Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that both Democrats and Republicans, and virtually every American, is talking about, and people all over the world are talking about. What is that issue? How do we increase global economic growth; and here in this country, how do we create more good American jobs.

It's obviously a key part of the Presidential campaign. We have Democrats and Republicans daily stand in the well of the House of Representatives and offer proposals, talk about their ideas as to how we can create good jobs.

We have the sad report of 380,000 people who fell off the rolls even looking for jobs. We have literally millions of our fellow Americans who are looking for jobs, and we have many businesses that are struggling.

One of the great challenges that President Obama put forward was the goal of doubling our exports, and we all know that he very much wanted to do that. We, as Members of Congress, came together after a decade, and we finally were able to successfully pass market-opening opportunities for U.S. workers to sell their goods and provide our services in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.

It took us a long time to get there. I know that it's easy to point the finger of blame, but the fact is we've been ready for a long time. This institution

was ready for a long time, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we were finally able to get the legislation up here from down on Pennsylvania Avenue, and we were able to make it happen with strong bipartisan votes on all three of those agreements.

Well, Mr. Speaker, with recognition that opening up markets around the world for U.S. goods and services is a key way to create jobs here--because, again, as we debated the Panama, Colombia, and Korea Trade Agreements, there were Members on both sides of the aisle who stood up and argued in behalf of those great agreements--we now have before us what I believe is an absolute no-brainer, but tragically it's created some political consternation over a lot of confusion.

We know that the idea of seeing countries join the WTO, the World Trade Organization, creates a scenario whereby they have to comply with a rules-based trading system. We know that once they enter the WTO, there are constraints imposed on them along with the benefits that they get for their membership in the WTO. And there was a lot of negotiation, a lot of talk about Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization. The idea of seeing Russia forced to comply with a system that would prevent them from engaging in discriminatory practices, from engaging in the kinds of acts that prevent products and services from getting into their country, the structure of having to comply with a rules-based system is something that membership in the WTO forces and creates.

Again, there were a lot of negotiations. The last was dealing with a border dispute with Georgia that was resolved, and that was resolved several months ago. That put into place a structure that allowed, on August 22--last month--for Russia to enter the World Trade Organization.

Russia is part of the WTO. They are now, having been for over 3 weeks, a member of the World Trade Organization. That means, as I said, tremendous benefits that Russia gets. They have 140 million consumers, and there are going to be opportunities for countries around the world to export into Russia. We, last year, exported $11 billion of goods and services into the WTO. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? We're not at the table anymore. We've lost out on our chance to be able to sell our goods and services into Russia, that market of 140 million consumers.

Now, why is it that we've lost out? Well, we haven't been able to have a vote here in the Congress on Russia's accession into the WTO. Why hasn't that happened? Well, I hate to be political--even though this is the time of year when people are especially political--but we need to get this sent up here to the Congress so that we can put together what I know is going to be broad bipartisan support to make this happen. When it comes up, I know that we will see tremendous support on the Republican side of the aisle. And I say that because I'm particularly proud of the 73 newly elected Republican Members of Congress. Of the 87, 73 sent a letter to President Obama saying that they believe it very important for us to open up that market, so that if we all have this desire of creating more good jobs in the United States, let's open up that market to 140 million consumers. Well, unfortunately we're still waiting for that.

And I know that it's not just Republicans who are in support of this, Mr. Speaker. We have Democrats who are passionately and strongly in support of it. My very dear friend from New York (Mr. Meeks) says he's going to join us. We've got other colleagues of ours who are going to join us in just a minute. But I want to say that this is something that absolutely should be done.

Now, I talked about the fact that I believe it's a no-brainer, but I recognize that there is a lot of political consternation about this because it's Russia. We all know that Russia has an absolutely horrendous human rights policy. We know that Russia has engaged in trying to expand its sphere to other former republics of the Soviet Union. We know that there is tremendous corruption and cronyism that exists in Russia today, and it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to any of us.

Now, there are some, Mr. Speaker, who argue that for us to deny the U.S. an opportunity to have a vote on PNTR--basically repealing Jackson-Vanik and allowing us to proceed with this--would be a good thing and it would send a message to Russia, when in fact the exact opposite is the case. There is nothing that we could do as the United States of America that would be a greater boost to supporting the perpetuation of the aberrant behavior that we have seen from Russia than for us to deny a vote on permanent normal trade relations that would see us, then, have access to that market.

I said that last year we exported $11 billion of goods and services to Russia. If we could pass PNTR here, projections are that by 2017 we would double that from $11 billion to $22 billion. Now, what does that mean? It means more good U.S. jobs. And what does it mean? It means an expansion of our American values. It means, again, this forced compliance with a rules-based trading system. It means creating a structure that will allow us to undermine the kind of political repression that exists in Russia.

Our sticking our head in the sand would be just plain wrong. Now, those are not just my words, Mr. Speaker. We, on the 12th of March, received a letter from seven of the most prominent and outspoken human rights activists in Russia. They, in a letter, an open letter that was sent to those of us who are considering this issue, said the following. Now this is from these very, very prominent dissidents and activists, some of whom I'm sure have been imprisoned. They've had long histories of being opposition leaders to Vladimir Putin. So in the letter that they sent to us, Mr. Speaker, they said:

Some politicians in the United States argue that the

removal of Russia from Jackson-Vanik would help no one but

the current Russian undemocratic political regime. That

assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious problems

with democracy and human rights in modern Russia, the

persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment

does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings

direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in

international markets for higher value-added products,

leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of

development and preventing it from transforming into a

modern, diversified, and more high-tech economy. This

helps Mr. Putin and his cronies.

At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that Jackson- Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken Russia's political future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to include this letter from the seven dissidents in the Record in its entirety, underscoring how critically important it is for us to take this action so that we can boost those who are struggling to improve the plight of those Russians who are seeing their human rights jeopardized based on the current policies.

March 12, 2012.

Remove Russia From Jackson-Vanik!

Removal of Russia from the provisions of the Cold War era

Jackson-Vanik Amendment has long been an issue of political

debate. Although the outdated nature and irrelevance of the

amendment is widely recognized, some politicians in the

United States argue that the removal of Russia from Jackson-

Vanik would help no one but the current Russian undemocratic

political regime.

That assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious

problems with democracy and human rights in modern Russia,

the persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment

does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings

direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in

international markets for higher value-added products,

leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of

development and preventing it from transforming into a

modern, diversified and more hi-tech economy.

This helps Mr Putin and his cronies, who continue to

benefit from control over raw materials exports and who have

no real interest in diversifying Russia's economy. During the

period of their rule, dependence on oil and gas exports has

become even greater than before. Needless to say, hanging in

a petro-state limbo prevents the emergence in Russia of an

independent and advanced middle class, which should be the

main source of demand for pro-democracy political

transformation in the future. More and more talented and

creative Russians are leaving the country because there are

better opportunities for finding good jobs in hi-tech

industries abroad.

At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that

Jackson-Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in

order to punish Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken

Russia's political future, hamper its economic development,

and frustrate its democratic aspirations.

Jackson-Vanik is also a very useful tool for Mr Putin's

anti-American propaganda

machine: it helps him to depict the United States as hostile

to Russia, using outdated cold-war tools to undermine

Russia's international competitiveness.

We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition,

strongly stand behind efforts to remove Russian from the

provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Jackson-Vanik is

not helpful in any way--neither for promotion of human rights

and democracy in Russia, nor for the economic interests of

its people. Sanctions which harm the interests of ordinary

Russians are unhelpful and counter-productive--much more

effective are targeted sanctions against specific officials

involved in human rights abuse, like those named in the

Senator Benjamin Cardin's list in the Sergey Magnitsky case

(Senate Bill 1039).

It is time to remove Russia from Jackson-Vanik!

Sergey Aleksashenko,

Political Council member, People's Freedom Party (Parnas).

Alexander Lebedev,

Independent businessman and politician.

Vladimir Milov,

Leader, ``Democratic Choice'' movement.

Alexey Navalny,

Attorney and civil activist.

Boris Nemtsov,

Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas),

``Solidarity'' movement.

Ilya Ponomarev,

State Duma member, Just Russia Party.

Vladimir Ryzhkov,

Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas).

I also want to say that as we look at this question of job creation and economic growth, it's not something that, again, is at all partisan, and it's something that transcends this institution. We have received a number of letters--and let me see if I can dig this one up here. We have a bipartisan letter from Governors across this country that was sent just weeks ago, on the 25th of July. It was sent to us by Governors from Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, a broad cross-section geographically and politically, Democrats and Republicans. All these Governors were signatories to this letter in which they say:

As Governors, we know from firsthand experience in our

States that expanding opportunities for international trade

and attracting foreign investment are essential to promoting

U.S. economic growth and creating new and better jobs right

here in America. Russia's impending membership in the World

Trade Organization offers a significant opportunity to

increase our trade and investment with the world's ninth-

largest economy.

So I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why I see this as a no-brainer.

To me, this is a pretty simple thing. But I recognize that some might believe that it's a reward to Russia and to Vladimir Putin, and I stand with them for all the reasons that they're opposing it. But I argue that the reasons that they and I oppose the actions of Vladimir Putin underscore why we need to ensure that the U.S. is at the table.

And so, with the President having stated that he has this goal of doubling U.S. exports, and we've got 140 million consumers there who very much want to have access to U.S.-manufactured products, to our goods and services, we need to get it done.

And why don't I begin, since I see a number of my colleagues here, by recognizing my very good friend from New York (Mr. Meeks), who has joined us. As I recognize Mr. Meeks, I'd like to say that a number of Members have come up to me from both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and indicated that they very much wanted to be able to be here this evening to talk about this.

With that, I would like to yield time to my very good friend from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful comments, and I would just like to underscore this notion of doubling our exports. Taking that level from $11 billion in the next 5 years to $22 billion will inure to the benefit of New York, of California, of Minnesota, of Louisiana, and it will provide benefits all across this country.

And at the same time, it will help us deal with this human rights question, which is such an important one, because I haven't talked about it, but obviously including the legislation that deals with the very tragic death of Sergey Magnitsky, who was a lawyer in Russia who was raising questions and, basically, a whistleblower of raising concerns about the behavior of the Russian Government. He was left to die in prison. And we, with this legislation,

will be ensuring that those who are responsible are brought to justice and that it never happens again.

And so I think that, all the way around, this can be a win-win for the cause of human rights and for the cause of creating jobs right here, and I thank my friend from New York for his thoughtful contribution.

We're very pleased to be joined, Mr. Speaker, by my good friend from Minnesota, with whom I've been privileged to travel and has a great understanding and grasp of the issue of globalization and how opening up new markets around the world will benefit his constituents. And I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, I thank my friend for his very strong commitment to this.

I would like to expand on this Medtronic example for a moment, if I could, because we talk about big pictures; we talk about numbers; we say, yes, we want to create jobs, but the example of Medtronic is very clearly a specific opportunity.

I wonder if my friend has any examples or if he has talked to executives at Medtronic about the benefits of opening up that market in Russia, because it's true. We are horrified at the crony capitalism that exists in Russia, and we are horrified at the human rights violations that exist, but there are also many very, very good, dedicated, hardworking Russian people who would like to have an opportunity to have access to many of the products that are made right here in the United States. I know my friend and I have traveled around the globe, and one of the things that consistently comes forward is people saying we want to be able to purchase goods from the United States of America, goods manufactured in the United States of America.

I wonder if my friend might tell us a little bit about the success of Medtronic and what has happened and exactly what benefit we would see created for jobs here and also for the consumers in Russia.

In reclaiming my time, my friend is absolutely right, and I just want to again express appreciation to his commitment to our Trade Working Group, which is on a wide range of issues. We've been able to focus on creating jobs for millions of Americans as we have sought to recognize the benefits of exports and imports as well when it comes to improving the standard of living and the quality of life for our fellow Americans. He has been very dedicated to his constituents, and I appreciate your participation this evening, too.

I am also very pleased to see that we are joined by my very good friend from Louisiana, another hardworking member of the House Ways and Means Committee and someone who understands the world extraordinarily well. I would like to recognize my friend Mr. Boustany.

We've still got months to go.

Absolutely, we should do that.

I'll just reclaim my time there to underscore the very important point that my friend has made, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that the intentions behind the Jackson-Vanik amendment were very good. We saw horrendous policies from the Soviet Union in a wide range of areas. Virtually everything they did was bad as the Soviet Union, a totalitarian country. But the denial of opportunities for Jews to emigrate, especially going back to Israel, is what led to that amendment to the 1974 agreement.

I would like to ask my friend to repeat again--he said that we've had complete compliance that we've been able to certify for now exactly two long decades since 1992. That's 20 years ago, 1992 to 2012. For 20 years, we've had annual certification because there has been an opportunity in Russia since, thank God, the Soviet Union came down with the work of so many people. We saw it come down, and we now have seen really what you would call a Cold War-era provision that has been left in place for two decades.

Why in the world would we still have this? It seems to me that it's the right thing for us to do to ensure that we sweep this aside so that we can move ahead with these market-opening opportunities. I assume that's the point the gentleman was making.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time just to underscore this point, this notion that the WTO, which is an entity that stems from an agreement that the postwar leaders put together in 1947 called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the idea behind that was to diminish tariff and nontariff barriers. When we saw in the early 1990s the WTO put into place, the idea is to see issues like intellectual property violations, which we know are rampant around the world, in Russia, and we have intellectual property violations here in the United States, as well. We see lots of retaliatory action that is taken. With the structure of the WTO, there is pressure to live with a rules-based trading system to deal with these kinds of corrupt practices that go on with great regularity.

I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, I think the gentleman makes a very important point about what I like to refer to as the interdependence of economic and political liberalization.

We know people in this country are hurting. We all have constituents who are having a difficult time keeping a roof over their head, keeping food on the table. People have lost their jobs and their homes. We know it's been very tough. We know again that creating markets for these workers is very important. So seeing the standard of living improve throughout the rest of the world creates new markets for us, and it leads to political liberalization.

As we see that the many people in Russia who are suffering have opportunities to improve their quality of life and their standard of living by buying U.S. goods and services, it seems to me that's going to lead towards greater pressure for political reform, to address these human rights problems, to address the crony capitalism that exists, to address the kind of outrageous behavior that we see with great regularity from Vladimir Putin.

I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, just to underscore again, PVC is that material that's used in sprinklers. And I see this PVC material. I have been very familiar with it for many years.

What my friend is saying is there is an opportunity for exports to exceed the $24 million coming from Louisiana to Russia, but right now we're seeing other parts of the world transcend that. By virtue of the fact that they have access to that consumer market in Russia, it's denying the people of Louisiana from being able to see an increase in the level of exports of PVC material into Russia.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation for the very thoughtful remarks. The dedication that my friend has shown to his Louisiana constituents and the American people is, really, very, very respected in this institution. And I want him to know how much, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate his understanding of what it's going to take to create more jobs in Louisiana for the people there who are struggling and working so hard.

One issue that I wanted to mention, I talked about it earlier, but I think is

very important, and it's really what's led to people who are in opposition to this, and that is this question of human rights. We have horror story after horror story.

I have stood in this well and several times talked about the relationship that I developed with a man who is currently in prison in Russia, and this man's name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was in the energy business, a company called Yukos. He was one of the most successful, dedicated, and hardworking Russians. He was one of the greatest philanthropists in Russia, giving huge sums of money to support many, many charitable causes.

But, Mr. Speaker, he was guilty of one thing and one thing only: He was not a supporter of Vladimir Putin. And he sat in my office in the Rules Committee, right upstairs here, and, having visited him in Moscow and then having him visit me here in the Capitol. He said that he was nervous, and he was concerned that he was going to face some consequences for his opposition to Vladimir Putin.

Today I'm embarrassed to say how I reacted. I laughed. I said, The Soviet Union no longer exists. We have moved to a country that is independent, free, strong, vibrant, moving away from corruption, and, you, Mr. Khodorkovsky--Mikhail, I was calling him then--I said, You are, in fact, one of the most successful people in the country. There's no way that you would face that kind of threat.

Well, Mr. Speaker, tragically, we saw Mikhail Khodorkovsky jailed for 7 years, and then we saw an extension, another 7-year extension of his sentence. I will tell you that that is one of the reasons, because of the dedication that I have to the name of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who at this moment is suffering in a prison in Russia, it is for that reason that I want us to take every step that we can to ensure that we bring about the kind of reform and the change that is essential.

What we've done in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is we have dealt with a specific case where a man died. Sergey Magnitsky was relatively young. He was in his thirties, a lawyer who raised questions and concerns about the behavior of Vladimir Putin's Russia. For that, he was sentenced to prison. He was beaten, tortured, and left to die.

That has raised concern here in the United States and around the world. That kind of action is not acceptable, and we have to do everything that we can to ensure that those who are responsible are brought to justice and that it never, ever happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that in this legislation we have the so-called Magnitsky bill, which was reported unanimously out of our House Foreign Affairs Committee. This measure has passed the Senate. We need to see the melding of these. We need to see this put together and passed so that we can say that we're going to expand our American values, creating jobs in the United States by opening up this market and, at the same time, saying we will ensure that whoever is responsible for this kind of outrageous behavior is brought to justice. We're seeing, obviously, horrendous human rights violations take place around the globe.

Yesterday morning I stood here to talk about our great, great Ambassador, an amazing Foreign Service Officer who represented the United States in Damascus, Jerusalem, and other spots in the world in his dedicated career. Tragically, Chris Stevens was killed, as we all know.

We are seeing a very, very dangerous world, and that's why it's important for us to stand up and take action, and that's exactly what this measure calling for the U.S. to be at the table with Russia by granting PNTR will do.

Again, my friend has said it perfectly. Mr. Paulsen said it. Mr. Meeks said it. My colleague, I know, in his talking points that I submitted for the record, Mr. Moran, would have said it. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee had to go to a meeting, but he very much wanted to be a part of our presentation this evening, and he passionately believes that this is the way for us to most effectively deal with the very, very serious problems that we have on economic growth and on human rights violations. I hope, I hope that we will be able to see passage as soon as possible.

Again, I know that this is the time of year, as I said at the very outset, just weeks before the election, to be very partisan. This is something that we can have a bipartisan victory on.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to implore President Obama to get engaged on this. I know that there are many issues, again, looking at Africa and the Middle East. I know he is campaigning in his quest to be reelected. This is something that Democrats and Republicans in the House will pass with strong support if he will get engaged and work with us, work with us to ensure that we can bring this together.

And so I hope very much that he will do that in the coming days and weeks to underscore his goal of creating jobs.

I'd like to further yield to my friend. It looks like he'd like to offer something.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution on that. As we talk about human rights violations and the kind of threat that exists to those lovers of freedom around the world, I will say that just a couple of hours ago I talked to a friend of mine who is Libyan. In fact, his father was the lead opposition for four decades to Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. And he was in tears in our conversation, saying that the people of Libya owe everything to the United States of America. He said Benghazi would have been completely lost were it not for the United States of America and what it is that we did to bring about the kind of liberation that they so desperately needed, having been repressed for 42 years under Muammar Qadhafi.

And he went on to say that as we look at Libya, it's important to note that the tragic murder of Ambassador Stevens did not come from the people of Libya. It came from individuals, a few individuals. He said the people of Libya love the American people and revere the American people. I suspect that as we're talking about Russian PNTR that the same thing exists in Russia. Because they're living with great oppression. They're living with what is little more than an authoritarian dictatorship with the kind of crony capitalism and the violations of human rights that we're speaking of. Mr. Speaker, the people of Russia--and I know many Russians; we all do--have great respect and love for us as well.

So, again, our goal is to bring an end to repressive policies and use, as my

friend so eloquently said, the economic strength of the United States that is exemplified in every American who is working in whatever capacity at all to see our economy grow. Because we're the only complete superpower left in the world today, the only complete superpower. By virtue of that, I mean militarily, economically, and geopolitically. And we have to step up to the plate and continue to exercise that strong leadership role; and passage of permanent normal trade relations, taking this step will go a long way towards doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my friends who participated. And I know, as I've asked for general leave, others who wanted to be here who were unable to are going to be joining in submitting statements for the Record.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I also note several of our friends, including Senator Lieberman, who are on the floor. Senator Lieberman also has had a major role in this legislation, and I would ask unanimous consent that he be included in the colloquy.

Mr. President, I ask my friend, Senator Cardin, I had a statement I wanted to make before the colloquy and I know the Senator has a statement. Since it is his legislation, I would be glad to wait with my remarks until the Senator from Maryland completes his. And how much time, could I ask, of my colleague?

And I would have about 10 minutes, if that is agreeable to my friend from Connecticut--who, obviously, is jobless and homeless. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland make his remarks, followed by mine, and then the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 6156--the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. This day has been a long time in coming, and the fact that it has now come is thanks to the great work of many of my colleagues, and I want to take a minute to recognize a few of them personally.

First and foremost is the Senator from Maryland. It is not an exaggeration in the least to say that, were it not for Senator Cardin's leadership on behalf of human rights in Russia and his tireless dedication to memorializing the courageous dissent of one remarkable man--Sergei Magnitsky--we would not be here today. Senator Cardin is the original author of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. He passionately educated his colleagues about the need for this legislation, which is why it eventually won 25 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate. The Senator from Maryland has my deepest respect and gratitude for his efforts on behalf of human rights in Russia. He has established himself as a leading voice in our country on these issues. I have been honored to be his partner in this endeavor from the very beginning as the original lead Republican co-sponsor of the Magnitsky Act. And when this legislation is passed, as I am confident that it will be, Senator Cardin deserves all the credit in the world for this historic achievement.

I also want to recognize the efforts of the Senator from Montana. I appealed to Senator Baucus last year to join the Magnitsky Act together with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and Moldova and the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to both countries. He agreed, and in a letter to me, as well as a few of my colleagues, the Senator from Montana pledged to marry the 2 pieces of legislation together and to do everything in his power to see that the Senate could act on them together. He has been true to his word at every step of the way, and I am pleased to stand here today as an original co-sponsor of the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia and Moldova, as well as the Magnitsky Act.

Finally, the person I want to acknowledge above all is Sergei Magnitsky--whose remarkable life and tragic death is the reason that brings us here today. Sergei Magnitsky was a tax attorney working for an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had invested in Russia. He did not spend his life as a human rights activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian government. He was an ordinary man, but he became an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness and the rule of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all meaning.

What Mr. Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian government officials and criminals associated with them colluded to defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian government in turn blamed the crime

on Hermitage Capital and threw Mr. Magnitsky in prison in 2008. Mr. Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial. Russian officials pressured him to deny what he had uncovered--to lie and recant. But he refused. He was sickened by what his government had done, and he refused to surrender principle to brute power.

As a result, Mr. Magnitsky was transferred to increasingly more severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat unclean food and drink unsanitary water. He was denied basic medical care as his health worsened. In fact, he was placed in increasingly worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.

What is even more tragic is that the case of Mr. Magnitsky is only one of the most extreme examples of the broad and dramatic deterioration of rule of law in Russia, and its replacement with arbitrary and nearly unchecked state power, which is increasingly concentrated in the hands of one man, President Vladimir Putin.

What is emerging in Russia today can only be described as a culture of impunity--a sense among those who control the levers of power that Russia is theirs for the taking, and the only question left to debate is how government officials and other elites will divide up the wealth, the power, and the spoils. This culture of impunity begins, first and foremost, with President Putin. He sets the tone in the country. And right now, with his return to the presidency, and with many of the actions that the Russian government has taken recently, the signal is being sent across the country, especially to every petty tyrant and aspiring autocrat in the Russian state, that Putin is doing what he wishes. He is using the instruments of the state to crush his critics. He is getting away with it. And you can too.

This culture of impunity in Russia has been growing worse and worse over many years. It has been deepened by the increased surveillance and harassment of members of opposition and civil society groups . . . by the continued violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish the truth about official corruption and other state crimes in Russia today . . . and of course, by the continued detention of numerous political prisoners, not least Mikhail Khordokovsky and his associate Platon Lebedev, who remain locked away but not forgotten. I continue to fear for the health and safety of both men. And I pray for them.

The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in Russia's recent elections--the parliamentary election last December and the presidential election in March--which were criticized for their flaws and irregularities by impartial, objective international organizations. It can be seen in the recent NGO law passed by the Russian legislature, which requires any civil society group in Russia that receives international funding to register as a ``foreign agent.'' The vast majority of these civil society groups have nothing to do with politics. Clearly, the intent of this law is nothing less than to demonize, and marginalize, and stigmatize as treasonous whatever independent civil society organizations still remain in Russia.

The culture of impunity in Russia can also be seen in the government's new and growing interpretation of its law against extremism. A law that may once have been designed to address real concerns with terrorism and violent extremism is now being broadened to put pressure on civil society groups and religious minority groups, even including the Jehovah's Witnesses. A Russian court even went so far as to classify as an extremist organization the punk rock band of Russian girls that staged a protest performance this year in Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral. Any media outlet in Russia that would dare to broadcast this group's material could now be subject to having their outfit closed down by the Russian state.

This culture of impunity was extended even further last month in Russia's new law against treason. That term has now been defined so broadly that it allows the state to ban websites and impose fines, and likely worse penalties, against Russians who participate in unregistered demonstrations, who fail to register as foreign agents where now required under Russian law, and even to those who are suspected of giving advice to foreigners. Many Russians rightly believe that this new treason law is so expansive that the government can use it to stifle the legitimate rights and freedoms of anyone they deem to be an enemy of the state.

This culture of impunity also extends to the recent decision by the Russian government to terminate the presence and all programming of USAID in Russia. Whatever the stated reason for this decision, there should be no doubt why it was done--to try to further isolate, and marginalize, and emasculate civil society groups in Russia by denying them an ability to work in partnership with the United States, as many of these groups have freely done and wish to continue doing.

Ultimately, this culture of impunity in Russia is why Sergei Magnitsky is dead. That is why, even now, no one has yet been held accountable for his murder. And I suspect no one ever will. What is worse, the Russian government has done the opposite: It has put Sergei Magnitsky, a dead man, on trial, perhaps in an effort to prove that he got what he deserved. They have even required Mr. Magnitsky's mother and family to appear at the trial, which sinks this case to a whole new low. This culture of impunity is why videos are surfacing even now that document the brutal conditions of Russia's prison system, and the systematic abuse and torture to which detainees are subjected there at the hands of midlevel tyrants who want to run their small part of the Russian state just as their president does.

This is why we need to pass the Magnitsky Act. If citizens and civil society groups in Russia do not have a path to justice in Russia, then the international community has a responsibility to show these people that there can still be accountability, that there can still be consequences, for what they are suffering.

The Magnitsky Act does that. And I want to be clear: What is so important about this legislation is that its provisions would not simply apply to those Russian officials responsible for the torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky; it would also apply to other persons in Russia who commit human rights abuses. In short, this is not just about historical accountability; it is also about preventing future Magnitsky cases. It is about imposing consequences on all human rights violators in Russia.

The allegation that this legislation infringes on Russian sovereignty is nonsense. The Magnistsky Act does not require the Russian government or Russian citizens to do anything they do not wish to do. It cannot force human rights abusers in Russia to stop what they are doing. But if they continue, what this legislation does do is tell those individuals that they cannot bank their money in the United States, that they are not welcome in this country, that they cannot visit this country, and that they will have no access to the U.S. financial system.

Now, I know we have had a debate about whether to make this bill globally applicable--a tool that could be used to apply these same kinds of penalties to human rights abusers anywhere in the world. This is a worthy goal, and I believe we should have such a debate in the next Congress. It is important now, however, that the Magnitsky Act remain focused squarely and exclusively on Russia. That is what Russian democrats and civil society groups tell me they want right now. They want Congress to send their government a message on human rights, and by keeping the Magnitsky Act focused for now on Russia, we can do just that.

Furthermore, the administration can use its own executive authority at this time to apply similar kinds of pressures contained in the Magnitsky Act to human rights abusers in other countries. I, for one, will be watching closely to see if they do, for many other cases are crying out for greater U.S. leadership on behalf of human rights. And if the administration does not take the initiative to apply the leverage at our disposal to these other cases beyond Russia, that is the surest way to ensure that the Congress will act to globalize the Magnitsky Act next year.

There are still many people who look at the Magnitsky Act as anti- Russia. I

disagree. I believe it is pro-Russia. I believe it is pro-Russia because this legislation is about the rule of law, and human rights, and accountability, which are values that Russians hold dear. I believe it is pro-Russia because it does not make all Russians pay for the crimes of a small handful of corrupt officials, and in this way, the Magnitsky Act is an improvement on Jackson-Vanik and an ideal replacement for it. I believe the Magnitsky Act is pro-Russia in the same way that Permanent Normal Trade Relations is also pro-Russia-- because both measures are ultimately about strengthening ordinary Russians who long for greater opportunity, greater freedom, and greater protections for their rights under the rule of law.

I am not under any illusion that the passage of either the Magnitsky Act or PNTR for Russia will ensure the success of rule of law in Russia. Not at all. But while both measures are very different and present very different kinds of benefits to the Russian people--one a material benefit, the other a moral benefit--both of these measures, I firmly believe, are nonetheless beneficial to Russia. Both create high standards to which we and others can hold the Russian government, both on the trade front and on matters of human rights. Both provisions create levers for international accountability where few currently remain in Russia. In other words, the Magnitsky Act and PNTR for Russia can serve as tools that will help to empower ordinary Russians who do not want their lives or their livelihoods to be determined solely by the predatory elites in the Russian state.

Ultimately, passing this legislation will place the United States squarely on the side of the Russian people and the right side of Russian history, which appears to be approaching a crossroads. I remind my colleagues that today is the anniversary of the massive protests that rocked Russia one year ago. As I have said before, I do not believe that the demand for freedom and dignity that have so profoundly shaken the Arab world are unique to that part of the world. I think the effects of these upheavals will be global, because the values and aspirations at their heart are universal. I think this makes Mr. Putin and his cronies very nervous--and it should. The desire for peaceful change and democratic and legal reform can be delayed for a time. They can be delayed, but they cannot be denied. This legislation is a vote in favor of a brighter, better future for the Russian people--a future that they can determine, freely and independently, for themselves.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not conclude with a word on Moldova, because this legislation would also take the long overdue step of repealing Jackson-Vanik for Moldova and granting it Permanent Normal Trade Relations as well. This should have been done years ago. I have been an advocate for this action for many years. I have continually insisted that the Congress should not be allowed to pass PNTR for Russia without doing the same for Moldova. That was a condition of my co-sponsorship of this legislation, and I am proud that the Senate is now on the verge of clearing the way for normal trade relations between the United States and Moldova. That small country has taken enormous strides toward democratic and economic reform, and toward deeper integration in the European community. Passing this legislation will be a critical vote of confidence in Moldova's political and economic reforms and in support of its democratic future.

For all of these reasons, and for the many more that I have listed with regards to Russia, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Finally, I say to my three colleagues on the floor, there are times when we do a lot of things for the people we represent and a lot of things for the country. I think what we are doing here, which will be rapidly approved and has already been approved by the House and will be made into law, is something we are doing for people in Russia who need our help now, our voice and our commitment. Many of the great and wonderful ideas, promises, and prospects after the fall of the Soviet Union that was the case of Russia have been dashed. Maybe we should take responsibility for not playing a more constructive role in the 1990s when Russia was going through a critical phase.

I promise today, not just to Sergei Magnitsky's widow, but to all people throughout Russia who will be encouraged by this message because, as they were years ago, the legislation we are now repealing, the Jackson-Vanik act, was a call to the people in Russia who were being held under terrible conditions that they would now be able to freely immigrate to a land with promise of a better future. I believe that today this legislation is one of the most important ones that in years to come we can be proud we were a small part of.

Madam President, a quick response to my friend from Maryland, and that is we talk a lot about the globalization. Don't think that dictators, brutal rulers, and oligarchies all over the world are not paying attention to this legislation. Our message to them is: Keep it up; you are next.

Mr. President, today Senator Vitter and I are introducing legislation to ensure and protect the jobs of thousands of individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities and provide important services to the U.S. Government and taxpayers alike.

In 1938, during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration, Congress passed the Wagner-O'Day Act to help provide employment opportunities for people who are blind. At the time, most of the work the Wagner-O'Day Act created was in manufacturing mops and brooms that would be sold for use in Federal Government buildings and facilities.

In 1971, under the leadership of New York Republican Senator Jacob Javits, Congress amended the act to include people with significant disabilities and expand the program to also include services provided to the Federal Government.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program eventually changed its name to ``AbilityOne.'' Today, this expanded work program for people who are blind or have significant disabilities provides Federal customers, including the U.S. Senate, with a wide array of products, like wall mounted clocks, paint, military uniforms, hardware and cleaning supplies. AbilityOne also helps put people to work in service positions, like call center operations, grounds-keeping, food service, administration and processing positions, and vehicle fleet maintenance.

People who are blind or have significant disabilities struggle particularly hard to find work. While the current job climate is challenging for all Americans, the employment rate for individuals in this group hovers around 30 percent. Oftentimes these individuals must rely on taxpayer funded government entitlement programs like Medicaid, SNAPS--food stamps--supplemental security income, and subsidized housing. AbilityOne helps these Americans find jobs and alleviates the expenditures of these entitlement programs.

Recent independent studies of the AbilityOne Program found that in just the four business lines analyzed, the AbilityOne Program saved the Government $34 million in both reduction of

entitlements and increases in income and payroll taxes.

AbilityOne provides nearly 48,000 people who are blind or who have significant disabilities with quality job opportunities, to earn a living which provides a pathway towards increased independence.

There are nearly 600 nonprofit organizations across the country working to find job opportunities for people who are blind or have significant disabilities, through the AbilityOne program. With Maryland's proximity to the seat of the Federal Government, AbilityOne creates considerable job opportunities in the service sector for Marylanders with disabilities.

However, there is a growing trend among Federal facilities that is undoing the progress that the AbilityOne Program has made and in turn is contributing to the growth of unemployment for Americans with disabilities. The bill Senator Vitter and I are introducing today aims to address this problem.

More and more Federal facilities are moving out of federally owned and operated properties and into leased space in privately owned buildings and facilities. The General Services Administration estimates that the Federal Government leases more than 7,300 buildings in more than 2,000 communities across the country. When GSA has sought lease space in Maryland I have generally supported these moves.

Federally leased properties create terrific economic opportunities for the business districts they come to. Federally leased properties bring revenues for State and local governments, increase the tax base of the regions they come to and often provide the backbone for small business growth and consulting services around the federally leased facilities.

The economic opportunities a Federal lease on private real estate provides for a community are great for everyone except for service workers with disabilities who are no longer helped by AbilityOne because federally leased space falls outside the scope of the Javits- Wagner-O'Day Act.

As the law is written, Javits-Wagner-O'Day only applies to federally owned and operated facilities.

Our bill makes a simple and practical fix to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to apply the AbilityOne Program services to federally leased space. My bill states that when the Federal Government occupies 60 percent or more of the usable space within a private building or facility that the Federal Government, the lessor, or property manager must comply with the service contract procurement requirements of the Javits-Wagner- O'Day Act.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, and the thousands of men and women who have found employment opportunities through the AbilityOne Program, have a proven track record of success in terms of providing exceptional services and products for the Federal Government at rates that make for very sound spending of taxpayer dollars.

Finding job opportunities has always been a challenge for individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities. We must maintain the Federal Government's commitment to these hard working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Vitter and me in cosponsoring the AbilityOne Improvements Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011.

While this bill bears Sergei Magnitsky's name in honor of his sacrifice, the language addresses the overall issue of the erosion of the rule of law and human rights in Russia. It offers hope to those who suffer in silence, whose cases may be less known or not known at all.

While there are many aspects of Sergei's and other tragic cases which are difficult to pursue here in the United States, there are steps we can take and an obvious and easy one is to deny the privilege of visiting our country to individuals involved in gross violations of human rights. Visas are privileges not rights and we must be willing to see beyond the veil of sovereignty that kleptocrats often hide behind. They do this by using courts, prosecutors, and police as instruments of advanced corporate raiding and hope outsiders are given pause by their official trappings of office and lack of criminal records. Further, we must protect our strategic financial infrastructure from those who would use it to launder or shelter ill-gotten gains.

Despite occasional rhetoric from the Kremlin, the Russian leadership has failed to follow through with any meaningful action to stem rampant corruption or bring the perpetrators of numerous and high-profile human rights abuses to justice.

My legislation simply says if you commit gross violations of human rights don't expect to visit Disneyland, Aspen, or South Beach and expect your accounts to be frozen if you bank with us. This may not seem like much, but in Russia the richer and more powerful you get the more danger you are exposed to from others harboring designs on your fortune and future.

Thus many are standing near the doors and we can certainly close at least one of those doors. I know that others, especially in Europe and Canada are working on similar sanctions.

I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky while he was still alive

when his client William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital, testified at a hearing on Russia that I held as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in June 2009.

At the Helsinki Commission we hear so many heartbreaking stories of the human cost of trampling fundamental freedoms and it's a challenge not to give up hope and yield to the temptation of cynicism and become hardened to the suffering around us or to reduce a personal tragedy to yet another issue. While we use trends, numbers, and statistics to help us understand and deal with human rights issues, we must never forget the face of the individual person whose reality is the issue and the story of Sergei Magnitsky is as unforgettable as it is heartbreaking.

Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian tax lawyer employed by an American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax fraud in Russian history. After discovering this elaborate scheme, Sergei Magnitsky testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million and naming the names of those officials involved. Shortly after his testimony, Sergei was arrested by subordinates of the very law enforcement officers he had implicated in this crime. He was held in detention for nearly a year without trial under torturous conditions. He developed severe medical complications, which went deliberately untreated and he died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.

Sadly, Sergei Magnitsky joins the ranks of a long list of Russian heroes who lost their lives because they stood up for principle and for truth. These ranks include Natalia Estemirova a brave human rights activist shot in the head and chest and stuffed into the trunk of a car, Anna Politkovskaya an intrepid reporter shot while coming home with an arm full of groceries, and too many others.

Often in these killings there is a veil of plausible deniability, gunmen show up in the dark and slip away into the shadows, but Sergei, in inhuman conditions, managed to document in 450 complaints exactly who bears responsibility for his false arrest and death. We must honor his sacrifice and do all we can to learn from this tragedy that others may not share his fate.

Few are made in the mold of Sergei Magnitsky, able to withstand barbaric deprivations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to the test. A man of such character is fascinating and in some ways disquieting because we suspect deep down that we might not have what it takes to stay loyal to the truth under such pressure. Magnitsky's life and tragic death remind us all that some things are more valuable than success, comfort, or even life itself--truth is one of those things. May his example be a rebuke to those whose greed or cowardice has blinded them to their duties, an inspiration to still greater integrity for those laboring quietly in the mundane yet necessary tasks of life, and a comfort to those wrongly accused.

The Wall Street Journal described Sergei Magnitsky's death as a ``slow-motion assassination,'' while the Moscow Prison Oversight Committee called it a ``murder to conceal a fraud.'' Pulitzer Prize- winning reporter Ellen Barry writing in the New York Times stated that, ``Magnitsky's death in pretrial detention at the age of 37 . . . sent shudders through Moscow's elite. They saw him--a post-Soviet young urban professional, as someone uncomfortably like themselves.''

Outside the media, President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek noted that ``Sergei Magnitsky was a brave man, who in his fight against corruption was unjustifiably imprisoned under ruthless conditions and then died in jail without receiving appropriate medical care.'' While Transparency International observed that, ``Sergei did what to most people seems impossible: he battled as a lone individual against the power of an entire state. He believed in the rule of law and integrity, and died for his belief.''

One might have thought that after the worldwide condemnation of Sergei Magnitsky's arrest, torture, and death in the custody, the Russian government would have identified and prosecuted those responsible for this heinous crime. Instead, the government has not prosecuted a single person and many of the key perpetrators went on to receive promotions and the highest state honors from the Russian Interior Ministry. Moreover, the officers involved feel such a sense of impunity that they are now using all instruments of the Russian state to pursue and punish Magnitsky's friends and colleagues who have been publicly fighting for justice in his case.

They have forced the American founding partner of Magnitsky's firm, Jamison Firestone, to flee Russia in fear for his safety in the months following his colleague's death after learning that the same people were attempting to take control of an American client's Russian companies and commit a similar fraud. And they have used the same criminal case that was used to falsely arrest Magnitsky to indict Sergei's client Bill Browder. They have opened up retaliatory criminal cases against many of Hermitage's employees and all of its lawyers, who were forced to leave Russia to save their own lives. These attacks have only intensified since my colleague and friend Congressman Jim McGovern introduced the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2011, a similar measure in the House of Representatives, last month.

In the struggle for human rights we must never be indifferent. On this point, I am reminded of Elie Wiesel's hauntingly eloquent speech, The Perils of Indifference which he delivered at the White House in 1999. On this ever-present danger and demoralizer he cautions us, ``Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.''

Speaking of our humanity, I offer the following words as a contrast. They are from Russian playwright Mikhail Ugarov who created One Hour Eighteen, which is the exact amount of time it took for Sergei Magnitsky to die in his isolation cell at Moscow's Matrosskaya Tishina prison. Ugarov asks, ``When a person puts on the uniform of a public prosecutor, the white lab coat of a doctor, or the black robe of a judge, does he or she inevitably lose their humanity? Do they lose their ability to--even in a small way--empathize with a fellow human being? In the case of Sergei Magnitsky, each of the people who assumed these professional duties in the case left their humanity behind.''

The coming year will be a significant moment in the evolution of Russian politics. With Duma elections scheduled for the end of 2011 and presidential elections for early 2012, there is an opportunity for the Russian government to reverse what has been a steady trajectory away from the rule of law and respect for human rights and toward authoritarianism.

Private and even public expressions of concern are not a substitute for a real policy nor are they enough, it's time for consequences. The bill I introduce today sends a strong message to those who are currently acting with impunity in Russia that there will be consequences for corruption should you wish to travel to and invest in the United States. Such actions will provide needed moral support for those in Russia doing the really heavy-lifting in fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law, but they will also protect our own interests--values or business related.

We see before us a tale of two Russias, the double headed eagle if you will. To whom does the future of Russia belong? Does it belong to the Yevgenia Chirikovas, Alexey Navalnys, Oleg Orlovs and countless other courageous, hard working, and patriotic Russians who expose corruption and fight for human rights or those who inhabit the shadows abusing and stealing from their fellow citizens?

Let us not put aside our humanity out of exaggerated and excessively cautious diplomatic concerns for the broader relationship. Let us take the long view and stand on the right side--

and I believe the wise side--with the Russian people who have suffered so much for the cause of liberty and human dignity. They are the ones who daily risk their safety and freedom to promote those basic principles enshrined in Russian law and many international commitments including the Helsinki Final Act. They are the conscience of Russia. Let us tell them with one voice that they are not alone and that concepts like the rule of law and human rights are not empty words for this body and for our government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Thank you, Chairman Dreier.

Let me say thank you, first of all, for your tremendous service to our country in your capacity as a Member of Congress and as chairman of the Rules Committee. I want to thank you for your leadership on international trade and in promoting America's role in international trade. I also want to thank you for your friendship and for your wise counsel. I've enjoyed the time I've been able to travel with you.

We still do, but I'll say this: I'll miss having you here, and I look forward to keeping in touch in the future.

Thank you for organizing this round of speeches tonight to talk about this crucial piece of legislation that we need to pass because what it will do will be to ensure a level playing field for U.S. workers, U.S. farmers, employers who are competing for business in Russia.

Now, we all know that, until Russia came into the WTO, it was a very difficult place to get market access for our businesses, especially, certainly, large companies, but small companies, mid-sized firms. I believe it is vital for Congress to grant Russia permanent normalized trade relations by removing them from the Jackson-Vanik amendment. If we don't do this, if we don't terminate that provision and grant PNTR, Russia will deny or could certainly deny U.S. exporters some of the market-opening concessions it has made to join the WTO, and the United States would not be able to challenge those actions in a rule-based system through the WTO's dispute settlement system.

This is critically important, especially if we talk about small- and mid-sized firms that are in manufacturing that want to export. They need that kind of rules-based system to work within. Otherwise, they don't have the recourse to fight protracted battles in a difficult market like Russia's.

Of course, it's with some trepidation that we undertake this as we know that the relationship between our two countries is somewhat tenuous. We know very well about Russia's human rights abuses. We know about the poor respect for the rule of law. We've heard extensive stories about the corruption. The reality, though, is that Russia has now become a full-fledged member of the World Trade Organization, and to avoid putting the U.S. at a disadvantage, we need to move forward and grant permanent normalized trade relations.

I'll say this: that the best thing we can do as a country from a foreign policy standpoint with our relationship with Russia is to move forward with normalizing trade relations with Russia. If you want to see political reforms in Russia, if you want to clean up the corruption, if you want to see the rule of law flourish in Russia, our commercial relationship with Russia is critical because it will help build a strong, vibrant middle class in Russia, which will help bring about political reforms there and help overall in the world of security. At the same time, it's a win-win because this grants the United States' businesses and farmers access to a market which will help create good-paying, high-paying jobs here in the U.S.

PNTR will also make permanent the trade status the United States has extended to Russia on an annual basis for more than a decade. So we're not doing anything new. We're permanently normalizing this, which essentially grants Russia the same access to the U.S. market that all of our other trading partners enjoy.

This is nothing new or anything special for Russia. Rather, it is far more important for the United States, for our manufacturers, our service providers, our agriculture interests who are seeking open access into the Russian market.

In an attempt to continue a level playing field for international trade, the WTO requires members to extend normal trade relations to all other WTO members on an unconditional basis, unless a country does not want to apply WTO rules to another country. After 18 years of negotiations, Russia officially became a member of the WTO on August 22 of this year. Currently, the United States has a condition that is placed on Russia. It dates back to the 1970s when the Soviet Union had restrictive immigration policies preventing Jews from leaving its territory.

Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. However, since 1992, the United States has certified annually that Russia complies with the Jackson-Vanik amendment's provisions, and we have conferred normal trade relations on an annual basis to Russia. Only by graduating Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, making these normal trade relations permanent will the U.S. be able to be in full compliance with its WTO obligations, enabling U.S. businesses and farmers to enjoy all the trade concessions and commitments that Russia has made in order to join the WTO.

That's exactly right. This is a Cold War relic, this amendment that was put into place. The gentleman is correct that since 1992, we've on an annual basis waived its provisions, but we now need to move forward. The world has changed.

As we look to move forward with expanding market access for our farmers, our businesses, especially small and mid-sized firms, it's critical that we grant permanent normalized trade relations if we're going to maintain U.S. competitiveness globally. Right now we're slipping. We're losing our competitive edge.

A country like China, for instance, has consummated well over 100 trade agreements just in the last couple of years. We have done three, and it took us 5 years since the Bush administration to put in place three relatively small trade agreements. We need to take advantage of the WTO structure. And with Russia coming on board as the ninth largest economy, we have a huge opportunity to promote American competitiveness and American business interests at no cost to us. Staying out of this hurts us, and that's why we need to move forward.

If we don't act to grant PNTR to Russia, our Nation's dedicated workforce, our determined business community, we'll be left at a competitive disadvantage, vis-a-vis our foreign competitors. Given the slow growth of our economy and the continued high unemployment rate, we can't allow this to happen. And with Europe struggling, this is an important market to help with global growth by helping U.S. growth and jobs in the United States.

I was a cosponsor of the vital legislation to grant PNTR to Russia, to place additional reporting requirements, of course, on both Russia and the U.S. administration. These conditions ensure that Russia implements its WTO obligations and those obligations are enforced.

Some will raise the question of, Wait a minute, we had a problem with China when they came onto the WTO, and we're still struggling with that. We have learned from that process, and we have additional safeguards in this agreement that will help make sure

that Russia fully maintains its obligations under permanent normalized trade relations.

If we're going to work through these commercial types of agreements and eliminate the corruptions, the abuses, the intellectual property theft, we have to make the rules-based system work. And the WTO framework which basically grew out of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in the 1940s is that mechanism, and it works. That's what allows us to make a claim against China, for instance, when they're doing abusive practices. It is an equalizer. It basically puts in place a framework that ensures that trade is conducted fairly and openly. That's what U.S. workers and U.S. farmers are looking for.

It's also very important as a critical piece to maintaining global security. If we focus on international economics, commercial relationships through open navigation of the seas, open trade, we're going to see less conflict in the world. I think this is critical from a security standpoint, and it's critical from a standpoint of economic prosperity for the United States. As the United States continues to face economic challenges, our national exports have remained relatively strong. They've probably kept us out of a recession over the last several quarters.

I agree with that.

Any of these things that will help promote the development of a middle class in these other countries, whether it be China or Russia in this particular class, creates a new consumer class for American goods.

Now, we're all patriotic. We want to buy American. I love to go to the store, and I'll buy something; and if the label says ``Made in America,'' I feel good. I feel good about it. Most Americans do. But by God, I want a Russian mother to buy something on the shelf that says ``Made in America.'' We need to sell America, sell American goods overseas. That's where 95 percent of the world's consumers are, and our economy has been too much mired in domestic consumption at the expense of not looking into the outside world to export American-made goods to these consumers who live outside the United States.

By normalizing our trade relationship with Russia, we will create the mechanism to do that with Russia. This will increase critical sales of American goods and services to Russia. Not only that, we will create very good high-paying jobs here in the United States. This is definitely a win-win situation.

We spoke about Russia being the ninth largest world economy, importing more than $400 billion in goods and services. And as some of my colleagues may be aware, Louisiana, my State--it's a small State, but it's seventh among the 50 States in total exports because of our location on the Gulf of Mexico and our waterways and our ports.

In the first quarter of 2012, Louisiana farmers and small businesses exported nearly $14.25 billion in goods and services to the rest of the world. In fact, in 2011, Louisiana exported $135 million worth of goods to Russia, which created a lot of good jobs in Louisiana.

Louisiana was a top supplier of PVC plastics to Russia in 2011, with $21.4 million in exports, but exporters in the EU and in China still accounted for more than 60 percent of Russian imports of that particular material. We have an opportunity to grow this if we grant this kind of permanent, normalized trade relations.

That's exactly right. Louisiana produces a PVC plastic, or looking for opportunities to get into that market, and yet they're being superseded by countries in Europe and China.

In fact, Russia, when it joined the WTO, agreed to reduce its average tariffs on plastic products from 10 percent to 6.2 percent. If we don't do this, we're going to be subject to higher tariffs, putting us at a major competitive disadvantage, and our foreign competitors will take advantage of this. Again, we'll have the mechanisms in place, if we do grant trade relations, to have a dispute mechanism in place to ensure that Russia keeps its commitments to our workers, our businesses back here at home.

Now, there's no reason not to move forward with this, and I hope that we can see some action on this relatively soon, because as each day kicks by, we are losing competitiveness.

One last tidbit of information, Louisiana doesn't have large Fortune 500 companies. We have a couple, but we have a lot of small- and mid- sized firms that are manufacturers, and we are a leader in manufacturing on the small scale in the energy sector with equipment and services that are vital to energy production, energy security globally.

These companies would love to get into the Russian market, to have the right protections of law so that they could sell their goods and services. This would lead to a lot of economic activity in Louisiana. It would help, you know, create good-paying jobs once again, help promote our energy sector, development and manufacturing in the energy sector, of which Louisiana--and the United States, frankly--has been a leader.

Congress must continue to support these kinds of agreements to boost our economy here at home to create job opportunities, good-paying job opportunities right here at home. That's why it's so important to move forward on this.

I thank the chairman for yielding some time back to me. I share his sentiments about the situation with human rights and liberty. America has always been the beacon of liberty--individual liberty. And it's also been the hope of the world with regard to human rights. And we have to understand, the American public has to understand that one of the most important tools that we have as a Nation is our economic strength. And it comes from each and every one of us in this country--from a plumber to a mechanic or someone engaged in small manufacturing, our farmers. That economic strength comes from each and every one of us. It wells up into the mighty country that we have.

We think about American might in terms of military might. Yes, it's a great and wondrous thing, but our economic strength is even more important. And the way we use that to influence events in the world to help promote liberty, to promote human rights is to engage in trade. And the surest way that we're going to help promote changes in Russia for the better is to help that middle class. And by engaging in trade, that middle class will be stronger, it will be wealthier, it will want to engage; and that will lead to serious political reforms.

The last thing I want to say is I share your sentiments with regard to Ambassador Stevens. He was a wonderful man. He served his country in many hotspots, difficult places. He was fearless. And I would also say that we oftentimes talk about our military men and women and we put them up on the pedestal, where we should, rightly so, but we forget to talk about our diplomats and our foreign service officers who do the same sorts of things, putting themselves in harm's way in these very tough places around the world. They are extremely patriotic. They do their duty. They make us all proud. We lost a great patriot with Ambassador Stevens.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the legislation before us and in support of the comments my Independent colleague from Connecticut just made which had to do with the Magnitsky provision, which I also support. I heard my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, talking about it passionately earlier. It is an important part of this legislation. But with regard to the trade part of the legislation, I would like to say that I think this is also a great opportunity for us. I see my colleague from Maryland here who, along with Senator McCain, has taken the lead on the Magnitsky provision encouraging better human rights in Russia, and I think we will see over time that this will have an impact globally.

With regard to the trade side of this debate we are having today, I hope we all recognize that one of the great, untapped opportunities for our economy and for adding jobs is to expand exports. We have a great, untapped potential here because America still is not exporting at the level it should be. We do face stubbornly high unemployment. We do have stagnant growth rates. We are looking at some tough economic numbers even as we head toward the fiscal cliff which could make it even worse. So we need to do all we can to ensure that our workers and our farmers have access to the 95 percent of consumers who live outside of our borders. That adds jobs. When companies consider whether they are going to get into the export business or not, which again creates opportunity here, they want to know if they are going to be treated with certainty, predictability, and fairness in the marketplace. Exporters need to know that if a country doesn't play by the rules, then that country will then face consequences. Those consequences really are what the World Trade Organization is all about. That is why this discussion is so important, because by today or tomorrow, voting to authorize permanent normal trade relations with Russia, we then can take advantage of the World Trade Organization rules as they relate to Russia and to our trade with them.

Russia joined the WTO on August 22, and the United States was a big part of that accession. We worked with Russia for 18 years to ensure that they were willing to go along with certain fairness provisions on trade to be able to enter the WTO, and we need to be sure now that we can take advantage of those provisions. Without passing this legislation, America and our farmers and our workers could get left behind. By joining it, Russia did agree to abide by a certain set of common rules, and when they break those rules, other countries can then take them to court--the World Trade Organization--and help hold their feet to the fire.

It means Russia will be required to better protect intellectual property rights, which is a major concern for U.S. companies. It means Russia must treat fairly the highly technical services sector where the United States has a great opportunity, including telecommunications, insurance, energy services, and retail services. There we have a lot of competitive advantages and we are looking for a level playing field. It means they have to give rules-based treatment to our agricultural exports so they are not trumped by internal Russian agricultural politics. It means Russia has to improve its transparency and the rulemaking process so regulations are not taking place without an adequate comment period and input from job creators, including American companies that want to do business in Russia. These were all concessions that were secured, again, over this 18-year period by the United States and other countries, but primarily the United States took a role here--Republican and Democratic administrations alike--in ensuring that as Russia entered the WTO, we had the opportunity to have a fair trading system with them.

By the way, I was part of that as U.S. Trade Representative negotiating with my Russian counterpart. Secretary Johanns--then Secretary, now colleague from Nebraska--was part of that as U.S. Agriculture Secretary. Others here in the Congress have been part of that as members of the Finance Committee.

So currently we have these trade rules that apply to the rest of the world but not to us because Russia is part of the WTO but we haven't granted this important PNTR status. So of the more than 150 countries in the World Trade Organization, we are the only ones that are outside of this agreement at this point. American exporters will only receive those benefits with total certainty if we pass this bill to provide these normal trade relations with Russia. If we fail to do so, we really hold back American workers and businesses from growing in the Russian marketplace, which, by the way, has 140 million consumers. Our European and Asian competitors would have that reliability and certainty that we would lack. When Russia doesn't play by the rules, our competitors around the globe would be able to take them to the world trade court, but we wouldn't. If we think about it, in a way we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't move forward with permanent normal trade relations with Russia.

Russia is now the ninth largest economy. Unfortunately, we are underperforming in the Russian market. The United States, the world's greatest exporter, now only accounts for less than 5 percent of Russia's imports. Our competitors in Europe have a 40-percent share of the Russian market. China holds a 16-percent share of that market. So, again, it is a growth economy; it is an economy where we have tremendous opportunities.

I know Chairman Baucus talked about this earlier today. I watched him on C-SPAN where he talked about the opportunities in this market and about the need for us to help our exporters here in the United States by opening this potential market for our workers and our farmers. We can do much better if we pass this PNTR bill.

This is certainly true in my home State of Ohio. Ohio already exports about $200 billion a year in goods to Russia, and we want to retain those sales and add even more. This bill impacts a number of businesses with a large Ohio footprint.

Caterpillar, the world's leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, is one of them. Caterpillar employs nearly 1,000 Ohioans, including in the Miami Valley in Clayton, and is a great example of the certainty the PNTR bill will bring. With Russia's entrance into the WTO, tariffs on American-made Caterpillar trucks exported to Russia will fall from 15 percent to 5 percent. That allows Caterpillar to be much more competitive in the Russian market. For Caterpillar's off-highway trucks, the tariff reductions exceed

$100,000 per truck. That is a real difference. It is a substantial margin. But if we don't pass this bill, we have no idea how Russia will treat our U.S. exports and we will have no way to hold them accountable.

Other Ohio businesses that will benefit include Procter & Gamble, which sells more than 50 brands in Russia, including detergents, shampoos, and diapers. They have the leading market share, by the way, in 75 percent of the categories in which they compete.

Eaton, which is a company in the Cleveland area and has thousands of employees in northeast Ohio, exports industrial clutches and brakes to Russia and looks forward, again, to the certainty this bill will bring when working with our customers in Russia. They need that certainty.

GE Aviation in Ohio employs about 9,000 people in Cincinnati and has a great opportunity to compete as Russia acquires over 1,000 new civilian aircraft over the next decade.

Ohio's cattlemen strongly support this legislation. Russia has made some important concessions in the negotiations that will help meet the growing demand for U.S. beef in Russia. Russia is currently the fifth largest export market for U.S. beef. According to the USDA, over 48,000 head of U.S. live cattle were sold to Russia just this year. In 2011 Ohio exported over 3,000 cattle to Russia, and we expect that number to rise dramatically.

The bill also contains some items the Russian Government opposes, including the human rights provisions which were discussed earlier here on the floor, inspired by the treatment of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Senators Cardin, McCain, and others have put the spotlight on the corruption and the lack of transparency in Russia. These provisions will clamp down on human rights abusers, denying them visas and putting them on notice that their corruption won't be tolerated by freedom-loving countries such as the United States. The House passed this bill last month on the anniversary of Magnitsky's death, and it is time the Senate does the same.

We also have some provisions in this legislation that will ensure that our trade negotiators keep Russia's feet to the fire in implementing all the various commitments Russia has made, particularly with regard to agriculture. Russia has not always played by the rules. It has been a point of friction between our countries. We need to be sure they do the heavy lifting back home to bring their laws into compliance, including their pervasive use over time of non-science- based standards to discriminate against our U.S. agricultural exports.

I also wish to note my strong concern with Russia's involvement on another front; that is, their involvement in the continuing Syrian conflict. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have watched the Syrian situation with alarm, particularly as we have seen it unfolding this week. Russia has been anything but an ally in this case with the support of the Asad regime. They vetoed three U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at imposing tough sanctions on the Asad regime. When Russia isn't using their veto power to support their Syrian friends, they are arming the Asad dictatorship with over $1 billion, we are told, in weaponry, including attack helicopters, that they are using to continue their terror against their own citizens in Syria.

Let me be clear. While I fully oppose Russia's actions in Syria, this bill is no gift to Russia. In fact, this bill has teeth. It brings Russia into a rules-based system. It is good for America and our economy and our jobs, and I think it strikes a critical balance by giving critical assistance to American companies that want to export their products to Russia's growing middle class, supporting good-paying jobs here at home, while forcing Russia to play by the rules and, again, providing binding penalties if they fail to live up to these international standards.

While I am pleased we are finally moving forward on this bill, I am also disappointed we haven't made more progress over the last 4 years on trade. We didn't make opening new export markets a high priority in the President's first term. I am hoping that will change over the next 4 years because helping U.S. job creators export shouldn't be a partisan issue. Over 100 bilateral trade agreements are being negotiated today as we speak here on the floor. The United States is a party to none of them. We are a party to one multilateral trade agreement which I support, but we need to get back and engage in these bilateral agreements and open markets for our products. We have been sitting on our hands on the side lines in an increasingly global and dynamic economy. This is the first administration actually since FDR not to ask for the ability to negotiate export agreements and bring them to Congress under expedited procedures, which is now called trade promotion authority. And this is something unique. This administration has yet to even ask for it over the last 4 years.

Last year, we finally passed the Korea, Colombia, and Panama export agreements. Hopefully, our bipartisan actions today to boost exports to Russia will signal a new chapter for us to engage as a Congress and with the administration in a much more ambitious and proactive trade policy.

I am pleased this bipartisan bill received such broad support from Republicans and Democrats in the House, getting 365 votes, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to now support this legislation before us.