[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GLOBAL MAGNITSKY HUMAN RIGHTS
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-388PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
TOM EMMER, Minnesota
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
CURT CLAWSON, Florida DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
TOM EMMER, Minnesota
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. William Browder, chief executive officer, Hermitage Capital
Management..................................................... 6
Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, president, World Uyghur Congress.............. 12
Mr. Kenneth R. Weinstein, president and chief executive officer,
Hudson Institute............................................... 17
Daniel Calingaert, Ph.D., executive vice president, Freedom House 25
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. William Browder: Prepared statement.......................... 9
Ms. Rebiya Kadeer: Prepared statement............................ 14
Mr. Kenneth R. Weinstein: Prepared statement..................... 20
Daniel Calingaert, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 27
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 38
Hearing minutes.................................................. 39
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher
H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and
written responses from:
Mr. William Browder............................................ 40
Mr. Kenneth R. Weinstein....................................... 41
THE GLOBAL MAGNITSKY HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
p.m., in room 2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order, and good
afternoon. I apologize to our witnesses and guests for the
delay. We did have a series of votes, and we can never
anticipate that. So I want to apologize for that rather
significant delay of \1/2\ hour.
The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012
directed the President to publish and update a list of each
person the President has reason to conclude was responsible for
the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, a leader
and accounting advisor with Firestone Duncan, an international
law and accounting firm with offices in Moscow and London.
William Browder, chief executive officer of Hermitage
Capital Management, Limited, one of today's witnesses and a
driving force behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act and the legislation
that has now been introduced and is pending before our
committee, has provided a detailed account of the violent
expropriation of the assets of Hermitage, the largest foreign
investment brokerage in Russia, by rampant Russian Government
corruption, bribery, fraud, forgery, cronyism, and outright
theft.
Magnitsky had documented Hermitage's loss and other
financial dealings, including draining some $230 million from
the Russian Treasury by tax fraud. He was arrested in November
2008 reportedly for tax evasion, and denied medical care,
family visits, or due legal process, while in custody. He was
beaten and tortured and died in prison in November 2009. He was
37 years old and married with two young children.
The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012
targeted those who participated in related liability
concealment efforts, financially benefitted from Sergei
Magnitsky's detention, abuse, or death, or were involved in the
criminal conspiracy uncovered by Magnitsky or responsible for
extrajudicial killings, torture, or other human rights
violations committed against individuals seeking to expose
illegal activity carried out by Russian officials or against
persons seeking to promote human rights and freedoms.
The act directed the Secretaries of State and Treasury to
annually report to Congress on actions taken to implement the
act, including rejecting visa applications, revoking existing
visas, and blocking property transactions for persons the
President put on the Magnitsky list.
The United States is, as we all know, the land of
opportunity, but it should not be for those who misused and
murdered Sergei Magnitsky. Without the original act, the
government officials and business people who perpetrated crimes
against a young man, against a major international firm, and
against even the Russian people themselves by stealing from
them could have taken their ill-gotten gains and come to this
country to purchase property and live the good life in the
United States.
Today's hearing will examine the need for H.R. 624, the
Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which extends
these human rights and anti-corruption tools to other
countries. The House passed the 2012 Magnitsky Act by a vote of
365 to 43, and there is a strong majority-minority co-
sponsorship for H.R. 624.
Since the original Magnitsky Act became law in December
2012, human rights victims and advocates from around the world
and anti-corruption champions have asked for a Global Magnitsky
Act, first asking that such acts be enacted for specific
countries.
H.R. 624 ensures, with minimal cost or burden to the U.S.,
that our Government gives some justice to victims and stands in
solidarity with them in a tangible way, shines a spotlight on
perpetrators making them pariahs, and pressures governments to
prosecute perpetrators who are their citizens.
The Global Magnitsky Act is intended to destruct the
impunity and comfort that far too many international human
rights violators currently enjoy, and to keep their tainted
money out of our financial systems. It also fights the human
rights abuses and corruption that generate national security
terrorism and economic threats to the United States.
A few years ago Teodorin Obiang Mangue, son of the
President of Equatorial Guinea, visited the United States
regularly using funds siphoned from American companies
operating in his country. He lived a glamorous life in Malibu,
California, dating celebrities and collecting expensive cars.
When France issued a warrant for his arrest after he refused to
appear at a money laundering hearing, his father provided him
with diplomatic immunity to escape prosecution.
In 2012, June, after years of trying to track Teodorin's
wealth, the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a lawsuit
in California court alleging massive money laundering and
listing among the scandalous kettle of assets his $35 million
Malibu mansion with a four-hole golf course, tennis court, and
two swimming pools. That is just one of the acquisitions he
made in the United States.
The financial manipulations of this young man led in part
to the closing of Riggs Bank in Washington, one of the
capital's premier financial institutions. Such people should
not be able to steal from foreign firms and their own people
and then use those funds to live lavishly in our country.
Similarly, those who torture and otherwise commit the worst
human rights violations against others should not be welcomed
here either. And I have written legislation over the years to
enforce that principle. The Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and
Human Rights Advancement Act of 2006 would have prevented
officials who ordered the callous shooting of peaceful
demonstrators in Ethiopia from entering this country.
The Foreign Relations Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001
became law--I was the prime sponsor of it--and it required the
U.S. Government to impose visa bans on any foreign national the
Secretary of State has determined is directly involved in
establishing or enforcing population control policies that
force a woman to undergo abortions against her will or force a
man or woman to undergo sterilizations against their will.
And then there is the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 and its
reauthorizations, which also became law, that imposed visa bans
and asset freezes on government officials from the Government
of Belarus because of their violations of basic human rights
and freedoms, and that has now malaffected, as it should, one
of the last dictators in Europe, Alexander Lukashenka, and his
cronies.
If we stand by quietly when governments refuse to prosecute
human rights abusers and financial fraudsters, then we welcome
those guilty of such crimes into the U.S. and into our
financial systems, we are indeed enabling their crimes. The
2012 Magnitsky Act was a major step in freeing ourselves from
aiding and abetting international perpetrators.
H.R. 624 makes the next step in taking a stand against
their crimes. If we are serious about rejecting their deeds,
perhaps their governments and other governments will become
more serious as well.
I would like to yield to Ms. Bass, the ranking member of
the subcommittee.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for your leadership
and for calling today's hearing on the Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability Act, to give us an opportunity to discuss
the need to examine the act toward a global vehicle to hold
individuals accountable for human rights abuses.
I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses for
today, including representatives from a range of organizations
concerned with global human rights issues. I look forward to
hearing each of your perspectives, including your assessment of
what more can be done to successfully expose and address gross
violations of human rights around the world.
Dealing with issues of corruption and impunity are
challenges to national governance worldwide. These challenges
become particularly pronounced when governments seek to silence
citizens who promote human rights or seek to expose illegal
activities by those governments, be they journalists,
intellectuals, or other kinds of activists and whistleblowers.
To be clear, we know that this silencing takes multiple forms,
including illegal detention, torture, and extrajudicial
killings.
Again, I want to thank today's witnesses for their time and
insight and look forward to working with my colleagues in
Congress to further develop legislation to address global human
rights abuses and increase the accountability of governmental
officials who violate citizens' human rights.
I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bass.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Emmer.
Mr. Emmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing. As a co-sponsor of the Global Magnitsky
Human Rights Accountability Act, I feel it is important and
necessary for us to hold human rights abusers accountable, and
I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this hearing. Those
who abuse human rights must face serious consequences, and this
hearing, along with the Accountability Act, will strengthen the
President's ability to sanction human rights abusers.
I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses, and,
again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member, for
holding this important hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Emmer.
The chair recognizes Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Bass, for holding today's hearing, and thank you
especially, Chairman Smith, for your long leadership on human
rights. All people deserve to be respected and to live their
lives free from violence, persecution, discrimination, and
oppression.
Protecting fundamental human rights is an important
responsibility. It should and must remain a cornerstone of
American foreign policy, which is why the United States has a
responsibility to respond to egregious human rights abuses by
imposing sanctions on those who commit or contribute to human
rights violations.
Last Congress I introduced the Global Respect Act, which
would direct the President to impose visa sanctions on foreign
persons who commit egregious human rights violations on the
basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I think it is
important to recognize the particular plight faced by LGBT
individuals around the world, especially as many continue to be
victims of violence and murder at shocking rates.
This bill ensures that we take that approach, a
comprehensive approach, to protecting human rights and to be
certain that those who are responsible for human rights
violations are held accountable. It is critically important to
continue to protect the basic human rights of all individuals,
all vulnerable and marginalized populations.
The United States must be vigilant in protecting the human
rights of racial, ethnic, linguistic minorities, women, and
children, religious minorities, and political dissidents, among
others. That is why I am very proud to co-sponsor the Global
Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.
I look forward to the testimony from our very distinguished
panel, and thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
I would like to now introduce this very distinguished panel
of doers and shakers, men and women, who have made a tremendous
difference in the lives of especially those who have had their
human rights violated around the globe.
Beginning first with Bill Browder, who is founder and CEO
of Hermitage Capital Management. He was the largest foreign
investor in Russia until November 2005 when he was denied entry
to the country and declared a threat to national security by
the Russian Government for exposing corruption at large Russian
companies.
In 2008, Russian authorities arrested and imprisoned his
lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, after Mr. Magnitsky uncovered and
reported a $230 million fraud committed by the Russian
Government officials. Mr. Magnitsky was tortured and denied
medical help in prison for months, and finally beaten to death
by prison guards in November 2009.
Bill Browder has since led a global campaign to expose the
corruption and human rights abuses endemic in Russia. A result
of this campaign was the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law
Accountability Act of 2012 being signed into law, imposing visa
bans and asset freezes on certain officials involved in
Magnitsky's death and on other gross violations of human rights
in Russia.
We will then hear from Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, who is a
prominent human rights advocate and leader of the Uyghur
people. She is the mother of 11 children and a former laundress
turned millionaire. She spent 6 years in a Chinese prison for
standing up to the authoritarian Chinese Government. Before her
arrest in 1999, she was a well-known Uyghur businesswoman, and
at one time among the wealthiest individuals in the People's
Republic of China.
Ms. Kadeer has been actively campaigning for the human
rights of the Uyghur people since her release. As a matter of
fact, she has appeared before this subcommittee at least a half
a dozen times, and we have benefitted greatly from her wise
counsel and insight.
She has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize several
times since 2006, despite the Chinese Government's efforts to
discredit her. Ms. Kadeer remains a leading pro-democracy
Uyghur leader and heads the World Uyghur Congress, which
represents the collective interests of the Uyghur people around
the world.
We will then hear from Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, who is
president and chief executive officer of the Hudson Institute.
He joined the Institute in 1991 and was appointed CEO in June
2005. Mr. Weinstein was the president and CEO in March 2011. A
political theorist by training whose academic work focuses on
the early Enlightenment, Mr. Weinstein has written widely on
international affairs for leading publications in the U.S.,
Europe, and Asia.
He serves as a member of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, the oversight body for U.S. Government civilian
international media, including such networks as Voice of
America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and
Middle East Broadcasting.
We will then hear from Dr. Daniel Calingaert, who is an
executive vice president at Freedom House. In his role, he
oversees Freedom House's contributions to policy debate on
democracy and human rights issues and outreach to the U.S.
Congress, foreign governments, media, and Freedom House
supporters.
He previously supervised Freedom House's civil society
programs worldwide. He contributes frequently to policy and
media discussions on democracy issues, including Internet
freedom, elections, authoritarian regimes, and democracy
assistance.
He taught at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and American
University. He served as director for Asia, as a deputy
director for Eastern Europe at the International Republican
Institute, where he designed and managed a wide range of
promotion programs.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
indulgence. I just want to welcome the students who are here
from Shea High School in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, my
constituents, and welcome them to the subcommittee. You guys
should stand up, and we would like to recognize you. Thanks for
being here.
[Applause.]
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Browder.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM BROWDER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Browder. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for giving me
the opportunity to address you today.
The name of the law which is being considered is Sergei
Magnitsky. Sergei Magnitsky was my lawyer in Russia, and Sergei
Magnitsky worked for me trying to uncover government corruption
in Russia, which led to an astounding discovery that government
officials, working together with organized criminals, had
stolen $230 million of taxes that we paid to the Russian
Government, not from us but from the Russian Government.
And Sergei, as a patriot, testified against the officials
involved, thinking that it should not be allowed that
government officials should steal from their own country. And
he thought that the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was
someone who was acting in the national interest, and if this
$230 million theft was exposed that the good guys would get the
bad guys and that would be the end of the story.
Instead, after Sergei testified against the officials, the
same officials he testified against arrested him, put him in
pretrial detention, tortured him in the most horrific way for
358 days, and killed him on November 16, 2009.
I got the news on the 17th of November, in the morning of
his murder. And it was by far the most horrific, traumatic,
life-changing news that I could ever get, and I made a vow to
his memory, to his family, and to myself, that I was going to
make sure that we saw justice for Sergei Magnitsky, and that
his death would not be a meaningless death.
And for the last 5\1/2\ years I have been on a quest to get
that justice and to bring some meaning to his death, so that
something good, possibly good, could come out of it. And
originally I thought we could get justice inside of Russia. The
details of this death were not a matter of speculation. He
wrote everything down in the form of 450 complaints he filed in
his 358 days in detention, documenting exactly who did what to
him, when, how, where, and why. And those details should have
been enough to prosecute more than a dozen people.
Instead, they prosecuted nobody. They exonerated everybody
involved, and on the 1-year anniversary of Sergei's death they
gave special state honors to some of the people who were most
complicit. There are only two people who have ever been
prosecuted in this case. Three years after Sergei's death
Sergei Magnitsky himself was prosecuted posthumously in the
first-ever trial against a dead man in the history of Russia,
and I was prosecuted as his co-defendant and sentenced to 9
years in absentia.
It became obvious that if we couldn't get justice inside of
Russia, we needed to get justice outside of Russia. So I
started traveling the world looking for justice, and I
discovered that there actually aren't any mechanisms for
international justice. They just don't exist. The best you can
do is go to the State Department and have them possibly issue a
statement, or go to the British Foreign Office and have them
say that they are disappointed with somebody's death.
And so I started to look around to see what kind of justice
could we get if we could invent our own mechanism for justice,
and this crime was perpetrated for the theft of $230 million,
and the people who did this crime wanted to not keep their
money in Russia but keep it in the West, and they like to
travel to the West, and send their kids to school in the West,
and have their family members go shopping in the West.
And so I came to this room, this exact room, in 2010, and I
told the story I have just told you in front of the Lantos
Commission on Human Rights in front of Congressman McGovern.
And I said, ``Can you do something about this?'' And he came up
with the idea of what has now become known as the Sergei
Magnitsky Act, which was to freeze assets and ban visas of the
people who killed Sergei Magnitsky.
The act was originally just for Sergei Magnitsky, and then
a number of people started coming forward, including Boris
Nemstov, an opposition leader from Russia, who said, ``You have
hit the Achilles heel of the Putin regime by doing this. They
like to commit their crimes in Russia, but they like to enjoy
their money in the West. Could you please expand this so it
includes the other gross human rights abusers in Russia?''
And Congressman McGovern, along with Senators and various
other Members of Congress, heard these calls and added 65 words
to the law to include all other gross human rights abusers. The
law passed; this is one of the few things in Washington where
there is no partisanship. This is bipartisan. Torturers and
murderers have no support from anybody, and, as a result, it
passed 92 to 4 in the Senate, and 89 percent in the House of
Representatives, and it was signed into law.
And the interesting thing that happened after it was signed
into law was that, as I started speaking about it at
conferences around the world, I started getting approached by
people who have been victimized in other countries. I was
approached by people from Tibet, from Venezuela, from Bahrain,
from China, and I started hearing their stories, and they all
asked me, ``How can we do the same thing for our country?'' And
the answer was, there is no reason why an Uzbek human rights
abuser should have a better deal than a Russian human rights
abuser.
And I am very grateful for Congressmen Smith and McGovern
who decided to initiate and introduce this law in January of
this year, because this is really the new technology for
dealing with human rights abuse.
It is not new to impose sanctions, but what is new is that
we are living in a globalized world now where, you know,
perhaps the Khmer Rouge didn't go on vacation to San Tropez,
but members of the Kazakhstani regime, who are perpetrating
human rights abuses, are seen there all the time.
And in a globalized world we have some leverage to do
something here, and this is something we can do. And so I would
be very glad to have a wider support than just your support
here, and that we make this into law like the Russian version
of the Magnitsky Act, and to leave Sergei Magnitsky with a
legacy that his death wasn't a meaningless death.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Browder follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Browder, thank you so very much.
Rebiya Kadeer.
STATEMENT OF MS. REBIYA KADEER, PRESIDENT, WORLD UYGHUR
CONGRESS
[The following statement and answers were delivered through
an interpreter.]
Ms. Kadeer. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, and Ranking
Member Bass, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to
be here today, and I am grateful to you for inviting me to the
hearing on the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability
Act.
And I cannot speak English, so, therefore, I prepared a
written statement, so my assistant Omer Kanat will read my
statement to you.
I am very honored to be here today, and I wish to express
my profound appreciation to Representative Smith for inviting
me to testify. Representative Smith has been a champion in
Congress for those who suffer from human rights abuses and has
spoken out on behalf of the Uyghur people.
The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012
was a commitment to defend universal human rights standards, to
hold egregious human rights violators in Russia responsible for
their acts. The U.S. Congress should be praised for passing
this historic legislation on human rights, and President Obama
should be commended for signing it into law.
The Magnitsky Act highlighted the profound injustice
surrounding the case of Sergei Magnitsky and demonstrated that
proactive measures targeting human right abuses can have
immediate results. Therefore, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights
Accountability Act is an important milestone in the protection
of human rights worldwide. Applying the Magnitsky Act
universally to include all officials, not just Russian ones,
who order or commit gross human rights violations is critical
and urgently needed.
Across the globe, people are in dire need of the kind of
protection of the Global Magnitsky Act will afford. State
officials who engage in egregious human rights abuses often rob
their citizens of public money and invest it overseas. It is
right to deny these officials access to the United States'
financial apparatus and the territory of the United States.
In China, the Uyghur people face massive, systematic, and
human rights violations on a daily basis. This pattern of human
rights abuses has long been in place. The annual reports of
human rights practices in China issued by the U.S. State
Department have detailed a broad range of rights concerns
regarding Uyghurs, including enforced disappearances; jailing
of political dissidents, journalists, and Webmasters;
repression of independent religious leaders; forced abortions;
destruction of cultural heritage; restrictions of movement;
tight controls on freedom of expression, particularly on the
Internet; marginalization of the Uyghur language in education
and society; pressures exerted on foreign governments to deport
Uyghur refugees; and targeted surveillance.
Since Xi Jinping became China's President 2 years ago,
human rights violations of the Uyghur people have intensified.
Excessive force and extrajudicial killings are a feature of a
Chinese state's security approach to the region. The
disproportionate use of force during house-to-house searches,
at security checkpoints, and during peaceful demonstrations
have led to state-initiated violence. Credible allegations of
state violence in Hanerik, Elishku, Alaqagha, and Siriqbuya
merit further investigation.
Furthermore, the Chinese state's persecution of Uyghur
academic Ilham Tohti and his students demonstrates the highly
vindictive and paranoid nature of the Chinese regime. Using
legitimate and peaceful means to initiate a meaningful dialogue
with the state on the deplorable conditions facing the Uyghurs,
Ilham Tohti was targeted by the Chinese authorities and
sentenced to life in prison in a legal process that was highly
politicized.
The expansion of the Magnitsky Act to apply universally to
all officials who have directed, ordered, or committed gross
human rights violations will show strong American leadership to
protect the fundamental human rights of all people around the
world. If this act becomes law, it will have a profound ripple
effect, because mere listing some of the most well-known human
rights violators in authoritarian states like China will send a
powerful message to low-ranking officials that their criminal
actions will not be immune to international scrutiny,
condemnation, and consequences.
International scrutiny is imperative to achieve tangible
results in human rights. My case is example of what can be done
when human rights violators are publicly named. Without
international pressure and concern, I could have been tortured,
or even killed, in prison. However, not everyone is as lucky as
me. Many Uyghurs face cruel and unusual torture and punishment
in the Chinese prison system every day.
Enacting a Global Magnitsky Act will protect the
fundamental human rights of the oppressed and save the lives of
many peoples, including the Uyghurs. They will be grateful to
the U.S. for taking an important step in the global protection
of human rights around the world.
There may be concerns that such an act will directly impact
bilateral relations with authoritarian states. It must be noted
that this act doesn't specifically target a particular country
or a head of state. It only targets individuals who are the
most egregious human rights violators, or are the more corrupt
officials, and who commit such violations under his or her
official capacity.
Therefore, the negative impact of this act on bilateral
relations would be minimal, while its positive impact on
improving global human rights and creating a model for other
countries to follow would be huge.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kadeer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Ms. Kadeer.
Mr. Weinstein.
STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH R. WEINSTEIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HUDSON INSTITUTE
Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Bass, Representative Cicilline. I deeply appreciate the
invitation to appear before you today to discuss Chairman
Smith's bill, H.R. 624, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights
Accountability Act, as well as the broader issue of corruption
as an affront to human rights and a threat to U.S. national
security. I want to applaud your moral courage and your
leadership on these issues, which has been critical in the past
and is needed as we go forward.
Throughout the world, corruption undermines the rule of
law, it erodes confidence in democratic accountability, it
threatens representative government, and thereby poses a
fundamental challenge to human rights. When corruption is
highly entrenched, economies are plundered and repression is
often brought to bear against citizens and civic organizations
demanding accountable governance.
Corrupt regimes, as we now see on a daily basis, also exert
a very destablizing influence on international affairs. One
only need to rapidly review the headlines to gain a sense of
how politically motivated violence is fueled by profiteering
and bribery, especially where weak governance is in place. Look
around at the turmoil following the Arab Spring, the war in
Ukraine, and you'll see different facets of the danger that
corruption poses to peace, prosperity, and freedom worldwide.
Whether it be in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, or Libya, areas
of significant destabilizing conflicts, vast levels of graft
and cronyism have been crippling both national and local
governments. Corruption serves as a rallying cry for extremist
groups and is an obstacle to encountering them effectively on
the battlefield.
Across Europe, and we have heard a bit about Asia,
authoritarian kleptocracy is a particularly dangerous
manifestation of this phenomena. Beyond internal oppression,
these regimes are increasingly willing to export bribery and
extortion, to support client states, coopt foreign political
factions, and undermine the advance of democracy abroad. And
these same kleptocracies, as we have heard, are willing to
employ appalling violence to preserve the parasitic
arrangements that keep them in power.
We saw what happened in the streets of Kiev in 2014 when
citizens took to the streets to oust Viktor Yanukovych, the
corrupt patron of Moscow, and they stood their courageously
despite a wall of batons and a hail of bullets that killed more
than 100 of their countrymen.
Their popular will for closer ties to Europe, for
democratization, and freedom prevailed, but Russia responded
with invasion, annexation, and occupation. To the Kremlin, a
free and democratic Ukraine is an unacceptable counterpoint to
the corruption and authoritarianism of the Putin regime that we
have heard so much about already.
As a result, a sovereign state at the heart of Europe faces
military aggression proscribed by the Budapest Memorandum on
Security Assurances, the Helsinki Final Act, and Article Two of
the U.N. Charter.
Meanwhile, fringe political parties throughout Europe, both
East and West--and not simply fringe political parties--are
being buoyed and bankrolled by the same corrupt governments or
private entities that belong to government officials in these
countries fueling the war in Ukraine.
Veiled nuclear threats and provocative military maneuvers
seek to rattle the nerves of our European partners while
aggressive media and social media campaigns spreads
disinformation, distract attention from the truth, and sow
discord. These operations divide our allies, discredit the NATO
security compact, and call into question the values of the
post-Cold War political order.
Fortunately, the inherent superiority of both the Western
political and financial order grants the U.S. leverage to
confront this complex national security threat. As has been
noted, corrupt officials often take advantage of open societies
to shelter their assets and gain safe haven from political
pressures at home.
With apartments and villas of grand standing and large bank
accounts abroad, kleptocrats and their cronies and enablers can
enjoy the benefits of freedom and rule of law that they or
their associates deny to their fellow citizens. This is
especially the case when public officials, in collusion with
private entities, are allowed to abuse their authority with
impunity.
The legislation that you have proposed, the Global
Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, offers the United
States an opportunity to close this escape valve and to refuse
to serve the interests of kleptocrats and our strategic
adversaries. This bill is complementary to U.S. policy and can
be narrowly and appropriately tailored.
The Obama administration's 2014 fact sheet on the U.S.
Global Anticorruption Agenda identifies corruption as a growing
national security threat to our country and our allies around
the world. Furthermore, it notes that the United States
continues to take action to prevent the U.S. legal and
financial systems from being exploited by those who engage in
or who launder the proceeds of corruption.
Government entities, including the FBI, the Department of
Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of
Treasury are active in countering kleptocracy. This bill would
complement their work by providing a mechanism for
congressional action to sanction specific individuals most
responsible for human rights abuses and threats to U.S.
national security.
The Global Magnitsky Act is neither a blank check to
Congress nor an overreaching mandate imposed on the executive
branch. Congress' authority respecting the application of the
Magnitsky Act is sensibly balanced by the diplomatic and
national security prerogatives or priorities set by the
executive branch.
The bill provides the President with broad authority to
determine the scope of sanctions and grant waivers, as
appropriate, in the interest of national security. Conversely,
the bill's reporting requirement encourages the President to
seriously consider congressional recommendations and make
scrupulous determinations based upon its findings.
Finally, the bill reflects beliefs broadly shared by the
American public and our partners in the international
community. The U.S. is the indispensable nation, the world
leader primarily responsible for promoting the rule of law,
good governance, human rights, and a peaceful international
order.
We are a leader in confronting criminal regimes in the name
of freedom. Global Magnitsky will build on this legacy, setting
an example for others to follow in refusing to lend legitimacy
to human rights abusers by sheltering their stolen assets and
welcoming them to our shores.
The bill wisely sanctions only individuals. It leaves
important multilateral trade and cultural exchanges upon which
citizens of all countries benefit untouched. The bill also
expresses solidarity with those suffering under corrupt
regimes, taking actions against human rights abusers on behalf
of those who cannot do so themselves.
Accordingly, the bill represents an opportunity to take a
stand against destabilizing public corruption in a conspicuous,
visible, and effective manner, thereby lending support to the
fight for democracy, rule of law, and freedom throughout the
world.
Last year, Hudson Institute founded the Kleptocracy
Initiative, a program aimed at addressing the threats posed by
corrupt authoritarian regimes to Western democracy and U.S.
national security. We founded this initiative in part because
of the threat posed to Western democracies and Western
alliances by the growing financial leverage of kleptocrats and
their allies in the economies of the West.
Given the threat that they pose to democracy in their own
countries and to the defense of freedom abroad, the individuals
responsible for unconscionable acts of corruption and human
rights violations should not be granted sanctuary on our soil
or economic refuge in our financial sector. As such, I applaud
the Global Magnitsky Act as an effective and appropriate
countermeasure against these criminal regimes.
By refusing to allow abusers of human rights the privilege
of access to our financial institutions and entry upon our
soil, the Global Magnitsky Act represents a momentous
opportunity to demonstrate continued American leadership on
this most critical effort.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify. It is an honor
to speak before this august subcommittee on an issue of such
consequence to our vital national interests.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weinstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Dr. Weinstein, thank you very much for your
testimony and insights.
Dr. Calingaert.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL CALINGAERT, PH.D., EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, FREEDOM HOUSE
Mr. Calingaert. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass,
Congressman Cicilline, thanks so much for the invitation to
speak today. I applaud your leadership on human rights issues
and especially for introducing the Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability Act.
Earlier today, Freedom House released its annual global
survey of press freedom, and the findings were really pretty
grim. We see the lowest rating in 10 years. In a separate
report where we look at political and civil rights generally,
we have seen 9 straight years of decline.
What we are seeing, in essence, is a resurgence of
authoritarian governments. And these governments are using
tactics that are more and more brazen, and they are really
showing open disdain for basic democratic standards. To pick
just one example, in Egypt, over 1,400 political activists have
been sentenced to death in mass trials that did not even have
basic elements of due process. The world is becoming more
hostile to our values and also our interests, because
undemocratic forces, particularly authoritarian governments,
are driving political change.
The U.S. needs to take the initiative on human rights away
from authoritarian governments, and the best way to do this is
to target their weak spots; namely, impunity and corruption.
Why should we hold individual officials to account for
human rights abuses? Well, first, to put increased pressure on
governments to respect human rights--and in most cases this
means to follow their own constitutions and live up to their
own commitments to international human rights agreements.
Second, to deter future human rights violations. If a
penalty hangs over a perpetrator's head, he or she may think
twice about committing the crime.
Third, to force authoritarian rulers to make a difficult
choice. Either they can protect the most repugnant officials in
their regimes and attract further scrutiny to the worst aspects
of their rule, or they can cut loose the very officials who do
their dirty work and keep them in power.
Why should we focus on corruption? Because it is the
Achilles' heel of authoritarian regimes. For ordinary citizens,
human rights are sometimes a bit abstract, but they fully
understand the harm caused by corruption. They detest the
injustice of rulers enriching themselves at the public's
expense, particularly when citizens are struggling to make ends
meet.
The popular uprising in Ukraine against then-President
Yanukovych was in large part a reaction to the corruption in
the government. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability
Act of 2012 provided a sound policy instrument to address human
rights abuses in Russia. It introduced a measure of
accountability for the perpetrators of those abuses.
The law carefully targeted visa bans and asset freezes on
individuals responsible for gross human rights violations, and
it in no way harmed ordinary Russians. The Global Magnitsky
bill would direct the President to extend the same consequences
to perpetrators of human rights abuses and corrupt officials
anywhere in the world.
The global scope of this bill is a key strength. It means
no country is singled out, and it would apply to countries like
China and Saudi Arabia that tend to escape criticism for their
human rights abuses because of competing economic or security
interests.
There are a great many others around the world like Sergei
Magnitsky who have been targeted for abuse because they dare to
call for justice or freedom. To cite just a few recent
examples, Gao Yu was sentenced to 7 years in prison in China,
really for doing her job, for being a forthright and principled
journalist.
Raif Badawi was sentenced in Saudi Arabia to 10 years in
prison and 1,000 lashes because his Web site hosted criticism
of senior religious figures. The Zone Nine bloggers in Ethiopia
face a possible death sentence on terrorism charges because
they documented human rights abuses and reported on political
prisoners.
In Azerbaijan, Rasul Jafarov was sentenced to 6\1/2\ years
for exposing the government's poor human rights record at a
time when that government is trying to burnish its
international credentials and preparing for hosting the
European games in June. And also, in Azerbaijan, Khadija
Ismayilova was imprisoned because she dared to investigate and
publish news articles about corruption by the family of the
President Aliyev. The list could go on and on.
The perpetrators of these and similar abuses are rarely
denied the benefit of entry to the United States or access to
our financial system. The Global Magnitsky bill would change
that. If passed, this bill may elicit some angry responses from
some authoritarian rulers or complicate U.S. relations with
some governments. But what can they say? They can't openly
admit that they harbor individuals responsible for human rights
abuses and corruption.
When the United States defends human rights, it usually
faces resistance--that is expected--but we press ahead because
we know that what we are doing is right, and we refuse to let
authoritarian rulers dictate the terms of our relationship with
them.
We can't accept that the price of security or economic
cooperation is to look the other way on human rights
violations. We need to be confident enough both to continue the
cooperation with other governments but still to hold human
rights abusers and corrupt officials to account.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calingaert follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your testimonies, and
for yours, Dr. Caligaert.
Let me just ask a few opening questions. This bill is all
about micro-targeting. It is to ensure that the people who
commit the crime, while they may not do time, they certainly
won't be able to come to the United States and buy and sell
assets as well as physically come here. It makes them
inadmissible.
Since I did write the law in 2000 which targeted the forced
abortion perpetrators in the People's Republic of China, I had
asked the Congressional Research Service to tell us what they
think the number of people who were made inadmissible turned
out to be, and the report came back that it was less than 30,
which was an absolute horror to me.
You know, 14 years later, although the report from the CRS
was a few years ago, there was a lack of enforcement that I
found to be appalling. And Rebiya Kadeer in the past has talked
about how the Uyghurs are targeted for the coercive population
control policies as a matter of genocide, not just to thin the
herd, to put it in a very crude way, because that is how the
Chinese Government looks at it, but as an act of genocide.
China gets a pass frequently when it comes to human rights.
I wrote the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. By law, they
had to place China on Tier 3 because of its residing on the
watch list for the requisite number of years. Then, as soon as
the government--in this case the Obama administration--had the
opportunity to put them back onto the watch list, they did it,
which was appalling to me.
And so what I am suggesting is, how do we ensure that the
mega countries, the big countries, the ones with whom we have
large amounts of trade, perhaps those that we are afraid of,
and I do think there is far too much fear at State on the PRC--
I mean, it is easy to focus on Belarus and others, and I know
because I know that law, the Belarus Democracy Act. Two
hundred-plus people are on the list. The European Union
parallels our list. Lukashenka's companies and other cronies of
his cannot do business here or in Europe, which is a great
thing, but Belarus is ``this'' big [makes diminitive hand
gesture] as compared to China.
So, please give your thoughts on how do we ensure
effectiveness. We purposely put a national security waiver in.
As Bill Browder knows, no national interest waiver, which is
one of the weakest of the standards. We have reporting to give
us reasons why they are not taking action. Many will feed into
the list of perpetrators that the State Department has to look
at to put on the list, including NGOs.
It is a big question, because, you know, I have writing
human rights law all my career, 35 years here, and we always
take a pass when it comes to the Chinas of this world, but we
will focus on Honduras, we will focus on something smaller
where retaliation is not something we are worried about.
Bill.
Mr. Browder. Having had 2 years of experience with just
this issue, so the Magnitsky Act was passed in December 2012,
and I have now been trying since then to get people on the
Magnitsky list. This is an example, not quite as big as China,
but Russia is a country that the current government hasn't
wanted to upset.
And there is one provision of this law which is a very,
very valuable provision of law, which we have used and I am
trying to use going forward; there is something called a
congressional trigger in this law. And the congressional
trigger means that the chairman and ranking member of a certain
number of committees can demand the Treasury Secretary and the
State Department to review names of people to be sanctioned,
and then they have to respond within 120 days with a
determination of whether they are or are not human rights
abusers or whether they would want to invoke executive
privilege or a confidentiality provision.
But the beauty of this law is that it is the one situation
that allows Congress oversight over human rights policy of the
administration. And it doesn't matter whether it is a
Democratic administration or a Republican administration.
Administrations generally don't like to do things, and that is
the beauty of Congress. And so it doesn't work perfectly. I
have to come to Washington a regular basis. I am here this week
doing this, but it is better than just leaving it to the
devices of the administration to do something.
Mr. Smith. Anybody else?
Mr. Calingaert. I agree with Bill Browder that I would
expect, let us say, slow walking from any administration if the
bill passes, but I think it would change the dynamic of the
debate. In the human rights field, there is a lot of focus on
abuses themselves and bringing them to light and condemning
them. There are efforts to support human rights defenders and
acknowledge their courage, but there are these missing pieces
of really figuring out who is responsible and when and how will
justice take place.
I think there is growing attention in the human rights
field, but there could be much more of that. I wouldn't claim
this is in any way systematic, but just sort of asking experts
in the field, both about China and Iran, about how difficult
would it be to compile information on the officials responsible
for the kind of gross violations that we are talking about.
And, you know, some groups are, but my sense is it is
probably not as systematic as it could be, and I think the
opening that the bill H.R. 624 provides would really invite
this, because it is not just an opportunity for Congress to
suggest names to add to the visa ban list, but also opportunity
for human rights organizations to do so.
And I think by opening that door you will get a response,
and then it puts the onus on the administration to explain who
they are adding to the list, and if they are keeping people off
the list do they have good reasoning for that.
Mr. Smith. If I could, on the issue of retaliation and
commercial interests, I expect there will be a significant
pushback from the Chamber of Commerce perhaps. I am a great
believer that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act had a
tremendous impact on ensuring that our businessmen and women
were not tricked or coerced or even unwittingly, or perhaps
even willingly, become bribers of officials.
By having that standard, it actually makes it more likely
when we deal in other countries that we just say, ``Look, I
can't do this. I can't break the law.'' And it helps level the
playing field, at least for U.S. competitors, but not
necessarily international.
But I am wondering if this will incentivize this bill, more
transparency, respect for international human rights, or do you
think the argument that we will have lodged against it that it
will hurt commercial interests--I mean, to this day, I am
shocked beyond words--when Bill Clinton delinked Most Favored
Nation status on May 26, 1994, with China and human rights, and
we lost leverage as never before after all of us lauded him for
linking it in the first place.
Profits trumped human rights, and I have concerns that that
pressure will build. I mean, we are seeing it even with the
fast track proposal that is likely to be up on the floor of the
House and the Senate for TPP. In two Congresses in a row, House
has passed my bill called the Vietnam Human Rights Act, all
kinds of benchmarks, and Vietnam gets a pass. As they did with
the Bilateral Trade Agreement, things got worse after the trade
agreement, not better.
And so how do we make the case that this will lead to more
transparency, better practices? Would any of you like to take
that on? Because I think besides, you know, torture, which we
all at this witness table, and on this side of the dais as
well, are passionate about, I think this makes for a better
environment for doing business, because corruption does hijack
democracy.
I chair the delegation to OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. One
year, in Bucharest, the whole theme was corruption and how it
hijacks democracies. And I don't think that is readily
understood. So if any of you would like to take a shot at that?
Bill.
Mr. Browder. Well, I think I am the case study in why this
bill is important. I was the largest foreign investor in
Russia, and the corruption of the regime led to them kicking me
out of the country and trying to seize all of my assets. When a
young lawyer intervened, he was then effectively executed in
slow motion. And I had no protection whatsoever.
And so, well, I mean, it is kind of absurd for the--it is
like almost what I call a Stockholm syndrome for the people who
are still out there, to be trying to defend their hostage
takers by saying they shouldn't do this. I mean, basically,
what this does is gives businesses a tool to say that if your
business is raided by a bunch of corrupt officials, there is
consequence to those officials.
And so it is an invalid argument to be making. They want to
make that argument; I guarantee you. It is both an immoral and
an invalid argument to say that by creating consequences for
human rights abuses connected to corruption that that is bad
for business. It is good for business. It is just not right.
Mr. Smith. We will ask the administration to testify, to
give their views on the bill at our next hearing on this, but
we will also write to them in the meantime to try to get their
input to see if they can support this.
I am afraid that part of the objection will be, and I would
appreciate your view on this, they will say the Office of
Foreign Assets Control does not have sufficient personnel. If
past is prologue, we will probably get a hyperinflated number
as to how many people need to be working this.
We got this on the International Megan's Law, we got it on
a trafficking bill, we got it on a religious freedom bill. They
say people can't be double- and triple-hatted and make this a
part of their portfolio. And then CBO comes in and gives us a
score that becomes, you know, a killer cost.
Do we have resources now sufficient, or do we need to be
hiring more people, do you think?
Mr. Calingaert. I can't give a detailed assessment. I would
make a couple of points. First of all, I would hope that if the
bill passes that Congress would also look into the possibility
of authorizing some additional funds for implementing, because
even if the, let us say, State Department and Treasury
Department agree, you will want to make sure that they have the
people to follow up on the names that are submitted from
Congress, from others.
I mean, and, you know, you heard the context of my remarks.
I think this act, and its implementation, should really receive
priority because it can change this much larger dynamic in the
world. I mean, obviously, we keep pushing on all of the
different fronts of legislation and the work that human rights
groups do, but I have a hard time thinking of any other tool
out there that really just pinpoints the most noxious aspects
of the worst regimes out there and could really be effective
with the tools that we have.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Kadeer.
Ms. Kadeer. Wang Lequan was the Party Secretary of the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and he ordered in July 2009
the suppression and crackdown, and directly involved in the
killing of the hundreds of the Uyghurs. And he was of course
removed from his position, but he was transferred to Beijing,
and he is in Beijing.
He was also a corrupt official. He was involved in
corruption as well. But the government is protecting this
individual, so, therefore, now he is in Beijing in a safe
place.
And after Wang Lequan, Zhang Chunxian was elected as the
Party Secretary of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. He
was also involved in this crackdown, ongoing crackdown, in
Uyghur autonomous region. But he was invited to Capitol Hill in
2009 by a Senator, so it is a surprise how he was granted visa.
So there are hundreds and thousands of people involved in
these kinds of crackdowns in human rights abuses, in
corruption, so it should start from Capitol Hill, from the
Members of the Congress. Members of the Congress should be very
careful in inviting the people who are involved in these kind
of corruption and human rights abuses.
This Global Human Rights Accountability Act should also
include the Chinese officials, especially the regional
officials who are directly involved in human rights abuses and
killing of the peaceful protesters, Uyghurs, in the region, for
all of the Chinese officials, of course, but the regional
officials are very much involved directly in these abuses.
Mr. Smith. Yes, Bill.
Mr. Browder. Having dealt with a lot of difficulties and
seen what the costs are in Russia, I think it is a bad argument
for them to be saying it is going to cost us, we are going to
have to employ a few more people. I live by the philosophy that
a dollar spent fighting bad, fighting evil, is worth $100
trying to do good.
And there are many, many programs that are very expensive
where we are trying to do good, but this is one of these things
where in the private sector almost nobody wants to fight bad,
because fighting bad then involves retaliation, it involves
personal risk. I am a perfect example of that risk.
This is an example where the government needs to do this,
because the private sector doesn't. And so the investment is
relatively minimal. I believe that it was a $6 million
investment in the 2012 Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law
Accountability Act. And the amount of money that is now being
spent to support Ukraine is going to be in the billions.
And so I think that it would be a stupid argument for them
to make that they can't employ a few more people to analyze a
few more documents. It is like saying we can't afford judges,
so we should let criminals go free.
Mr. Smith. Well put. Unfortunately, there is a vote on the
floor with 2\1/2\ minutes left, and then there might be a
followup to this vote. I do have some additional questions. I
would like to submit it to you, and perhaps you could get back
to us for the record.
But thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your
testimonies. It certainly has been most helpful and insightful.
And I look forward to working with you going forward.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[all]