[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.
____________________