[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5973-H5980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RUSSIA PNTR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that
both Democrats and Republicans, and virtually every American, is
talking about, and people all over the world are talking about. What is
that issue? How do we increase global economic growth; and here in this
country, how do we create more good American jobs.
It's obviously a key part of the Presidential campaign. We have
Democrats and Republicans daily stand in the well of the House of
Representatives and offer proposals, talk about their ideas as to how
we can create good jobs.
We have the sad report of 380,000 people who fell off the rolls even
looking for jobs. We have literally millions of our fellow Americans
who are looking for jobs, and we have many businesses that are
struggling.
One of the great challenges that President Obama put forward was the
goal of doubling our exports, and we all know that he very much wanted
to do that. We, as Members of Congress, came together after a decade,
and we finally were able to successfully pass market-opening
opportunities for U.S. workers to sell their goods and provide our
services in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
{time} 1840
It took us a long time to get there. I know that it's easy to point
the finger of blame, but the fact is we've been ready for a long time.
This institution
[[Page H5974]]
was ready for a long time, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we were
finally able to get the legislation up here from down on Pennsylvania
Avenue, and we were able to make it happen with strong bipartisan votes
on all three of those agreements.
Well, Mr. Speaker, with recognition that opening up markets around
the world for U.S. goods and services is a key way to create jobs
here--because, again, as we debated the Panama, Colombia, and Korea
Trade Agreements, there were Members on both sides of the aisle who
stood up and argued in behalf of those great agreements--we now have
before us what I believe is an absolute no-brainer, but tragically it's
created some political consternation over a lot of confusion.
We know that the idea of seeing countries join the WTO, the World
Trade Organization, creates a scenario whereby they have to comply with
a rules-based trading system. We know that once they enter the WTO,
there are constraints imposed on them along with the benefits that they
get for their membership in the WTO. And there was a lot of
negotiation, a lot of talk about Russia's entry into the World Trade
Organization. The idea of seeing Russia forced to comply with a system
that would prevent them from engaging in discriminatory practices, from
engaging in the kinds of acts that prevent products and services from
getting into their country, the structure of having to comply with a
rules-based system is something that membership in the WTO forces and
creates.
Again, there were a lot of negotiations. The last was dealing with a
border dispute with Georgia that was resolved, and that was resolved
several months ago. That put into place a structure that allowed, on
August 22--last month--for Russia to enter the World Trade
Organization.
Russia is part of the WTO. They are now, having been for over 3
weeks, a member of the World Trade Organization. That means, as I said,
tremendous benefits that Russia gets. They have 140 million consumers,
and there are going to be opportunities for countries around the world
to export into Russia. We, last year, exported $11 billion of goods and
services into the WTO. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? We're not at the
table anymore. We've lost out on our chance to be able to sell our
goods and services into Russia, that market of 140 million consumers.
Now, why is it that we've lost out? Well, we haven't been able to
have a vote here in the Congress on Russia's accession into the WTO.
Why hasn't that happened? Well, I hate to be political--even though
this is the time of year when people are especially political--but we
need to get this sent up here to the Congress so that we can put
together what I know is going to be broad bipartisan support to make
this happen. When it comes up, I know that we will see tremendous
support on the Republican side of the aisle. And I say that because I'm
particularly proud of the 73 newly elected Republican Members of
Congress. Of the 87, 73 sent a letter to President Obama saying that
they believe it very important for us to open up that market, so that
if we all have this desire of creating more good jobs in the United
States, let's open up that market to 140 million consumers. Well,
unfortunately we're still waiting for that.
And I know that it's not just Republicans who are in support of this,
Mr. Speaker. We have Democrats who are passionately and strongly in
support of it. My very dear friend from New York (Mr. Meeks) says he's
going to join us. We've got other colleagues of ours who are going to
join us in just a minute. But I want to say that this is something that
absolutely should be done.
Now, I talked about the fact that I believe it's a no-brainer, but I
recognize that there is a lot of political consternation about this
because it's Russia. We all know that Russia has an absolutely
horrendous human rights policy. We know that Russia has engaged in
trying to expand its sphere to other former republics of the Soviet
Union. We know that there is tremendous corruption and cronyism that
exists in Russia today, and it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable
to any of us.
Now, there are some, Mr. Speaker, who argue that for us to deny the
U.S. an opportunity to have a vote on PNTR--basically repealing
Jackson-Vanik and allowing us to proceed with this--would be a good
thing and it would send a message to Russia, when in fact the exact
opposite is the case. There is nothing that we could do as the United
States of America that would be a greater boost to supporting the
perpetuation of the aberrant behavior that we have seen from Russia
than for us to deny a vote on permanent normal trade relations that
would see us, then, have access to that market.
I said that last year we exported $11 billion of goods and services
to Russia. If we could pass PNTR here, projections are that by 2017 we
would double that from $11 billion to $22 billion. Now, what does that
mean? It means more good U.S. jobs. And what does it mean? It means an
expansion of our American values. It means, again, this forced
compliance with a rules-based trading system. It means creating a
structure that will allow us to undermine the kind of political
repression that exists in Russia.
Our sticking our head in the sand would be just plain wrong. Now,
those are not just my words, Mr. Speaker. We, on the 12th of March,
received a letter from seven of the most prominent and outspoken human
rights activists in Russia. They, in a letter, an open letter that was
sent to those of us who are considering this issue, said the following.
Now this is from these very, very prominent dissidents and activists,
some of whom I'm sure have been imprisoned. They've had long histories
of being opposition leaders to Vladimir Putin. So in the letter that
they sent to us, Mr. Speaker, they said:
Some politicians in the United States argue that the
removal of Russia from Jackson-Vanik would help no one but
the current Russian undemocratic political regime. That
assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious problems
with democracy and human rights in modern Russia, the
persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment
does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings
direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in
international markets for higher value-added products,
leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of
development and preventing it from transforming into a
modern, diversified, and more high-tech economy. This
helps Mr. Putin and his cronies.
At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that Jackson-
Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish
Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken Russia's political future,
hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic
aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to include this letter from the seven
dissidents in the Record in its entirety, underscoring how critically
important it is for us to take this action so that we can boost those
who are struggling to improve the plight of those Russians who are
seeing their human rights jeopardized based on the current policies.
March 12, 2012.
Remove Russia From Jackson-Vanik!
Removal of Russia from the provisions of the Cold War era
Jackson-Vanik Amendment has long been an issue of political
debate. Although the outdated nature and irrelevance of the
amendment is widely recognized, some politicians in the
United States argue that the removal of Russia from Jackson-
Vanik would help no one but the current Russian undemocratic
political regime.
That assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious
problems with democracy and human rights in modern Russia,
the persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment
does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings
direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in
international markets for higher value-added products,
leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of
development and preventing it from transforming into a
modern, diversified and more hi-tech economy.
This helps Mr Putin and his cronies, who continue to
benefit from control over raw materials exports and who have
no real interest in diversifying Russia's economy. During the
period of their rule, dependence on oil and gas exports has
become even greater than before. Needless to say, hanging in
a petro-state limbo prevents the emergence in Russia of an
independent and advanced middle class, which should be the
main source of demand for pro-democracy political
transformation in the future. More and more talented and
creative Russians are leaving the country because there are
better opportunities for finding good jobs in hi-tech
industries abroad.
At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that
Jackson-Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in
order to punish Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken
Russia's political future, hamper its economic development,
and frustrate its democratic aspirations.
Jackson-Vanik is also a very useful tool for Mr Putin's
anti-American propaganda
[[Page H5975]]
machine: it helps him to depict the United States as hostile
to Russia, using outdated cold-war tools to undermine
Russia's international competitiveness.
We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition,
strongly stand behind efforts to remove Russian from the
provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Jackson-Vanik is
not helpful in any way--neither for promotion of human rights
and democracy in Russia, nor for the economic interests of
its people. Sanctions which harm the interests of ordinary
Russians are unhelpful and counter-productive--much more
effective are targeted sanctions against specific officials
involved in human rights abuse, like those named in the
Senator Benjamin Cardin's list in the Sergey Magnitsky case
(Senate Bill 1039).
It is time to remove Russia from Jackson-Vanik!
Sergey Aleksashenko,
Political Council member, People's Freedom Party (Parnas).
Alexander Lebedev,
Independent businessman and politician.
Vladimir Milov,
Leader, ``Democratic Choice'' movement.
Alexey Navalny,
Attorney and civil activist.
Boris Nemtsov,
Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas),
``Solidarity'' movement.
Ilya Ponomarev,
State Duma member, Just Russia Party.
Vladimir Ryzhkov,
Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas).
I also want to say that as we look at this question of job creation
and economic growth, it's not something that, again, is at all
partisan, and it's something that transcends this institution. We have
received a number of letters--and let me see if I can dig this one up
here. We have a bipartisan letter from Governors across this country
that was sent just weeks ago, on the 25th of July. It was sent to us by
Governors from Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, a broad cross-section
geographically and politically, Democrats and Republicans. All these
Governors were signatories to this letter in which they say:
As Governors, we know from firsthand experience in our
States that expanding opportunities for international trade
and attracting foreign investment are essential to promoting
U.S. economic growth and creating new and better jobs right
here in America. Russia's impending membership in the World
Trade Organization offers a significant opportunity to
increase our trade and investment with the world's ninth-
largest economy.
So I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why I see this as
a no-brainer.
{time} 1850
To me, this is a pretty simple thing. But I recognize that some might
believe that it's a reward to Russia and to Vladimir Putin, and I stand
with them for all the reasons that they're opposing it. But I argue
that the reasons that they and I oppose the actions of Vladimir Putin
underscore why we need to ensure that the U.S. is at the table.
And so, with the President having stated that he has this goal of
doubling U.S. exports, and we've got 140 million consumers there who
very much want to have access to U.S.-manufactured products, to our
goods and services, we need to get it done.
And why don't I begin, since I see a number of my colleagues here, by
recognizing my very good friend from New York (Mr. Meeks), who has
joined us. As I recognize Mr. Meeks, I'd like to say that a number of
Members have come up to me from both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker,
and indicated that they very much wanted to be able to be here this
evening to talk about this.
With that, I would like to yield time to my very good friend from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend from California
(Mr. Dreier). And he's correct. This is a bipartisan bill that makes
common sense, just common sense that we get this done.
So, as I stand here today, I say to you, it is the right thing for
America, it is the right thing for businesses in America, and it's the
right thing for us to create jobs in America, passing PNTR for Russia.
Mr. Dreier said Russia is the ninth largest market in the world and
wants the United States-manufactured goods and services, and U.S.
companies are eager to supply Russia's rapidly expanding consumer
market. So why are we waiting to make this happen?
While we wait, the failure of the United States Congress to grant
permanent normal trade relations to Russia has compromised the
competitiveness of United States businesses, hindered the increase of
export of goods and services, and stood in the way of growth for United
States domestic jobs.
On August 22, the Russian Federation joined the World Trade
Organization, concluding nearly 20 years of negotiations and
discussions with the United States and about 150 other WTO members. And
during these years, it wasn't easy, but Russia did complete numerous
reforms of its businesses and trade practices and of its legal system
to conform to the norms of the international community and to the WTO
rules. These reforms will benefit--not hurt, benefit--U.S. companies.
It puts them in a rules-based system.
Now, since August 22, Russia has significantly opened its markets to
more than 150 WTO trading partners, with the sole exception--the sole
exception--the United States of America. That means that, since August
22, businesses from more than 150 WTO member countries with, again, the
sole exception of those of the United States, have conducted trade with
Russian counterparts protected by the WTO dispute resolution
mechanisms. And while we wait to act, U.S. businesses are at a
competitive disadvantage.
Business analysts say that the U.S. exporters currently underperform
with respect to Russia. They predict that with PNTR, U.S. trade with
Russia could admittedly double over the next 5 years.
Now, I'm from New York, and I just look at what it means for New
York, just a small piece. In New York, where exports to Russia nearly
reached a half a billion dollars in 2001, half a billion dollars, now,
that's a big deal. But when you consider the transportation, the
shipping, the customs brokers, the airport personnel jobs involved, the
potential economic impact is tremendous.
Clearly, increased trade is good for New York, but it's also good for
every State in the United States and stands to benefit every State.
Every State, I repeat, stands to benefit from the new opportunity to
sell more American goods and services to Russia through PNTR. So, I say
we've got to get it right.
Let me just conclude by saying this. I also am the ranking Democrat
on Europe, and as I go and talk to a number of the nations who used to
be part of the USSR, some who still have some conflicts with Russia,
one of the things that I want to talk to them about, well, what do you
think?
A, are you happy to be in the WTO? They all said yes.
B, should we get rid of Jackson-Vanik and make sure that we're able
to trade? They all said yes, that it sends the right message and it
compels Russia to play by some rules, and we then have a referee in
which to make sure they do that.
So I'm hopeful that we get this together and, before we leave here,
we pass PNTR for Russia, because every single day that we don't, we're
losing out on creating jobs here in America.
I look forward to working with you, and hopefully we'll get this
done.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful
comments, and I would just like to underscore this notion of doubling
our exports. Taking that level from $11 billion in the next 5 years to
$22 billion will inure to the benefit of New York, of California, of
Minnesota, of Louisiana, and it will provide benefits all across this
country.
And at the same time, it will help us deal with this human rights
question, which is such an important one, because I haven't talked
about it, but obviously including the legislation that deals with the
very tragic death of Sergey Magnitsky, who was a lawyer in Russia who
was raising questions and, basically, a whistleblower of raising
concerns about the behavior of the Russian Government. He was left to
die in prison. And we, with this legislation,
[[Page H5976]]
will be ensuring that those who are responsible are brought to justice
and that it never happens again.
And so I think that, all the way around, this can be a win-win for
the cause of human rights and for the cause of creating jobs right
here, and I thank my friend from New York for his thoughtful
contribution.
We're very pleased to be joined, Mr. Speaker, by my good friend from
Minnesota, with whom I've been privileged to travel and has a great
understanding and grasp of the issue of globalization and how opening
up new markets around the world will benefit his constituents. And I'm
happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. PAULSEN. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding.
And let me just first say, with the bipartisan support of this
important issue, which I will concur in comments from Mr. Meeks, but I
want to say I want to thank Mr. Dreier, the chairman, because I think
we're having these types of discussions on the floor today thanks to
his many years of leadership to educate all of us in the House on a
bipartisan basis about the benefits of trade, about selling American,
and his leadership in establishing this Free Trade Caucus has been so
valuable to me as a newer Member. And I know that our country is in
great gratitude, and we're going to miss your leadership down the road,
Mr. Chairman, in the future.
Let me just say that I also want to rise in strong support for
passing this permanent normal trade relations status with Russia. We
must pass this legislation to give American manufacturers, American
farmers, and American service providers a fair chance to compete and
then win and sell more of their goods in the markets of Russia.
{time} 1900
Russia joined the WTO already. They already joined the World Trade
Organization back on August 22. They've already begun to open their
markets to the rest of the world, so now there are about 150 countries,
except the United States, that can fully benefit from much better
access to the Russian marketplace. Additionally, all of these nations,
except the United States, can benefit from Russia's WTO entrance
commitments, including stronger international property protections,
greater transparency, recourse to the WTO's dispute settlement
procedures if Russia fails to meet its commitments.
Until Congress approves PNTR, the United States cannot claim all the
benefits that go along with Russia's entrance into the WTO membership
obligations. From the President's Export Council, we've already heard
some great statistics that are real. They are real, Mr. Speaker. They
estimate that U.S. exports to Russia will double and triple over the
next 5 years if we pass PNTR, adding jobs here in the United States.
These are jobs in manufacturing; these are service jobs; these are jobs
in high-tech; and all across the spectrum of other industries. There is
no doubt that Russia's demand for foreign services and goods is
growing. This is a country with a population of 142 million people. It
has got a rapidly growing middle class.
I will speak in particular about a company, Medtronic, which is a
medical device manufacturer based in Minnesota, my home State. It's one
of the companies that will lose out if we don't pass permanent normal
trade relations soon. And Russia, as I mentioned, is one of the
fastest-growing markets. It is also a fast-growing market for medical
devices and medical technology. It's a key player in the Russian
medical device market. In fact, since 2005, there have been 10,000
Russian health care professionals who have been trained in Medtronic
technologies. In the last 5 years, these Medtronic technologies and
therapies have benefited about 70,000 patients across Russia.
So Russia has now agreed to substantial tariff reductions for
imported medical devices. Russian tariffs on these products will
average about 5 percent. It is going to give U.S. medical technology
companies the opportunity to significantly expand into the Russian
market. Meanwhile, Russia PNTR does not require any tariff reductions
or market liberalization by the United States. Yet all of this will go
away and all of this will be at risk if we do not act in passing PNTR
with Russia in the near future here.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the approval of Russia PNTR is a
critical step towards ensuring that U.S. companies can benefit from
Russia's WTO ascension and remain competitive in the markets today.
Until we do that, all other WTO countries will continue to grab market
share, market share that is much more difficult to grab back in today's
global, competitive environment. So, when I think of a competitor and a
company like Medtronic that's based in Minnesota, we want to make sure
that their workers and their ingenuity and their innovation is going to
continue to grow and prosper so we can sell American across the world.
In other words, U.S. companies are being left behind as our competitors
continue to grow in this very profitable market of medical devices,
losing ground we may never be able to make up.
With other countries gaining this head start now in the Russian
market, our time is running out, so this PNTR really benefits the
United States. I hope that we act next week, Mr. Chairman, before we
head back for the election season because this is critical for jobs;
it's bipartisan; the President can claim great ownership and credit for
this as well if we act soon. I will do all I can to continue to work
with you, Mr. Chairman, to move this forward as well.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I thank my friend for his
very strong commitment to this.
I would like to expand on this Medtronic example for a moment, if I
could, because we talk about big pictures; we talk about numbers; we
say, yes, we want to create jobs, but the example of Medtronic is very
clearly a specific opportunity.
I wonder if my friend has any examples or if he has talked to
executives at Medtronic about the benefits of opening up that market in
Russia, because it's true. We are horrified at the crony capitalism
that exists in Russia, and we are horrified at the human rights
violations that exist, but there are also many very, very good,
dedicated, hardworking Russian people who would like to have an
opportunity to have access to many of the products that are made right
here in the United States. I know my friend and I have traveled around
the globe, and one of the things that consistently comes forward is
people saying we want to be able to purchase goods from the United
States of America, goods manufactured in the United States of America.
I wonder if my friend might tell us a little bit about the success of
Medtronic and what has happened and exactly what benefit we would see
created for jobs here and also for the consumers in Russia.
Mr. PAULSEN. I will just say that, whether it's a company like a
Medtronic or an agricultural-based company like a Cargill, which is
based in my district in Minnesota as well, clearly there is the
opportunity to sell American knowing that 95 percent of the world's
consumers are outside of the United States. This opportunity in Russia
with huge market share is going to mean more medical devices being sold
in Russia. These are life-improving, these are life-saving
technologies, and there is no doubt in a competitive environment that
European companies are trying to access that market and are moving
forward to do that. So a world-class leader like a Medtronic is going
to have a vacuum unless it's able to move forward and unless Congress
acts to give permanent normal trade relations.
Mr. DREIER. In reclaiming my time, my friend is absolutely right, and
I just want to again express appreciation to his commitment to our
Trade Working Group, which is on a wide range of issues. We've been
able to focus on creating jobs for millions of Americans as we have
sought to recognize the benefits of exports and imports as well when it
comes to improving the standard of living and the quality of life for
our fellow Americans. He has been very dedicated to his constituents,
and I appreciate your participation this evening, too.
I am also very pleased to see that we are joined by my very good
friend from Louisiana, another hardworking member of the House Ways and
Means Committee and someone who understands the world extraordinarily
well. I would like to recognize my friend Mr. Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Chairman Dreier.
[[Page H5977]]
Let me say thank you, first of all, for your tremendous service to
our country in your capacity as a Member of Congress and as chairman of
the Rules Committee. I want to thank you for your leadership on
international trade and in promoting America's role in international
trade. I also want to thank you for your friendship and for your wise
counsel. I've enjoyed the time I've been able to travel with you.
Mr. DREIER. We've still got months to go.
Mr. BOUSTANY. We still do, but I'll say this: I'll miss having you
here, and I look forward to keeping in touch in the future.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely, we should do that.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you for organizing this round of speeches tonight
to talk about this crucial piece of legislation that we need to pass
because what it will do will be to ensure a level playing field for
U.S. workers, U.S. farmers, employers who are competing for business in
Russia.
Now, we all know that, until Russia came into the WTO, it was a very
difficult place to get market access for our businesses, especially,
certainly, large companies, but small companies, mid-sized firms. I
believe it is vital for Congress to grant Russia permanent normalized
trade relations by removing them from the Jackson-Vanik amendment. If
we don't do this, if we don't terminate that provision and grant PNTR,
Russia will deny or could certainly deny U.S. exporters some of the
market-opening concessions it has made to join the WTO, and the United
States would not be able to challenge those actions in a rule-based
system through the WTO's dispute settlement system.
This is critically important, especially if we talk about small- and
mid-sized firms that are in manufacturing that want to export. They
need that kind of rules-based system to work within. Otherwise, they
don't have the recourse to fight protracted battles in a difficult
market like Russia's.
Of course, it's with some trepidation that we undertake this as we
know that the relationship between our two countries is somewhat
tenuous. We know very well about Russia's human rights abuses. We know
about the poor respect for the rule of law. We've heard extensive
stories about the corruption. The reality, though, is that Russia has
now become a full-fledged member of the World Trade Organization, and
to avoid putting the U.S. at a disadvantage, we need to move forward
and grant permanent normalized trade relations.
I'll say this: that the best thing we can do as a country from a
foreign policy standpoint with our relationship with Russia is to move
forward with normalizing trade relations with Russia. If you want to
see political reforms in Russia, if you want to clean up the
corruption, if you want to see the rule of law flourish in Russia, our
commercial relationship with Russia is critical because it will help
build a strong, vibrant middle class in Russia, which will help bring
about political reforms there and help overall in the world of
security. At the same time, it's a win-win because this grants the
United States' businesses and farmers access to a market which will
help create good-paying, high-paying jobs here in the U.S.
PNTR will also make permanent the trade status the United States has
extended to Russia on an annual basis for more than a decade. So we're
not doing anything new. We're permanently normalizing this, which
essentially grants Russia the same access to the U.S. market that all
of our other trading partners enjoy.
{time} 1910
This is nothing new or anything special for Russia. Rather, it is far
more important for the United States, for our manufacturers, our
service providers, our agriculture interests who are seeking open
access into the Russian market.
In an attempt to continue a level playing field for international
trade, the WTO requires members to extend normal trade relations to all
other WTO members on an unconditional basis, unless a country does not
want to apply WTO rules to another country. After 18 years of
negotiations, Russia officially became a member of the WTO on August 22
of this year. Currently, the United States has a condition that is
placed on Russia. It dates back to the 1970s when the Soviet Union had
restrictive immigration policies preventing Jews from leaving its
territory.
Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974.
However, since 1992, the United States has certified annually that
Russia complies with the Jackson-Vanik amendment's provisions, and we
have conferred normal trade relations on an annual basis to Russia.
Only by graduating Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, making
these normal trade relations permanent will the U.S. be able to be in
full compliance with its WTO obligations, enabling U.S. businesses and
farmers to enjoy all the trade concessions and commitments that Russia
has made in order to join the WTO.
Mr. DREIER. I'll just reclaim my time there to underscore the very
important point that my friend has made, Mr. Speaker.
We all know that the intentions behind the Jackson-Vanik amendment
were very good. We saw horrendous policies from the Soviet Union in a
wide range of areas. Virtually everything they did was bad as the
Soviet Union, a totalitarian country. But the denial of opportunities
for Jews to emigrate, especially going back to Israel, is what led to
that amendment to the 1974 agreement.
I would like to ask my friend to repeat again--he said that we've had
complete compliance that we've been able to certify for now exactly two
long decades since 1992. That's 20 years ago, 1992 to 2012. For 20
years, we've had annual certification because there has been an
opportunity in Russia since, thank God, the Soviet Union came down with
the work of so many people. We saw it come down, and we now have seen
really what you would call a Cold War-era provision that has been left
in place for two decades.
Why in the world would we still have this? It seems to me that it's
the right thing for us to do to ensure that we sweep this aside so that
we can move ahead with these market-opening opportunities. I assume
that's the point the gentleman was making.
I'm happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BOUSTANY. That's exactly right. This is a Cold War relic, this
amendment that was put into place. The gentleman is correct that since
1992, we've on an annual basis waived its provisions, but we now need
to move forward. The world has changed.
As we look to move forward with expanding market access for our
farmers, our businesses, especially small and mid-sized firms, it's
critical that we grant permanent normalized trade relations if we're
going to maintain U.S. competitiveness globally. Right now we're
slipping. We're losing our competitive edge.
A country like China, for instance, has consummated well over 100
trade agreements just in the last couple of years. We have done three,
and it took us 5 years since the Bush administration to put in place
three relatively small trade agreements. We need to take advantage of
the WTO structure. And with Russia coming on board as the ninth largest
economy, we have a huge opportunity to promote American competitiveness
and American business interests at no cost to us. Staying out of this
hurts us, and that's why we need to move forward.
If we don't act to grant PNTR to Russia, our Nation's dedicated
workforce, our determined business community, we'll be left at a
competitive disadvantage, vis-a-vis our foreign competitors. Given the
slow growth of our economy and the continued high unemployment rate, we
can't allow this to happen. And with Europe struggling, this is an
important market to help with global growth by helping U.S. growth and
jobs in the United States.
I was a cosponsor of the vital legislation to grant PNTR to Russia,
to place additional reporting requirements, of course, on both Russia
and the U.S. administration. These conditions ensure that Russia
implements its WTO obligations and those obligations are enforced.
Some will raise the question of, Wait a minute, we had a problem with
China when they came onto the WTO, and we're still struggling with
that. We have learned from that process, and we have additional
safeguards in this agreement that will help make sure
[[Page H5978]]
that Russia fully maintains its obligations under permanent normalized
trade relations.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time just to underscore this point, this
notion that the WTO, which is an entity that stems from an agreement
that the postwar leaders put together in 1947 called the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the idea behind that was to diminish
tariff and nontariff barriers. When we saw in the early 1990s the WTO
put into place, the idea is to see issues like intellectual property
violations, which we know are rampant around the world, in Russia, and
we have intellectual property violations here in the United States, as
well. We see lots of retaliatory action that is taken. With the
structure of the WTO, there is pressure to live with a rules-based
trading system to deal with these kinds of corrupt practices that go on
with great regularity.
I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. BOUSTANY. If we're going to work through these commercial types
of agreements and eliminate the corruptions, the abuses, the
intellectual property theft, we have to make the rules-based system
work. And the WTO framework which basically grew out of the general
agreement on tariffs and trade in the 1940s is that mechanism, and it
works. That's what allows us to make a claim against China, for
instance, when they're doing abusive practices. It is an equalizer. It
basically puts in place a framework that ensures that trade is
conducted fairly and openly. That's what U.S. workers and U.S. farmers
are looking for.
It's also very important as a critical piece to maintaining global
security. If we focus on international economics, commercial
relationships through open navigation of the seas, open trade, we're
going to see less conflict in the world. I think this is critical from
a security standpoint, and it's critical from a standpoint of economic
prosperity for the United States. As the United States continues to
face economic challenges, our national exports have remained relatively
strong. They've probably kept us out of a recession over the last
several quarters.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I think the gentleman makes a
very important point about what I like to refer to as the
interdependence of economic and political liberalization.
We know people in this country are hurting. We all have constituents
who are having a difficult time keeping a roof over their head, keeping
food on the table. People have lost their jobs and their homes. We know
it's been very tough. We know again that creating markets for these
workers is very important. So seeing the standard of living improve
throughout the rest of the world creates new markets for us, and it
leads to political liberalization.
As we see that the many people in Russia who are suffering have
opportunities to improve their quality of life and their standard of
living by buying U.S. goods and services, it seems to me that's going
to lead towards greater pressure for political reform, to address these
human rights problems, to address the crony capitalism that exists, to
address the kind of outrageous behavior that we see with great
regularity from Vladimir Putin.
I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I agree with that.
Any of these things that will help promote the development of a
middle class in these other countries, whether it be China or Russia in
this particular class, creates a new consumer class for American goods.
Now, we're all patriotic. We want to buy American. I love to go to
the store, and I'll buy something; and if the label says ``Made in
America,'' I feel good. I feel good about it. Most Americans do. But by
God, I want a Russian mother to buy something on the shelf that says
``Made in America.'' We need to sell America, sell American goods
overseas. That's where 95 percent of the world's consumers are, and our
economy has been too much mired in domestic consumption at the expense
of not looking into the outside world to export American-made goods to
these consumers who live outside the United States.
By normalizing our trade relationship with Russia, we will create the
mechanism to do that with Russia. This will increase critical sales of
American goods and services to Russia. Not only that, we will create
very good high-paying jobs here in the United States. This is
definitely a win-win situation.
We spoke about Russia being the ninth largest world economy,
importing more than $400 billion in goods and services. And as some of
my colleagues may be aware, Louisiana, my State--it's a small State,
but it's seventh among the 50 States in total exports because of our
location on the Gulf of Mexico and our waterways and our ports.
{time} 1920
In the first quarter of 2012, Louisiana farmers and small businesses
exported nearly $14.25 billion in goods and services to the rest of the
world. In fact, in 2011, Louisiana exported $135 million worth of goods
to Russia, which created a lot of good jobs in Louisiana.
Louisiana was a top supplier of PVC plastics to Russia in 2011, with
$21.4 million in exports, but exporters in the EU and in China still
accounted for more than 60 percent of Russian imports of that
particular material. We have an opportunity to grow this if we grant
this kind of permanent, normalized trade relations.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, just to underscore again, PVC is that
material that's used in sprinklers. And I see this PVC material. I have
been very familiar with it for many years.
What my friend is saying is there is an opportunity for exports to
exceed the $24 million coming from Louisiana to Russia, but right now
we're seeing other parts of the world transcend that. By virtue of the
fact that they have access to that consumer market in Russia, it's
denying the people of Louisiana from being able to see an increase in
the level of exports of PVC material into Russia.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BOUSTANY. That's exactly right. Louisiana produces a PVC plastic,
or looking for opportunities to get into that market, and yet they're
being superseded by countries in Europe and China.
In fact, Russia, when it joined the WTO, agreed to reduce its average
tariffs on plastic products from 10 percent to 6.2 percent. If we don't
do this, we're going to be subject to higher tariffs, putting us at a
major competitive disadvantage, and our foreign competitors will take
advantage of this. Again, we'll have the mechanisms in place, if we do
grant trade relations, to have a dispute mechanism in place to ensure
that Russia keeps its commitments to our workers, our businesses back
here at home.
Now, there's no reason not to move forward with this, and I hope that
we can see some action on this relatively soon, because as each day
kicks by, we are losing competitiveness.
One last tidbit of information, Louisiana doesn't have large Fortune
500 companies. We have a couple, but we have a lot of small- and mid-
sized firms that are manufacturers, and we are a leader in
manufacturing on the small scale in the energy sector with equipment
and services that are vital to energy production, energy security
globally.
These companies would love to get into the Russian market, to have
the right protections of law so that they could sell their goods and
services. This would lead to a lot of economic activity in Louisiana.
It would help, you know, create good-paying jobs once again, help
promote our energy sector, development and manufacturing in the energy
sector, of which Louisiana--and the United States, frankly--has been a
leader.
Congress must continue to support these kinds of agreements to boost
our economy here at home to create job opportunities, good-paying job
opportunities right here at home. That's why it's so important to move
forward on this.
Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation for the
very thoughtful remarks. The dedication that my friend has shown to his
Louisiana constituents and the American people is, really, very, very
respected in this institution. And I want him to know how much, Mr.
Speaker, I do appreciate his understanding of what it's going to take
to create more jobs in Louisiana for the people there who are
struggling and working so hard.
One issue that I wanted to mention, I talked about it earlier, but I
think is
[[Page H5979]]
very important, and it's really what's led to people who are in
opposition to this, and that is this question of human rights. We have
horror story after horror story.
I have stood in this well and several times talked about the
relationship that I developed with a man who is currently in prison in
Russia, and this man's name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was in the
energy business, a company called Yukos. He was one of the most
successful, dedicated, and hardworking Russians. He was one of the
greatest philanthropists in Russia, giving huge sums of money to
support many, many charitable causes.
But, Mr. Speaker, he was guilty of one thing and one thing only: He
was not a supporter of Vladimir Putin. And he sat in my office in the
Rules Committee, right upstairs here, and, having visited him in Moscow
and then having him visit me here in the Capitol. He said that he was
nervous, and he was concerned that he was going to face some
consequences for his opposition to Vladimir Putin.
Today I'm embarrassed to say how I reacted. I laughed. I said, The
Soviet Union no longer exists. We have moved to a country that is
independent, free, strong, vibrant, moving away from corruption, and,
you, Mr. Khodorkovsky--Mikhail, I was calling him then--I said, You
are, in fact, one of the most successful people in the country. There's
no way that you would face that kind of threat.
Well, Mr. Speaker, tragically, we saw Mikhail Khodorkovsky jailed for
7 years, and then we saw an extension, another 7-year extension of his
sentence. I will tell you that that is one of the reasons, because of
the dedication that I have to the name of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who at
this moment is suffering in a prison in Russia, it is for that reason
that I want us to take every step that we can to ensure that we bring
about the kind of reform and the change that is essential.
What we've done in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is we have dealt
with a specific case where a man died. Sergey Magnitsky was relatively
young. He was in his thirties, a lawyer who raised questions and
concerns about the behavior of Vladimir Putin's Russia. For that, he
was sentenced to prison. He was beaten, tortured, and left to die.
That has raised concern here in the United States and around the
world. That kind of action is not acceptable, and we have to do
everything that we can to ensure that those who are responsible are
brought to justice and that it never, ever happens again.
Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that in this legislation we have the
so-called Magnitsky bill, which was reported unanimously out of our
House Foreign Affairs Committee. This measure has passed the Senate. We
need to see the melding of these. We need to see this put together and
passed so that we can say that we're going to expand our American
values, creating jobs in the United States by opening up this market
and, at the same time, saying we will ensure that whoever is
responsible for this kind of outrageous behavior is brought to justice.
We're seeing, obviously, horrendous human rights violations take place
around the globe.
Yesterday morning I stood here to talk about our great, great
Ambassador, an amazing Foreign Service Officer who represented the
United States in Damascus, Jerusalem, and other spots in the world in
his dedicated career. Tragically, Chris Stevens was killed, as we all
know.
We are seeing a very, very dangerous world, and that's why it's
important for us to stand up and take action, and that's exactly what
this measure calling for the U.S. to be at the table with Russia by
granting PNTR will do.
Again, my friend has said it perfectly. Mr. Paulsen said it. Mr.
Meeks said it. My colleague, I know, in his talking points that I
submitted for the record, Mr. Moran, would have said it. Kevin Brady,
the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee had to go to a meeting, but he
very much wanted to be a part of our presentation this evening, and he
passionately believes that this is the way for us to most effectively
deal with the very, very serious problems that we have on economic
growth and on human rights violations. I hope, I hope that we will be
able to see passage as soon as possible.
Again, I know that this is the time of year, as I said at the very
outset, just weeks before the election, to be very partisan. This is
something that we can have a bipartisan victory on.
That's why, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to implore President Obama to get
engaged on this. I know that there are many issues, again, looking at
Africa and the Middle East. I know he is campaigning in his quest to be
reelected. This is something that Democrats and Republicans in the
House will pass with strong support if he will get engaged and work
with us, work with us to ensure that we can bring this together.
{time} 1930
And so I hope very much that he will do that in the coming days and
weeks to underscore his goal of creating jobs.
I'd like to further yield to my friend. It looks like he'd like to
offer something.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the chairman for yielding some time back to me.
I share his sentiments about the situation with human rights and
liberty. America has always been the beacon of liberty--individual
liberty. And it's also been the hope of the world with regard to human
rights. And we have to understand, the American public has to
understand that one of the most important tools that we have as a
Nation is our economic strength. And it comes from each and every one
of us in this country--from a plumber to a mechanic or someone engaged
in small manufacturing, our farmers. That economic strength comes from
each and every one of us. It wells up into the mighty country that we
have.
We think about American might in terms of military might. Yes, it's a
great and wondrous thing, but our economic strength is even more
important. And the way we use that to influence events in the world to
help promote liberty, to promote human rights is to engage in trade.
And the surest way that we're going to help promote changes in Russia
for the better is to help that middle class. And by engaging in trade,
that middle class will be stronger, it will be wealthier, it will want
to engage; and that will lead to serious political reforms.
The last thing I want to say is I share your sentiments with regard
to Ambassador Stevens. He was a wonderful man. He served his country in
many hotspots, difficult places. He was fearless. And I would also say
that we oftentimes talk about our military men and women and we put
them up on the pedestal, where we should, rightly so, but we forget to
talk about our diplomats and our foreign service officers who do the
same sorts of things, putting themselves in harm's way in these very
tough places around the world. They are extremely patriotic. They do
their duty. They make us all proud. We lost a great patriot with
Ambassador Stevens.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful
contribution on that. As we talk about human rights violations and the
kind of threat that exists to those lovers of freedom around the world,
I will say that just a couple of hours ago I talked to a friend of mine
who is Libyan. In fact, his father was the lead opposition for four
decades to Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. And he was in tears in our
conversation, saying that the people of Libya owe everything to the
United States of America. He said Benghazi would have been completely
lost were it not for the United States of America and what it is that
we did to bring about the kind of liberation that they so desperately
needed, having been repressed for 42 years under Muammar Qadhafi.
And he went on to say that as we look at Libya, it's important to
note that the tragic murder of Ambassador Stevens did not come from the
people of Libya. It came from individuals, a few individuals. He said
the people of Libya love the American people and revere the American
people. I suspect that as we're talking about Russian PNTR that the
same thing exists in Russia. Because they're living with great
oppression. They're living with what is little more than an
authoritarian dictatorship with the kind of crony capitalism and the
violations of human rights that we're speaking of. Mr. Speaker, the
people of Russia--and I know many Russians; we all do--have great
respect and love for us as well.
So, again, our goal is to bring an end to repressive policies and
use, as my
[[Page H5980]]
friend so eloquently said, the economic strength of the United States
that is exemplified in every American who is working in whatever
capacity at all to see our economy grow. Because we're the only
complete superpower left in the world today, the only complete
superpower. By virtue of that, I mean militarily, economically, and
geopolitically. And we have to step up to the plate and continue to
exercise that strong leadership role; and passage of permanent normal
trade relations, taking this step will go a long way towards doing just
that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my friends who participated. And I know,
as I've asked for general leave, others who wanted to be here who were
unable to are going to be joining in submitting statements for the
Record.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underscore the importance of
immediate approval legislation to repeal Jackson-Vanik establish U.S.
permanent normal trade relations with Russia.
There is demonstrated and widespread bipartisan support for Russian
PNTR among our colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate. And
we cannot and should not wait to pass this legislation which will
greatly benefit American business and their employees as they seek
entre into the expanding Russian market.
We all share serious concerns with the ongoing human and political
rights situation in the Russian Federation, but the maintenance
Jackson-Vanik does nothing to address those concerns.
What it does do is deny the United States and our business the
ability to fully take advantage of the benefits of Russian accession to
the WTO both in terms of market access and trade enforcement.
PNTR will provide the United States with important benefits at no
cost to us.
With PNTR, American companies will be able to take full advantage of
lower Russian tariffs, stronger IP protections, and other market-
opening concessions that the Russians agreed to as part of joining the
World Trade Organization.
Last month's WTO accession promises to open that country large and
growing consumer market to exporters around the world.
Unfortunately, because we have yet to establish PNTR with Russia, all
the members of the WTO except the United States are now fully
benefiting from increased access to the growing Russian market, which
is the world's 9th largest economy.
Unlike the United States, other countries also have the ability to
use the WTO's dispute settlement process to help ensure Russia honors
its new WTO commitments. This is particularly important in a market
such as Russia's which is relatively new to market capitalism and
continues to present serious problems for foreign businesses.
Anders Aslund and Gary Hufbauer from the Peterson Institute for
International Economics predict that U.S. exports to Russia should
double within 5 years after accession to the WTO. Evidence from
countries that joined the WTO between 2000 and 2010 suggest this
statistic to be true, and maybe even a conservative estimation. If
Exports to Russia grow at the same rate as they did for exports to
Ukraine and the Baltics, exports could triple, approaching $30 billion.
This would place Russia among America's large second tier-markets, such
as Australia, India and France.
Every day we have not passed PNTR is a day where we put this
opportunity in jeopardy by according a competitive advantage to non-
American companies doing business in Russia.
We have the opportunity now to pass bipartisan legislation that
advances American economic interests, which should not dither and
continue to allow the partisan politics of election season to prevent
us from grasping that opportunity.
____________________