The Constitution divides all subjects of the Russian Federation into six groups: 1 republics, 2 autonomous regions, 3 autonomous areas, 4 regions, 5 territories, and 6 two federal cities Moscow and St. It should be noted that 2 and 3 are national-territorial units, while 4 , 5 , and 6 are administrative territorial units.
Such division makes Russia an asymmetric federation. In reality, such equality is problematic because autonomous areas are usually constituent parts of territories and regions. The territory of the largest subject of the Russian Federation, Yakutia, is 3. Yakutia is times larger than the smallest subject, Adygeya, which is only 7. Even though Russia has an average population of 1.
Russia has always been ethnically diverse. Indeed, F. Creation of the Russian Federation Pre-revolutionary Russia had a loose centralized government structure. It relied heavily on local legal orders and traditions, with canon law playing a strong role in matters of daily and family life.
Officially proclaimed as a multinational federal state, the USSR proved to be a centralized federation with many features of a unitary state, and it was dominated until by one-party rule. Carl J. Once the latter began to slip, repressed national aspirations reasserted themselves and the federal idea, like a dried-out desert plant after the rain, came to life again and emerged as one of the most intractable problems of the perestroika era, leading ultimately to the breakdown and dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The Russian Federation was created as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union into fifteen independent states. The government of President Boris N. Yeltsin was aware of all the complexities of the transitional period for the federation, and it sought to solve the immediate and most urgent ones before adopting a new federal constitution.
On 31 March , just three months after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a federation treaty or, rather, three separate treaties collectively known as the Federation Treaty was adopted. The treaty was aimed at appeasing regional and ethnic elites through decentralizing power and redistributing budgetary, fiscal, and material benefits in a way that favoured these elites. A weak federal centre kept control over the following powers and state institutions: currency, customs, banking and credit institutions, communications, postal service, transport, nuclear energy, space exploration, arms and defence, security, administration of justice, and weights and standards.
Concurrent powers were recognized in the spheres of environmental protection, conservation, historic preservation, education, science, culture, sports, health care, social welfare and social protection, disaster relief and emergency management, and natural resources, minerals, and forestry. The Constitution essentially introduced a centralized federation with elements of a unitary system. Article 71 of the Constitution defines the areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Federal jurisdiction is extremely broad, and most contemporary Russian law is federal law. The areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction also include control over federal property, the federal budget, federal taxes, transport, communications, power generation, currency, the treasury, financial institutions, postal service, the armed forces, defence and security, foreign policy, and foreign economic relations.
The spheres of joint federal-regional jurisdiction are listed in Article 72, including control over land use and disposal, mineral resources, water and other natural resources, public health facilities, social services, and cultural, educational, recreational, and scientific facilities.
Federal, regional, and local officials are jointly responsible for environmental protection, housing, law enforcement, delimitation of state property, and the establishment of the general principles for the organization of local self-government.
Its bicameral structure was retained under the Constitution. It consists of deputies. State Duma deputies are elected for a four-year term,29 but the Constitution is vague with regard to the formation of the Federation Council.
Indeed, the Federation Council has been formed in three different ways since Originally, senators were directly elected to the Federation Council through popular voting. That happened only once: during the first parliamentary elections that were held simultaneously with the constitutional referendum in December After that, each subject of the federation was represented in the Council by the heads of its administration and legislature.
As a rule, the regions select somebody of national stature who has enough muscle to represent the interests of the region in the federal arena. In other words, the term of each Federation Council member ends with that of the body he or she represents. Unlike the lower chamber of the Federal Assembly, the Federation Council cannot be dissolved by the Russian president.
If the State Duma rejects three candidates for the office of the chair of the government, the president is authorized to 1 appoint the prime minister, 2 dissolve the Parliament, and 3 call new elections.
The Federation Council is supposed to supervise foreign policy, emergencies a presidential decree introducing a state of emergency or martial law is to be approved by the Federation Council , the armed forces, security affairs, and the internal relations of the subjects of the federation.
In practical terms, the activities of the chamber are regulated by its Standing Orders of 30 January It also forms committees and commissions. The chamber holds two sessions a year: in the spring January July 15 and in the fall September December However, this does not mean that the senators are physically present in Moscow for the duration of these sessions.
As a rule, meetings of the chambers are held at least twice a month, each meeting lasting several days, and each month the senators are supposed to spend up to ten days in their respective regions. Quorum is satisfied if meetings of the chamber are attended by more than half of its members currently, Members of the Federation Council may belong to different political parties, but party membership may not interfere with their work in the Council.
Creation of factions in the upper chamber is not allowed. Several hundred political parties have appeared and vanished from the political arena without trace. The existence of officially registered political parties and movements as of July could be explained by several factors, but public necessity was certainly not one of them. Indeed, opinion polls show that political parties are the least trusted institution in the country.
Four years later, the average citizen expressed distrust of seven out of ten key institutions of Russian society, with political parties being the least trusted 7 percent and courts and the armed forces being the most trusted institutions in the country at 40 percent and 62 percent, respectively. Today fewer than 1 million people — or about 0.
By August the number of newly registered parties was a modest In the elections to the State Duma of December , only four national parties were able to clear the 5 percent threshold and bring their members to the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament.
Western governments continue to provide financial support to their favourite parties e. In other words, U. Party building and party politics are still the concern of elites rather than the people.
The adoption of the U. The president is the head of state,47 representing the Russian Federation in international relations. Technically, nothing can prevent the president from proposing new members of the government to the prime minister rather than getting the new candidates from him.
Similarly, the president can fire the Council of Ministers at his pleasure. The president is elected for a term of four years on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot. He can be re-elected for a second consecutive term. A simple majority of the electorate must take part in the election, and the winner is determined by a simple majority of the votes. Failure to attract the participation of a simple majority of the electorate will lead to new elections, and failure to determine a winner in the first round of elections will lead to a second round between the two main contestants.
Article sets out in detail the veto procedure of the president. According to the Constitution, an adopted law shall be sent to the president for signing and publication within five days of its passage through Parliament. The president has two options. After that, the law shall be signed by the president within seven days and published.
The Constitution is silent, however, as to whether the legislation becomes law in the event the president refuses to sign the previously vetoed bill. In this respect, Russian constitutional law does not contain any provision similar to the principle written into U.
It is important to emphasize that Russia does not have a single highest, or ultimate, court. All three highest courts — the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court the highest court among courts of general jurisdiction , and the Supreme Arbitration Court — enjoy similar status.
Within the context of the discussion of federalism in Russia, the Constitutional Court is of greatest interest. It is designed to guarantee the supremacy of the federal Constitution as well as to guarantee the protection of democracy and fundamental human rights. First, the Court may resolve cases concerning conformity with the federal Constitution of federal laws, normative acts of the federal president, chambers of the Parliament and the government, and draft international treaties.
It also resolves cases pertaining to the constitutions and charters of the federal units, their laws, and other normative acts issued on questions of federal or concurrent jurisdiction. The subjects of the Russian Federation have the power to adopt legislation in areas of their exclusive jurisdiction and concurrent jurisdiction. As in other federations, laws and other normative acts of the federal units in areas of joint jurisdiction may not contravene federal legislation.
Federal law prevails in cases of inconsistency. Yet in the hierarchy of sources of law in the Russian Federation, constitutions or charters and basic laws and the legislation of the federal units of Russia occupy the second position from the bottom.
They come after the federal Constitution, international treaties, federal constitutional laws, federal statutes, and federal presidential decrees and regulations promulgated by the federal administration. Only a seventh source of law — custom — comes after constituent constitutions or charters.
It is difficult to discern any pattern or norm in terms of how the subjects of the federation design their institutions of government. Most regional legislatures are unicameral; some other federal units have bicameral legislatures.
The legislatures have varying membership, ranging from 11 in the Taimyr autonomous area to in Bashkortostan. As a rule, the deputies are elected for four- or five-year terms. They are elected for four or five years for not more than two consecutive terms. Constitutions of some republics within Russia also provide for a vice president.
Vacancies are filled in competitively. Public servants are supposed to be excellent independent specialists in their areas, but in practical terms it is common for newly appointed heads of administration to bring with them certain members of their entourage, who are united not only by their previous work but also by their loyalty to the boss. The existence of the nesting dolls has entailed many conflicts and contradictions, based primarily on the fact that the authorities of the subjects could not seem to agree on what taxes would be collected and by whom, and, most important, on how to spend them.
To get a clearer picture of this peculiar arrangement, American constitutionalists should imagine a situation in which the State of Iowa and Johnson County, which is a part of Iowa, are proclaimed equal subjects of the USA.
The Russian Constitution does little to clarify the situation as the only article dealing with this question is extremely vague.
It provides merely that the relations of autonomous areas that form part of a territory or region may be governed by federal law and a treaty between the organs of state power of the autonomous area and, respectively, the organs of state power or the territory of region. Subjects of the federation are supposed to play a significant role in the process of adopting constitutional amendments. They are empowered to exercise this right through their representatives in the Federation Council and in the regions directly.
In the upper chamber the bill must have the support of three-quarters of the senators. The amendment is considered to be adopted and can be signed into effect by the Russian president only if it is supported by two-thirds of the subjects of the Russian Federation within one year from the date of its adoption by the Federation Council.
Another significant detail indicating the special role of the regions in this process is that each federal unit determines its own procedure for considering the matter. On 7 December the Federation Council by a vote of to one, with two abstentions approved new legislation that eliminates direct gubernatorial elections across the country. Five days later President Vladimir Putin signed the bill into law. This legislation became one of the series of measures aimed at reforming the Russian federal structure.
Putin announced the new principles for forming regional authorities on 13 September after the tragic terrorist events in Beslan. These moves towards greater centralization of power are seen by the Russian federal government, its political elite, and much of the general public as being necessary in order to keep the country together. Since the new regulation came into effect, at least 18 governors have been r-nominated by the president, and four have been dismissed.
On 27 December Putin signed a decree on the procedure for considering candidates for the post of head of a subject of the Russian Federation. According to the decree, the presidential representative in the respective federal district will recommend candidates to the chief of staff of the president.
The latter will then pass the names to the president. Increasing centralization of the Russian government and streamlining its administration are not straight-forward processes, however. On 30 June Putin issued a decree altering the procedure for considering candidates for chief executive posts in regions of the federation.
Finally, the new decree applies the same procedure for selecting all regional leaders. Previously, leaders who asked Putin for a vote of confidence well before their terms were due to expire were able to go through an expedited appointment process, facing less scrutiny from presidential envoys.
If more than one party has received an equal number of seats, then each party will be allowed to nominate a candidate. The measure is viewed as being aimed at strengthening the role of the regions in the nomination process as well as at developing the system of national political parties. The amendment was signed by President Putin on 1 January The Judicature of the Constituent Units It is difficult to say whether the subjects of the federation have their own court systems.
The Constitution does not contain any norms providing for separate court systems in the subjects of the federation. This position was subsequently supported by a decision of the federal Constitutional Court. Pending the enactment of such a law, the existing judicial system is also governed by the law of the Russian Federation; according to this law, it is a unified judicial system because it does not contemplate independent judicial systems of the subjects of the Russian Federation.
It means that regardless of their territorial location all subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or Supreme Arbitration Court are federal courts and that the only regional courts in Russia are constitutional courts of the subjects and so-called peace courts. Two de facto federal interventions were exercised in Chechnya without imposing any special legal regime in the region. Presidents Yeltsin and Putin used their commander-in-chief powers to deploy troops to Chechnya.
Richard Hudson NC , Rep. Gwen Moore WI , and Rep. Marc Veasey TX Tom Malinowski NJ , and Rep. Peter Meijer MI also are original co-sponsors. The COVID pandemic underscored how the digital divide disproportionately affects women and girls, she explained, and stressed the threat that widespread use of digital technologies can pose to fundamental freedoms if used indiscriminately by authorities.
Panelists highlighted opportunities for digital technologies to benefit societies and human rights defenders, as well as dangers they can pose to human rights. Maia Rusakova, associate professor of sociology at St. Petersburg State University, warned that data collection technologies have facilitated online recruitment by human traffickers. However, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and tracking blockchain financial transactions and social media activity could play a role in combatting the digital threats of human trafficking.
Susie Alegre, an associate at the human rights NGO Doughty Street Chambers, highlighted how cutting-edge data collection can raise awareness of threats to human rights, support investigations, facilitate positive social change, and support human rights defenders.
Elif Kuskonmaz, a lecturer at the University of Portsmouth, cautioned that misuse of facial recognition technology could pose threats to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, and that it could be exploited to wrongfully detain citizens. To prevent such abuse, she recommended that participating States adopt adequate legal frameworks concerning the collection, use, storage, and sharing of personal data.
Other panelists explored the capacity of artificial intelligence systems to reinforce existing structural inequalities through algorithms and the subsequent human rights implications. Civil Society Concerns about Government Use—or Abuse—of Digital Technology Civil society participants shared human rights concerns related to governmental use of digital technologies. Many urged the OSCE to call out repressive behavior and help participating States establish adequate legal protections against misuse.
Several urged the United States and the European Union to target sanctions against the worst offenders. Many participants also took the opportunity to raise human rights concerns directly with government officials, and alleged misuse of data collected by government agencies to persecute human rights defenders, social activists, and their families. A German NGO called for the abolition of facial recognition technology due to its use by law enforcement to profile specific ethnic groups and minorities, including Roma and Sinti.
Several NGOs argued that their governments exploited conditions imposed by the pandemic to use surveillance camera footage, geolocation data, and contact tracing as part of a domestic surveillance campaign to discourage public political dissent. Participants highlighted how technology has been used to spread racist messaging, including the racist abuse of English football players following the recent Union of European Football Associations Euro matches.
Many voiced their dismay that social media companies do not hold accountable individuals who spread racist content. Participants recommended that social media companies implement more robust algorithms to detect racist remarks.
Participating States Respond Several participating States addressed the use of technology. The European Union recognized the importance of addressing human rights abuses that arise from the misuse of digital technologies. Turkey responded by touting its law on data protection and emphasizing its multiculturalism. The Holy See responded that it is necessary to improve education in proper use and effects of technology.
The Holy See also called for international regulations to guarantee the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to private personal electronic communication. Madam President, I take this time to talk about the work of the U.
The two of us have worked together in a nonpartisan, bipartisan manner in regards to the work of the Helsinki Commission. The Commission works on the principle of three buckets: one for political affairs and security, another for economic and environmental progress, and the third on democracy and human rights. So I think of the initiatives that we have had in the Helsinki Commission for dealing with trafficking in humans and the legislation that came out of that and how we led the global response to dealing with trafficking.
I think about the efforts we made in regards to tolerance, dealing with anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance and how we have made progress throughout the entire OSCE region. I think about the issues we did in regards to sanctions against human rights violators so they cannot use our banking system or visit our country, the Magnitsky-type sanctions. All of that came out of the work of the Helsinki Commission. So one of the major arms of our work is the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which is the group of parliamentarians who meet every year and have meetings throughout the year to exchange views and to carry out the principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
And we had a chance to do this in a hybrid manner. So we were able to travel strong from the U. Congress to be at that meeting, and we were joined by five others here in the United States, including our Presiding Officer, to participate in the Parliamentary Assembly, and we were able to advance a lot of very important issues. But I must tell you, we were noticed at this meeting.
I know that Senator Wickerwill talk about this. He is one of the great leaders of the Parliamentary Assembly. He is Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly. We are very proud of the leadership position that he holds.
We had multiple candidates and several elected to Vice-Presidents, but Senator Wicker led the ballot with the largest number of votes, which I think speaks to his well-thought-of respect among the OSCE parliamentarians. We wanted to make sure that this was a substantive meeting. But that is not the way we operate. We have to take up current issues. So we took up the issue of tolerance. I was happy to sponsor a resolution that ultimately passed by unanimous vote that speaks to anti-Semitism, racism, intolerance, and the growth of hate in the OSCE region.
But we also made sure that we considered the recent elections in Belarus and how unfair those elections were and how Mr. Lukashenko has been acting in a way that is so contrary to the human rights of the people who live there, and the election results there do not reflect the will of the people. We also had a chance to make sure we took up the issues concerning Ukraine. Once again, there was a lot of controversy on why you should bring that up during this meeting. We did. Richard Hudson, Representative Hudson, will be the chair of the first committee.
So we are going to have active participation in the Parliamentary Assembly. We had the chance to visit some other countries. But if I might, I think I am going to yield the floor and give my good friend and the leader of our congressional delegation trip an opportunity to expand on some of the things we were able to do in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
With that, I yield the floor. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland, who has been such a leader in the area of human rights and international recognition of the challenges that our world faces today.
I do appreciate his leadership and his partnership. We have worked shoulder to shoulder on so many issues. Yes, I proudly rise with him this afternoon to talk about a very valuable series of meetings that our member delegation had in 4 countries in Europe in recent days.
This was Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate, a truly bipartisan and bicameral delegation—a very large delegation—which I think my colleague will agree made a strong statement on behalf of the United States of America and on behalf of the U.
House and Senate about the way we view European engagement and our partnership and friendship with the plus member countries of the OSCE and their Parliamentary Assembly. As Senator Cardin mentioned, we met with great success. Yes, I was reelected to the position of vice president, and I appreciate the support of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate in helping me get those votes to receive another three-year term there.
Richard Hudson, our colleague from the House of Representatives, has been very active as chairman of Committee No. He is highly regarded. He was reelected without opposition. So there are two bits of success there. And then the great piece of work, actually, was with regard to Senator Cardin's initiative on the rising hate and intolerance that we are seeing all around the world, particularly among member countries of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Senator Cardin actually took the lead in challenging the leadership of the Parliamentary Assembly in saying that issues should be discussed. And Senator Cardin was able to get his resolution considered and passed overwhelmingly, and we made a strong statement on behalf of countering the rising hate and intolerance and countering the use of these things to buttress authoritarianism and to stoke conflict around the world.
We also passed a very important resolution about the tragedy, the outrage that has gone on in Belarus. I can tell you, the opposition party leader from Belarus was in this Capitol building just yesterday talking about the importance of support from places like the United States Congress.
I can tell you, Madam President, that Senator Shaheen and I are about to send a letter to our colleagues asking any and all of us to join a Freedom Caucus for the Belarusian people, the Belarus Freedom Caucus. We asked the opposition leader, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, to tell us whether that would be helpful.
She said the formation of this caucus to support the freedom movement in Belarus would be a strong signal. It would be well received and effective on behalf of the opposition leadership there in Belarus. Then, again, we reiterated our opposition to what Russia has done in Ukraine and particularly to the recent Russian military buildup and ongoing aggression in Ukraine. We did a lot there with the Parliamentary Assembly. We went on to Estonia, met with leadership there—a former President, the current Prime Minister, other leaders.
From there, we joined the Three Seas conference in Sofia, Bulgaria. I can tell you, this is a group of Eastern European former Soviet Bloc countries that are striving to be in charge of their own infrastructure and rely less on the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. I think the fact that 12 Americans showed up, participated, met with Heads of state at that conference made a very strong statement of American support for freedom and for looking westwardly in trying to get their problems solved and their infrastructure needs met.
We also had a very meaningful visit to Norway, where we saw some American-Norwegian defense initiatives. I am very proud of the partnership that this Helsinki Commission—our organ of the American OSCE PA—and the way that we joined together to express our support for freedom, for democracy, for the rule of law, for opposing corruption, both at the petty local level and also at the larger State-sponsored level. One other thing before I yield back and let my friend close.
Particularly in Bulgaria, but also all during our trip, we were met with hearty thanks for the United States leadership in the global Magnitsky Act. This began as an initiative with Senator Cardin, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and me several years ago directed—during the Obama administration—directed toward individual Russians who had violated human rights and individual liberty in a very outrageous and gross way, allowing us to sanction individuals rather than causing harm to the people of Russia in that case.
That has been expanded now to the global level and other countries are adopting this. But I can tell you, when we arrived in Bulgaria, we were met with great thanks from people who are trying to combat lawlessness and corruption at the top level of government. I just have to say, of course, Ben Cardin has been the premier leader in this worldwide effort. It was gratifying to know and to learn firsthand on the ground there in Sofia, Bulgaria, that an initiative that began right here in this U.
Senate years ago, and continues to this day, is having a beneficial effect on the people all across Europe and particularly in some of the countries that we visited. I yield back to the Senator from Maryland. The Senator from Maryland. Madam President, let me again thank Senator Wicker. Thank you for your leadership on so many issues. But on this congressional delegation, for those who are not familiar, it is not easy to put together the type of opportunities to advance American values.
And Senator Wicker took the responsibility as the leader of our delegation to make sure that we had the opportunities to advance American values. I thank him for all the effort he put into it. It was certainly extremely successful. I just want to emphasize a few things before closing. That is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has the responsibility of monitoring the nuclear programs throughout the world.
Obviously, it has played a bigger role in regard to the program in Iran, and it was monitoring exactly what was happening in Iran under the JCPOA. And I think it was helpful for all of us to understand exactly the role that the IAEA can play in regard to getting us information about what is happening on the ground in Iran.
We showed our support by going to Narva, which is on the Russian border. It is a town that has a majority of Russian-speaking Estonians. It is an interesting community. But we could see across the river, very clearly, the Russian patrol boats. We know and heard firsthand of the concern of the Estonians. They saw what happened in Ukraine and they worry that same thing could happen in Estonia with Russian aggression.
I must tell you, our presence to reinforce the NATO commitment, I think, was an extremely important message that we gave to the Estonian people. Would the gentleman yield on that point? I would be glad to yield. The Senator from Mississippi. If I might add, people in Narva, Estonia, and people in the city across the river have access to each other across a bridge there. And it is clear to the people on the Russian side that their cousins and friends in Narva, Estonia, live a better life and have a better standard of living in this free country, this NATO ally called Estonia, than the Russian cousins and friends have on the other side.
I just thought I would add that to the discourse before Senator Cardin moves on to discussing Norway and Bulgaria. Thank you. Madam President, let me move onto Bulgaria very briefly. Senator Wicker did cover Bulgaria. It is an initiative by twelve states that are basically part of the Eastern European Coalition, states that are developing democratic institutions and democratic economies after the fall of the Soviet Union.
They need to build up their resilience as a collective entity in energy, transportation, and digital infrastructure. The Three Seas Initiative is to attract investment to connect the twelve countries together on infrastructure needs. It is for many reasons. It is for its own economic strength and growth, but also for resiliency against the efforts of China on its Belt and Road Initiative, which is trying to infiltrate these countries and convert their way of economy to more of the Chinese system.
The Three Seas Initiative is an effort to have their own independent way of attracting capital. The United States is participating in the Three Seas.
We are not a member, but we are participating and providing resources for the fund that is being developed that would be leveraged for these type of investments. While we were in Bulgaria, we had a chance to have bilateral meetings. There were twelve heads of state there. We had very constructive discussions about what is happening in their country.
We raised Helsinki issues with all these countries. Senator Wicker already talked about how we were welcomed by the Bulgarian leadership in regards to the imposition of the Magnitsky sanctions. We are heroes. They feel like they have a second chance to try to develop the type of anti-corruption mechanisms that they desperately need.
Our visit to Varna, which is on the Black Sea, was very educational to see how Russia is trying to dominate the Black Sea area and one of the reasons why they are so aggressive in Ukraine and the Crimea. I think that was extremely helpful for us to understand the security risks and how we have to work with our NATO partners to protect the Black Sea area, particularly from the potential aggression—not potential—from the aggression of Russia.
Also in Bulgaria, we had a chance to visit a Roma village. It is not my first visit to a Roma village. I have visited over the years. It is a real tragic situation. The Roma population have been in Europe for centuries. They lived in communities for hundreds of years, yet they do not have property rights.
They have lived in their homes, and yet they do not have the opportunity to have their homes registered. And at any time, the government can come in and take away their property without compensation.
They rarely have reliable utilities. The village we visited did not have water systems, so they had to use outhouses, et cetera. They had limited availability of fresh water. Their utility service is not reliable. And they go to segregated schools. So we, once again, will raise the rights of the Roma population as part of our commitment under the Helsinki Commission, and we are following up with the local officials to try to help in that regard. Then, lastly, on our way back, we visited Norway.
I learned a lot because I did not know about the pre-positioning program. I know my friend Senator Wicker already knew about this from his Armed Services service, but it is where we pre-position equipment so that we can respond rapidly to a circumstance anywhere in the world.
The Norway pre-positioning is actually used to help us in regard to the Middle East and our needs in the Middle East. So it was an extremely, extremely, I think, productive visit to these countries. I think we did carry out our commitment under the Helsinki Commission, and we advanced American values. I think we represented our country well, and we were very well noticed. Madam President, one other thing that our colleagues might not understand about the OSCE is their role in election observation.
As we were leaving Sofia on the morning of July 11, we crossed paths with some other representatives from the OSCE from European countries who were there to observe the parliamentary elections being held in Bulgaria that very day. We have every hope that the results of these elections will be a further resolve in those two nation members to counter the corruption at the highest level, and we want to congratulate both of those member states of the OSCE for free and fair elections in Europe.
With that, I thank my colleague. I yield the floor. RADA, which was signed into law last December, allows the United States to prosecute individuals for doping schemes at international events involving American athletes, sponsors or broadcasters. The July Aug. They will not be clean, that much I guarantee," Jim Walden, attorney for Rodchenkov, told the hearing.
As resilient as the Mob proved to be, it pales in comparison to the deeply entrenched corruption in international sports. Walden said Congress could super-size RADA's impact if it uses its oversight authority to ensure the FBI and Justice Department have a complete plan and allocate sufficient resources to bring cases.
He also said a second imperative would be to withhold funding for the World Anti-Doping Agency until more transparency and Executive Committee comprised primarily of former clean athletes and anti-doping scientists are achieved.
Edwin Moses, emeritus chair of the U. Moses said the state-sponsored doping of the Russians competing at the Sochi Olympics was shocking, but even worse was a "lack of repercussions" that he described as a nightmare realized and one that we have not yet woken from.
It was inspiring to see the extraordinary economic advances of Estonia and Bulgaria. While in Tallinn, we learned that Russian diplomats had been expelled in April across the Baltics to join the protest of the Czech Prime Minister, Andrej Babis, exposing the irrefutable evidence that two Russian GRU agents were behind the ammunition depot explosion at Vrbetice, which killed two persons.
The same two Russian agents named by the Czech Republic are suspected by British authorities for poisoning former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England in The Czech Republic has correctly demanded Russia pay for damages. Skip to main content. Russian Federation. Sort by Newest Oldest. Category Article. Helsinki Commission.
In the News. Press Release. Country Afghanistan. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Czech Republic. Holy See. North Macedonia. Participating States. Partners for Cooperation. Republic of Korea. San Marino. Slovak Republic. United Kingdom.
United States of America. Issue Anti-Semitism. Citizenship and Political Rights. Confidence and Security Building Measures.
0コメント