[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19068-19071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 RUSSIA

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Russia, and to 
review--particularly, in light of the recent election in Russia and the 
relationship we have--the state of what this administration has 
trumpeted as a so-called reset of U.S.-Russia relations, especially in 
light of the flawed Duma election that occurred this weekend, and in 
light of my strong belief that the growing demand for dignity and 
uncorrupt governance that has defined the Arab world this year may 
impact Russia as well.
  Let me once again make clear that I am not opposed to U.S. engagement 
with Russia. I am not opposed to working consistently in good faith 
with Russia to find more ways to improve our relationship. To the 
contrary, we must continue to actively seek ways to cooperate with 
Russia in mutually beneficial ways. It is in our national interest to 
do so. And whatever can be said about the administration's policy 
toward Russia, no one can accuse them of a lack of sincerity and 
diligence in trying to increase cooperation with Russia.
  I would simply ask, What has been accomplished? What has been the 
result of the administration's good-faith desire for a so-called reset 
of relations with Russia? The answer, I am afraid, is precious little. 
Yes, there have been some areas of progress, but even those minor steps 
may now be getting rolled back.
  There has been a lot of news recently pertaining to our relationship 
with Russia and Russia's future development, which my colleagues may 
have missed. It is very important to spend some time today and review 
these new developments.
  Let's start with the issue of missile defense.
  My colleagues will remember the debate we had here last year over the 
ratification of the New START treaty. In that debate, we spent a lot of 
time discussing the Russian threat to withdraw from the treaty if the 
United States took any further steps to build up its missile defense 
capabilities. Specifically, the Russian Government stated that the New 
START treaty ``may be effective and viable only in conditions where 
there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense 
system capabilities of the United States of America.'' The Russian 
Government stated that in the ratification of the treaty. They went on 
to say that if those conditions were not met, Russia would exercise its 
right to withdraw from the treaty.
  Many of us felt strongly at the time, and feel strongly now, that it 
was a mistake to ratify a treaty on which the two signatories had two 
completely antithetical positions about the implications of that 
treaty, particularly as it pertains to one of our most vital national 
security programs--our missile defenses. Some of us thought and argued 
at the time that the United States should not voluntarily sign up to a 
treaty that would likely be used by the Russian Government as a source 
of political pressure and blackmail to get us to make concessions on 
our missile defenses.
  Well, here we are, 1 year later, and let's review some of what the 
Russian Government has been saying and doing in this regard.
  On November 23, we read an article from Bloomberg entitled ``Russia 
Prepares to `Destroy' U.S. Shield.'' This is what it said:

       Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the military to 
     prepare the capability to ``destroy'' the command structure 
     of the planned U.S. missile-defense system in Europe.
       Russia may also station strike missiles on its southern and 
     western flanks, including Iskander rockets in the Kaliningrad 
     exclave between Poland and Lithuania, both members of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, 
     Medvedev said on state television today.
       ``I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to 
     ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and 
     control systems'' of the U.S. shield, Medvedev said. ``These 
     measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.''

  On the same day, we read the following in an article in the New York 
Times entitled ``Russia Elevates Warning About U.S. Missile-Defense 
Plan in Europe.'' I quote from the article:

       Russia will deploy its own missiles and could withdraw from 
     the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty if the United 
     States moves forward with its plans for a missile-defense 
     system in Europe, President Dmitri A. Medvedev warned on 
     Wednesday.
       ``I have set the task to the armed forces to develop 
     measures for disabling missile-defense data and control 
     systems,'' Mr. Medvedev said. . . .
       But it was Mr. Medvedev's comments about the New Start 
     treaty, put into effect this year, that suggested a darkening 
     tone in

[[Page 19069]]

     what has been a steady drumbeat of warnings out of Moscow in 
     recent days over the plans for a missile-defense system based 
     in Europe.
       ``In the case of unfavorable development of the situation, 
     Russia reserves the right to discontinue further steps in the 
     field of disarmament and arms control,'' Mr. Medvedev said in 
     a televised address from his residence outside Moscow. 
     ``Given the intrinsic link between the strategic offensive 
     and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the 
     New START treaty could also arise,'' he said.

  If all this were not troubling enough, we then read on November 28 an 
article from a Russian state news agency entitled ``Russia's NATO Envoy 
to Visit China, Iran, Over Missile Defense.'' Here is what was 
reported:

       Russian envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin will visit China and 
     Iran in mid-January to discuss a U.S.-backed global missile 
     defense network.
       ``We are planning to visit both Beijing and Tehran soon 
     under the Russian president's directive, to discuss the 
     planned deployment of a global missile defense network,'' 
     Rogozin said during a roundtable meeting at the lower house 
     of the Russian parliament.

  On November 28, the Russian Government went even further, not just 
using the New START treaty to try to blackmail us into weakening our 
missile defenses but threatening to cut off NATO's supply routes into 
Afghanistan as well, which was another area of limited progress that 
the administration hailed as part of its so-called reset policy. This 
is how the Wall Street Journal described it last Monday in an article 
entitled ``Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes.''

       Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply 
     troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously 
     consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for 
     Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday.
       If NATO does not give a serious response, ``we have to 
     address matters in relations in other areas,'' Russian news 
     services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as 
     saying. He added that Russia's cooperation on Afghanistan may 
     be an area for review, the news services reported.

  So let me summarize: After being assured that the New START treaty 
would contribute to the improvement of U.S.-Russia relations, and that 
the Russian Government would not use the treaty against us as 
blackmail, we are now in a situation where the President of Russia is 
threatening to deploy ballistic missiles to destroy U.S. missile 
defense systems in Europe; where he is openly threatening to withdraw 
his government from the New START treaty if the United States does not 
make unacceptable concessions on its missile defense programs; and 
where the Russian Ambassador to NATO is threatening to cut off NATO's 
supply routes to Afghanistan and planning to visit China and Iran with 
the purpose of deepening Russia's cooperation with those governments 
against U.S. missile defenses.
  I think it is safe to say that the effect to date of the New START 
treaty on the U.S.-Russia relationship is rather less positive than 
originally advertised. The problems in our relationship with Russia go 
well beyond missile defense, as important as that is. In recent months, 
as the Assad regime in Syria has slaughtered roughly 4,000 of its own 
citizens who are seeking a democratic future, what has been the Russian 
Government's response? With the help of China, Russia has been 
absolutely shameless in blocking any serious action in the United 
Nations Security Council, including by vetoing a toothless security 
resolution that would not have even imposed sanctions but merely hinted 
at the possibility of sanctions. At the same time, while the Assad 
regime's bloody rampage has continued against the Syrian people, the 
Russian Government has continued to serve as its primary supplier of 
weaponry. In fact, last week in a story entitled ``Russia Delivers 
Missiles to Syria,'' AFP reported that despite the brutal violence of 
the Assad regime, and over Israel's strenuous objections, Russia 
delivered 72 supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian Government worth 
at least $300 million.
  Then there is Russia's continued interference in the sovereign 
territory and internal affairs of the Republic of Georgia, a country 
that the Russian military invaded in 2008 and continues to occupy to 
this day. Two weeks ago there was a Presidential election in the 
breakaway state of South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia's sovereign 
territory. But when Moscow's preferred candidate was overwhelmingly 
defeated in those elections, the supreme court of this Russian proxy 
state declared the results illegal and nullified the vote. Russian 
parliamentarians applauded.
  Finally, there is the unfortunate issue of Russia's backsliding on 
human rights and democracy. A few months ago, President Medvedev 
announced, as we all know, that he would step aside in Russia's 
election next year so that Vladimir Putin could once again run for the 
Presidency. Some see this as a sign that Putin will come back. I object 
to that characterization, because I do not believe Putin ever left. He 
has been running things in Russia with no less informal power than he 
had as President.
  Not surprisingly, over the past 3 years, the state of human rights 
and freedom in that country has gotten no better. In fact, things have 
gotten worse. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this fact is the tragic 
and heartbreaking case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax attorney 
working for an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had 
invested in Russia. Magnitsky 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 and 
the rule of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all 
meaning.
  What 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 on Hermitage Capital and threw Magnitsky in prison in 2008. 
Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial.
  Russian officials, especially from the interior ministry, pressured 
Magnitsky 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. As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more 
severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat 
unclean food and drink unclear water. He was denied basic medical care 
even as his health continued to deteriorate. In fact, he was placed in 
even worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 
days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.
  The Magnitsky case shined a light on the tragic realities of human 
rights abuses in Russia today, and the overwhelming cruelty and 
injustice that Magnitsky endured has made it impossible for the 
government and the people of Russia to ignore. Even the Public 
Oversight Commission of the City of Moscow for the Control of the 
Observance of Human Rights in Places of Forced Detention, a Russian 
organization empowered by Russian law to independently monitor the 
country's prison conditions, concluded the following in a report this 
year:

       A man who is kept in custody and is being detained is not 
     capable of using all of the necessary means to protect either 
     his life or his health. This is a responsibility of a state 
     which holds him captive. Therefore, the case of Sergei 
     Magnitsky can be described as a breach of the right to life. 
     The members of the civic supervisory commission have reached 
     the conclusion that Magnitsky had been experiencing both 
     psychological and physical pressure in custody, and the 
     conditions in some of the wards . . . can be justifiably 
     called torturous. The people responsible for this must be 
     punished.

  The case of Sergei Magnitsky is but an extreme example of a problem 
that is all too common in Russia today, the flagrant violations of 
human rights and the rule of law committed by the Russian Government 
and its allies outside of government. We have seen the problem in the 
show trial of Mikhail Khordokovsky, which I would remind my colleagues 
was unfolding at the exact same time that this body was debating the 
ratification of the New START treaty last December.
  After the Russian Government stole Khordokovsky's oil company, it 
then turned around and charged him for the

[[Page 19070]]

crime. Even more absurdly, as he was nearing the end of his 8-year 
prison sentence, the Russian state then charged him again for virtually 
the same crime. Before the judge had even handed down his verdict, 
Prime Minister Putin said, Khordokovsky ``should sit in jail.'' And lo 
and behold, that is exactly what the judge ultimately ruled, sentencing 
Khodorkovsky to 5 additional years in prison on top of the 8 years he 
had already served.
  Earlier this year, not surprisingly, Khodorkovsky lost his appeal of 
this ruling. In a report released this year, Freedom House concluded 
that the cases of Magnitsky and Khodorkovsky:

       Put an international spotlight on the Russian state's 
     contempt for the rule of law. . . . By silencing influential 
     and accomplished figures such as Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky, 
     the Russian authorities have made it abundantly clear that 
     anyone in Russia can be silenced.

  The violations of human rights in Russia also extend to the deep and 
worsening problem of corruption, which perhaps as much as any other 
issue mobilizes the frustration and anger of the Russian public. In its 
annual index of perceptions of corruption, the independent organization 
Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries. 
That means that Russia is perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, 
Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be 
better places to do business than Russia. I would point out that one of 
those countries is the Republic of Georgia, which is ranked 12th by the 
World Bank.
  When we consider the pattern of corruption and abuse the Russian 
Government has perpetrated over many years, it is not surprising to see 
the outpouring of anger and dissatisfaction that Russian voters 
expressed in this weekend's parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, the 
conduct of that election and especially its aftermath has only 
validated the growing frustration that Russians feel for their rulers. 
Before the ballots were even cast, a noted Russian election monitoring 
organization called Golos was subjected to intimidation, harassment, 
political pressure, and fines. The subsequent election has been 
criticized by impartial international observers, including the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which documented 
in its preliminary assessment numerous irregularities and other efforts 
by the government to sway a vote in its favor.
  Instances of ballot stuffing have been documented. For example, in 
Chechnya, it was reported that 99 percent of the population 
participated in the election and 99.5 percent of them voted for Putin's 
party. That seems a little suspicious, especially considering that the 
Putin government has waged years of bloody warfare in Chechnya.
  Despite the fact that the recent Duma election fell short of 
international standards and violated Russia's law, substantially fewer 
Russian voters chose to cast their vote for Putin's party, including in 
its stronghold and home base of St. Petersburg. This frustration has 
subsequently poured into the streets where Russian citizens have 
peacefully sought to demonstrate against the recent election fraud. The 
Russian Government has responded, in turn, by arresting hundreds of 
opposition leaders, democracy and human rights activists, journalists, 
and other members of civil society, including Boris Nemtsov, Alexey 
Navalny, and Ilya Yashin. Those men and women are exercising universal 
human rights and fundamental freedoms which should not be a crime in 
any country.
  I call on the Government of Russia to release every Russian citizen 
who is unjustly detained for political purposes and to clarify the 
whereabouts and conditions of those individuals.
  Mr. President, throughout this year, I have said that the demand for 
dignity, justice, and democracy that is shaking the Arab world to its 
foundations will not be confined to that one region alone. It will 
spread. It will inspire others. It will demonstrate to others that the 
frustrations, indignities, and lack of hope they may feel today need 
not be the realities they endure tomorrow. They can change those 
realities. They can change their destiny. They can change their 
countries. And it appears that message may be resonating with the 
people in Russia. We should hope that it does resonate and resonate in 
a peaceful manner, because we agree with a growing number of Russians 
who clearly believe they deserve better. They deserve a government that 
respects and responds to their aspirations for a better life. They 
deserve the power to freely elect their own leaders.
  The political development of Russia is more than an issue of moral 
principle for the United States. It is closely tied to our national 
interests. We have seen in the past that when autocratic governments 
feel they are losing legitimacy among their people at home, they try to 
demonize others, both in their country and beyond it, and redirect 
their public's anger against imaginary enemies. We have seen how the 
Putin government has done this in the past. We have seen its attempts 
to paint the United States and our NATO and other allies as enemies of 
Russia and to lash out against us in the hope of mobilizing public 
support at home. This is why the growing pattern of confrontation from 
the Russian Government that we have seen in recent months--over missile 
defense, resupply efforts into Afghanistan, and other issues--should be 
so concerning to us and why we must understand that the actions of the 
Russian Government cannot be separated from its character. In fact, as 
Russia's Government grows less tolerant of its own people's rights at 
home, we should not be surprised if it treats us the same way.
  As I have said before, I believe we need greater realism about 
Russia, but that is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or 
demonization. I am ultimately an optimist, and I often find sources for 
hope in the most hopeless of places.
  One year ago, after languishing in prison for 7 years and facing the 
near certainty of enduring many more, Mikhail Khodorkovsky spoke before 
his sentencing about the hopes of the Russian people as they watched 
his trial. He said:

       They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all 
     become a country of freedom and of the law. Where supporting 
     opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals. 
     Where the special services will protect the people and the 
     law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law. 
     Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the 
     tsar, good or evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will 
     truly be dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law 
     and God. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, 
     and I do not want to die there. But if I have to, I will not 
     hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for.

  That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is cause 
for hope. And eventually--maybe not this year or next year or the year 
after that but eventually--the Russian people will have a government 
that is worthy of their aspirations, for equal justice can be delayed 
and human dignity can be denied but not forever.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my most distinguished friend from 
Arizona for his generous, warm, and friendly remarks. They mean a lot 
to me. I will never forget them. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in observation of the surprise 
attack that the Empire of Japan launched on the U.S. military bases in 
Hawaii 70 years ago. The attack was concentrated on the Pearl Harbor 
Naval Base, where over 2,400 courageous sailors, soldiers, and marines 
lost their lives. Each year, close to 1\1/2\ million people from across 
the country and around the world visit the memorials at Pearl Harbor to 
remember the events of December 7, 1941, and how the world was changed 
forever on that day.
  As the Sun rose over Pearl Harbor today, solemn prayers were offered 
and large crowds gathered to honor the sacrifice made by so many of our 
brave young men and women.
  The National Park Service and the Navy Region Hawaii are hosting the 
70th Anniversary Pearl Harbor Day Commemoration at the Pearl Harbor

[[Page 19071]]

Visitor Center to recognize those who bravely survived the attacks and 
to remember the thousands more who gave their lives in service to their 
country that day.
  Representative Charles William ``Bill'' Young from Florida will be 
representing Congress at the commemoration ceremony accompanied by 
William Muehleib, the president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors 
Association, and approximately 100 survivors of the attacks, including 
8 who were aboard the USS Arizona, which lies enshrined at the bottom 
of Pearl Harbor today. The USS Oklahoma, BB 37, Memorial Executive 
Committee will dedicate a rose granite memorial marker at the National 
Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl to honor the memory of 
the approximately 355 USS Oklahoma sailors who perished but were never 
individually identified. The remains of two servicemembers will be 
interred at the USS Utah and the USS Arizona so they may again join 
their shipmates in accordance with their wishes. And the Hawaii Air 
National Guard will fly F-22 Raptors over the memorial sites at Pearl 
Harbor and Hickam Air Force Base in honor of the fallen.
  I want to recognize and thank the National Park Service and Navy 
Region Hawaii for their diligent work and dedication to ensuring that 
the legacy of the thousands of servicemembers who perished that day 
lives on through the memorials that stand solemnly at Pearl Harbor. 
They have done an outstanding job conveying the unwavering spirit of 
those who, in the face of perilous odds, stood their ground and fought 
back against the Japanese attack to save the lives of their brothers in 
arms. The efforts of these organizations have helped to make sure that 
our country will never forget the tragic loss that all Americans felt 
as news of the attack spread across the Nation.
  We must continue to remember the acts of heroism, bravery, and 
sacrifice that followed the attack. Our country fought in the name of 
justice to preserve our Nation's sacred freedoms. And we must also 
recognize and thank the courageous men and women of our Armed Forces 
today who are still fighting in the name of those same freedoms. I urge 
the citizens of this Nation to recall that it was the collaboration of 
a country and the sacrifices made by ordinary men and women who rallied 
in defense of freedom, liberty, and the great promise of our democracy 
that preserved our Nation's freedom and liberty. It is in that spirit 
of coming together to save our country that has always produced the 
strongest results and made our country great.
  Mr. President, I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in prayer and 
remembrance for the men and women who died in Pearl Harbor and those 
who are still fighting overseas today. May God bless all of those who 
have served to protect our shores, and God bless America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Sanders pertaining to the introduction of S. 1960 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'' )
  Mr. SANDERS. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________