[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 155 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7448-S7453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        RUSSIA AND MOLDOVA PNTR

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Russia PNTR bill that is before us 
takes a long overdue action by ending the application of Jackson-Vanik 
sanctions to Russia. Jackson-Vanik is no longer relevant to Russia 
because Russia no longer restricts the free emigration of its people.
  The Soviet Union began to relax its restrictions on Jewish emigration 
in 1987, during Gorbachev's perestroika. Following the collapse of the 
Soviet Union in 1991, millions of Soviet Jews were permitted to leave. 
Since then, Russia has allowed free emigration.
  I have felt for a long time that we should have graduated Russia from 
Jackson-Vanik when Jackson-Vanik's noble purpose was achieved, rather 
than waiting years, often in the effort to make other points relative 
to Russia on other issues. First some history.
  In 2007, I met with Rabbi Lazar, chief rabbi of Russia, regarding 
Jackson-Vanik. He urged passage of legislation ending the application 
of Jackson-Vanik to Russia.
  Also in 2007, I received a letter from the chairman of the Federation 
of Jewish Communities, which represents presidents and rabbis of over 
200 Jewish communities in Russia, a letter which urged me to work to 
graduate Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment in view of the fact 
that its goals had already been met. Part of his letter reads as 
follows:

       [W]e are thankful for all your efforts toward gaining 
     freedom for our country's Jews. We will always appreciate the 
     role of Jackson-Vanik in bringing about change. We also 
     remain grateful to those who forced the U.S.S.R.'s Communist 
     regime to permit Jews to emigrate, and to end discrimination. 
     For us this was a huge morale boost--Jews behind the Iron 
     Curtain were thrilled that Americans were willing to risk 
     political and economic confrontation, in order to stand up 
     for the freedom and rights of their fellow human beings.

  He continued:

       Nevertheless, in the last 15 years the situation has 
     changed, radically. The freedom for Soviet Jews to live 
     wherever they desire was fully obtained; nearly a million 
     Jews from the F.S.U. now live in Israel, while hundreds of 
     thousands live in other countries throughout the world. We 
     are positive that these developments were in part thanks to 
     the American lawmakers who supported the Jackson-Vanik 
     amendment. Yet we now see a backward migration, when Jews 
     from abroad move back to Russia. This proves that Jews in 
     Russia feel as confident as those inhabiting other countries 
     of the Free World.

  The rabbi added: ``The provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment have

[[Page S7449]]

already achieved the goals of its initiators.'' That was in 2007. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Federation 
of Jewish Communities of Russia be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Federation of


                                 Jewish Communities of Russia,

                                                   April 16, 2007.
     Hon. Senator Carl Levin,
     Russell Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: I am writing this letter in my name and 
     in the name of the Presidents and Rabbis of over 200 Jewish 
     communities throughout our country which comprise the 
     Federation of Jewish Communities. I am writing to you on 
     behalf of our constituency, to ask you to work to graduate 
     Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment in view of the fact 
     that its goals have already been met.
       We know that the fate of Soviet Jewry is important to you, 
     and we are thankful for all your efforts towards gaining 
     freedom for our country's Jews. We will always appreciate the 
     role of Jackson-Vanik in bringing about change. We also 
     remain grateful to those who forced the USSR's Communist 
     regime to permit Jews to emigrate, and to end discrimination. 
     For us this was a huge morale boost--Jews behind the Iron 
     Curtain were thrilled that Americans were willing to risk 
     political and economic confrontation, in order to stand up 
     for the freedom and rights of their fellow human beings.
       Nevertheless, in the last 15 years the situation has 
     changed, radically. The freedom for Soviet Jews to live 
     wherever they desire was fully obtained; nearly a million 
     Jews from the F.S.U. now live in Israel, while hundreds of 
     thousands live in other countries throughout the world. We 
     are positive that these developments were in part thanks to 
     the American lawmakers who supported the Jackson-yank 
     amendment. Yet we now see a backward migration, when Jews 
     from abroad move back to Russia. This proves that Jews in 
     Russia feel as confident as those inhabiting other countries 
     of the Free World.
       Today the Jewish people have equal rights with the general 
     population. Jewish life in our country has experienced 
     dynamic growth. While it is well known that during the years 
     that Communism ruled we were forbidden to pray in synagogues, 
     and to learn the Torah or Hebrew, now, most of the larger 
     cities have built community centers, Jewish schools, day care 
     centers, humanitarian facilities, and artistic collectives, 
     in addition to synagogues. The country's leaders, inducting 
     the President, regularly visit Jewish communities. Russia's 
     Jews are treated as equal citizens and any outburst of anti-
     Semitism is met with harsh consequences.
       The provisions of the Jackson-yank amendment have already 
     achieved the goals of its initiators. At this point a public 
     ceremony marking the official graduation of Russia from the 
     provisions of the amendment would be a tremendous opportunity 
     to remind the rest of the world that the U.S. has 
     successfully completed a policy initiative, and will continue 
     to look after the needs of the Jewish people and to defend 
     them from discrimination. At the same time, the abolishment 
     of this amendment in respect to Russia would reiterate to the 
     rest of the world that America is ready to commit the 
     resources necessary to the needs of the Jewish people. It 
     would also demonstrate fairness, acknowledging that when a 
     ``carrot and stick'' policy is pursued, the reward for 
     compliance will, in fact, be paid as promised.
       Thanking you in advance for your kind help, I remain,
                                                 Alexander Boroda,
                                             Chairman, FJC Russia.
  Mr. LEVIN. So I am glad, very glad, that finally, the Jackson-Vanik 
law is no longer going to apply to Russia.
  Not only does the bill under consideration grant Russia PNTR, it also 
contains enforcement provisions that my brother, Congressman Sander 
Levin, fought for to address concerns about Russia's compliance with 
its WTO obligations and other trade concerns such as Russia's 
persistent failure to stop intellectual property rights infringement, 
and to help promote the rule of law in Russia. These are important 
enforcement tools that will give us a chance to monitor Russia's 
progress in fulfilling its commitments. I have looked forward to 
getting these actions accomplished in PNTR legislation.
  The bill before us also includes the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law 
Accountability Act of 2012 which was inspired by the Russian 
whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, who was ruthlessly murdered. The 
legislation would require that human rights violators in Russia be 
identified and that we deny them U.S. visas as well as freeze their 
U.S. assets.
  However, and here's the problem for me, the Magnitsky language before 
us is not the Magnitsky language adopted by our Finance and Foreign 
Relations committees. Their Magnitsky language applied the same 
sanctions to human rights violators wherever they might be--whether in 
Russia, or Syria, or Sudan, or North Korea, or China, or in any other 
country.
  In other words, the Senate committee-approved bill wisely adopted a 
global Magnitsky standard. The reasoning for this is sound, because 
while the mechanism of U.S. visa denial for human rights violators was 
inspired by a single case in a single nation, the principles that it 
seeks to advance are universal. This bipartisan Senate committee bill, 
unlike the House-passed version of the Magnitsky Act that we will soon 
vote on, does not single out Russian human-rights violators for visa 
denial, but would apply the visa denial mechanism to people from any 
country who violate important human rights standards. The United States 
should be clear and firm in its commitment to protecting human rights, 
wherever the violations occur, and to holding those who violate those 
rights accountable to the best of our ability, including denying them 
visas to come to our country. Human rights do not end at the borders of 
Russia, and anyone who violates those standards, as so many did so 
blatantly in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, should be held accountable.
  Applying the Magnitsky provisions globally, as the Senate bill 
approved by our committees did, follows in the spirit of Jackson-Vanik, 
which, while inspired by events in the Soviet Union, was not limited to 
the Soviet Union.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Finance 
Committee both voted unanimously to report a version of the Magnitsky 
bill that applies its sanctions globally. Senators Cardin and Kyl have 
worked, on a bipartisan basis, to build support for that global 
standard, and I strongly support their effort. I commend them on their 
effort.
  So why is that Senate committee-reported bill not before the Senate? 
Why would we deny visas only to Russian human rights violators? Why 
diminish the universality of the values the Magnitsky bill seeks to 
uphold?
  Applying the sanctions contained in this bill solely to Russians, as 
the House version does, not only diminishes a universal value. Because 
it adds a political twist, it will stoke a nationalistic response in 
Russia. If this bill does not apply the same rule to all human rights 
violators, if it singles out Russian human rights violators, President 
Putin will no doubt appeal to the nationalistic passions of many 
Russians by saying that our bill isn't aimed at protecting human 
rights, but is aimed at Russia. We should not hand President Putin that 
argument.
  The Senate bill, as approved by our committees, very appropriately 
pays tribute to the man whose tragic death inspired the legislation, 
and applies its message universally. I deeply regret that the House 
bill before us does not take that approach.
  I don't understand why we are not taking up the Senate version, the 
version approved by our two committees, and applying these standards 
universally. The only answer I get is that the House of Representatives 
might not accept the Senate version. Well, we should do what we believe 
in, as reflected in two unanimous votes in two committees, and not be 
derailed by a prediction that the House will not accept our version. 
There is time left in this session to test that prediction. The failure 
to do so is inexplicable to me. The House of Representatives did not 
have a vote focusing on the issue of applying these sanctions globally. 
We should give them a chance to do so.
  In summary, it is important that we lift the Jackson-Vanik sanctions. 
It is important that we speak out on the tragic death of Sergei 
Magnitsky and hold those responsible to account. These are issues on 
which I believe so strongly and that I have worked long and hard, 
particularly on Jackson-Vanik, to achieve. Taking these steps should be 
a cause of celebration.
  But the violations of human rights that the Magnitsky bill seeks to 
remedy are far too widespread for us to apply remedies only to Russians 
human rights violators. The United States has an opportunity here to 
make a strong, unmistakable statement about the sanctity of human 
rights. We should want that statement to ring out not just in Moscow, 
but around the world.

[[Page S7450]]

  I know some of my colleagues have expressed hope that we can pass 
legislation to address this issue in the next Congress. I know of no 
reason to believe that we will have significantly greater chances of 
accomplishing this goal next year than we do today.
  Mr. President, over the next few weeks, we have time to conference 
and pass a defense authorization bill. We have time to debate and avoid 
the fiscal cliff. We have time to address a farm bill and dozens of 
other important issues. And we have time to address the transcendent 
issue of the universal rights of mankind.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
legislation before us to enact permanent normal trade relations with 
respect to Russia and Moldova. This legislation will also put in place 
a new mechanism for combating human rights abuses and strengthening the 
ruling of law in Russia commonly known as the Magnitsky bill. The 
economic argument for the legislation before us is clear. Russia is the 
world's sixth largest economy; the world's fifth largest global 
importer of agricultural products, and home to 140 million potential 
customers, the largest consumer market in Europe.
  Russia is already an important and growing market for U.S. 
businesses. Of the top 15 U.S. trading partners, Russia was the market 
where American companies enjoyed the fastest export growth last year, 
at 38 percent. If we enact PNTR, it is estimated that U.S. exports of 
goods and services to Russia could literally double over the next 5 
years. That is why groups ranging from the American Farm Bureau to the 
National Association of Manufacturers to the National Corn Growers, 
just to name a few, strongly support PNTR.
  Just last week I met with representatives from the South Dakota 
Soybean Association, and I was reminded of the importance of Russia as 
a growing export market to my State of South Dakota. While greater 
access to the Russian market will benefit a wide range of U.S. 
companies, such as manufacturers and service providers, I would be 
remiss not to point out the enormous opportunity for America's 
agricultural producers in Russia. Consider that Russia is the world's 
largest importer of beef on a quantity basis, with imports of nearly $4 
billion last year. Russia is the world's fifth largest importer of pork 
products as well as the world's largest importer of dairy products.
  Despite the problems we have encountered recently with respect to our 
poultry exports, America remains the single largest supplier of poultry 
to the Russian market, accounting for 50 percent of Russian poultry 
imports last year.
  Under the terms of Russia's WTO accession, which occurred last year, 
Russia is obligated to reduce tariffs across a wide range of 
agricultural products while also adhering to WTO rules regarding 
sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures. Once we have enacted PNTR the 
United States will have the ability to enforce visa commitments through 
the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process.
  It is important to note that our vote on passage of this bill is 
different than voting on a trade agreement where both sides make 
concessions in order to reach a conclusion. In contrast, our vote on 
the House-passed Russia PNTR bill is entirely one-sided in favor of the 
United States. Russia joined the World Trade Organization in August and 
will remain a member of the WTO regardless of what we do with respect 
to PNTR.
  We are not giving Russia anything new because they have received PNTR 
on a recurring annual basis for the past 20 years. The only issue today 
is whether we will now allow U.S. businesses to take full advantage of 
the new trade commitments that Russia has made as part of joining the 
World Trade Organization. If we do not act, American manufacturers, 
farmers, ranchers, and service providers will remain at a competitive 
disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors doing business in 
Russia.
  At a time when our economy is growing more slowly than any 
postrecession recovery since World War II, failure to enact PNTR makes 
no sense. American export growth has been one of the true bright spots 
since the great recession.
  According to the Department of Commerce, jobs supported by exports 
increased by 1.2 million between 2009 and 2011.
  If we are serious about encouraging job creation, we need to continue 
to open new job markets abroad for American exports. Normalizing our 
trade relationship with Russia is an important step in the right 
direction.
  While this legislation is about supporting American jobs by promoting 
our exports, we should also recognize the importance of the Magnitsky 
provision included in this bill at the insistence of Senators Cardin, 
Kyl, McCain, and Wicker, among others. By replacing the outdated 
Jackson-Vanik law with a new mechanism to support democratic reforms in 
Russia, this legislation will strengthen the rule of law while 
combating corruption and human rights abuses.
  The only thing surprising about this vote is that it did not happen 
sooner. Nearly 6 months ago, on June 12, I joined Senators Baucus, 
McCain, and Kerry in introducing legislation to enact PNTR. With the 
leadership of Senator Hatch and others, we approved the PNTR 
legislation in the Finance Committee by a unanimous vote on July 18.
  Unfortunately, many of us believe the administration did not push 
forcefully enough for enactment of PNTR before Russia joined the World 
Trade Organization in August. As a result, we are just now finally 
considering this legislation more than 3 months after Russia's WTO 
accession.
  Nevertheless, I look forward to enactment of this bill, especially 
considering the overwhelming bipartisan vote of approval for this 
legislation in the House of Representatives just a few weeks ago. While 
today's vote is specific to Russia and Moldova, I hope this vote will 
remind us of the importance of moving forward on trade in general. It 
is an unfortunate reality that when America stands still on trade, we 
are actually falling behind relative to the rest of the world. There 
are more than 100 new free-trade agreements currently under negotiation 
around the world. Yet the United States is party to only one of those 
negotiations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  The United States has not successfully negotiated a single new trade 
agreement during the 4 years of the Obama administration, and this 
administration has not yet asked Congress for a renewal of trade 
promotion authority, despite the fact that TPA expired over 5 years 
ago. The cost of inaction on trade is high because we live in a global 
economy where American producers rely on access to foreign markets. 
More than 95 percent of global consumers live outside the United 
States.
  Consider that in 1960 exports accounted for only 3.6 percent of 
GDP. Exports account for 12.5 percent of our GDP. Exports of U.S. goods 
and services supported over 10 million American jobs. If we do not 
aggressively pursue new market opening agreements on behalf of American 
workers, we will see new export opportunities go to foreign businesses 
and foreign workers.

  So while I am pleased that we are considering PNTR today, I hope 
President Obama in his second term will recognize the potential for 
increased trade opportunities through a more aggressive trade agenda. I 
look forward to the President signing this legislation into law, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote for the legislation before us when 
that vote comes up tomorrow at noon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. The bill before us, the permanent normal trade relations 
with Russia, is important legislation to expand trading opportunities. 
I was thinking, as the Senator from South Dakota spoke about this 
debate on the floor and what it was like around this Chamber several 
decades ago when this issue was raised and there was a strong feeling 
for the Jackson-Vanik provisions which prohibited certain trade between 
the United States and so-called communist countries of their day, there 
were those voices on the other side, many from the Heartland such as 
Senator Thune and myself. Senator Humphrey used to say, sell anything 
that can't shoot back at us, and that meant a lot of wheat sometimes 
and other agricultural commodities.

[[Page S7451]]

  I will speak to that trade relation aspect in a second, but before I 
do, I want to address an aspect of this bill that is very important to 
me and should be to every Member of the Senate.
  I am honored to be the chair of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, Human Rights and Civil Rights. We have had a 
series of hearings on the issues of human rights and laws in the United 
States that affect them. I have also been honored to join with Senator 
Cardin of Maryland who chairs our Helsinki Commission Senate Delegation 
and has been on several trips overseas. He has made human rights a part 
of that commission and part of the United States.
  One of the aspects of this bill is so important. Sadly today in the 
country of Russia we are seeing evidence of brutal and horrific 
treatment of individuals and abuse of human rights. Senator Cardin--who 
I said earlier is a great voice of human rights in the Senate--
introduced legislation in this Congress that would impose U.S. visa 
bans and asset freezes on those who commit gross human rights 
violations around the world. That is a Cardin amendment which I thought 
was a good one. The idea was simple: Those who commit such acts that 
are so contradictory to American values should not be allowed to visit 
or stash their wealth in our country, period.
  The inspiration of this came from a terrible episode which occurred 
in Russia. A lawyer named Sergei Magnitsky died a tragic death while in 
custody in Russia after being arrested for uncovering official 
corruption. Magnitsky was working for Hermitage Capital, once the 
largest Russian-only fund in the world. Drawn into the feud between the 
fund and Russian law enforcement authorities, he testified that senior 
Russian Interior Ministry officers had used his employer's companies to 
embezzle $230 million from the Russian treasury.
  Later the same police officers he accused arrested him. They held him 
without bail on charges of evading taxes. After 11 months in custody, 
repeatedly being denied medical care, he died at age 37. Russia's top 
investigative commission said that he died of heart disease and 
hepatitis that he could have survived with basic medical care. A 
parallel Russian Presidential advisory report said that he may have 
died because of a beating while in prison.
  Over time prison officials were dismissed but got jobs elsewhere. 
Russian authorities have also occasionally raised the prospect of a 
more thorough investigation, but they ignored extensive evidence 
linking police officials to Magnitsky's death. Incredibly, some of 
those involved have even received medals for meritorious service by the 
Russian Government.
  Sergei Magnitsky's death is part of a deeply troubling retreat on 
basic political freedom and human rights in Russia. Activists and human 
rights leaders were harassed, often threatened with new sweeping 
treason laws for speaking up against fraud, corruption, or denial of 
basic rights. We saw what happened to Sergei Magnitsky when he tried to 
speak out against corruption. I am saddened that the leadership of a 
great nation such as Russia is resorting to these hideous tactics. They 
are a throwback of the worst of the Soviet era. Our friends the Russian 
people deserve a vision that looks forward to a new future that 
includes freedom and human rights, not the past which adds sad chapters 
of the denial of both of these.
  I am pleased today to speak in support of this bill. Unfortunately, 
it doesn't include the original Cardin amendment. The original Cardin 
amendment had a global reach and said that we would treat virtually 
anyone guilty of these crimes the same way, denying visas and freezing 
their assets in the United States. Incidentally, that provision is said 
to be similar to an amendment that I just offered on the Defense 
authorization bill as it related to supporting the M23 rebels causing 
mayhem in the Congo.
  Unfortunately, the new provision modification of Senator Cardin's 
original limits the activities to those that occurred in Russia. He and 
I both wish it had gone farther, but often those imposing harsh and 
arbitrary violations of their own people like to travel and hide their 
money. They should not be allowed to do it in the United States. If 
they want to enjoy the benefits of the United States, respect our basic 
democracy and values.
  Let me say a word about the overall bill. It is an important step 
forward and creates more opportunity for trade. I believe trade opens 
the doors for exchanges of ideas, people, culture, and opens the doors 
to democracy.
  The United States exported nearly $43 billion in goods to Russia in 
2011. My State of Illinois exported $287 million in heavy equipment 
alone, such as bulldozers and tractors. Extending permanent normal 
trade relations to Russia will ensure business not only in Illinois but 
across America to make sure we don't suffer a disadvantage of trade 
with Russia.
  Russia has made a dramatic break with the Soviet past. The United 
States can help Russia on its path to an even better future, one that 
is more integrated socially and economically.
  I again commend Senator Cardin for ensuring that our Nation's 
intolerance for human rights violations is not part of this process. 
And to the many Russian people who are trying to push for a more open 
and transparent country, we applaud their noble and courageous efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
legislation before us, the repeal for Jackson-Vanik for Russia and 
Moldova and the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.
  The two main components of this package represent a win-win for U.S. 
businesses and for human rights defenders in Russia. Chairman Baucus 
and Chairman Kerry deserve a lot of credit for working together to get 
us to this point.
  I also want to join my colleague Senator Durbin in singling out and 
commending Senator Cardin of Maryland for his tremendous effort to 
bring this historic piece of human rights legislation to the floor 
tonight.
  As one of the original cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act, I remember 
back in May of last year when Senator Cardin first introduced the bill. 
Since that time, he has been the driving force that has pushed this 
measure forward. It has taken a lot of patience, a lot of perseverance, 
but his work on behalf of human rights in Russia has paid off, and he 
is a big reason why we are here debating this bill today.
  This legislation comes at a complex time in the bilateral 
relationship between the United States and Russia. The truth is the 
history of this relationship has always been full of complexity and 
seeming contradictions, and today is no different.
  Over the last 4 years the subtle change in tone brought on by the 
reset has allowed us to establish substantial progress on some limited 
areas of mutual interests including the New START Treaty, Afghanistan, 
and Iran.
  In addition, Russia has finally joined the World Trade Organization, 
which is another mutually beneficial outcome. Russia will become a more 
fully engaged member of the global trade community, and in exchange it 
will be forced to abide by internationally recognized rules on trade 
and investment, including international property enforcement, the 
elimination of some key tariffs, and greater transparency in its laws 
and regulations.
  Despite these obvious advantages for the United States, our 
businesses are currently stuck on the sidelines and unable to benefit 
from Russia's accession because of the outdated Jackson-Vanik 
legislation. Although it was successful in its time, Jackson-Vanik 
remains the last obstacle for U.S. businesses to gain critical access 
to Russian markets and create jobs here at home.
  The legislation before us now retires Jackson-Vanik and lets American 
businesses compete with the rest of the world to sell exports to and 
attract investment from Russia. Each and every State stands to gain 
from this legislation. In my home State of New Hampshire, exports to 
Russia have been on the rise over the last 2 years, particularly with 
respect to transportation equipment, computers, electronics, and 
machinery. If given the opportunity, I am confident that New Hampshire 
businesses will be able to successfully compete in the growing Russian 
market, and this legislation will help them

[[Page S7452]]

to do that. So even as we seek areas of mutual interest with Russia, we 
should be honest and admit that areas of disagreement remain.
  Perhaps the most pressing issue for today's relationship with Russia 
is the human rights situation there. Indeed, over the last 6 months we 
have seen perhaps the worst deterioration in Russia's human rights 
record since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Putin government has 
enacted a series of laws that restrict protests and public expression 
and severely constrain civil society in the country.
  As some may know, my home State of New Hampshire has a motto that is 
well known throughout this country. It is: ``Live free or die.'' We are 
not ambiguous regarding how we feel about the principles on which this 
country was founded. The United States is not, should not, and will not 
be shy about our staunch support for democratic values around the 
world. When it comes to Russia, we should be no different.
  The Magnitsky bill before us is an important tool to raise the 
profile of human rights in Russia. It is supported almost unanimously 
by opposition and civil society figures across Russia. The case of Mr. 
Magnitsky is a tragic one, as so many people have eloquently talked 
about today. We are here as part of this legislation to press for 
accountability in his death. However, this is really more than simply a 
question of one man's tragic case.
  The State Department's human rights report annually describes 
countless human rights violations, including attacks on journalists, 
physical abuse of citizens, politically motivated imprisonments, and 
government harassment and violence. There are numerous cases like 
Magnitsky and, unfortunately, there are likely to be many more.
  That is why this bill before us is so important. It seeks to ensure 
that no human rights abusers in Russia are granted the privilege of 
traveling to this country or using our financial system. A strong, 
successful, and transparent Russia that protects the rights of its 
citizens is squarely in the interest of the United States. The 
Magnitsky Act will demonstrate that we stand unambiguously for the rule 
of law, for democracy, and for respect for human rights in Russia.
  As we look forward and think about our relationship with Russia, we 
have to be both pragmatic and principled. A successful policy with 
Russia will find a way to both protect our interests and defend our 
values. I think the legislation that is before us today is a perfect 
example of how we can do both, and I certainly hope my colleagues will 
strongly support its passage and send it directly to the President for 
his signature.
  Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership 
on this issue. We have had many discussions about how to advance human 
rights and what is the best strategy to get the Magnitsky bill enacted 
into law. She has been a real champion with her leadership on the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Europe and her leadership on the 
Helsinki Commission. I thank her for her good advice for allowing us to 
be able to get to this day.
  I am convinced tomorrow the Senate will pass this legislation, the 
President is going to sign it, and we will achieve a great victory for 
human rights.
  I thank the Senator for her observations as we were talking about how 
to move forward with this bill in connection with PNTR for Russia. I 
know Senator Lieberman talked about it a little bit earlier. I am 
convinced, as important as this bill was, that the Magnitsky bill by 
itself would have been extremely difficult for us to get through to the 
President and for the President to sign into law and that in combining 
it with PNTR, we got it done. I also believe that PNTR without 
Magnitsky would not have gotten done. So I think the marriage of these 
two bills was the right choice. They allow us to move forward, as 
Senator Levin said, repealing a provision that is not relevant for 
Russia, while also allowing us to make a new standard for Russia that 
is relevant for our problems we are confronting not just in Russia but 
throughout the globe.

  I wish to comment a little bit about Senator Levin's point. Senator 
Levin raised the issue of why couldn't we make this global. As Senator 
McCain said, countries are on notice, particularly those countries that 
are known for their human rights violations. They now know what the 
standard is, and they know what action the United States will take if 
they don't meet that standard.
  The standard is very clear. I will just read it into the Record one 
more time so every country knows and every individual knows we will be 
taking action against those who violate human rights. It says any 
individual who ``is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or 
other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights 
committed against individual seeking . . . to obtain, exercise, defend, 
or promote internationally recognized human rights. . . . ''
  That is the standard. That is what is in this bill. That is what we 
will be voting on tomorrow. That is what has been approved by the House 
of Representatives and I believe will be approved tomorrow by this body 
and will be signed into law by the President of the United States. We 
are establishing the standard that will be used to deny human rights 
violators the right to visit our country, to obtain a visa, and to use 
our banking system.
  Senator Levin is absolutely correct. The bill that came out of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Finance Committee made it 
crystal clear by statute that it applied globally. I strongly supported 
that. I support that now. I would love to see that in our bill, but we 
need to get this bill done. I would have preferred to see us take up 
the amendment, hopefully pass the amendment, and work it out with the 
House. However, it was the collective wisdom that in order to get this 
bill done, particularly with the administration's position on it--they 
did not support the global legislative solution at this point--that it 
was unlikely we would reach the finish line and get that done.
  That doesn't diminish the global impact of this bill. I need to 
underscore that. It does not diminish the global impact of this bill. 
Senator McCain is right. Countries and individuals are on notice. I can 
tell my colleagues that as a Member of this body, I will be monitoring, 
and if there are individual people who have committed these gross 
violations and who are seeking to come to America and use our banking 
system, I am going to take action. It may be filing additional 
legislation. I hope we get it done. I hope we will find an opportunity 
to get the Senate language into law, that the legislative standard 
specifically applies globally.
  Let me point out we already have authority. The Secretary of State 
already has authority to deny human rights violators the right to come 
to America. Before I filed the Magnitsky bill, I sent a letter to the 
Secretary of State saying we know who the perpetrators of the crimes 
against Mr. Magnitsky are; deny them the right. They want to come to 
America. They are planning to come to America. Don't let them. We went 
back and forth a little bit as to what they were going to do.
  What is interesting is that I filed this legislation with Senator 
McCain and many others. Secretary Clinton took action. She said we will 
deny them the opportunity of coming to America; we have that authority. 
The Secretary of the Treasury has certain authorities to deny the 
rights of our banking system. So we have--our agencies have the 
inherent authority to block human rights violators from coming to 
America or using our banking system. Should we legislate to make that 
clear? Absolutely. Should we pass legislation that is global? 
Absolutely. I hope we will do that.
  Today we have the opportunity to make a major advancement to 
establish the standard in statute that we expect will be honored 
internationally, globally, to provide the tools to act against Russia 
because this is a PNTR Russia bill. We will be able to do that. We also 
have the tools in place to be able to take further action.
  So what I said earlier I think is absolutely true. This isn't an end 
of a chapter of U.S. leadership. I can tell my colleagues when Senator 
Jackson and Congressman Vanik suggested the use of trade as a leverage 
to block trade with countries if they didn't respect the basic human 
right of allowing their

[[Page S7453]]

people to leave, there were many people who said: Why are you doing 
that? Can't we just talk it out? That bill produced incredible results 
not only on the individuals who were able to leave the Soviet Union, 
but it spoke to America's leadership.
  I honestly believe it helped establish the principles where the 
United States used trade to open and eliminate the apartheid government 
of South Africa. We were the leaders on that. We have been very strong 
on protecting human rights and saying: We will use every tool at our 
disposal to protect people's basic rights. We did that in South Africa 
and we did that in the Soviet Union and we are doing it again today. 
That is where America's leadership shines. That is where America's 
leadership will be followed by other countries. We are already seeing 
other European capitals pass similar legislation as the Magnitsky bill 
to make this clear. We are ending a chapter with Jackson-Vanik and we 
should be very proud of what America stood for, what we stand for 
today, and our leadership in the lives of real people and how it has 
helped keep people safer.
  Now we are starting a new chapter and that new chapter is not just 
Russia. That new chapter is global. We are putting the international 
community on notice that we will not tolerate individuals who violate 
basic human rights, and we will use every tool at our disposal, 
including trade, including the right to come to America, including the 
right to use our banking system, including putting as much pressure as 
we possibly can on countries to take action against those who violate 
rights.
  We respect the rights of individual countries. We want to work with 
those countries, but America will not give up its values and on 
promoting these values internationally. That is what this legislation 
is.
  I understand the disappointment that we don't have everything in this 
bill we would like. I am certainly disappointed. I fought hard. I spoke 
to so many Members in both the House and the Senate about trying to 
make this bill even better. I am proud of how far we were able to get, 
and I can tell my colleagues this: The activists who are risking their 
lives today in countries around the world to protect the rights of 
citizens, to question the actions of their government, to dare to say 
we should have competitive elections, we should respect the religious 
freedoms of individuals, we should be able to speak out, these people 
are putting their lives at risk. They are looking at what the Senate is 
doing today, and they are looking at us and saying: Pass this bill. 
Pass this bill because it gives us hope. It lets our countries know 
America will stand for us, that America's leadership will be there to 
keep us safe.
  I know we have had a spirited discussion this evening. We will have a 
chance tomorrow to vote on this bill. I do believe we will have the 
opportunity to show America's leadership will be continuing to advance 
human rights. This legislation will make a difference not just in the 
trade relationships between Russia and the United States--it will help 
that--but it will help advance international respect for human rights. 
I am proud to be part of that effort.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________