningful dialogue on how we can all work together to make international religious freedom relevant in the U.S. government and the world. We will discuss practical ideas on civil society and government collaboration so that we may all increase the impact of our efforts to advance freedom of religion or belief at home and abroad.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE, State - Dept of (DOS), U.S. Commission on International Religous Freedom, White House Office
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 |