[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 146 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Pages H6380-H6387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 808

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the 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. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-33 shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate, with 60 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
     and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 19, 2012, through November 23, 2012--(a) the Journal 
     of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as 
     approved; (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House 
     adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of 
     clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be 
     announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment; and (c) 
     bills and resolutions introduced during the period addressed 
     by this section shall be numbered, listed in the 
     Congressional Record, and when printed shall bear the date of 
     introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a later 
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say how great it is to see you in the 
Chair, and I wish you well.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to my very good friend from Worcester, pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, as I just mentioned in my 1-
minute, it is very gratifying that, as we look at this election, we 
have many people who have used the term ``mandate'' to describe what it 
is they have gotten. The President says he has a mandate to increase 
taxes. Some Republicans say we have a mandate to not increase taxes. 
Lots of people throw this word ``mandate'' around.
  I believe that the mandate is for us to focus on job creation and 
economic growth. And while we still embrace the Madisonian vision of 
the clash of ideas--it's a very, very important notion put forward by 
the author of the U.S. Constitution--at the end of the day, it's 
important for us to do something. And I think that the mandate from the 
election is that the American people want us to do everything that we 
can to create jobs, get the economy growing, and deal with many of the 
societal challenges that we face.
  Mr. Speaker, that's why I say it is very gratifying that the first 
item out of the chute after the election is something we will be able 
to do in a bipartisan way. Not that it hasn't been controversial, and I 
will admit, Mr. Speaker, that there is controversy that surrounds this 
issue, and I'm going to talk about it, but I will say that it is great 
that we'll be able to do something, with Republicans and Democrats in 
the House, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and the President 
of the United States on the same page in support of Russia's accession 
to the WTO and, most particularly, the opportunity for the United 
States of America, our workers, to have access to 142 million consumers 
in that country.
  So, Mr. Speaker, on August 22, Russia became a member of the World 
Trade Organization. Again, a huge economy. In fact, the last large 
economy to actually become a member of the WTO, and that's a good 
thing. It's a good thing because Vladimir Putin is not a good guy. It's 
a good thing because we are going to, not only with accession of the 
WTO but also with the multifarious provisions that are included in this 
measure, call on the United States Trade Representative, call on the 
State Department, and call on other entities to focus on things like 
intellectual property violations, negotiations, sanitary and 
phytosanitary agreements, the information technology agreement, and the 
government procurement agreement.

                              {time}  1230

  There are a wide range of provisions in here that will force Russia 
to live with a structure that it does not have today and will not have 
until we take this very important action.
  Now one of the reasons that I have been such a strong proponent of 
this issue has to do with a name, and it's not the name we're going to 
be talking about in a minute. The name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
  Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a businessman who was jailed and at this 
moment is incarcerated in the midst of a 7-year additional extension of 
his sentence for so-called ``tax evasion.''
  Now I mention those two words in explaining why I'm here because I 

[[Page H6381]]

Mr. Khodorkovsky, who was the head of Yukos Oil and was widely 
respected. I'm sure he was a great businessman. But he was widely 
respected and was a great philanthropist in Russia. He was a critic of 
Vladimir Putin's. And as we all know, and as I said, he is incarcerated 
today for one thing and one thing only: being a critic of Vladimir 
Putin's. That's really why he's in prison.
  Well, the reason I am standing here and am such a strong proponent of 
the action that we're about to take is that after I had met with Mr. 
Khodorkovsky in Moscow, he sat in my office right upstairs here in the 
Rules Committee. And in that meeting that I had with him, Mr. 
Khodorkovsky--a great philanthropist, one of the wealthiest people in 
Russia--said to me, I'm concerned about my safety and well-being. I 
think that there might be action taken against me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed to say that my reaction was to laugh at 
him. I said, There's no way that a man of your stature, doing the kinds 
of good things that you've been doing in Russia, will face anything 
other than broad-based support.
  Mr. Speaker, I was wrong. The human rights violations which have 
taken place against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a wide range of other 
people are one of the other reasons that we are here, pushing very, 
very strongly for permanent normal trade relations to force Russia to 
do something that they might not want to do, and that is to live with a 
rules-based trading system.
  The other name that leads us here, of course, is Sergei Magnitsky, a 
young lawyer who was simply raising questions, a so-called 
whistleblower, a whistleblower who was beaten to death 3 years ago 
tomorrow. Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of Sergei Magnitsky's 
death. And it is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of action in 
this 21st century still exists in a country that claims to be a 
democracy. It is horrendous, and it is unacceptable. And that's why I 
believe coupling the permanent normal trade relations for Russia and 
Moldova along with the Magnitsky language--and I want to congratulate 
our Senate colleagues Ben Cardin and Jon Kyl, and I know my colleague 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has been involved in pushing this. I 
strongly support the effort that we have had that will ensure that 
those who are responsible for Sergei Magnitsky's tragic, brutal 
beating, which led to his death 3 years ago tomorrow, will be followed 
and be brought to justice.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a great bipartisan effort. It's one that I 
think will inure to the benefit of the people of Russia and the people 
of the United States. And I would like to say that, remember, we're not 
giving up a thing. We're not lowering a single tariff. There is not a 
single sacrifice that's being made here in the United States of 
America. What we're doing is we're breaking down the barriers there.
  Last year, we exported $11 billion to Russia. The projection is that 
by 2017, our exports will be $22 billion, twice what we have today. And 
there are a number who anticipate that they will go actually beyond 

  So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a win-win all the way 
around. It's a win for the cause of human rights. It's a win for the 
cause of those of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--who want to 
create good American jobs so that we can have access to 142 million 
consumers. And it's a win for the people of Russia, who deserve better 
than they have gotten and, through the U.S. access to that market, will 
have an opportunity to see their standard of life and quality of life 
improve, because I believe passionately in the interdependence of 
economic and political liberalization.
  This accession to the WTO will enhance economic liberalization, and 
it will create an opportunity. I hope and pray for the kind of 
political reform that is desperately needed.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California, the 
honorable chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  I want to thank him for his eloquent statement, and I want to thank 
him for bringing this to the floor. As he mentioned, he and I both 
coauthored a Dear Colleague and supported the underlying legislation. 
And it was a pleasure to work with him on this important bill.
  And I know that there will be other opportunities to say this before 
he departs. But I want to thank him for his service to this House of 
Representatives, which I know he loves very deeply. And I want to thank 
him for his service to our country.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6156 joins together two pieces of legislation that 
deal with trade and human rights in the Russian Federation. The 
distinguished chairman has provided a clear description of the 
provisions in this bill that grant permanent normal trade relations, or 
PNTR, to the nations of Moldova and the Russian Federation. It is 
fairly straightforward.
  Simply put, after 18 years of negotiations, Russia joined the World 
Trade Organization in August. That membership will require Russia--for 
the first time--to play by the same rules of trade as the United States 
and virtually every other nation in the world.
  But under WTO rules, the United States cannot take advantage of 
Russia's WTO membership unless and until Congress grants Russia 
permanent normal trade relations, replacing the 1974 special bilateral 
agreement with Russia known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
  The United States is not required to change any U.S. law as a result 
of Russia's WTO membership other than this change to the 1974 trade 
law. This is in contrast to bilateral free trade agreements where the 
United States is required to provide duty-free treatment.
  If that were all there was to H.R. 6156, it would pass or fail along 
familiar lines of trade-related legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 
6156 will become known as a landmark piece of trade legislation not 
because it grants PNTR for Russia and Moldova but because it includes 
title IV, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012.
  Let me share with my colleagues just a little bit about the life and 
death of Sergei Magnitsky, in whose honor this section of the bill is 
  After exposing the largest tax fraud in Russian history, tax lawyer 
Sergei Magnitsky was wrongly arrested and tortured in a Russian prison. 
Six months later, he became seriously ill. He was denied medical 
attention despite 20 formal requests. On the night of November 16, 
2009--3 years ago tomorrow--his condition became critical. Instead of 
being treated in a hospital, he was taken to an isolation cell, chained 
to a bed, and beaten by eight prison guards for 1 hour and 18 minutes, 
which resulted in his death.
  Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old. He left behind a wife and two 
children. Those responsible for his abuse and murder have yet to be 
punished. And sadly, he is not alone. His story is emblematic of 
corruption, human rights abuses, and impunity in Russia.
  Since the death of Sergei Magnitsky, the human rights situation 
inside the Russian Federation has continued to deteriorate.
  Russia's parliamentary elections last December were marked by mass 
protests over alleged electoral fraud. Since Vladimir Putin was 
reelected president in May of 2012, his government has taken a harsh 
and confrontational approach to ongoing protests, cracking down on the 
Russian people's growing discontent with corruption and creeping 
authoritarianism. Russian authorities have used excessive force to 
break up peaceful demonstrations and detained and raided the homes of 
opposition leaders.
  Russian civil society has also been a target of increasing 
repression. Beginning in June and with astonishing speed, the Russian 
Duma passed a series of draconian laws that restrict freedom of 
expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. Many 
observers fear that these laws will be used as a political weapon to 
stifle criticism of the government. They make it harder for Russian 
civil society to operate effectively and create a climate of fear and 
self-censorship. Civil society's sense of isolation is only compounded 
by the Russian Government's recent decision to expel organizations like 
USAID from the country.

                              {time}  1240

  In addition, journalists and human rights activists continue to face 

[[Page H6382]]

dangers in pursuing their work. Just last month, Tanya Lokshina with 
the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch received a series of threats to 
herself and her unborn child, most likely in connection to her efforts 
to expose impunity for human rights abuses. Her experience is not 
unique. While Russian authorities have tried to silence critics, NGOs, 
and independent media, the world is still awaiting justice for many 
violent attacks on dissidents and journalists.
  I would like to note for my colleagues that today at 2 p.m. the Tom 
Lantos Human Rights Commission will be holding a hearing on human 
rights in the Russian Federation, and Ms. Lokshina will be one of the 
  In this context, the story of Sergei Magnitsky remains especially 
important. At a time when the human rights situation in the country is 
going from bad to worse, it is all the more important to hold Russian 
human rights violators accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, 
which is title IV of H.R. 6156 as reported by the Rules Committee, 
places an asset freeze and visa ban on those individuals responsible 
for Sergei Magnitsky's torture and death, as well as on Russian 
officials engaged in corruption and gross violations of human rights. 
This is beyond just Sergei Magnitsky. These measures provide a degree 
of accountability and reinforce the administration's toolkit to respond 
to crimes by individual government officials.
  Passage of the Magnitsky act sends a clear message to the Russian 
people that we support their fundamental human rights. Importantly, it 
also sends a strong message to those Russian officials who support the 
rule of law and who reject corruption and human rights abuses. It lets 
them know that their efforts and their achievements are valued by the 
United States and the international community. Only individuals within 
the Russian Government who abuse their office and engage in corruption 
and human rights crimes will find their assets and visas under scrutiny 
and subject to U.S. sanction.
  So let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. I would not be supporting PNTR for 
the Russian Federation if it did not include title IV, the Sergei 
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.
  And, Mr. Speaker, let me just close by again thanking not only the 
gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee, but I want to thank the Republican leadership, the Speaker 
of the House; the Democratic leadership, the minority leader and our 
minority whip; as well as the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for 
working together to come up with an agreement here that I think 
deserves bipartisan support.
  So I urge all my colleagues to support the Magnitsky act by voting 
for the underlying legislation, H.R. 6156, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me again express my appreciation to my 
good friend from Worcester, and it's been a great honor and privilege 
to work in a bipartisan way with him on this, as I've been privileged 
to work with many Democrats in this House on many different bipartisan 
issues over the years.
  And I'm getting ready to leave this place, Mr. Speaker. I'll be in 
January, as you will, moving on to another life. For me, it's after 
nearly three-and-a-half decades, and we've got lots of work ahead in 
the next 4 weeks. To have this trade issue as one there is something 
that is very gratifying for me.
  As I mention that I'm leaving, for his first speech since being named 
chairman of the Rules Committee for the next Congress, I'm very happy 
to yield such time as he may consume to the very thoughtful, dedicated, 
and hardworking gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions).

  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there are lots of hard workers in this 
House, and we all learned as kids there is a differentiation between a 
workhorse and a show horse. And I've got to tell you something, Mr. 
Speaker--and you know this very well--there is no Democrat or 
Republican in the United States House of Representatives who works any 
harder than Pete Sessions, and I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that he 
is going to be succeeding me as chairman of the House Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, to my dear and distinguished friend, the 
gentleman, the young chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, 
thank you very much.
  It is David's leadership, not just in the Rules Committee but, I 
believe, to all of us here in the House of Representatives, that David 
has led us to be a more open, thoughtful body; a person who used his 
time and position, power of the Rules Committee in the committee that's 
upstairs, to speak with all the Members of this body about their ideas 
that they represent and to make this a more open body. This institution 
is better because of David Dreier. And I am very aware of what lies 
ahead for me, but, David, you have done a great job, and thank you. 
Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today really to support what Chairman Dreier and 
the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, have been speaking for, and that is a rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  There are over 23 million Americans right now looking for work that 
are either over- or underemployed in our country, Mr. Speaker. So today 
is a jobs bill, another jobs bill that is important, and permanent 
normalized trade relations with Russia and Moldova will provide that 
much-needed boost, just a little bit. But a boost to the direction of 
adding jobs and making sure that the jobs we have here in this country 
to provide goods and services to another country are on an equal basis 
is important.
  This PNTR vote will mean that we're expected to double exports to 
Russia in just 5 years and to help create and strengthen jobs in this 
country while providing Russia with a great product at the right price, 
whether it's in manufacturing, agriculture, or the service industry. I 
believe this is an important bill for us to move on a bipartisan basis.
  Russia is the ninth largest economy and has a population of about 142 
million people. It has a large and growing middle class. And Russia 
holds outstanding potential for the United States, not just in the 
business interests, but also for goods and services to make the lives 
of the Russian people even better.
  My home State of Texas is the top exporter to Russia among U.S. 
States, and Texas imports to Russia are growing faster than its exports 
for the rest of the world. Specifically, Texas exported $1.6 billion 
worth of goods to Russia in 2011. We, in Texas, value this 
relationship, the jobs, the exporting, and the ability to have better 
products and services in Russia, with the Russian people making those 
decisions to buy these products and services. This legislation today 
will only help us build on that success, growing not just more jobs, 
but, really, the American economy.
  So I will say this on behalf of all of us. This is an important bill. 
We needed to work together. We need leadership of this body, all the 
Members, as well as the Senate and the President to make this happen.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  And, Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here listening to the very 
thoughtful remarks of my successor as chairman of the House Rules 
Committee, it reminded me of what really got him onto the Rules 
Committee and got him engaged with me, and interesting enough, Mr. 
Speaker, it was this issue. It was the issue of breaking down barriers 
to allow for the free flow of goods and services and capital.
  When he first came to this body, Mr. Speaker, we were in the midst of 
our battle on China's accession to the World Trade Organization and 
establishing PNTR at that juncture, which has been a great thing; not 
that it's been problem free--I acknowledge that--but it's been a great 
thing to be able to take the steps that we have. And it was Pete 
Sessions, Mr. Speaker, who came to me and said, I want to help you with 
this. I actually gave him an assignment, and it was to talk to a half 
dozen Members about how important this was.
  Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour he came back to me, having done the 
job right then, and that's why I describe

[[Page H6383]]

him as the person--as I say, there are a lot of hardworking people 
here, there are a lot of hardworking people on both sides of the aisle, 
but no one has been more diligent and worked harder than my friend Pete 
Sessions, and I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
  And reclaiming my time, this is the kind of energy and leadership 
that David Dreier expects from Members as he gives them not just tasks 
but opportunities, and the young chairman gave me that opportunity, and 
I took full advantage of that. As I recall, we were 10 out of 10. All 
of them voted for it. So I didn't just make up ``all of them.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill we're doing today. This is 
worthy of our time, and I'm delighted that we're joined by our friends.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
first of all to thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement, but 
also to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate him on his new 
appointment. I look forward to working with him. So congratulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to again point out that trade bills 
oftentimes are very controversial. There's often a resistance to attach 
any additional language, whether it be human rights language or labor 
rights language, to trade bills. But in this case, again, working in a 
bipartisan way, I think the attachment of the Sergei Magnitsky bill to 
this trade bill is probably the most significant piece of human rights 
legislation attached to any trade bill since I've been here in 
  This is a big deal. This sends a message to human rights violators in 
Russia, those who are guilty of corruption, that there's a consequence. 
And even if that consequence is not bringing you to justice within 
Russia, the United States--and we will be joined, hopefully, by our 
allies--will make sure that there are visa bans that are put in place 
and that assets are frozen, that there is a consequence. Again, our 
hope is that this language will prop up those in Russia who want to 
push for reform, who believe in accountability and believe in tackling 
issues like impunity.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the ranking member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, who was incredibly helpful to me in making 
sure that these two pieces of legislation were brought together and I 
think in a way that makes it possible for me to be able to support this 
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. LEVIN. First, if I might, let me congratulate Mr. Dreier on your 
service of many years. You believe in this institution.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. When you said ``many years,'' you are my junior colleague 
by one term.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. LEVIN. You believe in this institution, and I think that's been 
  So let me just say a few words--we'll debate it, perhaps, longer 
tomorrow--why this trade bill should be passed. I think we need to take 
each trade bill on its own merits. When you look at the need to move 
here today to grant PNTR, I think the answer is we clearly should.
  First of all, Russia is now in the WTO, and it has gone in with 
certain requirements; for example, no export subsidies are allowed. 
That's a change, and that's beneficial to those of us who want to trade 
with them so they don't rig the deck against us and for them. And there 
are major reductions in tariffs.
  Also, now that they're in the WTO, there is a dispute settlement 
system. So when they violate the requirements, there's a dispute 
settlement system that can be enforced. If we don't grant PNTR, we 
can't access that dispute settlement system.
  Also, it's so important that there be strong enforcement. A number of 
my colleagues put forth some legislation that proposed that we beef up 
the enforcement provisions within this bill, and that's been done. Our 
staff on the Democratic side worked assiduously with the Senate, and 
the essence of those provisions are now in this bill. So that's another 
reason to vote for it, because strong enforcement is critical to good 
trade legislation.
  Also, I would urge everybody to look at what are the exports from 
this country and the imports from Russia. When you look at those, it's 
a good reason for us to vote for this legislation, because the top 
three exports from the U.S. are machinery, motor vehicles, and 
aircraft--made in America by American workers. And so, in a sense, this 
is a ``Make It in America'' piece of legislation.
  The dominant import from Russia is in petro, in oil, and in that 
sense, they're not directly competing with our workers. So we have, in 
terms of what flows, an advantage being a full partner.
  But let me say one other thing, because I think those of you who have 
followed this know I don't believe that trade legislation is only about 
flow of goods. It also has to be embedded in a structure to make sure 
that there are benefits for our companies and for our workers and that 
there is a structure to try to make sure there's a rule of law, because 
if there isn't a rule of law in another country, it is not beneficial 
for their citizens or for our companies.
  So here I want us to pay attention to the Magnitsky legislation, 
because no one should think that it's easy to do business in any 
country where there isn't a rule of law. It isn't easy to do business--
and we should hesitate to simply blindly do business--with a country 
which really imposes restrictions on the rights of their citizens. 
That's what Mr. McGovern has done and what Mr. Cardin and others have 
done. And there has been bipartisan cooperation on this point, strong 
bipartisan cooperation, to place in this bill the Magnitsky legislation 
that sends a clear signal to the Russian Government and to everybody in 
Russia that we care about the rights of the citizens there, and as we 
do business, we care about the rights of others. That's the strength of 
this legislation, in addition to opening their markets for goods made 
in America
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. So I really urge that everybody look at this legislation 
on its own merits. Whatever the feelings are about other trade 
agreements, we need to take each of them on their own, the pluses and 
the minuses. In this case, I think--especially now that Russia is in 
the WTO--it works so much to our advantage in terms of the economy 
here, in terms of jobs here, in terms of our businesses and our 
workers. And also, I think we can vote for this legislation, if I might 
say so, with good conscience.
  Mr. McGovern, you have led. It's a tribute to your devotion to the 
human rights of people as we advance trade not only in this 
legislation, but in other legislation. I think it's also a recognition 
of our ability to work together.
  So I urge passage, and tomorrow we speak together to urge passage of 
the legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Levin, for 
his very thoughtful comments and to say I was very pleased to join with 
Mr. McGovern--as Mr. McGovern has mentioned and as I did earlier--a 
joint Dear Colleague to focus on the benefits of this legislation as we 
tackle this important challenge of human rights.
  I happen to believe very fervently that economic liberalization is a 
key part of ensuring the ability of human rights to be recognized. 
That's why I think this legislation is very, very complementary in 
addressing not just job creation, economic growth, and improving 
quality of life for people, but I believe both aspects--the Magnitsky 
aspect and the permanent normal trade relations--together work to 
enhance the human rights situation that is as devastating as it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I know I have talked about a number of other Members, 
but I'd like to say that for nearly a decade and a half I've been very 
privileged to work on a wide range of issues, but one of the most 
important has been the issue of trade liberalization with my friend 
from Hinsdale, Illinois. She is

[[Page H6384]]

going to be leaving this institution, as you, Mr. Speaker, are and as I 
will as well. But I've got to say that this institution is a better 
place. The issue of ensuring economic opportunity here in the United 
States and around the world is brighter for the work that has been done 
by Judy Biggert. I'm happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words, 
but also for what you have done for this country as far as trade and 
how you have really worked so hard to make sure that all of the Members 
of Congress realize the impact that trade has for our economy and for 
our place in the world. Either bilateral agreements, multilateral 
commitments, you were always there to make to sure that we moved 
forward on that, and I really thank you.
  I do rise in support today of this rule and H.R. 6156, to grant 
permanent normal trade relations to Russia. This important legislation 
is a small step toward a big reward. Without it, the United States 
exporters and service providers will continue to lose business to our 
foreign competitors that already have trade relationships with Russia. 
And once we lose those markets, our competitors will only become 
stronger and better-positioned to surpass the U.S. in a critical 
marketplace of the 21st-century global economy.
  According to the National Association of Manufacturers, Russia 
imported over $500 billion in goods last year; and of that total, only 
5 percent came from U.S. exports.
  This bill will lift outdated policies that restrict American access 
to Russian markets. As a result, studies show that U.S. producers can 
expect to achieve double-digit increases over the next decade in 
exports of heavy machinery, agricultural machinery, chemicals and 
services. This is particularly critical for my home State of Illinois, 
where we have fallen behind Japan and Korea in these export categories.
  Most importantly, granting Russia permanent normal trade relations 
gives the U.S. a level playing field on which we can compete from a 
position of strength in terms of intellectual property and agricultural 
exports, and it will provide a reliable forum for trade dispute 
  I would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the bill, to grow 
American exports and create good jobs here in the United States by 
supporting this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank the gentleman for his great work on this 
legislation; and also my colleague, who will be leaving us, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, who's done some great work over his 
many years.
  I rise in support of this legislation. I think it is important to 
see, as this continuum moves, our relationship with Russia change and 
now moving into a circumstance of additional trade and enhanced trade.
  I'm one that's very focused on improving manufacturing here in the 
United States, and this is going to open up tremendous opportunities 
for our manufacturers. So I want to commend those who've worked 
together on this and the Obama administration for their continuing 
efforts to open up trade opportunities so that we can make it here and 
sell it everywhere, which I think should be our focus.
  In addition to that, I think it shows how, over time, old wounds can 
be healed and new relationships can be built.
  I spoke earlier today with the consulate general for the State of 
Israel in Philadelphia, offering my support and concern for the 
unfortunate circumstances that are taking place in the Middle East now, 
in which hundreds of bombs or rockets have been shot at Israel, some of 
its largest cities as the targets. This is a matter for obviously much 
higher levels in our government. There have been communications and the 
assurance that Israel has the right to defend itself.
  But I think that we can see in this Russia trade agreement that if we 
can get to the point where there can be relationships that are built on 
self-interest and economic development, that we can put the weapons 
aside and move toward a circumstance in which people are focused on 
economic activity.
  So we see in this crisis a circumstance that we hope will resolve 
itself. Obviously, we stand with our ally, but we also hope for a day 
in which peace will reign, and economic opportunities, I agree with 
David Dreier, really is the way in which eventually we can create a 
circumstance in which people will not have the necessity to resort to 
  So I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the 
House. And I hope that we will favorably pass this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to express to my very dear friend from 
Philadelphia, express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, for his very kind 
words and to say that the recognition that economic liberalization is 
one of the greatest keys to our goal of enhancing human rights, the 
standard of living, and the quality of life for our fellow human beings 
is a very, very important point; and I just want to underscore that 
point that was made.
  Yes, the Magnitsky legislation is important, but I'm going to talk in 
just a moment about what some leaders in Russia have had to say 
specifically about PNTR and its impact on human rights.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very 
good friend from Huntington Beach, my fellow Californian, Mr. 
Rohrabacher. And pending that, let me say that he and I have been great 
friends since he was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. We've worked 
closely on a wide range of things. And I just told him, Mr. Speaker, 
since I'm leaving Congress, he's taught me one thing and one thing only 
and that is how to make margaritas.
  So with that, I'm happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of the rule and of this 
legislation, and note that the classified nature of that margarita 
formula should never be disclosed to an enemy of the United States, of 
course; but we will be glad to transmit that information to colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship.
  I do rise in support of this rule and H.R. 6156, the legislation to 
grant permanent normal trade relations status to Russia.
  During the 1980s, as it was just mentioned, I worked for Ronald 
Reagan in the White House and was part of a team dedicating ourselves 
to bringing down the Soviet dictatorship. I might add that Dave Dreier 
was an ex officio member of that team.
  Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union. That's the most 
important message. Over 20 years of reform have created an imperfect 
country, yes, but also a new Russia with a relative free press and 
churches that were once closed by the Communists which are now filled 
with those who would gather to worship God.
  Many here in the United States have not appreciated the dramatic 
change and continue to view Russia as if it were the Soviet Union 30 
years ago.
  Well, what we do today is long overdue. Our protracted refusal to 
grant Russia permanent normal trade relation status has been 
counterproductive and hypocritical. Counterproductive for years because 
it's been an unnecessary barrier to better bilateral relations between 
our two countries. Hypocritical because over a decade ago we had rushed 
to give most favored nation status to Communist China, which still 
continues to be the world's worst human rights abuser.
  All the arguments made to refuse it to Russia have always applied one 
hundredfold to Communist China. However, I have not heard the critics 
of this bill calling for an end to our trade status with Communist 
China, which I might add, human rights in China is worse today than 
when we granted most favored nation status to them.
  If we want to have a real debate about trade, the place to start is 
with Communist China and not be looking at a democratic Russia. PNTR 

[[Page H6385]]

China has cost millions and millions of jobs over the decade. Our trade 
relations with Russia will benefit both of us, both the people of the 
United States, as well as the Russian people.
  So how then can we justify such a pro-Communist China policy, which 
has had no political reform, and not giving it to Russia, which has had 
dramatic political reform?
  Two decades ago, while I was working in the White House, I was 
arguably one of the Soviet Union's worse enemies. But my boss, Ronald 
Reagan, never wanted the people of Russia and the people of the United 
States to be enemies. He envisioned, once the Communist Party had been 
discarded, that our two peoples would one day be friends and trading 
partners and, yes, even allies.
  Russian society has moved far from the Cold War. It is past time that 
we do the same. We need to reach out to them, stand together against an 
alarming rise of power in Communist China and against radical Islamic 
terror, which targets Russians as well as Americans.
  Thus, I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting and pass this 

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I 
also want to praise my colleague from California. This is one of the 
last rules Mr. Dreier will be managing here on the floor.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I'd like to ask my friend if he has looked at the 
schedule that we have for the next 4 weeks. I think it's light years 
away until I deal with the last rule here if you look at our 
legislative schedule. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. When it comes to the fiscal cliff, I 
actually hope you're right. I hope you will be so busy that you will 
have no time to think of anything else. But I do want to congratulate 
you on this rule and on your tenure here in the House. You will be 
  The Jackson-Vanik amendment, Mr. Speaker, was a product of the Cold 
War when the Communist threat was ever-present and when Communist 
countries had little or no emigration rights. As our friend from 
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, just said, we need to recognize that 
today's Russia, while hardly a perfect place when it comes to human 
rights and political expression, is not the Soviet Union. We need a 
positive framework--economic, political, social--to move forward.
  This PNTR, normalizing trade relations, allows us to wrangle with 
Russia when we think they're wrong in trade disputes at the World Trade 
Organization. Absent this normalization, we don't have that leverage. 
Furthermore, the committee needs to be really commended, as does my 
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for creating a statutory 
framework for addressing one of the most egregious human rights 
violations in modern Russian history. It involves Sergei Magnitsky.
  Now, this framework could ultimately be a model, frankly, as we move 
forward in other parts of the world as well, but it certainly marries a 
positive trade relationship possibility with vigilant and vigorous 
human rights enforcement and vigilance. So I commend the committee for 
marrying the two, for allowing us positively to go forward in our 
relationship--troubles and all--with modern-day Russia. I urge the 
passage of the underlying legislation, H.R. 6156.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I have no further requests 
for time. If the gentleman would like to close, I will then offer some 
closing remarks.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert two articles into the 
Congressional Record--one of The New York Times, entitled, ``Russia 
plans to retry dead lawyer in tax case,'' and the other from The 
Washington Post, entitled, ``The Kremlin's blacklist.''
  Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Magnitsky Act has been a 
bipartisan and bicameral effort. The final Magnitsky language in title 
IV of H.R. 6156 is the result of genuine collaboration and compromise. 
I want to again thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. 
I would like to thank Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority 
Whip McCarthy, Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Hoyer, House 
Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and our 
ranking member, Mr. Berman of California, as well as Mr. Levin, who has 
been so very helpful on the Ways and Means Committee, for all of their 
support in drafting the bill under consideration by the House this 
week. It has been a pleasure to work with all of these individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the Magnitsky provisions are strong, flexible 
enough to be well implemented and will allow us to have a cooperative 
relationship with Russia on trade and other issues while holding human 
rights violators accountable, including those responsible for the 
brutal treatment and death of Sergei Magnitsky. As I stated earlier, I 
would not be supporting PNTR for the Russian Federation if this bill 
did not include a Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.
  I agree with what has been said about the importance of increased 
trade in terms of promoting more positive reforms in countries like 
Russia, but there is always a problem when you have a country that 
doesn't abide by the rule of law, where impunity rules the day. In 
cases like that, I think it is important to have a tool like the 
Magnitsky legislation to make it clear to those in Russia--not just 
those involved with the Sergei Magnitsky tragedy, but with other 
terrible human rights crimes, those who are involved in corruption--to 
make it clear to them that there is a consequence and that, even if 
within their own countries they are not brought to justice, the world 
will know who they are and take appropriate action. There will be visa 
bans, and we will go after their assets. To me, this is a very, very 
powerful tool that complements the benefits of PNTR for Russia.
  I would say to my colleagues that this does represent a genuine 
compromise--the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which I am the author of in the 
House and Senator Cardin is the author of in the Senate. In the House, 
we originally wanted this to be global in its approach, but in the 
spirit of compromise, it has been narrowed down to Russia. I think, if 
this proves to be a good tool and if it is implemented properly, 
hopefully, we can broaden it, because I do think that it is important 
for the United States to make it clear to the world that, if we stand 
for anything, we stand out loud and foursquare for human rights.
  With regard to the rule, I just want to say that I'm a little bit 
disappointed that this rule on a bipartisan bill includes lockdown 
provisions that restrict the rights of the minority in this body. I 
would have preferred that this rule have only included procedures for 
the bipartisan PNTR-Magnitsky bill, but in the spirit of 
bipartisanship, I'm not going to dwell on that. I'm just going to point 
it out for the record.
  In conclusion, let me just make this one observation. This is an 
example of bipartisanship, of people coming together and of our 
supporting an important piece of legislation. I hope that some of this 
rubs off on some of the bills that we're going to be considering in the 
days and weeks to come, but this really is how this House of 
Representatives should be run.
  Again, my compliments to the leadership of the Republican Party and 
to the leadership of my own party. It was not just gratuitous. I meant 
it. This was a process by which those of us who care about the issue of 
human rights felt that we were included. As a result, I think we've 
come up with a bill that deserves support. I think it will make a 
positive difference in the lives of a lot of people in Russia. In terms 
of trade, I think it will result in a situation where there is a more 
level playing field, where we have an agreement that just doesn't 
benefit the few at the expense of the many; we may have an agreement 
here that will help benefit the many.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6386]]

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 7, 2012]

             Russia Plans to Retry Dead Lawyer in Tax Case

                         (By Andrew E. Kramer)

       Moscow.--The police in Russia plan to resubmit for trial a 
     tax evasion case in which the primary defendant died in 
     detention more than two years ago, his former employer said 
       The trial of the defendant, Sergei L. Magnitsky, would be 
     the first posthumous prosecution in Russian legal history, 
     according to a statement by the former employer, Hermitage 
       The death of Mr. Magnitsky, a lawyer, in November 2009 drew 
     international criticism over Russia's human rights record, 
     especially after accusations arose that he had been denied 
     proper medical care. The State Department has barred 
     officials linked to Mr. Magnitsky's prosecutions from 
     entering the United States. Parliaments in nine European 
     countries are considering similar bans.
       Police officials reopened the case against Mr. Magnitsky 
     last summer, saying it would provide a chance for relatives 
     and supporters to clear his name.
       Relatives, though, said they had not asked for that, and 
     executives at Hermitage said the motive was something else 
     entirely: to vindicate the officials Mr. Magnitsky had 
     accused of corruption.
       Hermitage Capital's executive director, William F. Browder, 
     who lives in London, will be a co-defendant in the case; he 
     will be tried in absentia, a procedure used only 
     intermittently in the post-Soviet period but restored under a 
     Russian law that took effect in 2006.
       The statement from Hermitage said that even in the Soviet 
     period, no defendant had been tried after death. But a 
     Russian Supreme Court ruling last summer allowed the police 
     to conduct posthumous investigations.
       Calls to the press service of the Investigative Committee 
     of the Interior Ministry, which is handling the case, were 
     not answered on Tuesday.
       Mr. Browder maintains that the posthumous case against Mr. 
     Magnitsky, who died in pretrial detention when he was 37, is 
     intended to intimidate his family and discourage them from 
     pressing for the prosecution of the police and tax officials 
     who they say orchestrated his imprisonment. A conviction of 
     Mr. Magnitsky might also appear to vindicate the officials he 
     had accused of wrongdoing.
       The Hermitage statement said a police investigator had 
     offered to drop the case in a letter to Mr. Magnitsky's 
     mother last week, but only if relatives stated that they had 
     no ``desire to protect the honor and dignity of the 
       Mr. Browder said in the statement, ``If the Russian 
     Interior Ministry thinks that running a show trial against me 
     and Sergei will stop our campaign for justice, they are dead 
       Mr. Magnitsky was detained in 2008 on suspicion of helping 
     Hermitage Capital evade $17.4 million in taxes. That 
     accusation came after Mr. Magnitsky testified against 
     Interior Ministry officials, saying they had used Hermitage 
     companies to embezzle $230 million from the Russian Treasury 
     by filing false corporate tax returns.
       Mr. Magnitsky's supporters say they believe that the 
     prosecution was retaliatory, and that investigators assigned 
     to his case, including individuals he had accused, denied him 
     medical care before his death.

               [From the Washington Post, July 26, 2012]

                        The Kremlin's Blacklist

                      (By Vladimir V. Kara-Murza)

       On July 12, as I stopped at the gate of the Russian Embassy 
     compound in northwest Washington, the on-duty officer had 
     some unexpected news. ``I cannot let you in,'' he said 
     through an intercom. ``You are forbidden to enter the 
     embassy.'' Being a Russian citizen and a credentialed Russian 
     journalist, and having been to my country's embassy on 
     numerous occasions, I was naturally curious. Yevgeny 
     Khorishko, the embassy's press secretary, whom I called for 
     an explanation, was brief: The directive to ``strike'' my 
     name from the list of credentialed Russian journalists came 
     from Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. No reason was given. In an 
     interview later with Slon.ru, a Moscow news Web site, the 
     press secretary explained that the decision reflected the 
     fact that I am ``no longer a journalist.''
       The explanation would seem passable, except for one detail: 
     The ambassador's directive came before it was publicly 
     announced that I had been dismissed as Washington bureau 
     chief of RTVi, as Russian Television International is known, 
     effective Sept. 1. How Kislyak could have known this in 
     advance remains a mystery.
       Around the same time, two trustworthy sources in Moscow 
     informed me that my name has been placed on a ``blacklist,'' 
     making me unemployable not only by RTVi but also by other, 
     even privately owned, Russian media outlets. This was quickly 
     verified, as one editor after another indicated that 
     cooperation at this stage is impossible. From his own 
     sources, opposition leader and former deputy prime minister 
     Boris Nemtsov found out the name of the Kremlin official who 
     has supposedly blacklisted me: Alexei Gromov, President 
     Vladimir Putin's first deputy chief of staff. As for the 
     reason for the Berufsverbot, my interlocutors were 
     unequivocal: It was my advocacy for the Sergei Magnitsky Rule 
     of Law Accountability Act, currently being considered by the 
     U.S. Congress.
       This bill, a rare example of congressional bipartisanship, 
     proposes to introduce a targeted visa ban and asset freeze 
     for Russian officials ``responsible for the detention, abuse, 
     or death of Sergei Magnitsky''--an anticorruption lawyer 
     tortured to death in a Moscow prison in 2009--as well as for 
     any ``extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights'' 
     (among them, ``the freedoms of religion, expression, 
     association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and 
     democratic elections''). The Magnitsky Act would bring a 
     much-needed measure of accountability to corrupt Russian 
     officials and human rights violators who prefer to rule in 
     the manner of Zimbabwe or Belarus but opt for such 
     destinations as the United States or Britain when it comes to 
     storing and spending their ill-gotten gains.
       Along with many other representatives of Russia's civil 
     society, political opposition and independent media, I have 
     been a vocal supporter of the legislation, urging its passage 
     in public speeches and in private meetings with Washington 
     policymakers. In authoritarian systems that maintain their 
     power by stifling free initiative and free speech, the line 
     between journalism and civic activism is not--and cannot be--
     as rigid as it is in democratic societies. Colleagues have 
     long warned that my support for the bill would, sooner or 
     later, catch the Kremlin's attention. The timing is not 
     surprising, as the bill is nearing passage.
       My case is just one in a series of ``retaliatory'' measures 
     Putin's regime has taken against Russian supporters of the 
     Magnitsky legislation. Other examples include the recent 
     early-morning raids on the homes of opposition leaders and a 
     series of new repressive laws directed against Russia's 
     already-besieged civil society, including the 150-fold 
     increase in fines for ``violations'' at public rallies and 
     the requirement that Russian nongovernmental organizations 
     that receive funding from abroad be tagged as ``foreign 
     agents.'' That the targets of retaliation are Russian is 
     hardly surprising: A ``reciprocal'' visa ban for U.S. 
     sponsors of the Magnitsky Act would have drawn only laughter. 
     Officials in Moscow had long promised that the response to 
     the bill would be ``asymmetrical.''
       The Kremlin's blackmail must not be allowed to succeed. The 
     hysterical reaction from Putin's regime shows beyond doubt 
     that the legislation hits precisely where it hurts. The 
     prospect of losing access to the West and its financial 
     systems (initiatives similar to the U.S. bill are already 
     being considered in European Union parliaments and in Canada) 
     may well be, for now, the only serious disincentive to 
     corruption and human rights violations by Russian officials. 
     Symbolically, the adoption of the Magnitsky Act has been tied 
     to the repeal of the antiquated Jackson-Vanik Amendment, thus 
     replacing trade sanctions against a nation with personal 
     sanctions against specific criminals. Perhaps the most pro-
     Russian piece of legislation ever put before the U.S. 
     Congress, the Magnitsky Act offers Washington an opportunity 
     to speak with a unified voice and with unquestioned moral 
     clarity. I hope that it will be signed into law before the 
     end of the year.

  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me offer some closing remarks and say that, as I 
reminisce, having spent virtually my entire adult life as a Member of 
this body, privileged to stand in this well for nearly three-and-a-half 
decades--making arguments, engaging in debate--as I said, I'm very 
gratified that we were able to work on one of the many final issues, 
which is the first issue of the lame duck session, in a bipartisan way 
as my friend from Worcester just said. I was privileged to work with 
him and to have him as a cosigner of this Dear Colleague letter that we 
sent out in support of this legislation.
  I am reminded, in having listened to remarks from both sides of the 
aisle--my California colleague (Mr. Rohrabacher) and others--that on 
the 6th of November 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for 
President of the United States. He offered lots of eloquence and lots 
of brilliance, but he said something that at the time was seen as 
absolute heresy, not only here in the United States but around the 
world and within this hemisphere.
  On the 6th of November 1979, Reagan envisaged this notion of 
eliminating tariff barriers among all of the Americas so that we could 
have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas, and 
yes, people as well. That's aspirational. That's a notion that he put 
forward. A few years later in the Congress, I was privileged to be 
elected the day Ronald Reagan was elected President. I joined with my 
colleagues Mr. Colby and Mr. Lewis, and introduced legislation calling 
for the elimination of tariff barriers among Canada, the United States, 
and Mexico, which led to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

[[Page H6387]]

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this diminution--in fact, elimination--
of tariff and nontariff barriers is so we can enhance freedom, enhance 
opportunity, and improve the quality of life and the standard of living 
for people not only here in the United States, but around the world, as 
well. We understand that even in repressive societies, that if we can 
proceed with economic liberalization, political liberalization will 
  I have to counter the statement that was made by my California 
colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, about China. I am not going to stand here 
on the day that Xi Jinping has become the new leader of China and claim 
that things are perfect in China, but I will argue that permanent 
normal trade relations and China's accession to the World Trade 
Organization has been beneficial. Why? Because if one looks at the 
great leap forward in China, there were tens of millions of people who 
were killed. During the cultural revolution, well over a million people 
were starved to death.
  So you look at the great leap forward, you look at the cultural 
revolution in China, and you look today at the horrendous human rights 
violations that exist in China, and my goal is still to see us move 
towards political pluralism, the development of democratic 
institutions, a greater sense of the rule of law. But there are a few 
thousand political prisoners in China. It's horrible. It's not 
acceptable. But, Mr. Speaker, I argue that that is progress.
  It was 10 years ago that I was very privileged to work with President 
Clinton in seeing China's accession to the World Trade Organization and 
permanent normal trade relations established. We were able to do that 
right here in a bipartisan way, and things are better than they were. 
They're not great; they're not acceptable; but, Mr. Speaker, they are 
better than they were.
  I know there are some who--and Mr. Rohrabacher thoughtfully did point 
to the fact that Russia is obviously not what it was like under the 
Soviet Union. I mean, we can all think back to the refuseniks. I 
remember adopting refuseniks, Jews who were unable to emigrate from 
Russia. You think about all of the military expenses that were involved 
throughout the Cold War, stories--I just came back from Georgia and the 
Ukraine, overseeing their elections, having been throughout Eastern 
Europe and Central Europe and heard stories about the kind of 
repression that existed. As bad as Russia is today, it's still a marked 
improvement over what existed during the Cold War and the time of the 
Soviet Union.
  A lot of us held out a great deal of hope for Russia, more so than we 
have right now, just a few years ago, and because we've seen backward 
steps. I've talked about my friend Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who, at this 
moment, is languishing in a Russian prison for simply criticizing 
Vladimir Putin. I'm here today in large part because I want Mikhail 
Khodorkovsky to be freed. I want to see an end to that kind of 
treatment of individuals.
  Similarly, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the tragic death 
of Sergei Magnitsky. It was absolutely horrible that this 37-year-old 
lawyer, a young man with, as my friend pointed out, a wife and small 
children, was imprisoned for simply being a whistleblower. He was 
tortured, abused, and left to die 3 years ago tomorrow. Again, in the 
21st century, that is intolerable. It can't be accepted. That's why we 
need to continue to pursue this effort on economic liberalization.
  I'm not going to counter what my friend said about the importance of 
the Magnitsky component to this legislation, but I would like to share 
the words of some formerly incarcerated Russians, some of whom were 
incarcerated human rights leaders in Russia who long before we did the 
Magnitsky language talked about how important this is. Let me just read 
a bit of this letter that is signed by seven human rights activists. It 
goes down the line of these Russians who have been opposition leaders 
in the forefront.
  Before we did this, understanding how important PNTR and China's 
accession to the WTO would be, they said:

       The persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment 
     does not help to solve the problems with democracy and human 
     rights in modern Russia at all. Moreover, it brings direct 
     harm. This helps Mr. Putin and his cronies.

  He is basically saying that repeal of Jackson-Vanik is something that 
is going to help undermine Putin and his cronies.
  They go on to say:

       Those who defend the argument that Jackson-Vanik's 
     provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish 
     Putin's antidemocratic regime only darken Russia's political 
     future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its 
     democratic aspirations.
       We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition, 
     strongly stand behind the efforts to remove Russia from the 
     provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.

  This is exactly what this measure has done before.
  While I'm gratified that we've been able, in a bipartisan way to 
include Magnitsky, there is recognition that simply repeal of Jackson-
Vanik would go a long way towards undermining the political repression 
that exists in Russia today.
  Mr. Speaker, I also have to say on this overall issue of trade, 
thanks are being spread around. I want to express my appreciation to my 
very good friends and colleagues, Dave Camp, the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee, and Kevin Brady, who chairs the Trade 
Subcommittee. I've worked with them for many years on the important 
issue of trade liberalization and in our pursuit of ensuring that we 
can create good American jobs, union and nonunion jobs, by opening up 
these markets.
  I also have to say that I know people like to malign the 87 newly 
elected Republican Members, this Tea Party class of crazy people. You 
read that. You hear that in the media on a regular basis. Frankly, I 
have to say, Mr. Speaker, the leadership that they have shown on this 
issue and on the issues of Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are very 
important issues. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I express my 
appreciation to the fact that 73 of them signed a letter to the 
President saying that this needed to be brought forward. We want to 
work in a bipartisan way to make this happen.
  I urge support of this rule, and then tomorrow when we have the vote 
on PNTR, a strong bipartisan support in behalf of the efforts of 
Messrs. Camp and Levin and Brady and others.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.