Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 remarks.)

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.

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 met

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 that.

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. 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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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.

When you said ``many years,'' you are my junior colleague by one term.

I thank my friend for yielding.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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 follow.

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.

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 named.

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.

In addition, journalists and human rights activists continue to face grave

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 witnesses.

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. 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 Congress.

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 bill.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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.

[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

Tuesday.

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

Capital.

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

deceased.''

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

wrong.''

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for all of his efforts and support on this and on so many other issues. It is a privilege to serve with him. I also want to thank the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Both of these individuals are responsible for making sure the final version of the Magnitsky Act included in this bill is strong, workable, and precedent-setting. It is a major piece of human rights legislation, and I am very, very grateful for their leadership.

Madam Speaker, today is the third anniversary of the death of Sergei Magnitsky, in whose honor title IV of this bill is named. He died on November 16, 2009, after enduring torture and beatings while being imprisoned for blowing the whistle on the largest tax fraud in Russian history. He did the right thing, and he paid for it with his life at the hands of brutal and corrupt Russian officials. His case remains in impunity.

Yet, under title IV of this bill, the United States will not stand by silently and let his killers and abusers and those who covered up these crimes get away with it. Those identified as responsible for these crimes will be named, their assets frozen, and a visa ban imposed.

We won't be acting alone. On September 26, the European Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that the European Union establish a common list of officials responsible for the death and cover-up of Sergei Magnitsky and to impose an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and freeze any financial assets they may hold inside the European Union.

Let me be perfectly clear. This bill is not simply about the case of Sergei Magnitsky. It applies to all of those who engage in gross human rights violations or corruption. It is precedent-setting human rights legislation. The House should be proud of what it is accomplishing today for human rights and the rule of law for the Magnitsky family, for the Russian people, for honorable Russian officials, and for human rights defenders inside and outside Russia.

Because this bill includes the Magnitsky Act, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6156 and would like to insert the European Parliament's report and an article from the American Enterprise Institute in the Record at this point.

Report With a Proposal for a European Parliament Recommendation to the Council on Establishing Common Visa Restrictions for Russian Officials

Involved in the Sergei Magnitsky Case

proposal for a european parliament recommendation to the council on establishing common visa restrictions for russian officials involved in

the sergei magnitsky case (2012/2142(INI))

The European Parliament, having regard to Article 215 of

the TFEU, having regard to the proposal for a recommendation

to the Council by Guy Verhoefstadt and Kristiina Ojuland, on

behalf of the Aide Group (B7-0196/2012), having regard to its

resolution of 17 February 2011 on the rule of law in Russia,

having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2010 on the

Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2009 and the

European Union's policy on the matter, having regard to its

resolution of 14 December 2011 on the upcoming EU-Russia

Summit on 15 December 2011 and the outcome of the Duma

elections on 4 December 2011, having regard to its

recommendation of 2 February 2012 to the Council on a

consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU

applies restrictive measures, having regard to the adoption

of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act by the

US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee on 26 June 2012,

seeking to impose visa bans and asset freezes on Russian

officials allegedly involved in the detention, abuse and

death of Sergei Magnitsky, having regard to the draft

resolution entitled `Rule of law in Russia: case of Sergei

Magnitsky', which was presented to the 2012 annual session of

the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, calling on national

parliaments to take action to impose visa sanctions and asset

freezes, having regard to Rule 121(3) of its Rules of

Procedure, having regard to the report of the Committee on

Foreign Affairs (A7-0285/2012),

A. whereas the arrest, conditions of detention and

subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a

well documented and substantial case of disrespect for

fundamental human rights;

B. whereas the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky

is a violation of international and national laws and clearly

shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice

system;

C. whereas the Russian Federation, as a member of the

Council of Europe and of the Organisation for Security and

Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully

respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, and

whereas the European Union has repeatedly offered additional

assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation

modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order;

D. whereas, despite the 2011 conclusions of the inquiry

conducted by the Russian President's Human Rights Council on

the illegality of Sergei Magnitsky's arrest, detention and

being denied access to justice, the investigations are

stalled and the officials involved have been exonerated and

even assigned to the posthumous case; whereas such actions on

the part of the authorities demonstrate the politically

motivated nature of Magnitsky's prosecution;

E. whereas the European Union has urged the Russian

authorities on many occasions and formats, from regular human

rights consultations to summit-level meetings, to conduct

thorough independent investigations in this special, well

documented case, and to put an end to the current climate of

impunity;

F. whereas the case of Sergei Magnitsky is only one but the

most prominent and well documented case of abuse of powers by

the Russian law enforcement authorities, heavily violating

the rule of law; whereas a multitude of other juridical cases

exist using systematically the pretext of economic crimes and

alleged corruption for eliminating business competitors or

political rivals;

G. whereas visa restrictions and other restrictive measures

are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, but constitute

a political signal of the EU's concern to a larger target

audience and thus remain a necessary and legitimate foreign

policy tool;

H. whereas EU sanctions on the Magnitsky case could prompt

the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to

address, in a more concrete and convincing manner, the

question of the rule of law in Russia and the current climate

of impunity;

I. whereas several national parliaments of EU Member

States--among them Italy, the Netherlands, the United

Kingdom, Sweden and Poland--have already passed resolutions

urging their governments to introduce sanctions on the

Magnitsky case, while several other national parliaments,

such as those in Portugal, France, Spain and Latvia, are at

the initial drafting stage for such resolutions;

1. Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

(a) to establish a common EU list of officials responsible

for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent

judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained

harassment of his mother and widow;

(b) to impose and implement an EU-wide visa ban on these

officials and to freeze any financial assets they or their

immediate family may hold inside the European Union;

(c) to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent

investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case,

and to bring all those responsible to justice;

(d) to urge the Russian authorities to put an end to the

widespread corruption and to reform the judicial system, and

bring it into line with international standards, by creating

an independent, just and transparent system that cannot,

under any circumstances, be misused for political reasons;

(e) to raise, in the course of bilateral meetings with

Russian authorities, this issue as well as the issue of

intimidation and impunity in cases involving human rights

defenders, journalists and lawyers, in a more determined,

resolute and result-oriented manner;

2. Encourages the Council to take a coherent and proactive

stance on other serious

human rights violations in Russia, on the basis of well

documented, converging and independent sources and convincing

evidence, and to introduce similar restrictive measures

against offenders as a last resort measure;

3. Underlines that the commitment of the Russian

authorities to basic values such as the rule of law, and

respect for human rights and basic freedoms, remains the main

prerequisite for EU-Russia relations and for the development

of a stable and reliable partnership between the two parties;

4. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation

to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the

Member States, the Russian State Duma and the Government of

the Russian Federation.

proposal for a recommendation B7-0196/2012

The European Parliament, having regard to Article 215 of

the TFEU, having regard to the European Parliament

recommendation to the Council on a consistent policy on

restrictive measures, adopted on 2 February 2012, having

regard to the decision by the United States to impose travel

restrictions on 60 officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky

case and to similar considerations in a number of other

countries, having regard to Rule 121(1) of its Rules of

Procedure,

A. whereas the arrest and subsequent death in custody of

Sergei Magnitsky represents a well documented and substantial

case of disrespect for fundamental human rights in Russia,

and serves as a chilling reminder of the many documented

shortcomings in the respect shown for human rights and

fundamental freedoms in Russia;

B. whereas Russia, as a member of the Council of Europe,

has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights

and the rule of law, and whereas the European Union has

repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to

help Russia modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and

legal order, in line with Council of Europe standards;

C. whereas there is an increasing need for a firm, robust

and comprehensive EU policy towards Russia, offering support

and assistance backed up by firm and fair criticism,

including sanctions and restrictive measures when needed;

D. whereas visa restrictions and other restrictive measures

are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, but constitute

a political signal of the EU's concern to a larger target

audience and thus remain a necessary and legitimate foreign

policy tool;

1. Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

(a) to establish a common EU list of officials responsible

for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent

judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained

harassment of his mother and widow;

(b) to impose and implement an EU-wide visa ban on these

officials and to freeze any financial assets they or their

immediate family may hold inside the European Union;

(c) to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent

investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case;

2. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation

to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the

Member States, and the State Duma and Government of Russia.

Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the majority and minority floor managers--the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman)-- just to clarify the congressional intent regarding the use of the classified annex mentioned in section 404(c)(2) of H.R. 6156.

Section 404 of the bill would hold accountable Magnitsky's killers and other human rights violators by placing targeted sanctions on them. In particular, the bill imposes a visa ban and asset freeze on individuals responsible for participating in or for covering up Sergei Magnitsky's detention, abuse and death, and on individuals responsible for certain other gross violations of human rights. As part of that accountability, section 404 requires the President to publish a list of the people responsible for those particular abuses.

It is my understanding that the congressional intent behind title IV is for people subject to sanctions to be placed on an unclassified list in a transparent manner and that any classified annex may be used only as an exception and not the rule. The administration may list a person in the classified annex only if the President determines that it is absolutely vital to the national security interests of the United States and provides Congress with prior notice and justification.

I yield to the floor manager for the majority, Mr. Burton, such time as he requires to clarify his own understanding.

In reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the floor manager for the minority, Mr. Berman, such time as he requires to clarify his understanding.

In reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen for their assurances and clarifications.

I want to thank this Congress for their bipartisan support of this Magnitsky Act, which, I think, makes it clear that, if the United States of America stands for anything, we stand out loud and foursquare for human rights.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to make a number of points, but first to join with the chairman of

the committee. We have worked hard on this legislation on a bipartisan basis, and also with the Senate.

I think these are the important points, if I might say so. First of all, I urge that we take each trade agreement very much on its own, maybe not completely looking at other agreements but assessing the merits of each particular agreement. And when you look at this agreement on its merits, it's clear, I urge, we should be supportive.

If you look at the flow of trade that will be enhanced by this legislation, it's clear that it will be beneficial to our country. The major exports from our country to Russia are machinery, motor vehicles, and aircraft. These are products made in America by American companies and by American workers. So essentially, this will enhance our ability. Russia, in terms of taking this on its own, is already in the WTO, and the question is whether we will be able to access their markets.

The next point: there is also a question of enforcement. Trade agreements by themselves will not be enough. There has to be built in strong enforcement and a willingness to enforce. And this agreement, with the help of colleagues, some of whom will be here to speak today, this agreement has strengthened enforcement provisions. Those were worked out with the Senate, and I want to thank the Senators for working with us. So there is within this agreement not only a guarantee of more flow, but also a guarantee that we have access to the instrumentalities so that we can hold Russia's feet to the fire, if I might say so, in terms of their meeting their obligations.

The next point is this: we've been working on trade issues for a long time. For some of us, trade is more than the flow of goods; it's the structure within which the flow occurs and looking at the benefits of that flow so that we're sure that the impact is a positive one for our businesses and our workers.

Also, it's important to remember that the rule of law in another country is vital, otherwise investment is perilous. The Magnitsky legislation was added here in part in recognition that when you talk about trade, you have to look at a fuller picture. And I want to salute, if I might say so, especially Jim McGovern for his work on this issue. And I also want to thank Mr. Camp, our chairman. I also want to thank those in the Senate for working with us to make sure that this is in this bill, the chair of our Foreign Relations Committee, and also especially Mr. Cardin, who once served on our committee and is now in the Senate and has made this a dedicated effort on his part.

This is a bipartisan effort. I hope that it will set the stage for a successful effort to deal with trade issues now and beyond on a bipartisan basis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on Trade.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for a colloquy, a gentleman who has worked so hard on trade issues.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I very much agree with my colleague from Maine that it's vital to monitor and fully enforce our trade agreements, and I will work with USTR to keep you and other Members of Congress informed when Russia has not fulfilled its commitment, regardless of whether or not the administration has taken formal notice.

As my colleague knows, today's legislation includes reporting requirements on all of Russia's commitments they made prior to joining the WTO, including the reduction of tariffs and other commitments related to manufacturing sectors. I will work with my colleague to make certain that USTR's reports include an evaluation of Russia's manufacturing-related commitments.

I very much agree with you that we must enforce our trading partners' commitments so that our American workers can compete on a level playing field, and I really believe that Mr. Camp, our chairman, and others concur in that. I, too, have been concerned about the effect China's trade relations have had on the U.S. economy.

I will work with you to monitor Russia's compliance and to ensure that U.S. manufacturers get the full benefits of Russia's WTO membership, and I can assure you we will continue to work together to address China's violations as well. This administration has been active in that regard.

As for section 301, I wish to note that I and the ranking member on our Trade Subcommittee, Mr. McDermott, exchanged letters with the U.S. trade rep in July, confirming our rights to request action under section 301. Under section 301, USTR is required to respond to our requests within a fixed timeline. That exchange of letters has already been incorporated into the legislative history of the bill before us today.

I want to thank you, Mr. Michaud, for your arduous efforts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to another Member who's been so active on trade policy, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who has served so long with distinction on our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of our committee from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is so active on trade issues.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another active member of our committee on trade and every issue that comes before us, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, could you verify how much time there is on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I think I'll proceed.

It's now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another vigorous member of our committee on all issues. We wish your State the best, by the way.

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), with his passion on all issues.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia who is deeply involved in trade issues, Mr. Moran.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has just been sworn in, a colleague of ours from Michigan (Mr. Curson).

This is your maiden speech, and it is my special pleasure to yield to you.

I would ask Mr. Camp if you would yield me an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I wanted Mr. Curson to finish his statement because of his roots in the labor movement and beyond. We're proud to have you here, and we welcome your statement.

As I close, I want to congratulate everybody who worked on this to try to strengthen it. I also want to say just a word about Jackson- Vanik because this terminates that provision that was a part of the trade bill.

I want to salute everybody over the years who worked to implement what Senator Jackson and Congressman Vanik undertook. Many of us, my late wife and myself, and so many others went to Russia to try to make real that amendment. It showed that trade is more than the flow of goods. We have to look at the structure within which trade operates.

So I close again by attributing so much to people who worked so hard to try to make sure that those who wanted to leave Russia, the Jewish community and beyond, had a chance to live elsewhere and to pursue their lives with dignity.

This is an important moment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bipartisan legislation to ensure that American companies, workers, farmers, and ranchers benefit from Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization. Almost three months ago, Russia became the 156th member of the WTO. Since then, exporters from every WTO member but one--the United States--have been guaranteed the benefit from the concessions that Russia made to join the WTO. These benefits include increased access to Russia's growing market in goods and services, improved protection of intellectual property rights in Russia, Russian animal and plant health rules based on international standards and science, and binding dispute resolution if Russia does not live up to its WTO obligations. If U.S. exporters want to be guaranteed these benefits as well, we must pass this bipartisan legislation and establish permanent normal trade relations with Russia.

This bill would allow us to gain important rights and powerful new enforcement tools with respect to one of the world's largest economies without giving up a single tariff or other concession. We could double or even triple U.S. exports to Russia within 5 years. But until we do, these benefits will go to our foreign competitors while our exporters fall further behind.

With our high unemployment, we cannot afford to pass up any opportunity to increase our exports and create jobs. And the longer we delay in passing this legislation, the more ground our exporters will lose.

I don't dispute that our relationship with Russia has many challenges. On the commercial front, we face weak enforcement and protection of intellectual property rights, as well as discriminatory standards for U.S. agricultural products. Russia's recent adoption of the WTO's rules should address many of these issues, but this bill goes farther by requiring the administration to stay focused on Russia by making sure that it lives up to its WTO obligations, resolves outstanding trade issues with Russia, and improves the rule of law in Russia.

Many of us also have significant concerns with Russia's foreign policy. Much as I believe that Russia does not always act responsibly, I also believe that this legislation cannot be seen as rewarding Russia. Instead, any benefit that is conferred is on U.S. job creators. I also fully share the concerns of many of my colleagues on Russia's abysmal human rights record, and that's why I support adding the Magnitsky legislation to this bill, on the third anniversary of the murder of Sergei Magnitsky while imprisoned.

For all of these reasons, we urgently need to pass this important bipartisan legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. Also, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Thank you.

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

At this time, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Yes, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I too want to thank Mr. Levin for his work on this legislation and for his long-time work on Jackson-Vanik. Those were very different times. His leadership there, I think, has paved the way for the effort that we're going to see today--I think a very large bipartisan vote. I appreciate the bipartisanship on this bill.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who will be retiring at the end of this Congress, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, who has been a leader on trade, trade issues, and has really been a mentor to me on these issues since I came to Congress. His leadership will be missed both in the Rules Committee and his intelligent contribution to debate on the floor, as well as his leadership on trade issues.

This truly is, as Mr. Levin said earlier, a bipartisan effort, and many brought it forward: Mr. McGovern, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Cardin, a former member of the Ways and Means Committee now in the Senate. This is the seventh bipartisan trade bill we've had this Congress. Also, not to be forgotten, this moves Moldovan PNTR. Moldova joined the WTO 11 years ago. Finally, we're seeing a resolution and some movement there.

As others have said, Russia is and will be a member of the WTO, regardless of whether or not the United States grants Russia PNTR. The commercial benefits, the jobs that will be created here in the United States because of Russia's accession, are significant if we do grant PNTR. As a WTO member, Russia will be subject to rules and regulations that the WTO creates that they're not subject to now. They must comply with all of their rules and regulations. It helps level the playing field for our workers, our employers, our exporters, and particularly in the areas of discriminatory practices, intellectual property rights, more transparency, implementing uniform rules and customs, all the things that are needed to have a viable economic--a dynamic and equal relationship are important there.

Also, it's important to note that our employers, workers, farmers, ranchers, and employees will not get any benefits of having Russia into the WTO unless we grant this.

This is an important step. It will bring us big gains. As has been said, this establishes tools that will help us ensure Russia's enforcement. And I think particularly also in the area of human rights, it's important that the Magnitsky legislation is a part of this legislation.

I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.