[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16311-16319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 RUSSIA AND MOLDOVA JACKSON-VANIK REPEAL AND SERGEI MAGNITSKY RULE OF 
                     LAW ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2012

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to consideration of H.R. 6156, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6156) to authorize the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to products of the Russian Federation and Moldova 
     and to require reports on the compliance of the Russian 
     Federation with its obligations as a member of the World 
     Trade Organization, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also note several of our friends, 
including Senator Lieberman, who are on the floor. Senator Lieberman 
also has had a major role in this legislation, and I would ask 
unanimous consent that he be included in the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my friend, Senator Cardin, I had a 
statement I wanted to make before the colloquy and I know the Senator 
has a statement. Since it is his legislation, I would be glad to wait 
with my remarks until the Senator from Maryland completes his. And how 
much time, could I ask, of my colleague?
  Mr. CARDIN. I think my initial comments would be about 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. And I would have about 10 minutes, if that is agreeable 
to my friend from Connecticut--who, obviously, is jobless and homeless. 
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland make his 
remarks, followed by mine, and then the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator McCain for not 
just working this out but for his leadership on this issue. He has 
provided the moral leadership we need on dealing with human rights 
issues. He is a cosponsor of the Sergei Magnitsky Accountability Act, 
and I thank him for that.
  Today we close a chapter in the U.S. history on the advancing of 
human rights with the repeal basically of Jackson-Vanik. It served its 
purpose. Today, we open a new chapter in U.S. leadership for human 
rights with the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.
  As the Presiding Officer has heard, this involves a lawyer named 
Sergei Magnitsky who had U.S. interests that he was representing in 
Russia. He discovered the largest tax fraud in Russia's history. He did 
what a lawyer should do: He brought it to the attention of the 
authorities.
  As a result of his bringing this corruption in local government to 
the authorities, he was arrested. He was tortured because they wanted 
him to recant what he had said. They wanted him to basically not tell 
the truth. He refused to do that. He needed medical attention; he was 
denied medical attention; and on November 16, 2009, he lost his life in 
a Russian prison, being denied the opportunity to get needed health 
care. He was 37 years old, with a wife and two children. Those who were 
responsible for his death and those who were responsible for the 
coverup have never been brought to justice. They have gone unpunished, 
and in some cases they have even been promoted.
  The facts are well known. These are not hidden facts. The 
international community knows the people who were involved, knows about 
the coverup, and knows that they have not been held accountable, and 
this has gained international attention. That is why I filed 
legislation aimed at the individuals responsible for the Magnitsky 
tragedy. It says, quite clearly, that those involved would be held 
accountable by being denied certain international rights.
  It also includes those involved in extrajudicial killings, torture, 
or violations of internationally recognized human rights. The 
legislation says, Look, we are not going to let you have the fruits of 
your corruption. We are going to deny you the opportunity to hold your 
illegal gains in our banking system--which is where they prefer; they 
don't want to hold rubles, they want to hold dollars--and that we will 
not let you have a visa, a privilege, to visit our country, to visit 
your property in our country or your family in this country. It targets 
the individuals who committed the gross human rights violation, and it 
recognizes the failure of the host country to deal with those 
violations.
  I want to thank all those who have been involved in the development 
of this legislation. Senator McCain has been one of the great leaders 
on these human rights issues. This is not a partisan division. We have 
strong bipartisan support. I have already acknowledged Senator Kyl, who 
recently spoke. I know Senator Wicker took the floor a little earlier 
and I thank him, the ranking member on the Helsinki Commission. I want 
to thank Senator Shaheen, the chair of the European Subcommittee of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee for her work, and Senator Bob 
Menendez on the Foreign Relations Committee. All those individuals were 
very instrumental in dealing with this. Senator Durbin has been a real 
champion on human rights. I want to acknowledge Kyle Parker, staff 
person from the Helsinki Commission, who was very instrumental in the 
development of this legislation. I want to also acknowledge Senator 
Lieberman's work. I know he will be speaking in a few minutes.
  It was Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and myself who first 
suggested that we should pass the Magnitsky bill. It is the right thing 
to do, but we certainly shouldn't let PNTR go without attaching the 
Magnitsky bill. I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for 
raising that connection. It was the right thing to do. First, it 
allowed us to get this human rights tool enacted. Secondly, I think it 
gave us

[[Page 16312]]

the best chance to get the PNTR bill done in the right form. So I thank 
both of them for their leadership.
  In 1974, we passed the Jackson-Vanik law that dealt with the failure 
of the Soviet Union to allow for the emigration of its citizens, 
affecting mainly Soviet Jews. It was controversial in its time. People 
said, Why are we connecting human rights to trade? Why is the United 
States doing that? After all, trade is so important.
  Well, we did it. It made a huge difference, and we were able to get 
Soviet Jews out of the Soviet Union. We spoke for Western values in our 
trade legislation. We protected the rights of individuals who refused 
this.
  When I first came to Congress 26 years ago, I joined the 
congressional caucus for Soviet Jewry. I wore the wrist bands of 
refuseniks, joined by many of our colleagues. Twenty-five years ago, I 
marched in Washington, a march for Soviet Jews. We stood for basic 
rights, and we changed the landscape on this issue. I had a chance to 
be with Natan Sharansky and celebrate what he meant to people who loved 
freedom around the world. We initiated that with Jackson-Vanik. It was 
a proud chapter in American history.
  Today we end that chapter, because Jackson-Vanik is no longer 
relevant to the human rights challenges of our time. But with the 
passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Accountability Act, we meet the 
challenges of our time. We meet those individuals who are committing 
gross human rights violations. This act is a global standard for the 
advancement of human rights.
  Unfortunately, the Magnitsky tragedy is not unique within Russia. We 
know of other circumstances within the country. We saw the results of 
last year's elections and the attitude of government toward 
journalists. We need the protection of the Magnitsky standards for 
human rights violations within Russia.
  But it doesn't end with Russia. Human rights violations are global, 
and we should have these tools available globally. We need to prevent 
Russia and other countries from regressing on their commitments to 
human rights.
  I must tell you, when you take a look at the legislation that came 
out of our two committees, S. 1039, coming out of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and coming out of the Senate Finance Committee--I 
serve on both of those committees--it says very clearly that the law 
would apply to those responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, 
or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights 
committed against individuals seeking to obtain, exercise, defend, or 
promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as 
the freedom of religion, expression, association, assembly, and the 
rights to a fair trial and democratic elections anywhere in the world. 
That was the legislation we reported in two of our committees. And I 
might tell you, there was overwhelming support that we should make it 
global. Senator Kyl talked about that, and I am sure others will also.
  In H.R. 6156, you will see the exact language we have in our 
Magnitsky bill with one exception: ``Anywhere in the world'' is changed 
to ``Russia.'' I am disappointed in that, and I join with Senator Kyl 
in that disappointment. I think it would have been much better if we 
would have incorporated the international standards and global 
provisions.
  I think it is very important Congress pass this bill. I strongly 
support it. I support the effort to get this to the President as 
quickly as possible. But there is a clear message here: This bill is 
our standard. We will be holding countries to this standard. We will 
look for other opportunities to attach these provisions to other trade 
bills. We will look for other opportunities to reinstitute the global 
application of the Magnitsky standards. It is the right thing. The 
world is on notice. Other countries are following our leadership. We 
expect other countries will be acting with similar standards.
  I might point out, as I did over 2 years ago, there is existing 
authority within the State Department to deny visas to human rights 
violators. I think we should make that very clear and we should enact a 
law that makes it clear. We have to pass the Magnitsky law as relates 
to Russia. But there is authority, and we expect the administration 
will follow that authority.
  I am hopeful people understand that although the language of the law 
is not as broad as we would like it to be, many of us consider this to 
be the international standard, and we will be asking to hold other 
countries accountable for violators of human rights that that country 
does not deal with in denying them the right to visit our country or to 
use our banking system.
  One last point. There are some who say, Well, aren't we interfering 
with the internal affairs of a sovereign country? Nothing could be 
further from the truth. We have a right--I would say a responsibility--
to challenge internationally recognized human rights violations in 
other countries. It is well established. Both Russia and the United 
States are members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe. I had the honor of a senate chair in the Helsinki Commission, 
our implementing arm. That organization gives us the right to raise 
human rights problems in other countries. We have used that to advance 
efforts to stop human trafficking, to deal with antisemiticism, to deal 
with corruption issues in other countries. We have that right. We have 
that responsibility. And our actions today are for the Russian people 
and for its government.
  I have heard from so many human rights activists in Russia, from 
Russian business leaders to ordinary citizens, who tell me Russia can 
do better, and they urge us to move forward with the Magnitsky 
Accountability Act.
  The United States, by the passage of this bill, will be on the right 
side of history. It will deepen our relationship with the Russian 
people. Yes, we are ending a chapter with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik, 
but we are starting a new chapter on human rights--one which we can be 
proud of where America once again is establishing a basic principle 
that we will not tolerate those who violate internationally recognized 
human rights standards. We will not let them go without being held 
accountable. And we certainly will not let them have the privileges of 
our country if they violate internationally recognized human rights 
standards.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak 
in favor of H.R. 6156--the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and 
Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. This day has been a 
long time in coming, and the fact that it has now come is thanks to the 
great work of many of my colleagues, and I want to take a minute to 
recognize a few of them personally.
  First and foremost is the Senator from Maryland. It is not an 
exaggeration in the least to say that, were it not for Senator Cardin's 
leadership on behalf of human rights in Russia and his tireless 
dedication to memorializing the courageous dissent of one remarkable 
man--Sergei Magnitsky--we would not be here today. Senator Cardin is 
the original author of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability 
Act. He passionately educated his colleagues about the need for this 
legislation, which is why it eventually won 25 bipartisan cosponsors in 
the Senate. The Senator from Maryland has my deepest respect and 
gratitude for his efforts on behalf of human rights in Russia. He has 
established himself as a leading voice in our country on these issues. 
I have been honored to be his partner in this endeavor from the very 
beginning as the original lead Republican co-sponsor of the Magnitsky 
Act. And when this legislation is passed, as I am confident that it 
will be, Senator Cardin deserves all the credit in the world for this 
historic achievement.
  I also want to recognize the efforts of the Senator from Montana. I 
appealed to Senator Baucus last year to join the Magnitsky Act together 
with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and

[[Page 16313]]

Moldova and the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to 
both countries. He agreed, and in a letter to me, as well as a few of 
my colleagues, the Senator from Montana pledged to marry the 2 pieces 
of legislation together and to do everything in his power to see that 
the Senate could act on them together. He has been true to his word at 
every step of the way, and I am pleased to stand here today as an 
original co-sponsor of the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and 
Moldova, as well as the Magnitsky Act.
  Finally, the person I want to acknowledge above all is Sergei 
Magnitsky--whose remarkable life and tragic death is the reason that 
brings us here today. Sergei Magnitsky was a tax attorney working for 
an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had invested in 
Russia. He did not spend his life as a human rights activist or an 
outspoken critic of the Russian government. He was an ordinary man, but 
he became an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness and the rule 
of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all meaning.
  What Mr. Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian 
government officials and criminals associated with them colluded to 
defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian government in 
turn blamed the crime on Hermitage Capital and threw Mr. Magnitsky in 
prison in 2008. Mr. Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial. 
Russian officials pressured him to deny what he had uncovered--to lie 
and recant. But he refused. He was sickened by what his government had 
done, and he refused to surrender principle to brute power.
  As a result, Mr. Magnitsky was transferred to increasingly more 
severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat 
unclean food and drink unsanitary water. He was denied basic medical 
care as his health worsened. In fact, he was placed in increasingly 
worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in 
prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.
  What is even more tragic is that the case of Mr. Magnitsky is only 
one of the most extreme examples of the broad and dramatic 
deterioration of rule of law in Russia, and its replacement with 
arbitrary and nearly unchecked state power, which is increasingly 
concentrated in the hands of one man, President Vladimir Putin.
  What is emerging in Russia today can only be described as a culture 
of impunity--a sense among those who control the levers of power that 
Russia is theirs for the taking, and the only question left to debate 
is how government officials and other elites will divide up the wealth, 
the power, and the spoils. This culture of impunity begins, first and 
foremost, with President Putin. He sets the tone in the country. And 
right now, with his return to the presidency, and with many of the 
actions that the Russian government has taken recently, the signal is 
being sent across the country, especially to every petty tyrant and 
aspiring autocrat in the Russian state, that Putin is doing what he 
wishes. He is using the instruments of the state to crush his critics. 
He is getting away with it. And you can too.
  This culture of impunity in Russia has been growing worse and worse 
over many years. It has been deepened by the increased surveillance and 
harassment of members of opposition and civil society groups . . . by 
the continued violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish 
the truth about official corruption and other state crimes in Russia 
today . . . and of course, by the continued detention of numerous 
political prisoners, not least Mikhail Khordokovsky and his associate 
Platon Lebedev, who remain locked away but not forgotten. I continue to 
fear for the health and safety of both men. And I pray for them.
  The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in Russia's recent 
elections--the parliamentary election last December and the 
presidential election in March--which were criticized for their flaws 
and irregularities by impartial, objective international organizations. 
It can be seen in the recent NGO law passed by the Russian legislature, 
which requires any civil society group in Russia that receives 
international funding to register as a ``foreign agent.'' The vast 
majority of these civil society groups have nothing to do with 
politics. Clearly, the intent of this law is nothing less than to 
demonize, and marginalize, and stigmatize as treasonous whatever 
independent civil society organizations still remain in Russia.
   The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in the 
government's new and growing interpretation of its law against 
extremism. A law that may once have been designed to address real 
concerns with terrorism and violent extremism is now being broadened to 
put pressure on civil society groups and religious minority groups, 
even including the Jehovah's Witnesses. A Russian court even went so 
far as to classify as an extremist organization the punk rock band of 
Russian girls that staged a protest performance this year in Moscow's 
Christ the Savior Cathedral. Any media outlet in Russia that would dare 
to broadcast this group's material could now be subject to having their 
outfit closed down by the Russian state.
  This culture of impunity was extended even further last month in 
Russia's new law against treason. That term has now been defined so 
broadly that it allows the state to ban websites and impose fines, and 
likely worse penalties, against Russians who participate in 
unregistered demonstrations, who fail to register as foreign agents 
where now required under Russian law, and even to those who are 
suspected of giving advice to foreigners. Many Russians rightly believe 
that this new treason law is so expansive that the government can use 
it to stifle the legitimate rights and freedoms of anyone they deem to 
be an enemy of the state.
  This culture of impunity also extends to the recent decision by the 
Russian government to terminate the presence and all programming of 
USAID in Russia. Whatever the stated reason for this decision, there 
should be no doubt why it was done--to try to further isolate, and 
marginalize, and emasculate civil society groups in Russia by denying 
them an ability to work in partnership with the United States, as many 
of these groups have freely done and wish to continue doing.
  Ultimately, this culture of impunity in Russia is why Sergei 
Magnitsky is dead. That is why, even now, no one has yet been held 
accountable for his murder. And I suspect no one ever will. What is 
worse, the Russian government has done the opposite: It has put Sergei 
Magnitsky, a dead man, on trial, perhaps in an effort to prove that he 
got what he deserved. They have even required Mr. Magnitsky's mother 
and family to appear at the trial, which sinks this case to a whole new 
low. This culture of impunity is why videos are surfacing even now that 
document the brutal conditions of Russia's prison system, and the 
systematic abuse and torture to which detainees are subjected there at 
the hands of midlevel tyrants who want to run their small part of the 
Russian state just as their president does.
  This is why we need to pass the Magnitsky Act. If citizens and civil 
society groups in Russia do not have a path to justice in Russia, then 
the international community has a responsibility to show these people 
that there can still be accountability, that there can still be 
consequences, for what they are suffering.
  The Magnitsky Act does that. And I want to be clear: What is so 
important about this legislation is that its provisions would not 
simply apply to those Russian officials responsible for the torture and 
murder of Sergei Magnitsky; it would also apply to other persons in 
Russia who commit human rights abuses. In short, this is not just about 
historical accountability; it is also about preventing future Magnitsky 
cases. It is about imposing consequences on all human rights violators 
in Russia.
  The allegation that this legislation infringes on Russian sovereignty 
is nonsense. The Magnistsky Act does not require the Russian government 
or Russian citizens to do anything they do not wish to do. It cannot 
force

[[Page 16314]]

human rights abusers in Russia to stop what they are doing. But if they 
continue, what this legislation does do is tell those individuals that 
they cannot bank their money in the United States, that they are not 
welcome in this country, that they cannot visit this country, and that 
they will have no access to the U.S. financial system.
  Now, I know we have had a debate about whether to make this bill 
globally applicable--a tool that could be used to apply these same 
kinds of penalties to human rights abusers anywhere in the world. This 
is a worthy goal, and I believe we should have such a debate in the 
next Congress. It is important now, however, that the Magnitsky Act 
remain focused squarely and exclusively on Russia. That is what Russian 
democrats and civil society groups tell me they want right now. They 
want Congress to send their government a message on human rights, and 
by keeping the Magnitsky Act focused for now on Russia, we can do just 
that.
  Furthermore, the administration can use its own executive authority 
at this time to apply similar kinds of pressures contained in the 
Magnitsky Act to human rights abusers in other countries. I, for one, 
will be watching closely to see if they do, for many other cases are 
crying out for greater U.S. leadership on behalf of human rights. And 
if the administration does not take the initiative to apply the 
leverage at our disposal to these other cases beyond Russia, that is 
the surest way to ensure that the Congress will act to globalize the 
Magnitsky Act next year.
  There are still many people who look at the Magnitsky Act as anti-
Russia. I disagree. I believe it is pro-Russia. I believe it is pro-
Russia because this legislation is about the rule of law, and human 
rights, and accountability, which are values that Russians hold dear. I 
believe it is pro-Russia because it does not make all Russians pay for 
the crimes of a small handful of corrupt officials, and in this way, 
the Magnitsky Act is an improvement on Jackson-Vanik and an ideal 
replacement for it. I believe the Magnitsky Act is pro-Russia in the 
same way that Permanent Normal Trade Relations is also pro-Russia--
because both measures are ultimately about strengthening ordinary 
Russians who long for greater opportunity, greater freedom, and greater 
protections for their rights under the rule of law.
  I am not under any illusion that the passage of either the Magnitsky 
Act or PNTR for Russia will ensure the success of rule of law in 
Russia. Not at all. But while both measures are very different and 
present very different kinds of benefits to the Russian people--one a 
material benefit, the other a moral benefit--both of these measures, I 
firmly believe, are nonetheless beneficial to Russia. Both create high 
standards to which we and others can hold the Russian government, both 
on the trade front and on matters of human rights. Both provisions 
create levers for international accountability where few currently 
remain in Russia. In other words, the Magnitsky Act and PNTR for Russia 
can serve as tools that will help to empower ordinary Russians who do 
not want their lives or their livelihoods to be determined solely by 
the predatory elites in the Russian state.
  Ultimately, passing this legislation will place the United States 
squarely on the side of the Russian people and the right side of 
Russian history, which appears to be approaching a crossroads. I remind 
my colleagues that today is the anniversary of the massive protests 
that rocked Russia one year ago. As I have said before, I do not 
believe that the demand for freedom and dignity that have so profoundly 
shaken the Arab world are unique to that part of the world. I think the 
effects of these upheavals will be global, because the values and 
aspirations at their heart are universal. I think this makes Mr. Putin 
and his cronies very nervous--and it should. The desire for peaceful 
change and democratic and legal reform can be delayed for a time. They 
can be delayed, but they cannot be denied. This legislation is a vote 
in favor of a brighter, better future for the Russian people--a future 
that they can determine, freely and independently, for themselves.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I did not conclude with a word on 
Moldova, because this legislation would also take the long overdue step 
of repealing Jackson-Vanik for Moldova and granting it Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations as well. This should have been done years ago. I have 
been an advocate for this action for many years. I have continually 
insisted that the Congress should not be allowed to pass PNTR for 
Russia without doing the same for Moldova. That was a condition of my 
co-sponsorship of this legislation, and I am proud that the Senate is 
now on the verge of clearing the way for normal trade relations between 
the United States and Moldova. That small country has taken enormous 
strides toward democratic and economic reform, and toward deeper 
integration in the European community. Passing this legislation will be 
a critical vote of confidence in Moldova's political and economic 
reforms and in support of its democratic future.
  For all of these reasons, and for the many more that I have listed 
with regards to Russia, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Finally, I say to my three colleagues on the floor, there are times 
when we do a lot of things for the people we represent and a lot of 
things for the country. I think what we are doing here, which will be 
rapidly approved and has already been approved by the House and will be 
made into law, is something we are doing for people in Russia who need 
our help now, our voice and our commitment. Many of the great and 
wonderful ideas, promises, and prospects after the fall of the Soviet 
Union that was the case of Russia have been dashed. Maybe we should 
take responsibility for not playing a more constructive role in the 
1990s when Russia was going through a critical phase.
  I promise today, not just to Sergei Magnitsky's widow, but to all 
people throughout Russia who will be encouraged by this message 
because, as they were years ago, the legislation we are now repealing, 
the Jackson-Vanik act, was a call to the people in Russia who were 
being held under terrible conditions that they would now be able to 
freely immigrate to a land with promise of a better future. I believe 
that today this legislation is one of the most important ones that in 
years to come we can be proud we were a small part of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Arizona on 
the moral clarity of his statement. I think the Senator is absolutely 
right. The moral clarity here is clear: Those who commit gross 
violations of internationally recognized human rights are on notice. As 
the Senator pointed out, this legislation applies beyond the Magnitsky 
tragedy, it applies to Russia, and it is a standard that we intend to 
use for other opportunities whether it is trade bills or other 
legislation.
  I hope we will make this statutorily global. We will have that debate 
at a later point. We will have other opportunities to make it clear 
that those who violate human rights are internationally recognized, 
that the clarity here is clear, and that there will be repercussions on 
the rights of our own country.
  We cannot determine how Russia will treat its violators under their 
laws; they will have to handle that. But we have the moral certainty 
that we are not going to assist those violators and deny their 
opportunities to come to America and use our banking system.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, a quick response to my friend from 
Maryland, and that is we talk a lot about the globalization. Don't 
think that dictators, brutal rulers, and oligarchies all over the world 
are not paying attention to this legislation. Our message to them is: 
Keep it up; you are next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I 
thank him very much for his leadership. He is a stalwart leader in 
protecting human rights all over the world, but in this case Russia. I 
think

[[Page 16315]]

he is right in suggesting that it is a good follow-on to protecting 
human rights, and certainly in this case Russia.
  I thank the Senator very much.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that under the time to be 
controlled on the Democratic side, the following Senators be given the 
time listed: Senator Levin, 15 minutes, and Senator Cardin, 50 minutes. 
I understand that he has already used a certain amount of time, so the 
total will be 50 minutes. Senator Durbin will be given 10 minutes and 
Senator Lieberman 10 minutes; further, all time used for debate on the 
bill earlier today during morning business be counted toward the 5 
hours allocated under the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend, the chair of the 
Finance Committee. I thank him for yielding me 10 minutes. While I am 
expressing gratitude, may I express gratitude to the Senator from 
Maryland. Talk about moral clarity, which is a term he just used for 
our friend from Arizona, he showed real moral clarity for this and so 
many other issues. I thank him for that.
  As I begin my final month in the U.S. Senate, it gives me great 
confidence to know that people such as Senator Cardin and Senator 
McCain are going to be here to continue to hold America to the standard 
that our founding doctrines hold us to, which is to be a beacon of 
human rights and a protector of those who fight for human rights around 
the world. So my thanks and compliments to Senator Cardin.
  I rise to join those who are supporting this bill, which is two 
measures brought together in a mutually productive partnership. The 
case for granting PNTR to Russia is clear and straightforward.
  Russia became a full member of the World Trade Organization over 3 
months ago, and in doing so was bound to pledge to cut tariffs for 
manufactured imports and open its service sector to foreign 
competition. In order for American companies to realize these benefits, 
we must grant permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, to Russia. For 
this reason the only country that will be disadvantaged if we fail to 
pass this bill will be our own, and that particularly means our own 
businesses. Of course, that is why generally American businesses and 
leading business advocacy groups such as the chamber of commerce, in 
particular, have supported this legislation so strongly. It is also why 
the Governors of 14 of our States, including Connecticut, and six 
former U.S. Trade Representatives have urged the Senate to follow the 
House and swiftly pass this bill.
  I also note that this legislation will grant permanent normal trade 
relations to the country of Moldova, a country that has demonstrated 
tremendous democratic progress over the past two decades. Deepening our 
economic ties with Moldova is good for American business and will help 
keep Moldova on the path of democracy as well as development. So PNTR 
for Russia and Moldova is necessary and good for the United States.
  For me, and I hope many others--eloquently expressed by Senator 
Cardin and Senator McCain--the case for this bill is sealed because of 
its incorporation of separate legislation, the Magnitsky Rule of Law 
and Accountability Act, of which I am privileged to be a cosponsor.
  I must say that as I look back over the 24 years in the Senate, which 
I have been doing a lot lately, there are not too many pieces of 
legislation that I have been prouder to be associated with than the 
Magnitsky Act.
  As many of you know, this legislation is named for a 37-year-old 
Russian tax lawyer named Sergei Magnitsky whose tragic murder 3 years 
ago is among the most horrible examples of corruption and thuggishness 
that continues to afflict Russia. Mr. Magnitsky is rightfully the 
namesake of this legislation. It will impose a visa ban and asset 
freeze not only against those officials whom we have good reason to 
believe are responsible for his murder, but also against Russian 
officials responsible for any and all human rights abuses that are too 
regularly taking place in that country.
  Senator McCain, Senator Cardin, and I have had the privilege of 
meeting with Russian dissidents, political activists, and human rights 
leaders over the years. What they have told me and my colleagues over 
and over is that there is one thing above all others we can do here in 
the United States to help support the cause of human rights and the 
rule of law in Russia, and that is to pass the Magnitsky Act.
  So today I join my colleagues who support this legislation and say to 
those in Russia who are striving courageously to secure their 
fundamental freedoms--the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness that our Founders said in our declaration were the 
endowment of our Creator to every human being--that we have not and 
will not forget them and their cause. We know and will remember their 
names. We will stand in solidarity with them and in support of them 
until they achieve their goal, which is a goal we share. That goal is 
the spread of democracy and a democratic Russia that respects the rule 
of law, protects human rights, and is free of corruption.
  I want to echo what my friends said a moment ago. I was thinking 
about it. I am not sure anybody has mentioned the name of Natan 
Sharansky, a famous Russian dissident of an earlier time, a refusenik 
placed in a Russian gulag and who served so much time in solitary 
confinement. I have had the honor to get to know him. If you read his 
books, there is a very moving series of sections where he talks about 
the fact that when Jackson-Vanik passed and they learned about it, they 
would communicate with each other in the most primitive ways when news 
came in, and what an inspiration it was. In some sense it kept not just 
hope alive but kept them alive, that the U.S. Congress had adopted this 
law which would impose penalties on the Soviet Union unless it allowed 
people to freely emigrate. Disproportionately at that time it was 
dealing with Jews.
  It was also stated that they wanted to leave because they were so 
oppressed in the Soviet Union. It was actually stated in global terms 
at that time. Maybe sometime we will come back and address that.
  I remember what Sharansky said about the day while in solitary 
confinement somebody was able to convey to him by tapping pipes that 
President Reagan had called Russia--and the Soviet Union, really--the 
evil empire. And knowing that the leader of the free world--the most 
powerful person in the world--would call out this oppressive government 
that had locked him up for no reason other than he had advocated for 
human rights, he said this would sustain his hope.
  In some small way I hope the passage of this Magnitsky Act will do 
the same for those who are fighting for the many people whose freedom 
of expression has already been compromised by the government in Russia 
and for the people whose businesses have been essentially taken by the 
government.
  I think one of the great disappointments over the last quarter 
century is the hope that we had after the fall of the Berlin wall and 
the collapse of the Soviet Union, that this great country of Russia, 
this great people whose history and culture is so proud and so strong, 
would finally be able to be free of tyranny. Well, they are freer than 
they were during Soviet times. I guess that is some small consolation. 
But increasingly the central government and President Putin have 
compromised human rights.
  Incidentally, going to the other part of this bill, the PNTR part for 
free trade, there are a lot of businesses in the United States and 
elsewhere in the world that will be hesitant to invest as much as they 
would otherwise invest in Russia so long as the Russian Government is 
as autocratic, irrational, suppressive, repressive, and corrupt as this 
Russian Government is. So in all these respects, I would say that the

[[Page 16316]]

Magnitsky Act is a worthy successor to Jackson-Vanik, which was such a 
crusading human rights measure in its own day and, may I add, bears the 
name of a truly great Senator, Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson, a personal 
role model to me and others. Today the Jackson-Vanik amendment no 
longer makes sense because there is free emigration from Russia; 
therefore, we are right to lift it. But it is equally right that we 
replace it with a law that will address the primary human rights facing 
Russia today. May I say in repealing Jackson-Vanik, we actually honor 
his proud legacy and keep it alive.
  Just over a year ago, when the Russian people responded to a 
fraudulent parliamentary election by taking peacefully to the streets, 
the Kremlin responded with thuggish brutality. Instead of at least 
respecting the legitimate demands of his people or listening to them, 
President Putin falsely accused the United States of creating this 
opposition in Russia and began a campaign of stifling dissent that 
continues to escalate to this day. Independent media outlets have been 
targeted, including American broadcasting services. Journalists and 
opposition activists have been harassed and arrested and put in jail, 
and the Russian Duma has passed a law that grants sweeping power to 
authorities to close Web sites and limit freedom of expression, and 
another law passed by the Duma expands the definition of treason so 
broadly that human rights groups believe it could be used to punish 
anyone who questions the government.
  Meanwhile, the nongovernmental organization community has come under 
increasing attack. Our own Agency for International Development has 
been evicted from Russia recently, and Russian NGOs are now required by 
law to register as foreign agents if they receive any money from abroad 
or engage in political activity.
  This is a sorry state of affairs, and it is very important that we 
heed Senator Cardin's call to act as best we can to speak out against 
it and to do something that the dissidents of Russia have told us will 
really affect the elite class, the leadership class in Russia, which is 
to seize their assets if they are human rights violators and to 
prohibit them from freedom of travel. When we pass this, as I am 
confident we will--this is one of the days when I am sure everybody in 
the Senate feels grateful we are here because what we do here matters. 
Sometimes we wonder, I think, in the gridlock and partisanship and 
complexity of politics in our country these days. But as I have 
traveled around the world over the last 24 years, I have been struck by 
how many places democracy has taken root where few predicted it was 
possible, and the voices of Members of Congress or Congress as a body 
have encouraged the dissidents to show the courage they needed to 
achieve what they wanted. From Indonesia to Chile, from East Germany to 
South Korea, authoritarian regimes have been supplanted by flourishing 
free societies in just about every corner of the Earth. We in the 
United States and everybody in the world are a lot better off for it.
  Unfortunately, that can't be said of Russia, and that is why this 
Magnitsky act is so important to adopt. Despite the democratic setbacks 
in Russia I have just described and the repressive acts by its 
government, I remain confident that the future of these great people 
does not belong to those who would impose upon them a system of 
tyranny, of corruption, of abuse with impunity. The future of Russia 
belongs to Russians who believe they have the right to decide their 
destiny for themselves, to the Russian people who are sick of 
corruption and who demand the rule of law--fairness, justice under law. 
In short, it belongs to people like the late Segei Magnitsky, whose 
name will be immortalized when we pass this legislation.
  In supporting this legislation, I say to my colleagues, we stand with 
them in their noble cause. That is why I hope and I am confident that 
we will all join together, Democrats and Republicans and an occasional 
Independent, and pass this legislation overwhelmingly.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
legislation before us and in support of the comments my Independent 
colleague from Connecticut just made which had to do with the Magnitsky 
provision, which I also support. I heard my colleague from Arizona, 
Senator McCain, talking about it passionately earlier. It is an 
important part of this legislation. But with regard to the trade part 
of the legislation, I would like to say that I think this is also a 
great opportunity for us. I see my colleague from Maryland here who, 
along with Senator McCain, has taken the lead on the Magnitsky 
provision encouraging better human rights in Russia, and I think we 
will see over time that this will have an impact globally.
  With regard to the trade side of this debate we are having today, I 
hope we all recognize that one of the great, untapped opportunities for 
our economy and for adding jobs is to expand exports. We have a great, 
untapped potential here because America still is not exporting at the 
level it should be. We do face stubbornly high unemployment. We do have 
stagnant growth rates. We are looking at some tough economic numbers 
even as we head toward the fiscal cliff which could make it even worse. 
So we need to do all we can to ensure that our workers and our farmers 
have access to the 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our 
borders. That adds jobs. When companies consider whether they are going 
to get into the export business or not, which again creates opportunity 
here, they want to know if they are going to be treated with certainty, 
predictability, and fairness in the marketplace. Exporters need to know 
that if a country doesn't play by the rules, then that country will 
then face consequences. Those consequences really are what the World 
Trade Organization is all about. That is why this discussion is so 
important, because by today or tomorrow, voting to authorize permanent 
normal trade relations with Russia, we then can take advantage of the 
World Trade Organization rules as they relate to Russia and to our 
trade with them.
  Russia joined the WTO on August 22, and the United States was a big 
part of that accession. We worked with Russia for 18 years to ensure 
that they were willing to go along with certain fairness provisions on 
trade to be able to enter the WTO, and we need to be sure now that we 
can take advantage of those provisions. Without passing this 
legislation, America and our farmers and our workers could get left 
behind. By joining it, Russia did agree to abide by a certain set of 
common rules, and when they break those rules, other countries can then 
take them to court--the World Trade Organization--and help hold their 
feet to the fire.
  It means Russia will be required to better protect intellectual 
property rights, which is a major concern for U.S. companies. It means 
Russia must treat fairly the highly technical services sector where the 
United States has a great opportunity, including telecommunications, 
insurance, energy services, and retail services. There we have a lot of 
competitive advantages and we are looking for a level playing field. It 
means they have to give rules-based treatment to our agricultural 
exports so they are not trumped by internal Russian agricultural 
politics. It means Russia has to improve its transparency and the 
rulemaking process so regulations are not taking place without an 
adequate comment period and input from job creators, including American 
companies that want to do business in Russia. These were all 
concessions that were secured, again, over this 18-year period by the 
United States and other countries, but primarily the United States took 
a role here--Republican and Democratic administrations alike--in 
ensuring that as Russia entered the WTO, we had the opportunity to have 
a fair trading system with them.
  By the way, I was part of that as U.S. Trade Representative 
negotiating with my Russian counterpart. Secretary Johanns--then 
Secretary, now colleague from Nebraska--was part of that as U.S. 
Agriculture Secretary. Others here in the Congress have been

[[Page 16317]]

part of that as members of the Finance Committee.
  So currently we have these trade rules that apply to the rest of the 
world but not to us because Russia is part of the WTO but we haven't 
granted this important PNTR status. So of the more than 150 countries 
in the World Trade Organization, we are the only ones that are outside 
of this agreement at this point. American exporters will only receive 
those benefits with total certainty if we pass this bill to provide 
these normal trade relations with Russia. If we fail to do so, we 
really hold back American workers and businesses from growing in the 
Russian marketplace, which, by the way, has 140 million consumers. Our 
European and Asian competitors would have that reliability and 
certainty that we would lack. When Russia doesn't play by the rules, 
our competitors around the globe would be able to take them to the 
world trade court, but we wouldn't. If we think about it, in a way we 
are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't move forward with 
permanent normal trade relations with Russia.
  Russia is now the ninth largest economy. Unfortunately, we are 
underperforming in the Russian market. The United States, the world's 
greatest exporter, now only accounts for less than 5 percent of 
Russia's imports. Our competitors in Europe have a 40-percent share of 
the Russian market. China holds a 16-percent share of that market. So, 
again, it is a growth economy; it is an economy where we have 
tremendous opportunities.
  I know Chairman Baucus talked about this earlier today. I watched him 
on C-SPAN where he talked about the opportunities in this market and 
about the need for us to help our exporters here in the United States 
by opening this potential market for our workers and our farmers. We 
can do much better if we pass this PNTR bill.
  This is certainly true in my home State of Ohio. Ohio already exports 
about $200 billion a year in goods to Russia, and we want to retain 
those sales and add even more. This bill impacts a number of businesses 
with a large Ohio footprint.
  Caterpillar, the world's leading manufacturer of construction and 
mining equipment, is one of them. Caterpillar employs nearly 1,000 
Ohioans, including in the Miami Valley in Clayton, and is a great 
example of the certainty the PNTR bill will bring. With Russia's 
entrance into the WTO, tariffs on American-made Caterpillar trucks 
exported to Russia will fall from 15 percent to 5 percent. That allows 
Caterpillar to be much more competitive in the Russian market. For 
Caterpillar's off-highway trucks, the tariff reductions exceed $100,000 
per truck. That is a real difference. It is a substantial margin. But 
if we don't pass this bill, we have no idea how Russia will treat our 
U.S. exports and we will have no way to hold them accountable.
  Other Ohio businesses that will benefit include Procter & Gamble, 
which sells more than 50 brands in Russia, including detergents, 
shampoos, and diapers. They have the leading market share, by the way, 
in 75 percent of the categories in which they compete.
  Eaton, which is a company in the Cleveland area and has thousands of 
employees in northeast Ohio, exports industrial clutches and brakes to 
Russia and looks forward, again, to the certainty this bill will bring 
when working with our customers in Russia. They need that certainty.
  GE Aviation in Ohio employs about 9,000 people in Cincinnati and has 
a great opportunity to compete as Russia acquires over 1,000 new 
civilian aircraft over the next decade.
  Ohio's cattlemen strongly support this legislation. Russia has made 
some important concessions in the negotiations that will help meet the 
growing demand for U.S. beef in Russia. Russia is currently the fifth 
largest export market for U.S. beef. According to the USDA, over 48,000 
head of U.S. live cattle were sold to Russia just this year. In 2011 
Ohio exported over 3,000 cattle to Russia, and we expect that number to 
rise dramatically.
  The bill also contains some items the Russian Government opposes, 
including the human rights provisions which were discussed earlier here 
on the floor, inspired by the treatment of Russian lawyer Sergei 
Magnitsky. Senators Cardin, McCain, and others have put the spotlight 
on the corruption and the lack of transparency in Russia. These 
provisions will clamp down on human rights abusers, denying them visas 
and putting them on notice that their corruption won't be tolerated by 
freedom-loving countries such as the United States. The House passed 
this bill last month on the anniversary of Magnitsky's death, and it is 
time the Senate does the same.
  We also have some provisions in this legislation that will ensure 
that our trade negotiators keep Russia's feet to the fire in 
implementing all the various commitments Russia has made, particularly 
with regard to agriculture. Russia has not always played by the rules. 
It has been a point of friction between our countries. We need to be 
sure they do the heavy lifting back home to bring their laws into 
compliance, including their pervasive use over time of non-science-
based standards to discriminate against our U.S. agricultural exports.
  I also wish to note my strong concern with Russia's involvement on 
another front; that is, their involvement in the continuing Syrian 
conflict. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have 
watched the Syrian situation with alarm, particularly as we have seen 
it unfolding this week. Russia has been anything but an ally in this 
case with the support of the Asad regime. They vetoed three U.N. 
Security Council resolutions aimed at imposing tough sanctions on the 
Asad regime. When Russia isn't using their veto power to support their 
Syrian friends, they are arming the Asad dictatorship with over $1 
billion, we are told, in weaponry, including attack helicopters, that 
they are using to continue their terror against their own citizens in 
Syria.
  Let me be clear. While I fully oppose Russia's actions in Syria, this 
bill is no gift to Russia. In fact, this bill has teeth. It brings 
Russia into a rules-based system. It is good for America and our 
economy and our jobs, and I think it strikes a critical balance by 
giving critical assistance to American companies that want to export 
their products to Russia's growing middle class, supporting good-paying 
jobs here at home, while forcing Russia to play by the rules and, 
again, providing binding penalties if they fail to live up to these 
international standards.
  While I am pleased we are finally moving forward on this bill, I am 
also disappointed we haven't made more progress over the last 4 years 
on trade. We didn't make opening new export markets a high priority in 
the President's first term. I am hoping that will change over the next 
4 years because helping U.S. job creators export shouldn't be a 
partisan issue. Over 100 bilateral trade agreements are being 
negotiated today as we speak here on the floor. The United States is a 
party to none of them. We are a party to one multilateral trade 
agreement which I support, but we need to get back and engage in these 
bilateral agreements and open markets for our products. We have been 
sitting on our hands on the side lines in an increasingly global and 
dynamic economy. This is the first administration actually since FDR 
not to ask for the ability to negotiate export agreements and bring 
them to Congress under expedited procedures, which is now called trade 
promotion authority. And this is something unique. This administration 
has yet to even ask for it over the last 4 years.
  Last year, we finally passed the Korea, Colombia, and Panama export 
agreements. Hopefully, our bipartisan actions today to boost exports to 
Russia will signal a new chapter for us to engage as a Congress and 
with the administration in a much more ambitious and proactive trade 
policy.
  I am pleased this bipartisan bill received such broad support from 
Republicans and Democrats in the House, getting 365 votes, and I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to now support this 
legislation before us.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to highlight an important 
provision in the PNTR legislation that requires the United States Trade 
Representative

[[Page 16318]]

and the State Department to provide an annual report to Congress on the 
steps they are taking to advocate for American investors in Yukos Oil, 
the Russian oil company that was effectively expropriated by the 
Russian Federation in 2007. The annual report would also include a 
report on the status of the petition filed by American investors in 
Yukos to request that the State Department formally ``espouse'' the 
debt--meaning to make compensation for American investors a matter of 
bilateral negotiations between the United States and Russia.
  More than 40 bipartisan Members of the House and Senate have written 
letters to Secretary Clinton in favor of the State Department taking up 
the cause of American investors. The State Department has been closely 
watching international tribunals adjudicating the claims of non-
American international investors in Yukos to help guide its own 
decision-making. On July 25, 2012, an international tribunal 
established pursuant to the Spain-Russia bilateral investment treaty 
ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish 
investors for the losses they suffered from the expropriation of Yukos. 
Likewise, an investor from the United Kingdom prevailed in a similar 
proceeding in September 2010. These rulings would appear to indicate 
that there is merit to the claims of the American investors.
  When a government abuses its tax and regulatory authority to 
nationalize the property of foreign investors, it is required to 
provide compensation to those investors. To date, none of the American 
owners of Yukos has received any compensation.
  I insisted that the Russia PNTR bill incorporate new trade tools and 
I hope that these will be used to assist in the satisfactory resolution 
of the claims of American investors in the Yukos case, as well as to 
assist other American businesses and investors who may struggle with 
Russian corruption and rule of law issues.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to both support the bill we are 
considering today but also to discuss the implications of Russia's 
accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO. I was proud to be part 
of a unanimous vote for this measure coming out of the Finance 
Committee and I expect tomorrow we will see a similarly strong showing 
of support for this significant trade measure. It is not often these 
days that we see such bipartisan agreement and I welcome it and 
encourage its expansion into other key areas.
  Russia was formally invited to join the WTO on December 16, 2011, and 
its entry into the WTO became official and effective this past August. 
There are more than 150 countries in the WTO, and with Russia's entry, 
now each of those countries have gained an improvement in trade 
conditions with Russia in the form of lower tariff barriers, easier 
access to markets and credit, and a variety of less tangible but 
certainly meaningful benefits including greater transparency and more 
enforceable mechanisms for securing property and other rights. We are 
promised that all WTO member countries will enjoy these privileges in 
their trading with Russia, but so far we are not among them: if the 
Congress does not take the opportunity to enact the bill before us, 
then we are only harming ourselves, as American businesses will be at a 
serious disadvantage relative to other nations' enterprises in terms of 
their ability to access the Russian markets. This is not merely 
theoretical, as my own home State of Maine exported $13.9 million worth 
of goods to Russia in 2011 alone.
  To recognize Russia's entry into the WTO and gain the advantages for 
American interests that such recognition brings, we must now consider 
the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations or PNTR with Russia. 
The United States provides PNTR to nearly all nations, but routinely 
has denied PNTR to communist or non-market countries. Specifically, 
this restriction has reflected our desire as a Nation that all peoples 
should be allowed to move freely in and out of their own countries--and 
the restriction is a reaction to the regimes that do not allow the free 
movement and emigration of their citizens. America memorialized this 
freedom-of-emigration concept in the Jackson-Vanik amendment, in large 
part as a response to the then-Soviet Union's consistent and often 
harsh limitations on the free movement of its people. The Soviet Union 
is no more, and now we must repeal Jackson-Vanik before PNTR can be 
granted. The bill before us accomplishes this significant objective.
  But we cannot simply applaud this vote without also accounting for 
some very troubling issues that remain with Russia. This year and the 
recent past for Russia have been clouded by a disturbingly long list of 
concerns about just how modern and democratic Russia may truly be. 
There are very serious questions regarding the integrity of Russia's 
electoral process, its support for brutal regimes such as in Syria, its 
abuse of human rights within its own borders and with its neighbors, 
its new promise of a massive arms and nuclear warhead build-up, and its 
near-flagrant disregard for intellectual property rights. We are told 
that entry into the WTO establishes Russia's willingness to abide by a 
rules-based system, but reports of corruption throughout Russia seem to 
belie its ability or willingness to follow the rules it set for 
itself--so we must ask, how can we trust them to follow the rules when 
working with others? I am saddened at the thought that, by taking 
action to provide PNTR to Russia, we are potentially condoning if not 
rewarding outright the manifold abuses that Russia continues to 
perpetrate under the guise of, but seemingly in defiance of, the 
concept of an open and lawful democracy.
  It is with that firmly in mind that I applaud our colleague Senator 
Cardin, along with Senator McCain, for identifying one way to deal with 
at least some of our serious concerns about Russia. I am speaking of 
the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, or S. 
1039. This bill recognizes the tremendous courage that Mr. Magnitsky 
showed in seeking to expose corruption and fraud in Russia, for which 
he paid the ultimate price. He was imprisoned and allegedly tortured in 
an attempt to make him recant the charges he was making, charges that 
turned out to be accurate, and he died in the hands of his jailers. The 
legislation would impose visa and asset forfeiture restrictions on 
those responsible for these foul deeds, and it could set a new standard 
for addressing future human rights abuses in Russia. I am proud to see 
this measure included in the bill we are voting on today and its 
inclusion was critical to my support and, I am sure, that of many of my 
colleagues. I believe its inclusion helps make this bill a holistic 
approach that does not punish honest American interests while also not 
rewarding questionable actors within Russia.
  Madam President, thank you and my colleagues for this vital vote. I 
look forward to today's debate.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I wish to express my support 
for legislation granting permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, to 
Russia.
  We need to act now so that our exporters can take advantage of 
Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO, in August.
  The House voted to approve PNTR for Russia on November 16th on a 365-
43 vote. The Senate Finance Committee approved its version of the bill 
on a 24-0 vote in July.
  The legislation enjoys widespread support among manufacturers, 
service providers, and farmers.
  It has been endorsed by, among others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Farm 
Bureau.
  As a part of joining the WTO, Russia negotiated agreements with each 
member, including the United States, making commitments to eliminate 
non-tariff barriers, protect intellectual property, liberalize key 
sectors such as services, and improve its business climate.
  For example, Russia agreed to: lower tariffs on industrial products 
from an average rate of 10 percent to 7 percent; not raise tariffs on 
90 percent of agricultural products and keep them at 15 percent or 
lower; join the WTO Information Technology Agreement and

[[Page 16319]]

eliminate tariffs on major IT products within 3 years; abide by WTO 
rules on enforcement of intellectual property rights; and remove 
limitations on foreign equity in telecommunications companies, 
insurance companies, banks, and wholesale and retail enterprises.
  These commitments will be subject to the WTO's dispute settlement 
process and help promote greater transparency and a more stable 
business environment for foreign investors.
  Since the United States is a member of the WTO, this agreement 
includes only concessions by Russia. The United States will not lower a 
single tariff, provide any market access benefits, or make any changes 
to U.S. trade law.
  Under WTO rules, however, in order for the United States to take 
advantage of Russia's commitments, it must enact permanent normal trade 
relations for Russia.
  Currently, Russia enjoys normal trade relations, NTR, status--the 
status enjoyed by a trading partner that faces the most favorable U.S. 
tariffs in exchange for similar benefits for U.S. exports.
  This status must be renewed on an annual basis due to a provision 
enacted in the Trade Act of 1974--the so-called ``Jackson-Vanik'' 
amendment--in response to concerns about Jewish emigration from the 
former Soviet Union.
  That law conditions normal trade relations status on a country 
allowing its citizens to emigrate freely.
  Russia has consistently met the requirements of Jackson-Vanik since 
the fall of the Soviet Union and its NTR status has been renewed 
annually without debate since 1994.
  Yet, WTO rules mandate that its members provide each other with 
unconditional or ``permanent'' normal trade relations. That is, we have 
to treat each member equally, extending them the most favorable U.S. 
tariffs in exchange for similar benefits without restrictions.
  Otherwise, they are under no obligation to extend the same favorable 
treatment to U.S. exports.
  Since the United States only grants Russia conditional or annual 
normal trade relations status, the United States is not in compliance 
with these rules and Russia can refuse to extend the market access 
commitments it made to join the WTO to U.S. exports.
  This is putting our exports at a competitive disadvantage because 
every other WTO member--155 in total--has permanent normal trade 
relations with Russia and has been receiving the benefits of Russian 
membership in the WTO since August.
  So while we delay, our manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and 
workers are losing out on a fast-growing market.
  Russia has a gross domestic product of $2.2 trillion, the sixth 
largest in the world. Its economy is expected to grow by 4 percent 
annually through 2015, according to the International Trade 
Administration.
  U.S.-Russia trade grew by 37.9 percent in 2011 and total U.S.-Russia 
trade stood at $42.9 billion.
  This mutually beneficial relationship will continue to grow by 
enacting this legislation.
  Let me repeat: for those who may be concerned about this 
legislation's effects on U.S. jobs, it is important to point out that 
the United States will not have to lower a single tariff or make any 
market concessions on Russian imports by approving permanent normal 
trade relations.
  All concessions will be made by Russia as a part of its agreement to 
join the WTO.
  What does this legislation mean for my home State of California?
  Among U.S. States, California is currently the 4th largest exporter 
to Russia, according to the Coalition for U.S. Russia Trade. According 
to the Business Roundtable, California exported $665 million worth of 
goods to Russia in 2011, supporting 2,000 California jobs.
  In 2011 California's exported $156 million of computers and 
electronics to Russia, our top export. Yet, U.S. companies only held 
4.2 percent of the Russian import market compared to 36.5 percent for 
the European Union, EU.
  As part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to eliminate tariffs on 
IT products and take additional actions to protect IPR, including 
joining the WTO Information Technology Agreement.
  In 2011, California exported $47 million of pharmaceuticals to 
Russia, but the EU held 77 percent of the import market. As a part of 
its WTO accession, Russia agreed to lower its tariff to 4.4 percent.
  In 2011, California exported $90 million of cars to Russia, the 
world's 6th largest car market. U.S. cars, however, make up only 4 
percent of Russian imports while Japan has 40 percent of the market and 
the EU has 35 percent.
  As a part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to reduce its tariff on 
cars from 20-35 percent to 15 percent.
  In addition, for California agriculture, Russia has agreed to: lower 
tariffs on dairy from 19.8 percent to 14.9 percent; reduce its tariff 
on grapes from 10 percent to 5 percent within 3 years; lower tariffs on 
cereals from 15.1 percent to 10 percent; and establish lower in-quota 
tariff rates for pork, poultry, and beef.
  Unless we pass permanent normal trade relations, our foreign 
competitors will be able to use the concessions Russia made when 
joining the WTO to protect their companies and workers and increase 
their market share, while the United States will not be able to do the 
same for our companies and workers.
  As a result, failure to pass this legislation will only make it 
harder for California and U.S. companies to compete in Russia.
  The legislation would also impose sanctions on individuals linked to 
the incarceration and death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.
  Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney who was arrested in 2008 
after alleging wide-scale tax fraud by several law enforcement and 
government officials. He died in prison a year later due to health 
complications while awaiting trial.
  Investigations later found that Mr. Magnitsky was beaten and did not 
receive proper medical attention. His case gained international 
attention and was used to highlight systematic violations of human 
rights in the Russian judicial system.
  It is my hope that this provision will help bring those responsible 
for Mr. Magnitsky's death to justice and encourage Russia to do more to 
tackle corruption and promote a greater respect for human rights and 
the rule of law.
  This is critical if Russia is to enjoy the full benefits of WTO 
membership and attract more foreign investment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I understand now under the existing 
unanimous consent agreement we are going to be proceeding to debating a 
judge. I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the disposition 
of that nomination, I be the first Democratic Senator recognized when 
we return to the pending trade bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________