[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7437-S7445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RUSSIA AND MOLDOVA JACKSON-VANIK REPEAL AND SERGEI MAGNITSKY RULE OF
LAW ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2012
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to consideration of H.R. 6156, which the clerk will report by
title.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also note several of our friends,
including Senator Lieberman, who are on the floor. Senator Lieberman
also has had a major role in this legislation, and I would ask
unanimous consent that he be included in the colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my friend, Senator Cardin, I had a
statement I wanted to make before the colloquy and I know the Senator
has a statement. Since it is his legislation, I would be glad to wait
with my remarks until the Senator from Maryland completes his. And how
much time, could I ask, of my colleague?
Mr. CARDIN. I think my initial comments would be about 10 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. And I would have about 10 minutes, if that is agreeable
to my friend from Connecticut--who, obviously, is jobless and homeless.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland make his
remarks, followed by mine, and then the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator McCain for not
just working this out but for his leadership on this issue. He has
provided the moral leadership we need on dealing with human rights
issues. He is a cosponsor of the Sergei Magnitsky Accountability Act,
and I thank him for that.
Today we close a chapter in the U.S. history on the advancing of
human rights with the repeal basically of Jackson-Vanik. It served its
purpose. Today, we open a new chapter in U.S. leadership for human
rights with the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.
As the Presiding Officer has heard, this involves a lawyer named
Sergei Magnitsky who had U.S. interests that he was representing in
Russia. He discovered the largest tax fraud in Russia's history. He did
what a lawyer should do: He brought it to the attention of the
authorities.
As a result of his bringing this corruption in local government to
the authorities, he was arrested. He was tortured because they wanted
him to recant what he had said. They wanted him to basically not tell
the truth. He refused to do that. He needed medical attention; he was
denied medical attention; and on November 16, 2009, he lost his life in
a Russian prison, being denied the opportunity to get needed health
care. He was 37 years old, with a wife and two children. Those who were
responsible for his death and those who were responsible for the
coverup have never been brought to justice. They have gone unpunished,
and in some cases they have even been promoted.
The facts are well known. These are not hidden facts. The
international community knows the people who were involved, knows about
the coverup, and knows that they have not been held accountable, and
this has gained international attention. That is why I filed
legislation aimed at the individuals responsible for the Magnitsky
tragedy. It says, quite clearly, that those involved would be held
accountable by being denied certain international rights.
It also includes those involved in extrajudicial killings, torture,
or violations of internationally recognized human rights. The
legislation says, Look, we are not going to let you have the fruits of
your corruption. We are going to deny you the opportunity to hold your
illegal gains in our banking system--which is where they prefer; they
don't want to hold rubles, they want to hold dollars--and that we will
not let you have a visa, a privilege, to visit our country, to visit
your property in our country or your family in this country. It targets
the individuals who committed the gross human rights violation, and it
recognizes the failure of the host country to deal with those
violations.
I want to thank all those who have been involved in the development
of this legislation. Senator McCain has been one of the great leaders
on these human rights issues. This is not a partisan division. We have
strong bipartisan support. I have already acknowledged Senator Kyl, who
recently spoke. I know Senator Wicker took the floor a little earlier
and I thank him, the ranking member on the Helsinki Commission. I want
to thank Senator Shaheen, the chair of the European Subcommittee of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee for her work, and Senator Bob
Menendez on the Foreign Relations Committee. All those individuals were
very instrumental in dealing with this. Senator Durbin has been a real
champion on human rights. I want to acknowledge Kyle Parker, staff
person from the Helsinki Commission, who was very instrumental in the
development of this legislation. I want to also acknowledge Senator
Lieberman's work. I know he will be speaking in a few minutes.
It was Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and myself who first
suggested that we should pass the Magnitsky bill. It is the right thing
to do, but we certainly shouldn't let PNTR go without attaching the
Magnitsky bill. I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for
raising that connection. It was the right thing to do. First, it
allowed us to get this human rights tool enacted. Secondly, I think it
gave us the best chance to get the PNTR bill done in the right form. So
I thank both of them for their leadership.
In 1974, we passed the Jackson-Vanik law that dealt with the failure
of the Soviet Union to allow for the emigration of its citizens,
affecting mainly Soviet Jews. It was controversial in its time. People
said, Why are we connecting human rights to trade? Why is the United
States doing that? After all, trade is so important.
Well, we did it. It made a huge difference, and we were able to get
Soviet Jews out of the Soviet Union. We spoke for Western values in our
trade legislation. We protected the rights of individuals who refused
this.
When I first came to Congress 26 years ago, I joined the
congressional caucus for Soviet Jewry. I wore the wrist bands of
refuseniks, joined by many of our colleagues. Twenty-five years ago, I
marched in Washington, a march for Soviet Jews. We stood for basic
rights, and we changed the landscape on this issue. I had a chance to
[[Page S7438]]
be with Natan Sharansky and celebrate what he meant to people who loved
freedom around the world. We initiated that with Jackson-Vanik. It was
a proud chapter in American history.
Today we end that chapter, because Jackson-Vanik is no longer
relevant to the human rights challenges of our time. But with the
passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Accountability Act, we meet the
challenges of our time. We meet those individuals who are committing
gross human rights violations. This act is a global standard for the
advancement of human rights.
Unfortunately, the Magnitsky tragedy is not unique within Russia. We
know of other circumstances within the country. We saw the results of
last year's elections and the attitude of government toward
journalists. We need the protection of the Magnitsky standards for
human rights violations within Russia.
But it doesn't end with Russia. Human rights violations are global,
and we should have these tools available globally. We need to prevent
Russia and other countries from regressing on their commitments to
human rights.
I must tell you, when you take a look at the legislation that came
out of our two committees, S. 1039, coming out of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and coming out of the Senate Finance Committee--I
serve on both of those committees--it says very clearly that the law
would apply to those responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture,
or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights
committed against individuals seeking to obtain, exercise, defend, or
promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as
the freedom of religion, expression, association, assembly, and the
rights to a fair trial and democratic elections anywhere in the world.
That was the legislation we reported in two of our committees. And I
might tell you, there was overwhelming support that we should make it
global. Senator Kyl talked about that, and I am sure others will also.
In H.R. 6156, you will see the exact language we have in our
Magnitsky bill with one exception: ``Anywhere in the world'' is changed
to ``Russia.'' I am disappointed in that, and I join with Senator Kyl
in that disappointment. I think it would have been much better if we
would have incorporated the international standards and global
provisions.
I think it is very important Congress pass this bill. I strongly
support it. I support the effort to get this to the President as
quickly as possible. But there is a clear message here: This bill is
our standard. We will be holding countries to this standard. We will
look for other opportunities to attach these provisions to other trade
bills. We will look for other opportunities to reinstitute the global
application of the Magnitsky standards. It is the right thing. The
world is on notice. Other countries are following our leadership. We
expect other countries will be acting with similar standards.
I might point out, as I did over 2 years ago, there is existing
authority within the State Department to deny visas to human rights
violators. I think we should make that very clear and we should enact a
law that makes it clear. We have to pass the Magnitsky law as relates
to Russia. But there is authority, and we expect the administration
will follow that authority.
I am hopeful people understand that although the language of the law
is not as broad as we would like it to be, many of us consider this to
be the international standard, and we will be asking to hold other
countries accountable for violators of human rights that that country
does not deal with in denying them the right to visit our country or to
use our banking system.
One last point. There are some who say, Well, aren't we interfering
with the internal affairs of a sovereign country? Nothing could be
further from the truth. We have a right--I would say a responsibility--
to challenge internationally recognized human rights violations in
other countries. It is well established. Both Russia and the United
States are members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. I had the honor of a senate chair in the Helsinki Commission,
our implementing arm. That organization gives us the right to raise
human rights problems in other countries. We have used that to advance
efforts to stop human trafficking, to deal with antisemiticism, to deal
with corruption issues in other countries. We have that right. We have
that responsibility. And our actions today are for the Russian people
and for its government.
I have heard from so many human rights activists in Russia, from
Russian business leaders to ordinary citizens, who tell me Russia can
do better, and they urge us to move forward with the Magnitsky
Accountability Act.
The United States, by the passage of this bill, will be on the right
side of history. It will deepen our relationship with the Russian
people. Yes, we are ending a chapter with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik,
but we are starting a new chapter on human rights--one which we can be
proud of where America once again is establishing a basic principle
that we will not tolerate those who violate internationally recognized
human rights standards. We will not let them go without being held
accountable. And we certainly will not let them have the privileges of
our country if they violate internationally recognized human rights
standards.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak
in favor of H.R. 6156--the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and
Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. This day has been a
long time in coming, and the fact that it has now come is thanks to the
great work of many of my colleagues, and I want to take a minute to
recognize a few of them personally.
First and foremost is the Senator from Maryland. It is not an
exaggeration in the least to say that, were it not for Senator Cardin's
leadership on behalf of human rights in Russia and his tireless
dedication to memorializing the courageous dissent of one remarkable
man--Sergei Magnitsky--we would not be here today. Senator Cardin is
the original author of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability
Act. He passionately educated his colleagues about the need for this
legislation, which is why it eventually won 25 bipartisan cosponsors in
the Senate. The Senator from Maryland has my deepest respect and
gratitude for his efforts on behalf of human rights in Russia. He has
established himself as a leading voice in our country on these issues.
I have been honored to be his partner in this endeavor from the very
beginning as the original lead Republican co-sponsor of the Magnitsky
Act. And when this legislation is passed, as I am confident that it
will be, Senator Cardin deserves all the credit in the world for this
historic achievement.
I also want to recognize the efforts of the Senator from Montana. I
appealed to Senator Baucus last year to join the Magnitsky Act together
with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and Moldova and the
extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to both countries.
He agreed, and in a letter to me, as well as a few of my colleagues,
the Senator from Montana pledged to marry the 2 pieces of legislation
together and to do everything in his power to see that the Senate could
act on them together. He has been true to his word at every step of the
way, and I am pleased to stand here today as an original co-sponsor of
the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and Moldova, as well as the
Magnitsky Act.
Finally, the person I want to acknowledge above all is Sergei
Magnitsky--whose remarkable life and tragic death is the reason that
brings us here today. Sergei Magnitsky was a tax attorney working for
an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had invested in
Russia. He did not spend his life as a human rights activist or an
outspoken critic of the Russian government. He was an ordinary man, but
he became an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness and the rule
of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all meaning.
What Mr. Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian
government officials and criminals associated with them colluded to
defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian government in
turn blamed the crime
[[Page S7439]]
on Hermitage Capital and threw Mr. Magnitsky in prison in 2008. Mr.
Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial. Russian officials
pressured him to deny what he had uncovered--to lie and recant. But he
refused. He was sickened by what his government had done, and he
refused to surrender principle to brute power.
As a result, Mr. Magnitsky was transferred to increasingly more
severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat
unclean food and drink unsanitary water. He was denied basic medical
care as his health worsened. In fact, he was placed in increasingly
worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in
prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.
What is even more tragic is that the case of Mr. Magnitsky is only
one of the most extreme examples of the broad and dramatic
deterioration of rule of law in Russia, and its replacement with
arbitrary and nearly unchecked state power, which is increasingly
concentrated in the hands of one man, President Vladimir Putin.
What is emerging in Russia today can only be described as a culture
of impunity--a sense among those who control the levers of power that
Russia is theirs for the taking, and the only question left to debate
is how government officials and other elites will divide up the wealth,
the power, and the spoils. This culture of impunity begins, first and
foremost, with President Putin. He sets the tone in the country. And
right now, with his return to the presidency, and with many of the
actions that the Russian government has taken recently, the signal is
being sent across the country, especially to every petty tyrant and
aspiring autocrat in the Russian state, that Putin is doing what he
wishes. He is using the instruments of the state to crush his critics.
He is getting away with it. And you can too.
This culture of impunity in Russia has been growing worse and worse
over many years. It has been deepened by the increased surveillance and
harassment of members of opposition and civil society groups . . . by
the continued violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish
the truth about official corruption and other state crimes in Russia
today . . . and of course, by the continued detention of numerous
political prisoners, not least Mikhail Khordokovsky and his associate
Platon Lebedev, who remain locked away but not forgotten. I continue to
fear for the health and safety of both men. And I pray for them.
The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in Russia's recent
elections--the parliamentary election last December and the
presidential election in March--which were criticized for their flaws
and irregularities by impartial, objective international organizations.
It can be seen in the recent NGO law passed by the Russian legislature,
which requires any civil society group in Russia that receives
international funding to register as a ``foreign agent.'' The vast
majority of these civil society groups have nothing to do with
politics. Clearly, the intent of this law is nothing less than to
demonize, and marginalize, and stigmatize as treasonous whatever
independent civil society organizations still remain in Russia.
The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in the
government's new and growing interpretation of its law against
extremism. A law that may once have been designed to address real
concerns with terrorism and violent extremism is now being broadened to
put pressure on civil society groups and religious minority groups,
even including the Jehovah's Witnesses. A Russian court even went so
far as to classify as an extremist organization the punk rock band of
Russian girls that staged a protest performance this year in Moscow's
Christ the Savior Cathedral. Any media outlet in Russia that would dare
to broadcast this group's material could now be subject to having their
outfit closed down by the Russian state.
This culture of impunity was extended even further last month in
Russia's new law against treason. That term has now been defined so
broadly that it allows the state to ban websites and impose fines, and
likely worse penalties, against Russians who participate in
unregistered demonstrations, who fail to register as foreign agents
where now required under Russian law, and even to those who are
suspected of giving advice to foreigners. Many Russians rightly believe
that this new treason law is so expansive that the government can use
it to stifle the legitimate rights and freedoms of anyone they deem to
be an enemy of the state.
This culture of impunity also extends to the recent decision by the
Russian government to terminate the presence and all programming of
USAID in Russia. Whatever the stated reason for this decision, there
should be no doubt why it was done--to try to further isolate, and
marginalize, and emasculate civil society groups in Russia by denying
them an ability to work in partnership with the United States, as many
of these groups have freely done and wish to continue doing.
Ultimately, this culture of impunity in Russia is why Sergei
Magnitsky is dead. That is why, even now, no one has yet been held
accountable for his murder. And I suspect no one ever will. What is
worse, the Russian government has done the opposite: It has put Sergei
Magnitsky, a dead man, on trial, perhaps in an effort to prove that he
got what he deserved. They have even required Mr. Magnitsky's mother
and family to appear at the trial, which sinks this case to a whole new
low. This culture of impunity is why videos are surfacing even now that
document the brutal conditions of Russia's prison system, and the
systematic abuse and torture to which detainees are subjected there at
the hands of midlevel tyrants who want to run their small part of the
Russian state just as their president does.
This is why we need to pass the Magnitsky Act. If citizens and civil
society groups in Russia do not have a path to justice in Russia, then
the international community has a responsibility to show these people
that there can still be accountability, that there can still be
consequences, for what they are suffering.
The Magnitsky Act does that. And I want to be clear: What is so
important about this legislation is that its provisions would not
simply apply to those Russian officials responsible for the torture and
murder of Sergei Magnitsky; it would also apply to other persons in
Russia who commit human rights abuses. In short, this is not just about
historical accountability; it is also about preventing future Magnitsky
cases. It is about imposing consequences on all human rights violators
in Russia.
The allegation that this legislation infringes on Russian sovereignty
is nonsense. The Magnistsky Act does not require the Russian government
or Russian citizens to do anything they do not wish to do. It cannot
force human rights abusers in Russia to stop what they are doing. But
if they continue, what this legislation does do is tell those
individuals that they cannot bank their money in the United States,
that they are not welcome in this country, that they cannot visit this
country, and that they will have no access to the U.S. financial
system.
Now, I know we have had a debate about whether to make this bill
globally applicable--a tool that could be used to apply these same
kinds of penalties to human rights abusers anywhere in the world. This
is a worthy goal, and I believe we should have such a debate in the
next Congress. It is important now, however, that the Magnitsky Act
remain focused squarely and exclusively on Russia. That is what Russian
democrats and civil society groups tell me they want right now. They
want Congress to send their government a message on human rights, and
by keeping the Magnitsky Act focused for now on Russia, we can do just
that.
Furthermore, the administration can use its own executive authority
at this time to apply similar kinds of pressures contained in the
Magnitsky Act to human rights abusers in other countries. I, for one,
will be watching closely to see if they do, for many other cases are
crying out for greater U.S. leadership on behalf of human rights. And
if the administration does not take the initiative to apply the
leverage at our disposal to these other cases beyond Russia, that is
the surest way to ensure that the Congress will act to globalize the
Magnitsky Act next year.
There are still many people who look at the Magnitsky Act as anti-
Russia. I
[[Page S7440]]
disagree. I believe it is pro-Russia. I believe it is pro-Russia
because this legislation is about the rule of law, and human rights,
and accountability, which are values that Russians hold dear. I believe
it is pro-Russia because it does not make all Russians pay for the
crimes of a small handful of corrupt officials, and in this way, the
Magnitsky Act is an improvement on Jackson-Vanik and an ideal
replacement for it. I believe the Magnitsky Act is pro-Russia in the
same way that Permanent Normal Trade Relations is also pro-Russia--
because both measures are ultimately about strengthening ordinary
Russians who long for greater opportunity, greater freedom, and greater
protections for their rights under the rule of law.
I am not under any illusion that the passage of either the Magnitsky
Act or PNTR for Russia will ensure the success of rule of law in
Russia. Not at all. But while both measures are very different and
present very different kinds of benefits to the Russian people--one a
material benefit, the other a moral benefit--both of these measures, I
firmly believe, are nonetheless beneficial to Russia. Both create high
standards to which we and others can hold the Russian government, both
on the trade front and on matters of human rights. Both provisions
create levers for international accountability where few currently
remain in Russia. In other words, the Magnitsky Act and PNTR for Russia
can serve as tools that will help to empower ordinary Russians who do
not want their lives or their livelihoods to be determined solely by
the predatory elites in the Russian state.
Ultimately, passing this legislation will place the United States
squarely on the side of the Russian people and the right side of
Russian history, which appears to be approaching a crossroads. I remind
my colleagues that today is the anniversary of the massive protests
that rocked Russia one year ago. As I have said before, I do not
believe that the demand for freedom and dignity that have so profoundly
shaken the Arab world are unique to that part of the world. I think the
effects of these upheavals will be global, because the values and
aspirations at their heart are universal. I think this makes Mr. Putin
and his cronies very nervous--and it should. The desire for peaceful
change and democratic and legal reform can be delayed for a time. They
can be delayed, but they cannot be denied. This legislation is a vote
in favor of a brighter, better future for the Russian people--a future
that they can determine, freely and independently, for themselves.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not conclude with a word on
Moldova, because this legislation would also take the long overdue step
of repealing Jackson-Vanik for Moldova and granting it Permanent Normal
Trade Relations as well. This should have been done years ago. I have
been an advocate for this action for many years. I have continually
insisted that the Congress should not be allowed to pass PNTR for
Russia without doing the same for Moldova. That was a condition of my
co-sponsorship of this legislation, and I am proud that the Senate is
now on the verge of clearing the way for normal trade relations between
the United States and Moldova. That small country has taken enormous
strides toward democratic and economic reform, and toward deeper
integration in the European community. Passing this legislation will be
a critical vote of confidence in Moldova's political and economic
reforms and in support of its democratic future.
For all of these reasons, and for the many more that I have listed
with regards to Russia, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Finally, I say to my three colleagues on the floor, there are times
when we do a lot of things for the people we represent and a lot of
things for the country. I think what we are doing here, which will be
rapidly approved and has already been approved by the House and will be
made into law, is something we are doing for people in Russia who need
our help now, our voice and our commitment. Many of the great and
wonderful ideas, promises, and prospects after the fall of the Soviet
Union that was the case of Russia have been dashed. Maybe we should
take responsibility for not playing a more constructive role in the
1990s when Russia was going through a critical phase.
I promise today, not just to Sergei Magnitsky's widow, but to all
people throughout Russia who will be encouraged by this message
because, as they were years ago, the legislation we are now repealing,
the Jackson-Vanik act, was a call to the people in Russia who were
being held under terrible conditions that they would now be able to
freely immigrate to a land with promise of a better future. I believe
that today this legislation is one of the most important ones that in
years to come we can be proud we were a small part of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Arizona on
the moral clarity of his statement. I think the Senator is absolutely
right. The moral clarity here is clear: Those who commit gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights are on notice. As
the Senator pointed out, this legislation applies beyond the Magnitsky
tragedy, it applies to Russia, and it is a standard that we intend to
use for other opportunities whether it is trade bills or other
legislation.
I hope we will make this statutorily global. We will have that debate
at a later point. We will have other opportunities to make it clear
that those who violate human rights are internationally recognized,
that the clarity here is clear, and that there will be repercussions on
the rights of our own country.
We cannot determine how Russia will treat its violators under their
laws; they will have to handle that. But we have the moral certainty
that we are not going to assist those violators and deny their
opportunities to come to America and use our banking system.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, a quick response to my friend from
Maryland, and that is we talk a lot about the globalization. Don't
think that dictators, brutal rulers, and oligarchies all over the world
are not paying attention to this legislation. Our message to them is:
Keep it up; you are next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I
thank him very much for his leadership. He is a stalwart leader in
protecting human rights all over the world, but in this case Russia. I
think he is right in suggesting that it is a good follow-on to
protecting human rights, and certainly in this case Russia.
I thank the Senator very much.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that under the time to be
controlled on the Democratic side, the following Senators be given the
time listed: Senator Levin, 15 minutes, and Senator Cardin, 50 minutes.
I understand that he has already used a certain amount of time, so the
total will be 50 minutes. Senator Durbin will be given 10 minutes and
Senator Lieberman 10 minutes; further, all time used for debate on the
bill earlier today during morning business be counted toward the 5
hours allocated under the unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend, the chair of the
Finance Committee. I thank him for yielding me 10 minutes. While I am
expressing gratitude, may I express gratitude to the Senator from
Maryland. Talk about moral clarity, which is a term he just used for
our friend from Arizona, he showed real moral clarity for this and so
many other issues. I thank him for that.
As I begin my final month in the U.S. Senate, it gives me great
confidence to know that people such as Senator Cardin and Senator
McCain are going to be here to continue to hold America to the standard
that our founding doctrines hold us to, which is to be a beacon of
human rights and a protector of those who fight for human rights around
the world. So my thanks and compliments to Senator Cardin.
I rise to join those who are supporting this bill, which is two
measures brought together in a mutually productive partnership. The
case for granting
[[Page S7441]]
PNTR to Russia is clear and straightforward.
Russia became a full member of the World Trade Organization over 3
months ago, and in doing so was bound to pledge to cut tariffs for
manufactured imports and open its service sector to foreign
competition. In order for American companies to realize these benefits,
we must grant permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, to Russia. For
this reason the only country that will be disadvantaged if we fail to
pass this bill will be our own, and that particularly means our own
businesses. Of course, that is why generally American businesses and
leading business advocacy groups such as the chamber of commerce, in
particular, have supported this legislation so strongly. It is also why
the Governors of 14 of our States, including Connecticut, and six
former U.S. Trade Representatives have urged the Senate to follow the
House and swiftly pass this bill.
I also note that this legislation will grant permanent normal trade
relations to the country of Moldova, a country that has demonstrated
tremendous democratic progress over the past two decades. Deepening our
economic ties with Moldova is good for American business and will help
keep Moldova on the path of democracy as well as development. So PNTR
for Russia and Moldova is necessary and good for the United States.
For me, and I hope many others--eloquently expressed by Senator
Cardin and Senator McCain--the case for this bill is sealed because of
its incorporation of separate legislation, the Magnitsky Rule of Law
and Accountability Act, of which I am privileged to be a cosponsor.
I must say that as I look back over the 24 years in the Senate, which
I have been doing a lot lately, there are not too many pieces of
legislation that I have been prouder to be associated with than the
Magnitsky Act.
As many of you know, this legislation is named for a 37-year-old
Russian tax lawyer named Sergei Magnitsky whose tragic murder 3 years
ago is among the most horrible examples of corruption and thuggishness
that continues to afflict Russia. Mr. Magnitsky is rightfully the
namesake of this legislation. It will impose a visa ban and asset
freeze not only against those officials whom we have good reason to
believe are responsible for his murder, but also against Russian
officials responsible for any and all human rights abuses that are too
regularly taking place in that country.
Senator McCain, Senator Cardin, and I have had the privilege of
meeting with Russian dissidents, political activists, and human rights
leaders over the years. What they have told me and my colleagues over
and over is that there is one thing above all others we can do here in
the United States to help support the cause of human rights and the
rule of law in Russia, and that is to pass the Magnitsky Act.
So today I join my colleagues who support this legislation and say to
those in Russia who are striving courageously to secure their
fundamental freedoms--the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness that our Founders said in our declaration were the
endowment of our Creator to every human being--that we have not and
will not forget them and their cause. We know and will remember their
names. We will stand in solidarity with them and in support of them
until they achieve their goal, which is a goal we share. That goal is
the spread of democracy and a democratic Russia that respects the rule
of law, protects human rights, and is free of corruption.
I want to echo what my friends said a moment ago. I was thinking
about it. I am not sure anybody has mentioned the name of Natan
Sharansky, a famous Russian dissident of an earlier time, a refusenik
placed in a Russian gulag and who served so much time in solitary
confinement. I have had the honor to get to know him. If you read his
books, there is a very moving series of sections where he talks about
the fact that when Jackson-Vanik passed and they learned about it, they
would communicate with each other in the most primitive ways when news
came in, and what an inspiration it was. In some sense it kept not just
hope alive but kept them alive, that the U.S. Congress had adopted this
law which would impose penalties on the Soviet Union unless it allowed
people to freely emigrate. Disproportionately at that time it was
dealing with Jews.
It was also stated that they wanted to leave because they were so
oppressed in the Soviet Union. It was actually stated in global terms
at that time. Maybe sometime we will come back and address that.
I remember what Sharansky said about the day while in solitary
confinement somebody was able to convey to him by tapping pipes that
President Reagan had called Russia--and the Soviet Union, really--the
evil empire. And knowing that the leader of the free world--the most
powerful person in the world--would call out this oppressive government
that had locked him up for no reason other than he had advocated for
human rights, he said this would sustain his hope.
In some small way I hope the passage of this Magnitsky Act will do
the same for those who are fighting for the many people whose freedom
of expression has already been compromised by the government in Russia
and for the people whose businesses have been essentially taken by the
government.
I think one of the great disappointments over the last quarter
century is the hope that we had after the fall of the Berlin wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union, that this great country of Russia,
this great people whose history and culture is so proud and so strong,
would finally be able to be free of tyranny. Well, they are freer than
they were during Soviet times. I guess that is some small consolation.
But increasingly the central government and President Putin have
compromised human rights.
Incidentally, going to the other part of this bill, the PNTR part for
free trade, there are a lot of businesses in the United States and
elsewhere in the world that will be hesitant to invest as much as they
would otherwise invest in Russia so long as the Russian Government is
as autocratic, irrational, suppressive, repressive, and corrupt as this
Russian Government is. So in all these respects, I would say that the
Magnitsky Act is a worthy successor to Jackson-Vanik, which was such a
crusading human rights measure in its own day and, may I add, bears the
name of a truly great Senator, Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson, a personal
role model to me and others. Today the Jackson-Vanik amendment no
longer makes sense because there is free emigration from Russia;
therefore, we are right to lift it. But it is equally right that we
replace it with a law that will address the primary human rights facing
Russia today. May I say in repealing Jackson-Vanik, we actually honor
his proud legacy and keep it alive.
Just over a year ago, when the Russian people responded to a
fraudulent parliamentary election by taking peacefully to the streets,
the Kremlin responded with thuggish brutality. Instead of at least
respecting the legitimate demands of his people or listening to them,
President Putin falsely accused the United States of creating this
opposition in Russia and began a campaign of stifling dissent that
continues to escalate to this day. Independent media outlets have been
targeted, including American broadcasting services. Journalists and
opposition activists have been harassed and arrested and put in jail,
and the Russian Duma has passed a law that grants sweeping power to
authorities to close Web sites and limit freedom of expression, and
another law passed by the Duma expands the definition of treason so
broadly that human rights groups believe it could be used to punish
anyone who questions the government.
Meanwhile, the nongovernmental organization community has come under
increasing attack. Our own Agency for International Development has
been evicted from Russia recently, and Russian NGOs are now required by
law to register as foreign agents if they receive any money from abroad
or engage in political activity.
This is a sorry state of affairs, and it is very important that we
heed Senator Cardin's call to act as best we can to speak out against
it and to do something that the dissidents of Russia have told us will
really affect the elite class, the leadership class in Russia, which is
to seize their assets if they are human rights violators and to
prohibit them from freedom of travel. When we pass this, as I am
confident we will--this is one of the days when I am sure
[[Page S7442]]
everybody in the Senate feels grateful we are here because what we do
here matters. Sometimes we wonder, I think, in the gridlock and
partisanship and complexity of politics in our country these days. But
as I have traveled around the world over the last 24 years, I have been
struck by how many places democracy has taken root where few predicted
it was possible, and the voices of Members of Congress or Congress as a
body have encouraged the dissidents to show the courage they needed to
achieve what they wanted. From Indonesia to Chile, from East Germany to
South Korea, authoritarian regimes have been supplanted by flourishing
free societies in just about every corner of the Earth. We in the
United States and everybody in the world are a lot better off for it.
Unfortunately, that can't be said of Russia, and that is why this
Magnitsky act is so important to adopt. Despite the democratic setbacks
in Russia I have just described and the repressive acts by its
government, I remain confident that the future of these great people
does not belong to those who would impose upon them a system of
tyranny, of corruption, of abuse with impunity. The future of Russia
belongs to Russians who believe they have the right to decide their
destiny for themselves, to the Russian people who are sick of
corruption and who demand the rule of law--fairness, justice under law.
In short, it belongs to people like the late Segei Magnitsky, whose
name will be immortalized when we pass this legislation.
In supporting this legislation, I say to my colleagues, we stand with
them in their noble cause. That is why I hope and I am confident that
we will all join together, Democrats and Republicans and an occasional
Independent, and pass this legislation overwhelmingly.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
legislation before us and in support of the comments my Independent
colleague from Connecticut just made which had to do with the Magnitsky
provision, which I also support. I heard my colleague from Arizona,
Senator McCain, talking about it passionately earlier. It is an
important part of this legislation. But with regard to the trade part
of the legislation, I would like to say that I think this is also a
great opportunity for us. I see my colleague from Maryland here who,
along with Senator McCain, has taken the lead on the Magnitsky
provision encouraging better human rights in Russia, and I think we
will see over time that this will have an impact globally.
With regard to the trade side of this debate we are having today, I
hope we all recognize that one of the great, untapped opportunities for
our economy and for adding jobs is to expand exports. We have a great,
untapped potential here because America still is not exporting at the
level it should be. We do face stubbornly high unemployment. We do have
stagnant growth rates. We are looking at some tough economic numbers
even as we head toward the fiscal cliff which could make it even worse.
So we need to do all we can to ensure that our workers and our farmers
have access to the 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our
borders. That adds jobs. When companies consider whether they are going
to get into the export business or not, which again creates opportunity
here, they want to know if they are going to be treated with certainty,
predictability, and fairness in the marketplace. Exporters need to know
that if a country doesn't play by the rules, then that country will
then face consequences. Those consequences really are what the World
Trade Organization is all about. That is why this discussion is so
important, because by today or tomorrow, voting to authorize permanent
normal trade relations with Russia, we then can take advantage of the
World Trade Organization rules as they relate to Russia and to our
trade with them.
Russia joined the WTO on August 22, and the United States was a big
part of that accession. We worked with Russia for 18 years to ensure
that they were willing to go along with certain fairness provisions on
trade to be able to enter the WTO, and we need to be sure now that we
can take advantage of those provisions. Without passing this
legislation, America and our farmers and our workers could get left
behind. By joining it, Russia did agree to abide by a certain set of
common rules, and when they break those rules, other countries can then
take them to court--the World Trade Organization--and help hold their
feet to the fire.
It means Russia will be required to better protect intellectual
property rights, which is a major concern for U.S. companies. It means
Russia must treat fairly the highly technical services sector where the
United States has a great opportunity, including telecommunications,
insurance, energy services, and retail services. There we have a lot of
competitive advantages and we are looking for a level playing field. It
means they have to give rules-based treatment to our agricultural
exports so they are not trumped by internal Russian agricultural
politics. It means Russia has to improve its transparency and the
rulemaking process so regulations are not taking place without an
adequate comment period and input from job creators, including American
companies that want to do business in Russia. These were all
concessions that were secured, again, over this 18-year period by the
United States and other countries, but primarily the United States took
a role here--Republican and Democratic administrations alike--in
ensuring that as Russia entered the WTO, we had the opportunity to have
a fair trading system with them.
By the way, I was part of that as U.S. Trade Representative
negotiating with my Russian counterpart. Secretary Johanns--then
Secretary, now colleague from Nebraska--was part of that as U.S.
Agriculture Secretary. Others here in the Congress have been part of
that as members of the Finance Committee.
So currently we have these trade rules that apply to the rest of the
world but not to us because Russia is part of the WTO but we haven't
granted this important PNTR status. So of the more than 150 countries
in the World Trade Organization, we are the only ones that are outside
of this agreement at this point. American exporters will only receive
those benefits with total certainty if we pass this bill to provide
these normal trade relations with Russia. If we fail to do so, we
really hold back American workers and businesses from growing in the
Russian marketplace, which, by the way, has 140 million consumers. Our
European and Asian competitors would have that reliability and
certainty that we would lack. When Russia doesn't play by the rules,
our competitors around the globe would be able to take them to the
world trade court, but we wouldn't. If we think about it, in a way we
are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't move forward with
permanent normal trade relations with Russia.
Russia is now the ninth largest economy. Unfortunately, we are
underperforming in the Russian market. The United States, the world's
greatest exporter, now only accounts for less than 5 percent of
Russia's imports. Our competitors in Europe have a 40-percent share of
the Russian market. China holds a 16-percent share of that market. So,
again, it is a growth economy; it is an economy where we have
tremendous opportunities.
I know Chairman Baucus talked about this earlier today. I watched him
on C-SPAN where he talked about the opportunities in this market and
about the need for us to help our exporters here in the United States
by opening this potential market for our workers and our farmers. We
can do much better if we pass this PNTR bill.
This is certainly true in my home State of Ohio. Ohio already exports
about $200 billion a year in goods to Russia, and we want to retain
those sales and add even more. This bill impacts a number of businesses
with a large Ohio footprint.
Caterpillar, the world's leading manufacturer of construction and
mining equipment, is one of them. Caterpillar employs nearly 1,000
Ohioans, including in the Miami Valley in Clayton, and is a great
example of the certainty the PNTR bill will bring. With Russia's
entrance into the WTO, tariffs on American-made Caterpillar trucks
exported to Russia will fall from 15 percent to 5 percent. That allows
Caterpillar to be much more competitive in the Russian market. For
Caterpillar's off-highway trucks, the tariff reductions exceed
[[Page S7443]]
$100,000 per truck. That is a real difference. It is a substantial
margin. But if we don't pass this bill, we have no idea how Russia will
treat our U.S. exports and we will have no way to hold them
accountable.
Other Ohio businesses that will benefit include Procter & Gamble,
which sells more than 50 brands in Russia, including detergents,
shampoos, and diapers. They have the leading market share, by the way,
in 75 percent of the categories in which they compete.
Eaton, which is a company in the Cleveland area and has thousands of
employees in northeast Ohio, exports industrial clutches and brakes to
Russia and looks forward, again, to the certainty this bill will bring
when working with our customers in Russia. They need that certainty.
GE Aviation in Ohio employs about 9,000 people in Cincinnati and has
a great opportunity to compete as Russia acquires over 1,000 new
civilian aircraft over the next decade.
Ohio's cattlemen strongly support this legislation. Russia has made
some important concessions in the negotiations that will help meet the
growing demand for U.S. beef in Russia. Russia is currently the fifth
largest export market for U.S. beef. According to the USDA, over 48,000
head of U.S. live cattle were sold to Russia just this year. In 2011
Ohio exported over 3,000 cattle to Russia, and we expect that number to
rise dramatically.
The bill also contains some items the Russian Government opposes,
including the human rights provisions which were discussed earlier here
on the floor, inspired by the treatment of Russian lawyer Sergei
Magnitsky. Senators Cardin, McCain, and others have put the spotlight
on the corruption and the lack of transparency in Russia. These
provisions will clamp down on human rights abusers, denying them visas
and putting them on notice that their corruption won't be tolerated by
freedom-loving countries such as the United States. The House passed
this bill last month on the anniversary of Magnitsky's death, and it is
time the Senate does the same.
We also have some provisions in this legislation that will ensure
that our trade negotiators keep Russia's feet to the fire in
implementing all the various commitments Russia has made, particularly
with regard to agriculture. Russia has not always played by the rules.
It has been a point of friction between our countries. We need to be
sure they do the heavy lifting back home to bring their laws into
compliance, including their pervasive use over time of non-science-
based standards to discriminate against our U.S. agricultural exports.
I also wish to note my strong concern with Russia's involvement on
another front; that is, their involvement in the continuing Syrian
conflict. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have
watched the Syrian situation with alarm, particularly as we have seen
it unfolding this week. Russia has been anything but an ally in this
case with the support of the Asad regime. They vetoed three U.N.
Security Council resolutions aimed at imposing tough sanctions on the
Asad regime. When Russia isn't using their veto power to support their
Syrian friends, they are arming the Asad dictatorship with over $1
billion, we are told, in weaponry, including attack helicopters, that
they are using to continue their terror against their own citizens in
Syria.
Let me be clear. While I fully oppose Russia's actions in Syria, this
bill is no gift to Russia. In fact, this bill has teeth. It brings
Russia into a rules-based system. It is good for America and our
economy and our jobs, and I think it strikes a critical balance by
giving critical assistance to American companies that want to export
their products to Russia's growing middle class, supporting good-paying
jobs here at home, while forcing Russia to play by the rules and,
again, providing binding penalties if they fail to live up to these
international standards.
While I am pleased we are finally moving forward on this bill, I am
also disappointed we haven't made more progress over the last 4 years
on trade. We didn't make opening new export markets a high priority in
the President's first term. I am hoping that will change over the next
4 years because helping U.S. job creators export shouldn't be a
partisan issue. Over 100 bilateral trade agreements are being
negotiated today as we speak here on the floor. The United States is a
party to none of them. We are a party to one multilateral trade
agreement which I support, but we need to get back and engage in these
bilateral agreements and open markets for our products. We have been
sitting on our hands on the side lines in an increasingly global and
dynamic economy. This is the first administration actually since FDR
not to ask for the ability to negotiate export agreements and bring
them to Congress under expedited procedures, which is now called trade
promotion authority. And this is something unique. This administration
has yet to even ask for it over the last 4 years.
Last year, we finally passed the Korea, Colombia, and Panama export
agreements. Hopefully, our bipartisan actions today to boost exports to
Russia will signal a new chapter for us to engage as a Congress and
with the administration in a much more ambitious and proactive trade
policy.
I am pleased this bipartisan bill received such broad support from
Republicans and Democrats in the House, getting 365 votes, and I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to now support this
legislation before us.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to highlight an important
provision in the PNTR legislation that requires the United States Trade
Representative and the State Department to provide an annual report to
Congress on the steps they are taking to advocate for American
investors in Yukos Oil, the Russian oil company that was effectively
expropriated by the Russian Federation in 2007. The annual report would
also include a report on the status of the petition filed by American
investors in Yukos to request that the State Department formally
``espouse'' the debt--meaning to make compensation for American
investors a matter of bilateral negotiations between the United States
and Russia.
More than 40 bipartisan Members of the House and Senate have written
letters to Secretary Clinton in favor of the State Department taking up
the cause of American investors. The State Department has been closely
watching international tribunals adjudicating the claims of non-
American international investors in Yukos to help guide its own
decision-making. On July 25, 2012, an international tribunal
established pursuant to the Spain-Russia bilateral investment treaty
ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish
investors for the losses they suffered from the expropriation of Yukos.
Likewise, an investor from the United Kingdom prevailed in a similar
proceeding in September 2010. These rulings would appear to indicate
that there is merit to the claims of the American investors.
When a government abuses its tax and regulatory authority to
nationalize the property of foreign investors, it is required to
provide compensation to those investors. To date, none of the American
owners of Yukos has received any compensation.
I insisted that the Russia PNTR bill incorporate new trade tools and
I hope that these will be used to assist in the satisfactory resolution
of the claims of American investors in the Yukos case, as well as to
assist other American businesses and investors who may struggle with
Russian corruption and rule of law issues.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to both support the bill we are
considering today but also to discuss the implications of Russia's
accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO. I was proud to be part
of a unanimous vote for this measure coming out of the Finance
Committee and I expect tomorrow we will see a similarly strong showing
of support for this significant trade measure. It is not often these
days that we see such bipartisan agreement and I welcome it and
encourage its expansion into other key areas.
Russia was formally invited to join the WTO on December 16, 2011, and
its entry into the WTO became official and effective this past August.
There are more than 150 countries in the WTO, and with Russia's entry,
now each of those countries have gained an improvement in trade
conditions with Russia in the form of lower tariff barriers, easier
access to markets and credit, and a variety of less tangible but
certainly meaningful benefits including greater transparency and more
[[Page S7444]]
enforceable mechanisms for securing property and other rights. We are
promised that all WTO member countries will enjoy these privileges in
their trading with Russia, but so far we are not among them: if the
Congress does not take the opportunity to enact the bill before us,
then we are only harming ourselves, as American businesses will be at a
serious disadvantage relative to other nations' enterprises in terms of
their ability to access the Russian markets. This is not merely
theoretical, as my own home State of Maine exported $13.9 million worth
of goods to Russia in 2011 alone.
To recognize Russia's entry into the WTO and gain the advantages for
American interests that such recognition brings, we must now consider
the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations or PNTR with Russia.
The United States provides PNTR to nearly all nations, but routinely
has denied PNTR to communist or non-market countries. Specifically,
this restriction has reflected our desire as a Nation that all peoples
should be allowed to move freely in and out of their own countries--and
the restriction is a reaction to the regimes that do not allow the free
movement and emigration of their citizens. America memorialized this
freedom-of-emigration concept in the Jackson-Vanik amendment, in large
part as a response to the then-Soviet Union's consistent and often
harsh limitations on the free movement of its people. The Soviet Union
is no more, and now we must repeal Jackson-Vanik before PNTR can be
granted. The bill before us accomplishes this significant objective.
But we cannot simply applaud this vote without also accounting for
some very troubling issues that remain with Russia. This year and the
recent past for Russia have been clouded by a disturbingly long list of
concerns about just how modern and democratic Russia may truly be.
There are very serious questions regarding the integrity of Russia's
electoral process, its support for brutal regimes such as in Syria, its
abuse of human rights within its own borders and with its neighbors,
its new promise of a massive arms and nuclear warhead build-up, and its
near-flagrant disregard for intellectual property rights. We are told
that entry into the WTO establishes Russia's willingness to abide by a
rules-based system, but reports of corruption throughout Russia seem to
belie its ability or willingness to follow the rules it set for
itself--so we must ask, how can we trust them to follow the rules when
working with others? I am saddened at the thought that, by taking
action to provide PNTR to Russia, we are potentially condoning if not
rewarding outright the manifold abuses that Russia continues to
perpetrate under the guise of, but seemingly in defiance of, the
concept of an open and lawful democracy.
It is with that firmly in mind that I applaud our colleague Senator
Cardin, along with Senator McCain, for identifying one way to deal with
at least some of our serious concerns about Russia. I am speaking of
the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, or S.
1039. This bill recognizes the tremendous courage that Mr. Magnitsky
showed in seeking to expose corruption and fraud in Russia, for which
he paid the ultimate price. He was imprisoned and allegedly tortured in
an attempt to make him recant the charges he was making, charges that
turned out to be accurate, and he died in the hands of his jailers. The
legislation would impose visa and asset forfeiture restrictions on
those responsible for these foul deeds, and it could set a new standard
for addressing future human rights abuses in Russia. I am proud to see
this measure included in the bill we are voting on today and its
inclusion was critical to my support and, I am sure, that of many of my
colleagues. I believe its inclusion helps make this bill a holistic
approach that does not punish honest American interests while also not
rewarding questionable actors within Russia.
Mr. President, thank you and my colleagues for this vital vote. I
look forward to today's debate.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I wish to express my support
for legislation granting permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, to
Russia.
We need to act now so that our exporters can take advantage of
Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO, in August.
The House voted to approve PNTR for Russia on November 16th on a 365-
43 vote. The Senate Finance Committee approved its version of the bill
on a 24-0 vote in July.
The legislation enjoys widespread support among manufacturers,
service providers, and farmers.
It has been endorsed by, among others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Farm
Bureau.
As a part of joining the WTO, Russia negotiated agreements with each
member, including the United States, making commitments to eliminate
non-tariff barriers, protect intellectual property, liberalize key
sectors such as services, and improve its business climate.
For example, Russia agreed to: lower tariffs on industrial products
from an average rate of 10 percent to 7 percent; not raise tariffs on
90 percent of agricultural products and keep them at 15 percent or
lower; join the WTO Information Technology Agreement and eliminate
tariffs on major IT products within 3 years; abide by WTO rules on
enforcement of intellectual property rights; and remove limitations on
foreign equity in telecommunications companies, insurance companies,
banks, and wholesale and retail enterprises.
These commitments will be subject to the WTO's dispute settlement
process and help promote greater transparency and a more stable
business environment for foreign investors.
Since the United States is a member of the WTO, this agreement
includes only concessions by Russia. The United States will not lower a
single tariff, provide any market access benefits, or make any changes
to U.S. trade law.
Under WTO rules, however, in order for the United States to take
advantage of Russia's commitments, it must enact permanent normal trade
relations for Russia.
Currently, Russia enjoys normal trade relations, NTR, status--the
status enjoyed by a trading partner that faces the most favorable U.S.
tariffs in exchange for similar benefits for U.S. exports.
This status must be renewed on an annual basis due to a provision
enacted in the Trade Act of 1974--the so-called ``Jackson-Vanik''
amendment--in response to concerns about Jewish emigration from the
former Soviet Union.
That law conditions normal trade relations status on a country
allowing its citizens to emigrate freely.
Russia has consistently met the requirements of Jackson-Vanik since
the fall of the Soviet Union and its NTR status has been renewed
annually without debate since 1994.
Yet, WTO rules mandate that its members provide each other with
unconditional or ``permanent'' normal trade relations. That is, we have
to treat each member equally, extending them the most favorable U.S.
tariffs in exchange for similar benefits without restrictions.
Otherwise, they are under no obligation to extend the same favorable
treatment to U.S. exports.
Since the United States only grants Russia conditional or annual
normal trade relations status, the United States is not in compliance
with these rules and Russia can refuse to extend the market access
commitments it made to join the WTO to U.S. exports.
This is putting our exports at a competitive disadvantage because
every other WTO member--155 in total--has permanent normal trade
relations with Russia and has been receiving the benefits of Russian
membership in the WTO since August.
So while we delay, our manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and
workers are losing out on a fast-growing market.
Russia has a gross domestic product of $2.2 trillion, the sixth
largest in the world. Its economy is expected to grow by 4 percent
annually through 2015, according to the International Trade
Administration.
U.S.-Russia trade grew by 37.9 percent in 2011 and total U.S.-Russia
trade stood at $42.9 billion.
This mutually beneficial relationship will continue to grow by
enacting this legislation.
Let me repeat: for those who may be concerned about this
legislation's effects on U.S. jobs, it is important to
[[Page S7445]]
point out that the United States will not have to lower a single tariff
or make any market concessions on Russian imports by approving
permanent normal trade relations.
All concessions will be made by Russia as a part of its agreement to
join the WTO.
What does this legislation mean for my home State of California?
Among U.S. States, California is currently the 4th largest exporter
to Russia, according to the Coalition for U.S. Russia Trade. According
to the Business Roundtable, California exported $665 million worth of
goods to Russia in 2011, supporting 2,000 California jobs.
In 2011 California's exported $156 million of computers and
electronics to Russia, our top export. Yet, U.S. companies only held
4.2 percent of the Russian import market compared to 36.5 percent for
the European Union, EU.
As part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to eliminate tariffs on
IT products and take additional actions to protect IPR, including
joining the WTO Information Technology Agreement.
In 2011, California exported $47 million of pharmaceuticals to
Russia, but the EU held 77 percent of the import market. As a part of
its WTO accession, Russia agreed to lower its tariff to 4.4 percent.
In 2011, California exported $90 million of cars to Russia, the
world's 6th largest car market. U.S. cars, however, make up only 4
percent of Russian imports while Japan has 40 percent of the market and
the EU has 35 percent.
As a part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to reduce its tariff on
cars from 20-35 percent to 15 percent.
In addition, for California agriculture, Russia has agreed to: lower
tariffs on dairy from 19.8 percent to 14.9 percent; reduce its tariff
on grapes from 10 percent to 5 percent within 3 years; lower tariffs on
cereals from 15.1 percent to 10 percent; and establish lower in-quota
tariff rates for pork, poultry, and beef.
Unless we pass permanent normal trade relations, our foreign
competitors will be able to use the concessions Russia made when
joining the WTO to protect their companies and workers and increase
their market share, while the United States will not be able to do the
same for our companies and workers.
As a result, failure to pass this legislation will only make it
harder for California and U.S. companies to compete in Russia.
The legislation would also impose sanctions on individuals linked to
the incarceration and death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.
Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney who was arrested in 2008
after alleging wide-scale tax fraud by several law enforcement and
government officials. He died in prison a year later due to health
complications while awaiting trial.
Investigations later found that Mr. Magnitsky was beaten and did not
receive proper medical attention. His case gained international
attention and was used to highlight systematic violations of human
rights in the Russian judicial system.
It is my hope that this provision will help bring those responsible
for Mr. Magnitsky's death to justice and encourage Russia to do more to
tackle corruption and promote a greater respect for human rights and
the rule of law.
This is critical if Russia is to enjoy the full benefits of WTO
membership and attract more foreign investment.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I understand now under the existing
unanimous consent agreement we are going to be proceeding to debating a
judge. I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the disposition
of that nomination, I be the first Democratic Senator recognized when
we return to the pending trade bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________