[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 146 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6380-H6387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6156, RUSSIA AND MOLDOVA JACKSON-
VANIK REPEAL AND SERGEI MAGNITSKY RULE OF LAW ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF
2012
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 808
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
6156) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to products of
the Russian Federation and Moldova and to require reports on
the compliance of the Russian Federation with its obligations
as a member of the World Trade Organization, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-33 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate, with 60
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means
and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
November 19, 2012, through November 23, 2012--(a) the Journal
of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as
approved; (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House
adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of
clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be
announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment; and (c)
bills and resolutions introduced during the period addressed
by this section shall be numbered, listed in the
Congressional Record, and when printed shall bear the date of
introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a later
time.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say how great it is to see you in the
Chair, and I wish you well.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to my very good friend from Worcester, pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, as I just mentioned in my 1-
minute, it is very gratifying that, as we look at this election, we
have many people who have used the term ``mandate'' to describe what it
is they have gotten. The President says he has a mandate to increase
taxes. Some Republicans say we have a mandate to not increase taxes.
Lots of people throw this word ``mandate'' around.
I believe that the mandate is for us to focus on job creation and
economic growth. And while we still embrace the Madisonian vision of
the clash of ideas--it's a very, very important notion put forward by
the author of the U.S. Constitution--at the end of the day, it's
important for us to do something. And I think that the mandate from the
election is that the American people want us to do everything that we
can to create jobs, get the economy growing, and deal with many of the
societal challenges that we face.
Mr. Speaker, that's why I say it is very gratifying that the first
item out of the chute after the election is something we will be able
to do in a bipartisan way. Not that it hasn't been controversial, and I
will admit, Mr. Speaker, that there is controversy that surrounds this
issue, and I'm going to talk about it, but I will say that it is great
that we'll be able to do something, with Republicans and Democrats in
the House, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and the President
of the United States on the same page in support of Russia's accession
to the WTO and, most particularly, the opportunity for the United
States of America, our workers, to have access to 142 million consumers
in that country.
So, Mr. Speaker, on August 22, Russia became a member of the World
Trade Organization. Again, a huge economy. In fact, the last large
economy to actually become a member of the WTO, and that's a good
thing. It's a good thing because Vladimir Putin is not a good guy. It's
a good thing because we are going to, not only with accession of the
WTO but also with the multifarious provisions that are included in this
measure, call on the United States Trade Representative, call on the
State Department, and call on other entities to focus on things like
intellectual property violations, negotiations, sanitary and
phytosanitary agreements, the information technology agreement, and the
government procurement agreement.
{time} 1230
There are a wide range of provisions in here that will force Russia
to live with a structure that it does not have today and will not have
until we take this very important action.
Now one of the reasons that I have been such a strong proponent of
this issue has to do with a name, and it's not the name we're going to
be talking about in a minute. The name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a businessman who was jailed and at this
moment is incarcerated in the midst of a 7-year additional extension of
his sentence for so-called ``tax evasion.''
Now I mention those two words in explaining why I'm here because I
met
[[Page H6381]]
Mr. Khodorkovsky, who was the head of Yukos Oil and was widely
respected. I'm sure he was a great businessman. But he was widely
respected and was a great philanthropist in Russia. He was a critic of
Vladimir Putin's. And as we all know, and as I said, he is incarcerated
today for one thing and one thing only: being a critic of Vladimir
Putin's. That's really why he's in prison.
Well, the reason I am standing here and am such a strong proponent of
the action that we're about to take is that after I had met with Mr.
Khodorkovsky in Moscow, he sat in my office right upstairs here in the
Rules Committee. And in that meeting that I had with him, Mr.
Khodorkovsky--a great philanthropist, one of the wealthiest people in
Russia--said to me, I'm concerned about my safety and well-being. I
think that there might be action taken against me.
Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed to say that my reaction was to laugh at
him. I said, There's no way that a man of your stature, doing the kinds
of good things that you've been doing in Russia, will face anything
other than broad-based support.
Mr. Speaker, I was wrong. The human rights violations which have
taken place against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a wide range of other
people are one of the other reasons that we are here, pushing very,
very strongly for permanent normal trade relations to force Russia to
do something that they might not want to do, and that is to live with a
rules-based trading system.
The other name that leads us here, of course, is Sergei Magnitsky, a
young lawyer who was simply raising questions, a so-called
whistleblower, a whistleblower who was beaten to death 3 years ago
tomorrow. Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of Sergei Magnitsky's
death. And it is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of action in
this 21st century still exists in a country that claims to be a
democracy. It is horrendous, and it is unacceptable. And that's why I
believe coupling the permanent normal trade relations for Russia and
Moldova along with the Magnitsky language--and I want to congratulate
our Senate colleagues Ben Cardin and Jon Kyl, and I know my colleague
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has been involved in pushing this. I
strongly support the effort that we have had that will ensure that
those who are responsible for Sergei Magnitsky's tragic, brutal
beating, which led to his death 3 years ago tomorrow, will be followed
and be brought to justice.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a great bipartisan effort. It's one that I
think will inure to the benefit of the people of Russia and the people
of the United States. And I would like to say that, remember, we're not
giving up a thing. We're not lowering a single tariff. There is not a
single sacrifice that's being made here in the United States of
America. What we're doing is we're breaking down the barriers there.
Last year, we exported $11 billion to Russia. The projection is that
by 2017, our exports will be $22 billion, twice what we have today. And
there are a number who anticipate that they will go actually beyond
that.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a win-win all the way
around. It's a win for the cause of human rights. It's a win for the
cause of those of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--who want to
create good American jobs so that we can have access to 142 million
consumers. And it's a win for the people of Russia, who deserve better
than they have gotten and, through the U.S. access to that market, will
have an opportunity to see their standard of life and quality of life
improve, because I believe passionately in the interdependence of
economic and political liberalization.
This accession to the WTO will enhance economic liberalization, and
it will create an opportunity. I hope and pray for the kind of
political reform that is desperately needed.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California, the
honorable chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
I want to thank him for his eloquent statement, and I want to thank
him for bringing this to the floor. As he mentioned, he and I both
coauthored a Dear Colleague and supported the underlying legislation.
And it was a pleasure to work with him on this important bill.
And I know that there will be other opportunities to say this before
he departs. But I want to thank him for his service to this House of
Representatives, which I know he loves very deeply. And I want to thank
him for his service to our country.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6156 joins together two pieces of legislation that
deal with trade and human rights in the Russian Federation. The
distinguished chairman has provided a clear description of the
provisions in this bill that grant permanent normal trade relations, or
PNTR, to the nations of Moldova and the Russian Federation. It is
fairly straightforward.
Simply put, after 18 years of negotiations, Russia joined the World
Trade Organization in August. That membership will require Russia--for
the first time--to play by the same rules of trade as the United States
and virtually every other nation in the world.
But under WTO rules, the United States cannot take advantage of
Russia's WTO membership unless and until Congress grants Russia
permanent normal trade relations, replacing the 1974 special bilateral
agreement with Russia known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
The United States is not required to change any U.S. law as a result
of Russia's WTO membership other than this change to the 1974 trade
law. This is in contrast to bilateral free trade agreements where the
United States is required to provide duty-free treatment.
If that were all there was to H.R. 6156, it would pass or fail along
familiar lines of trade-related legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R.
6156 will become known as a landmark piece of trade legislation not
because it grants PNTR for Russia and Moldova but because it includes
title IV, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012.
Let me share with my colleagues just a little bit about the life and
death of Sergei Magnitsky, in whose honor this section of the bill is
named.
After exposing the largest tax fraud in Russian history, tax lawyer
Sergei Magnitsky was wrongly arrested and tortured in a Russian prison.
Six months later, he became seriously ill. He was denied medical
attention despite 20 formal requests. On the night of November 16,
2009--3 years ago tomorrow--his condition became critical. Instead of
being treated in a hospital, he was taken to an isolation cell, chained
to a bed, and beaten by eight prison guards for 1 hour and 18 minutes,
which resulted in his death.
Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old. He left behind a wife and two
children. Those responsible for his abuse and murder have yet to be
punished. And sadly, he is not alone. His story is emblematic of
corruption, human rights abuses, and impunity in Russia.
Since the death of Sergei Magnitsky, the human rights situation
inside the Russian Federation has continued to deteriorate.
Russia's parliamentary elections last December were marked by mass
protests over alleged electoral fraud. Since Vladimir Putin was
reelected president in May of 2012, his government has taken a harsh
and confrontational approach to ongoing protests, cracking down on the
Russian people's growing discontent with corruption and creeping
authoritarianism. Russian authorities have used excessive force to
break up peaceful demonstrations and detained and raided the homes of
opposition leaders.
Russian civil society has also been a target of increasing
repression. Beginning in June and with astonishing speed, the Russian
Duma passed a series of draconian laws that restrict freedom of
expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. Many
observers fear that these laws will be used as a political weapon to
stifle criticism of the government. They make it harder for Russian
civil society to operate effectively and create a climate of fear and
self-censorship. Civil society's sense of isolation is only compounded
by the Russian Government's recent decision to expel organizations like
USAID from the country.
{time} 1240
In addition, journalists and human rights activists continue to face
grave
[[Page H6382]]
dangers in pursuing their work. Just last month, Tanya Lokshina with
the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch received a series of threats to
herself and her unborn child, most likely in connection to her efforts
to expose impunity for human rights abuses. Her experience is not
unique. While Russian authorities have tried to silence critics, NGOs,
and independent media, the world is still awaiting justice for many
violent attacks on dissidents and journalists.
I would like to note for my colleagues that today at 2 p.m. the Tom
Lantos Human Rights Commission will be holding a hearing on human
rights in the Russian Federation, and Ms. Lokshina will be one of the
witnesses.
In this context, the story of Sergei Magnitsky remains especially
important. At a time when the human rights situation in the country is
going from bad to worse, it is all the more important to hold Russian
human rights violators accountable.
Mr. Speaker, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act,
which is title IV of H.R. 6156 as reported by the Rules Committee,
places an asset freeze and visa ban on those individuals responsible
for Sergei Magnitsky's torture and death, as well as on Russian
officials engaged in corruption and gross violations of human rights.
This is beyond just Sergei Magnitsky. These measures provide a degree
of accountability and reinforce the administration's toolkit to respond
to crimes by individual government officials.
Passage of the Magnitsky act sends a clear message to the Russian
people that we support their fundamental human rights. Importantly, it
also sends a strong message to those Russian officials who support the
rule of law and who reject corruption and human rights abuses. It lets
them know that their efforts and their achievements are valued by the
United States and the international community. Only individuals within
the Russian Government who abuse their office and engage in corruption
and human rights crimes will find their assets and visas under scrutiny
and subject to U.S. sanction.
So let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. I would not be supporting PNTR for
the Russian Federation if it did not include title IV, the Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.
And, Mr. Speaker, let me just close by again thanking not only the
gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, but I want to thank the Republican leadership, the Speaker
of the House; the Democratic leadership, the minority leader and our
minority whip; as well as the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for
working together to come up with an agreement here that I think
deserves bipartisan support.
So I urge all my colleagues to support the Magnitsky act by voting
for the underlying legislation, H.R. 6156, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me again express my appreciation to my
good friend from Worcester, and it's been a great honor and privilege
to work in a bipartisan way with him on this, as I've been privileged
to work with many Democrats in this House on many different bipartisan
issues over the years.
And I'm getting ready to leave this place, Mr. Speaker. I'll be in
January, as you will, moving on to another life. For me, it's after
nearly three-and-a-half decades, and we've got lots of work ahead in
the next 4 weeks. To have this trade issue as one there is something
that is very gratifying for me.
As I mention that I'm leaving, for his first speech since being named
chairman of the Rules Committee for the next Congress, I'm very happy
to yield such time as he may consume to the very thoughtful, dedicated,
and hardworking gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions).
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there are lots of hard workers in this
House, and we all learned as kids there is a differentiation between a
workhorse and a show horse. And I've got to tell you something, Mr.
Speaker--and you know this very well--there is no Democrat or
Republican in the United States House of Representatives who works any
harder than Pete Sessions, and I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that he
is going to be succeeding me as chairman of the House Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, to my dear and distinguished friend, the
gentleman, the young chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier,
thank you very much.
It is David's leadership, not just in the Rules Committee but, I
believe, to all of us here in the House of Representatives, that David
has led us to be a more open, thoughtful body; a person who used his
time and position, power of the Rules Committee in the committee that's
upstairs, to speak with all the Members of this body about their ideas
that they represent and to make this a more open body. This institution
is better because of David Dreier. And I am very aware of what lies
ahead for me, but, David, you have done a great job, and thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today really to support what Chairman Dreier and
the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, have been speaking for, and that is a rule
and the underlying legislation.
There are over 23 million Americans right now looking for work that
are either over- or underemployed in our country, Mr. Speaker. So today
is a jobs bill, another jobs bill that is important, and permanent
normalized trade relations with Russia and Moldova will provide that
much-needed boost, just a little bit. But a boost to the direction of
adding jobs and making sure that the jobs we have here in this country
to provide goods and services to another country are on an equal basis
is important.
This PNTR vote will mean that we're expected to double exports to
Russia in just 5 years and to help create and strengthen jobs in this
country while providing Russia with a great product at the right price,
whether it's in manufacturing, agriculture, or the service industry. I
believe this is an important bill for us to move on a bipartisan basis.
Russia is the ninth largest economy and has a population of about 142
million people. It has a large and growing middle class. And Russia
holds outstanding potential for the United States, not just in the
business interests, but also for goods and services to make the lives
of the Russian people even better.
My home State of Texas is the top exporter to Russia among U.S.
States, and Texas imports to Russia are growing faster than its exports
for the rest of the world. Specifically, Texas exported $1.6 billion
worth of goods to Russia in 2011. We, in Texas, value this
relationship, the jobs, the exporting, and the ability to have better
products and services in Russia, with the Russian people making those
decisions to buy these products and services. This legislation today
will only help us build on that success, growing not just more jobs,
but, really, the American economy.
So I will say this on behalf of all of us. This is an important bill.
We needed to work together. We need leadership of this body, all the
Members, as well as the Senate and the President to make this happen.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
And, Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here listening to the very
thoughtful remarks of my successor as chairman of the House Rules
Committee, it reminded me of what really got him onto the Rules
Committee and got him engaged with me, and interesting enough, Mr.
Speaker, it was this issue. It was the issue of breaking down barriers
to allow for the free flow of goods and services and capital.
When he first came to this body, Mr. Speaker, we were in the midst of
our battle on China's accession to the World Trade Organization and
establishing PNTR at that juncture, which has been a great thing; not
that it's been problem free--I acknowledge that--but it's been a great
thing to be able to take the steps that we have. And it was Pete
Sessions, Mr. Speaker, who came to me and said, I want to help you with
this. I actually gave him an assignment, and it was to talk to a half
dozen Members about how important this was.
Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour he came back to me, having done the
job right then, and that's why I describe
[[Page H6383]]
him as the person--as I say, there are a lot of hardworking people
here, there are a lot of hardworking people on both sides of the aisle,
but no one has been more diligent and worked harder than my friend Pete
Sessions, and I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
And reclaiming my time, this is the kind of energy and leadership
that David Dreier expects from Members as he gives them not just tasks
but opportunities, and the young chairman gave me that opportunity, and
I took full advantage of that. As I recall, we were 10 out of 10. All
of them voted for it. So I didn't just make up ``all of them.''
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill we're doing today. This is
worthy of our time, and I'm delighted that we're joined by our friends.
{time} 1250
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
first of all to thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement, but
also to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate him on his new
appointment. I look forward to working with him. So congratulations.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to again point out that trade bills
oftentimes are very controversial. There's often a resistance to attach
any additional language, whether it be human rights language or labor
rights language, to trade bills. But in this case, again, working in a
bipartisan way, I think the attachment of the Sergei Magnitsky bill to
this trade bill is probably the most significant piece of human rights
legislation attached to any trade bill since I've been here in
Congress.
This is a big deal. This sends a message to human rights violators in
Russia, those who are guilty of corruption, that there's a consequence.
And even if that consequence is not bringing you to justice within
Russia, the United States--and we will be joined, hopefully, by our
allies--will make sure that there are visa bans that are put in place
and that assets are frozen, that there is a consequence. Again, our
hope is that this language will prop up those in Russia who want to
push for reform, who believe in accountability and believe in tackling
issues like impunity.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the ranking member of the
Ways and Means Committee, who was incredibly helpful to me in making
sure that these two pieces of legislation were brought together and I
think in a way that makes it possible for me to be able to support this
bill.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. First, if I might, let me congratulate Mr. Dreier on your
service of many years. You believe in this institution.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. When you said ``many years,'' you are my junior colleague
by one term.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. LEVIN. You believe in this institution, and I think that's been
reflected.
So let me just say a few words--we'll debate it, perhaps, longer
tomorrow--why this trade bill should be passed. I think we need to take
each trade bill on its own merits. When you look at the need to move
here today to grant PNTR, I think the answer is we clearly should.
First of all, Russia is now in the WTO, and it has gone in with
certain requirements; for example, no export subsidies are allowed.
That's a change, and that's beneficial to those of us who want to trade
with them so they don't rig the deck against us and for them. And there
are major reductions in tariffs.
Also, now that they're in the WTO, there is a dispute settlement
system. So when they violate the requirements, there's a dispute
settlement system that can be enforced. If we don't grant PNTR, we
can't access that dispute settlement system.
Also, it's so important that there be strong enforcement. A number of
my colleagues put forth some legislation that proposed that we beef up
the enforcement provisions within this bill, and that's been done. Our
staff on the Democratic side worked assiduously with the Senate, and
the essence of those provisions are now in this bill. So that's another
reason to vote for it, because strong enforcement is critical to good
trade legislation.
Also, I would urge everybody to look at what are the exports from
this country and the imports from Russia. When you look at those, it's
a good reason for us to vote for this legislation, because the top
three exports from the U.S. are machinery, motor vehicles, and
aircraft--made in America by American workers. And so, in a sense, this
is a ``Make It in America'' piece of legislation.
The dominant import from Russia is in petro, in oil, and in that
sense, they're not directly competing with our workers. So we have, in
terms of what flows, an advantage being a full partner.
But let me say one other thing, because I think those of you who have
followed this know I don't believe that trade legislation is only about
flow of goods. It also has to be embedded in a structure to make sure
that there are benefits for our companies and for our workers and that
there is a structure to try to make sure there's a rule of law, because
if there isn't a rule of law in another country, it is not beneficial
for their citizens or for our companies.
So here I want us to pay attention to the Magnitsky legislation,
because no one should think that it's easy to do business in any
country where there isn't a rule of law. It isn't easy to do business--
and we should hesitate to simply blindly do business--with a country
which really imposes restrictions on the rights of their citizens.
That's what Mr. McGovern has done and what Mr. Cardin and others have
done. And there has been bipartisan cooperation on this point, strong
bipartisan cooperation, to place in this bill the Magnitsky legislation
that sends a clear signal to the Russian Government and to everybody in
Russia that we care about the rights of the citizens there, and as we
do business, we care about the rights of others. That's the strength of
this legislation, in addition to opening their markets for goods made
in America
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. LEVIN. So I really urge that everybody look at this legislation
on its own merits. Whatever the feelings are about other trade
agreements, we need to take each of them on their own, the pluses and
the minuses. In this case, I think--especially now that Russia is in
the WTO--it works so much to our advantage in terms of the economy
here, in terms of jobs here, in terms of our businesses and our
workers. And also, I think we can vote for this legislation, if I might
say so, with good conscience.
Mr. McGovern, you have led. It's a tribute to your devotion to the
human rights of people as we advance trade not only in this
legislation, but in other legislation. I think it's also a recognition
of our ability to work together.
So I urge passage, and tomorrow we speak together to urge passage of
the legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Levin, for
his very thoughtful comments and to say I was very pleased to join with
Mr. McGovern--as Mr. McGovern has mentioned and as I did earlier--a
joint Dear Colleague to focus on the benefits of this legislation as we
tackle this important challenge of human rights.
I happen to believe very fervently that economic liberalization is a
key part of ensuring the ability of human rights to be recognized.
That's why I think this legislation is very, very complementary in
addressing not just job creation, economic growth, and improving
quality of life for people, but I believe both aspects--the Magnitsky
aspect and the permanent normal trade relations--together work to
enhance the human rights situation that is as devastating as it is.
Mr. Speaker, I know I have talked about a number of other Members,
but I'd like to say that for nearly a decade and a half I've been very
privileged to work on a wide range of issues, but one of the most
important has been the issue of trade liberalization with my friend
from Hinsdale, Illinois. She is
[[Page H6384]]
going to be leaving this institution, as you, Mr. Speaker, are and as I
will as well. But I've got to say that this institution is a better
place. The issue of ensuring economic opportunity here in the United
States and around the world is brighter for the work that has been done
by Judy Biggert. I'm happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1300
Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words,
but also for what you have done for this country as far as trade and
how you have really worked so hard to make sure that all of the Members
of Congress realize the impact that trade has for our economy and for
our place in the world. Either bilateral agreements, multilateral
commitments, you were always there to make to sure that we moved
forward on that, and I really thank you.
I do rise in support today of this rule and H.R. 6156, to grant
permanent normal trade relations to Russia. This important legislation
is a small step toward a big reward. Without it, the United States
exporters and service providers will continue to lose business to our
foreign competitors that already have trade relationships with Russia.
And once we lose those markets, our competitors will only become
stronger and better-positioned to surpass the U.S. in a critical
marketplace of the 21st-century global economy.
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, Russia
imported over $500 billion in goods last year; and of that total, only
5 percent came from U.S. exports.
This bill will lift outdated policies that restrict American access
to Russian markets. As a result, studies show that U.S. producers can
expect to achieve double-digit increases over the next decade in
exports of heavy machinery, agricultural machinery, chemicals and
services. This is particularly critical for my home State of Illinois,
where we have fallen behind Japan and Korea in these export categories.
Most importantly, granting Russia permanent normal trade relations
gives the U.S. a level playing field on which we can compete from a
position of strength in terms of intellectual property and agricultural
exports, and it will provide a reliable forum for trade dispute
resolution.
I would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the bill, to grow
American exports and create good jobs here in the United States by
supporting this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank the gentleman for his great work on this
legislation; and also my colleague, who will be leaving us, the
chairman of the Rules Committee, who's done some great work over his
many years.
I rise in support of this legislation. I think it is important to
see, as this continuum moves, our relationship with Russia change and
now moving into a circumstance of additional trade and enhanced trade.
I'm one that's very focused on improving manufacturing here in the
United States, and this is going to open up tremendous opportunities
for our manufacturers. So I want to commend those who've worked
together on this and the Obama administration for their continuing
efforts to open up trade opportunities so that we can make it here and
sell it everywhere, which I think should be our focus.
In addition to that, I think it shows how, over time, old wounds can
be healed and new relationships can be built.
I spoke earlier today with the consulate general for the State of
Israel in Philadelphia, offering my support and concern for the
unfortunate circumstances that are taking place in the Middle East now,
in which hundreds of bombs or rockets have been shot at Israel, some of
its largest cities as the targets. This is a matter for obviously much
higher levels in our government. There have been communications and the
assurance that Israel has the right to defend itself.
But I think that we can see in this Russia trade agreement that if we
can get to the point where there can be relationships that are built on
self-interest and economic development, that we can put the weapons
aside and move toward a circumstance in which people are focused on
economic activity.
So we see in this crisis a circumstance that we hope will resolve
itself. Obviously, we stand with our ally, but we also hope for a day
in which peace will reign, and economic opportunities, I agree with
David Dreier, really is the way in which eventually we can create a
circumstance in which people will not have the necessity to resort to
violence.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the
House. And I hope that we will favorably pass this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to express to my very dear friend from
Philadelphia, express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, for his very kind
words and to say that the recognition that economic liberalization is
one of the greatest keys to our goal of enhancing human rights, the
standard of living, and the quality of life for our fellow human beings
is a very, very important point; and I just want to underscore that
point that was made.
Yes, the Magnitsky legislation is important, but I'm going to talk in
just a moment about what some leaders in Russia have had to say
specifically about PNTR and its impact on human rights.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, with that I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very
good friend from Huntington Beach, my fellow Californian, Mr.
Rohrabacher. And pending that, let me say that he and I have been great
friends since he was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. We've worked
closely on a wide range of things. And I just told him, Mr. Speaker,
since I'm leaving Congress, he's taught me one thing and one thing only
and that is how to make margaritas.
So with that, I'm happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of the rule and of this
legislation, and note that the classified nature of that margarita
formula should never be disclosed to an enemy of the United States, of
course; but we will be glad to transmit that information to colleagues
on the other side of the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship.
I do rise in support of this rule and H.R. 6156, the legislation to
grant permanent normal trade relations status to Russia.
During the 1980s, as it was just mentioned, I worked for Ronald
Reagan in the White House and was part of a team dedicating ourselves
to bringing down the Soviet dictatorship. I might add that Dave Dreier
was an ex officio member of that team.
Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union. That's the most
important message. Over 20 years of reform have created an imperfect
country, yes, but also a new Russia with a relative free press and
churches that were once closed by the Communists which are now filled
with those who would gather to worship God.
Many here in the United States have not appreciated the dramatic
change and continue to view Russia as if it were the Soviet Union 30
years ago.
Well, what we do today is long overdue. Our protracted refusal to
grant Russia permanent normal trade relation status has been
counterproductive and hypocritical. Counterproductive for years because
it's been an unnecessary barrier to better bilateral relations between
our two countries. Hypocritical because over a decade ago we had rushed
to give most favored nation status to Communist China, which still
continues to be the world's worst human rights abuser.
All the arguments made to refuse it to Russia have always applied one
hundredfold to Communist China. However, I have not heard the critics
of this bill calling for an end to our trade status with Communist
China, which I might add, human rights in China is worse today than
when we granted most favored nation status to them.
If we want to have a real debate about trade, the place to start is
with Communist China and not be looking at a democratic Russia. PNTR
for
[[Page H6385]]
China has cost millions and millions of jobs over the decade. Our trade
relations with Russia will benefit both of us, both the people of the
United States, as well as the Russian people.
So how then can we justify such a pro-Communist China policy, which
has had no political reform, and not giving it to Russia, which has had
dramatic political reform?
Two decades ago, while I was working in the White House, I was
arguably one of the Soviet Union's worse enemies. But my boss, Ronald
Reagan, never wanted the people of Russia and the people of the United
States to be enemies. He envisioned, once the Communist Party had been
discarded, that our two peoples would one day be friends and trading
partners and, yes, even allies.
Russian society has moved far from the Cold War. It is past time that
we do the same. We need to reach out to them, stand together against an
alarming rise of power in Communist China and against radical Islamic
terror, which targets Russians as well as Americans.
Thus, I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting and pass this
legislation.
{time} 1310
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I
also want to praise my colleague from California. This is one of the
last rules Mr. Dreier will be managing here on the floor.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I'd like to ask my friend if he has looked at the
schedule that we have for the next 4 weeks. I think it's light years
away until I deal with the last rule here if you look at our
legislative schedule. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. When it comes to the fiscal cliff, I
actually hope you're right. I hope you will be so busy that you will
have no time to think of anything else. But I do want to congratulate
you on this rule and on your tenure here in the House. You will be
missed.
The Jackson-Vanik amendment, Mr. Speaker, was a product of the Cold
War when the Communist threat was ever-present and when Communist
countries had little or no emigration rights. As our friend from
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, just said, we need to recognize that
today's Russia, while hardly a perfect place when it comes to human
rights and political expression, is not the Soviet Union. We need a
positive framework--economic, political, social--to move forward.
This PNTR, normalizing trade relations, allows us to wrangle with
Russia when we think they're wrong in trade disputes at the World Trade
Organization. Absent this normalization, we don't have that leverage.
Furthermore, the committee needs to be really commended, as does my
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for creating a statutory
framework for addressing one of the most egregious human rights
violations in modern Russian history. It involves Sergei Magnitsky.
Now, this framework could ultimately be a model, frankly, as we move
forward in other parts of the world as well, but it certainly marries a
positive trade relationship possibility with vigilant and vigorous
human rights enforcement and vigilance. So I commend the committee for
marrying the two, for allowing us positively to go forward in our
relationship--troubles and all--with modern-day Russia. I urge the
passage of the underlying legislation, H.R. 6156.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I have no further requests
for time. If the gentleman would like to close, I will then offer some
closing remarks.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert two articles into the
Congressional Record--one of The New York Times, entitled, ``Russia
plans to retry dead lawyer in tax case,'' and the other from The
Washington Post, entitled, ``The Kremlin's blacklist.''
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Magnitsky Act has been a
bipartisan and bicameral effort. The final Magnitsky language in title
IV of H.R. 6156 is the result of genuine collaboration and compromise.
I want to again thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
I would like to thank Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority
Whip McCarthy, Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Hoyer, House
Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and our
ranking member, Mr. Berman of California, as well as Mr. Levin, who has
been so very helpful on the Ways and Means Committee, for all of their
support in drafting the bill under consideration by the House this
week. It has been a pleasure to work with all of these individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Magnitsky provisions are strong, flexible
enough to be well implemented and will allow us to have a cooperative
relationship with Russia on trade and other issues while holding human
rights violators accountable, including those responsible for the
brutal treatment and death of Sergei Magnitsky. As I stated earlier, I
would not be supporting PNTR for the Russian Federation if this bill
did not include a Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.
I agree with what has been said about the importance of increased
trade in terms of promoting more positive reforms in countries like
Russia, but there is always a problem when you have a country that
doesn't abide by the rule of law, where impunity rules the day. In
cases like that, I think it is important to have a tool like the
Magnitsky legislation to make it clear to those in Russia--not just
those involved with the Sergei Magnitsky tragedy, but with other
terrible human rights crimes, those who are involved in corruption--to
make it clear to them that there is a consequence and that, even if
within their own countries they are not brought to justice, the world
will know who they are and take appropriate action. There will be visa
bans, and we will go after their assets. To me, this is a very, very
powerful tool that complements the benefits of PNTR for Russia.
I would say to my colleagues that this does represent a genuine
compromise--the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which I am the author of in the
House and Senator Cardin is the author of in the Senate. In the House,
we originally wanted this to be global in its approach, but in the
spirit of compromise, it has been narrowed down to Russia. I think, if
this proves to be a good tool and if it is implemented properly,
hopefully, we can broaden it, because I do think that it is important
for the United States to make it clear to the world that, if we stand
for anything, we stand out loud and foursquare for human rights.
With regard to the rule, I just want to say that I'm a little bit
disappointed that this rule on a bipartisan bill includes lockdown
provisions that restrict the rights of the minority in this body. I
would have preferred that this rule have only included procedures for
the bipartisan PNTR-Magnitsky bill, but in the spirit of
bipartisanship, I'm not going to dwell on that. I'm just going to point
it out for the record.
In conclusion, let me just make this one observation. This is an
example of bipartisanship, of people coming together and of our
supporting an important piece of legislation. I hope that some of this
rubs off on some of the bills that we're going to be considering in the
days and weeks to come, but this really is how this House of
Representatives should be run.
Again, my compliments to the leadership of the Republican Party and
to the leadership of my own party. It was not just gratuitous. I meant
it. This was a process by which those of us who care about the issue of
human rights felt that we were included. As a result, I think we've
come up with a bill that deserves support. I think it will make a
positive difference in the lives of a lot of people in Russia. In terms
of trade, I think it will result in a situation where there is a more
level playing field, where we have an agreement that just doesn't
benefit the few at the expense of the many; we may have an agreement
here that will help benefit the many.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
[[Page H6386]]
[From the New York Times, Feb. 7, 2012]
Russia Plans to Retry Dead Lawyer in Tax Case
(By Andrew E. Kramer)
Moscow.--The police in Russia plan to resubmit for trial a
tax evasion case in which the primary defendant died in
detention more than two years ago, his former employer said
Tuesday.
The trial of the defendant, Sergei L. Magnitsky, would be
the first posthumous prosecution in Russian legal history,
according to a statement by the former employer, Hermitage
Capital.
The death of Mr. Magnitsky, a lawyer, in November 2009 drew
international criticism over Russia's human rights record,
especially after accusations arose that he had been denied
proper medical care. The State Department has barred
officials linked to Mr. Magnitsky's prosecutions from
entering the United States. Parliaments in nine European
countries are considering similar bans.
Police officials reopened the case against Mr. Magnitsky
last summer, saying it would provide a chance for relatives
and supporters to clear his name.
Relatives, though, said they had not asked for that, and
executives at Hermitage said the motive was something else
entirely: to vindicate the officials Mr. Magnitsky had
accused of corruption.
Hermitage Capital's executive director, William F. Browder,
who lives in London, will be a co-defendant in the case; he
will be tried in absentia, a procedure used only
intermittently in the post-Soviet period but restored under a
Russian law that took effect in 2006.
The statement from Hermitage said that even in the Soviet
period, no defendant had been tried after death. But a
Russian Supreme Court ruling last summer allowed the police
to conduct posthumous investigations.
Calls to the press service of the Investigative Committee
of the Interior Ministry, which is handling the case, were
not answered on Tuesday.
Mr. Browder maintains that the posthumous case against Mr.
Magnitsky, who died in pretrial detention when he was 37, is
intended to intimidate his family and discourage them from
pressing for the prosecution of the police and tax officials
who they say orchestrated his imprisonment. A conviction of
Mr. Magnitsky might also appear to vindicate the officials he
had accused of wrongdoing.
The Hermitage statement said a police investigator had
offered to drop the case in a letter to Mr. Magnitsky's
mother last week, but only if relatives stated that they had
no ``desire to protect the honor and dignity of the
deceased.''
Mr. Browder said in the statement, ``If the Russian
Interior Ministry thinks that running a show trial against me
and Sergei will stop our campaign for justice, they are dead
wrong.''
Mr. Magnitsky was detained in 2008 on suspicion of helping
Hermitage Capital evade $17.4 million in taxes. That
accusation came after Mr. Magnitsky testified against
Interior Ministry officials, saying they had used Hermitage
companies to embezzle $230 million from the Russian Treasury
by filing false corporate tax returns.
Mr. Magnitsky's supporters say they believe that the
prosecution was retaliatory, and that investigators assigned
to his case, including individuals he had accused, denied him
medical care before his death.
____
[From the Washington Post, July 26, 2012]
The Kremlin's Blacklist
(By Vladimir V. Kara-Murza)
On July 12, as I stopped at the gate of the Russian Embassy
compound in northwest Washington, the on-duty officer had
some unexpected news. ``I cannot let you in,'' he said
through an intercom. ``You are forbidden to enter the
embassy.'' Being a Russian citizen and a credentialed Russian
journalist, and having been to my country's embassy on
numerous occasions, I was naturally curious. Yevgeny
Khorishko, the embassy's press secretary, whom I called for
an explanation, was brief: The directive to ``strike'' my
name from the list of credentialed Russian journalists came
from Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. No reason was given. In an
interview later with Slon.ru, a Moscow news Web site, the
press secretary explained that the decision reflected the
fact that I am ``no longer a journalist.''
The explanation would seem passable, except for one detail:
The ambassador's directive came before it was publicly
announced that I had been dismissed as Washington bureau
chief of RTVi, as Russian Television International is known,
effective Sept. 1. How Kislyak could have known this in
advance remains a mystery.
Around the same time, two trustworthy sources in Moscow
informed me that my name has been placed on a ``blacklist,''
making me unemployable not only by RTVi but also by other,
even privately owned, Russian media outlets. This was quickly
verified, as one editor after another indicated that
cooperation at this stage is impossible. From his own
sources, opposition leader and former deputy prime minister
Boris Nemtsov found out the name of the Kremlin official who
has supposedly blacklisted me: Alexei Gromov, President
Vladimir Putin's first deputy chief of staff. As for the
reason for the Berufsverbot, my interlocutors were
unequivocal: It was my advocacy for the Sergei Magnitsky Rule
of Law Accountability Act, currently being considered by the
U.S. Congress.
This bill, a rare example of congressional bipartisanship,
proposes to introduce a targeted visa ban and asset freeze
for Russian officials ``responsible for the detention, abuse,
or death of Sergei Magnitsky''--an anticorruption lawyer
tortured to death in a Moscow prison in 2009--as well as for
any ``extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights''
(among them, ``the freedoms of religion, expression,
association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and
democratic elections''). The Magnitsky Act would bring a
much-needed measure of accountability to corrupt Russian
officials and human rights violators who prefer to rule in
the manner of Zimbabwe or Belarus but opt for such
destinations as the United States or Britain when it comes to
storing and spending their ill-gotten gains.
Along with many other representatives of Russia's civil
society, political opposition and independent media, I have
been a vocal supporter of the legislation, urging its passage
in public speeches and in private meetings with Washington
policymakers. In authoritarian systems that maintain their
power by stifling free initiative and free speech, the line
between journalism and civic activism is not--and cannot be--
as rigid as it is in democratic societies. Colleagues have
long warned that my support for the bill would, sooner or
later, catch the Kremlin's attention. The timing is not
surprising, as the bill is nearing passage.
My case is just one in a series of ``retaliatory'' measures
Putin's regime has taken against Russian supporters of the
Magnitsky legislation. Other examples include the recent
early-morning raids on the homes of opposition leaders and a
series of new repressive laws directed against Russia's
already-besieged civil society, including the 150-fold
increase in fines for ``violations'' at public rallies and
the requirement that Russian nongovernmental organizations
that receive funding from abroad be tagged as ``foreign
agents.'' That the targets of retaliation are Russian is
hardly surprising: A ``reciprocal'' visa ban for U.S.
sponsors of the Magnitsky Act would have drawn only laughter.
Officials in Moscow had long promised that the response to
the bill would be ``asymmetrical.''
The Kremlin's blackmail must not be allowed to succeed. The
hysterical reaction from Putin's regime shows beyond doubt
that the legislation hits precisely where it hurts. The
prospect of losing access to the West and its financial
systems (initiatives similar to the U.S. bill are already
being considered in European Union parliaments and in Canada)
may well be, for now, the only serious disincentive to
corruption and human rights violations by Russian officials.
Symbolically, the adoption of the Magnitsky Act has been tied
to the repeal of the antiquated Jackson-Vanik Amendment, thus
replacing trade sanctions against a nation with personal
sanctions against specific criminals. Perhaps the most pro-
Russian piece of legislation ever put before the U.S.
Congress, the Magnitsky Act offers Washington an opportunity
to speak with a unified voice and with unquestioned moral
clarity. I hope that it will be signed into law before the
end of the year.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me offer some closing remarks and say that, as I
reminisce, having spent virtually my entire adult life as a Member of
this body, privileged to stand in this well for nearly three-and-a-half
decades--making arguments, engaging in debate--as I said, I'm very
gratified that we were able to work on one of the many final issues,
which is the first issue of the lame duck session, in a bipartisan way
as my friend from Worcester just said. I was privileged to work with
him and to have him as a cosigner of this Dear Colleague letter that we
sent out in support of this legislation.
I am reminded, in having listened to remarks from both sides of the
aisle--my California colleague (Mr. Rohrabacher) and others--that on
the 6th of November 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for
President of the United States. He offered lots of eloquence and lots
of brilliance, but he said something that at the time was seen as
absolute heresy, not only here in the United States but around the
world and within this hemisphere.
On the 6th of November 1979, Reagan envisaged this notion of
eliminating tariff barriers among all of the Americas so that we could
have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas, and
yes, people as well. That's aspirational. That's a notion that he put
forward. A few years later in the Congress, I was privileged to be
elected the day Ronald Reagan was elected President. I joined with my
colleagues Mr. Colby and Mr. Lewis, and introduced legislation calling
for the elimination of tariff barriers among Canada, the United States,
and Mexico, which led to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
[[Page H6387]]
{time} 1320
Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this diminution--in fact, elimination--
of tariff and nontariff barriers is so we can enhance freedom, enhance
opportunity, and improve the quality of life and the standard of living
for people not only here in the United States, but around the world, as
well. We understand that even in repressive societies, that if we can
proceed with economic liberalization, political liberalization will
follow.
I have to counter the statement that was made by my California
colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, about China. I am not going to stand here
on the day that Xi Jinping has become the new leader of China and claim
that things are perfect in China, but I will argue that permanent
normal trade relations and China's accession to the World Trade
Organization has been beneficial. Why? Because if one looks at the
great leap forward in China, there were tens of millions of people who
were killed. During the cultural revolution, well over a million people
were starved to death.
So you look at the great leap forward, you look at the cultural
revolution in China, and you look today at the horrendous human rights
violations that exist in China, and my goal is still to see us move
towards political pluralism, the development of democratic
institutions, a greater sense of the rule of law. But there are a few
thousand political prisoners in China. It's horrible. It's not
acceptable. But, Mr. Speaker, I argue that that is progress.
It was 10 years ago that I was very privileged to work with President
Clinton in seeing China's accession to the World Trade Organization and
permanent normal trade relations established. We were able to do that
right here in a bipartisan way, and things are better than they were.
They're not great; they're not acceptable; but, Mr. Speaker, they are
better than they were.
I know there are some who--and Mr. Rohrabacher thoughtfully did point
to the fact that Russia is obviously not what it was like under the
Soviet Union. I mean, we can all think back to the refuseniks. I
remember adopting refuseniks, Jews who were unable to emigrate from
Russia. You think about all of the military expenses that were involved
throughout the Cold War, stories--I just came back from Georgia and the
Ukraine, overseeing their elections, having been throughout Eastern
Europe and Central Europe and heard stories about the kind of
repression that existed. As bad as Russia is today, it's still a marked
improvement over what existed during the Cold War and the time of the
Soviet Union.
A lot of us held out a great deal of hope for Russia, more so than we
have right now, just a few years ago, and because we've seen backward
steps. I've talked about my friend Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who, at this
moment, is languishing in a Russian prison for simply criticizing
Vladimir Putin. I'm here today in large part because I want Mikhail
Khodorkovsky to be freed. I want to see an end to that kind of
treatment of individuals.
Similarly, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the tragic death
of Sergei Magnitsky. It was absolutely horrible that this 37-year-old
lawyer, a young man with, as my friend pointed out, a wife and small
children, was imprisoned for simply being a whistleblower. He was
tortured, abused, and left to die 3 years ago tomorrow. Again, in the
21st century, that is intolerable. It can't be accepted. That's why we
need to continue to pursue this effort on economic liberalization.
I'm not going to counter what my friend said about the importance of
the Magnitsky component to this legislation, but I would like to share
the words of some formerly incarcerated Russians, some of whom were
incarcerated human rights leaders in Russia who long before we did the
Magnitsky language talked about how important this is. Let me just read
a bit of this letter that is signed by seven human rights activists. It
goes down the line of these Russians who have been opposition leaders
in the forefront.
Before we did this, understanding how important PNTR and China's
accession to the WTO would be, they said:
The persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment
does not help to solve the problems with democracy and human
rights in modern Russia at all. Moreover, it brings direct
harm. This helps Mr. Putin and his cronies.
He is basically saying that repeal of Jackson-Vanik is something that
is going to help undermine Putin and his cronies.
They go on to say:
Those who defend the argument that Jackson-Vanik's
provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish
Putin's antidemocratic regime only darken Russia's political
future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its
democratic aspirations.
We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition,
strongly stand behind the efforts to remove Russia from the
provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
This is exactly what this measure has done before.
While I'm gratified that we've been able, in a bipartisan way to
include Magnitsky, there is recognition that simply repeal of Jackson-
Vanik would go a long way towards undermining the political repression
that exists in Russia today.
Mr. Speaker, I also have to say on this overall issue of trade,
thanks are being spread around. I want to express my appreciation to my
very good friends and colleagues, Dave Camp, the chairman of the Ways
and Means Committee, and Kevin Brady, who chairs the Trade
Subcommittee. I've worked with them for many years on the important
issue of trade liberalization and in our pursuit of ensuring that we
can create good American jobs, union and nonunion jobs, by opening up
these markets.
I also have to say that I know people like to malign the 87 newly
elected Republican Members, this Tea Party class of crazy people. You
read that. You hear that in the media on a regular basis. Frankly, I
have to say, Mr. Speaker, the leadership that they have shown on this
issue and on the issues of Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are very
important issues. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I express my
appreciation to the fact that 73 of them signed a letter to the
President saying that this needed to be brought forward. We want to
work in a bipartisan way to make this happen.
I urge support of this rule, and then tomorrow when we have the vote
on PNTR, a strong bipartisan support in behalf of the efforts of
Messrs. Camp and Levin and Brady and others.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________