U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–198PDF 2010

A RELIC OF THE COLD WAR: IS IT TIME TO

REPEAL JACKSON–VANIK FOR RUSSIA?

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION AND TRADE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 27, 2010

Serial No. 111–112

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

VACANT 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

TED POE, Texas 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND TRADE

BRAD SHERMAN, California, Chairman 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

TED POE, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Edward S. Verona, President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S.-Russia 

Business Council .................................................................................................. 15

Mr. Mark B. Levin, Executive Director, National Conference on Soviet Jewry . 21

The Honorable Stephen Sestanovich, George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for 

Russian and Eurasian Studies, Council on Foreign Relations (Former Ambassador-at-Large and Special Adviser to the Secretary for the New Independent States) .................................................................................................... 32

Edward D. Lozansky, Ph.D., Founder and President, World Russia Forum ...... 41

Mr. Mark Talisman, President, Project Judaica Foundation ............................... 47

Mr. David Satter, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute .............................................. 53

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Bill Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 4

Mr. Edward S. Verona: Prepared statement ......................................................... 18

Mr. Mark B. Levin: Prepared statement ............................................................... 23

The Honorable Stephen Sestanovich: Prepared statement .................................. 34

Edward D. Lozansky, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................ 43

Mr. Mark Talisman: Prepared statement .............................................................. 50

Mr. David Satter: Prepared statement .................................................................. 55

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 66

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 68

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation 

and Trade: Material submitted for the record ................................................... 69

Mr. Mark B. Levin: Letter dated November 19, 2001, from Mr. Harold P. 

Luks, Chairman, NCSJ, to President George W. Bush .................................... 77

The Honorable Bill Delahunt: Statement by the Honorable Dennis J. 

Kucinich, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ...................... 78

(1)

A RELIC OF THE COLD WAR: IS IT TIME TO 

REPEAL JACKSON–VANIK FOR RUSSIA? 

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND TRADE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Delahunt (chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe) presiding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. This joint hearing will now come to order. I want 

to welcome all of our distinguished panelists. I will have an opportunity to introduce you individually as we proceed forward, but I 

will make a few opening remarks, and then recognize my colleagues. 

In early 2009, the United States-Russian relationship was at its 

lowest point since the end of the Cold War. The Obama administration came to office with a conviction that an improved bilateral relationship was essential to our national security. After both countries hit the so-called reset button in February 2009, some significant and important developments occurred in both tone and substance in the bilateral relationship. Let me put forth some examples. 

First, as a result of Russian cooperation, in less than a year, 

20,000 American troops headed for Afghanistan have either traveled through Russia or over Russian airspace, saving the American 

taxpayers some $133 million. Secretary of State for Political Affairs 

Bill Burns recently observed, and these are his words, Russia is becoming a much more active operational partner in a collective effort 

to help stabilize Afghanistan and prevent violent extremism to regain a platform there. 

As to the issue of a nuclear-armed Iran, there has been a shift 

in the Russian position regarding sanctions. It is no longer a question if sanctions should be imposed, but a question of what form 

they should take. 

In the aftermath of the July summit in Moscow, both Presidents 

agreed to form the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. 

This Commission, with 16 working groups, is dedicated to dealing 

with issues such as energy, terrorism, drug trafficking, science and 

technology, education and cultural exchanges, and much more. 

Their work is progressing, and reports are expected by the end of 

the summer. 

2

Most importantly, on April 8th in Prague, Czechoslovakia, the 

United States and Russia signed a historic nuclear arms reduction 

treaty slashing the number of strategic nuclear warheads by onethird. This new START agreement signifies a substantial change in 

the relationship and demonstrates to the nonnuclear world that 

both Russia and the United States are committed to advancing the 

cause of nuclear nonproliferation. 

Furthermore, it is important to note that the reset of this relationship is not limited to official governmental actions, but has had 

an impact on Russian attitudes toward the United States. In early 

2009, only 38 percent of the Russian population had a positive attitude toward the United States. A year later, that number has increased by 16 percent. Now some 54 percent of the Russian people 

have a favorable view of the United States. 

So, yes, it is my opinion that the bilateral relationship has improved in many ways, and it is my own belief that it is imperative 

to our national security to sustain this momentum, because we 

can’t forget that the United States and Russia possess 96 percent 

of the world’s nuclear weapons. So, if for no other reason, this reality makes this a most critical bilateral relationship and should 

underscore the need to sustain and enhance the positive trends 

that have developed over the course of the past year. 

Now, I am not naı ̈ve, and I recognize that there are and remain 

disagreements and contentious issues between us that need to be 

addressed, and I am sure there will be hearings and other occasions and other venues to discuss those issues. But one of the most 

obvious irritants in the bilateral relationship from the Russian perspective is the continued application to Russia of section 402 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment. The 

amendment imposed trade restrictions on those countries who denied its citizens the right of freedom of immigration. 

The genesis of the amendment was the Soviet Union’s refusal to 

allow Soviet Jews to travel overseas, but the reality is that Russia, 

as the successor of the Soviet Union, has fully complied with the 

amendment’s requirements as concluded by a Presidential compliance determination since 1994, 16 years ago, and yet Congress has 

failed to graduate Russia from the amendment. 

Ironically, Russia and Israel recently implemented a visa-free 

travel program for their citizens traveling between their countries. 

It was implemented just this past Saturday. This program eliminates the Byzantine process of filling out the extensive Russian 

visa application and then navigating the Russian bureaucracy. 

It would appear that Russia and Israel enjoy a special relationship. It is interesting to note that neither Israel nor Russia are 

participants in our Visa Waiver Program. So, I believe we should 

take the advice of the coauthor of this amendment, the late Congressman Charles Vanik, who stated in 1989, and, again, these are 

his words, the Soviet Union has freed up immigration to the point 

where it makes sense to waive Jackson-Vanik and restore normal 

trade tariff conditions to Moscow. 

I would submit that it is time for the United States Congress to 

act, and we do have a precedent for graduating countries from 

Jackson-Vanik. For example, even though China remains a Communist country today, in 1999, Congress graduated it from all asVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:15 Oct 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EU\042710\56198 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

pects of Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act, paving the way for China’s 

accession to the WTO, and yet Russia has not acceded to the WTO 

after filing its application back in the early 1990s. 

As I said, Russia has satisfied the requirements articulated by 

the amendment, and we should not move the goalposts and ask for 

further concessions that are irrelevant to the amendment. Changing the rules of the game seriously, I believe, undermines our credibility and breeds resentment that affects the relationship and our 

own bona fides as a potential partner. Not only would graduating 

Russia bring economic and commercial benefits, encouraging American companies to increase investments in Russia, but will also 

send a clear and distinct message to the Russian people that the 

United States is serious on forging a more dynamic and cohesive 

partnership. 

I look forward to the testimony from today’s witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Delahunt follows:]

4


56198g-1.eps
5


56198g-2.eps
6

Mr. DELAHUNT. Now let me turn to my friend and ranking member, the gentleman from California Mr. Gallegly, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding the hearing today to look at the possibility of repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment as it applies to Russia. I 

would also like to welcome and thank the six witnesses that are 

here today participating in this hearing. 

The Jackson-Vanik amendment was enacted into law with the intention of protecting the rights of Jews attempting to emigrate 

from the former Soviet Union in the 1970s. The amendment removed most-favored-nation trade status until Russia was in full 

compliance with a free immigration policy. Every year since 1994, 

U.S. Presidents have declared Russia to be in compliance in terms 

of freedom of immigration. This awards Russia what is now normal 

trade relation status. 

Jackson-Vanik is effectively not applied to Russia as long as 

their compliance with immigration standards does not change. 

However, the continued existence of Jackson-Vanik impacts the 

U.S. trade relationship with Russia as Russia prepares for membership in the World Trade Organization. Without the repeal of 

Jackson-Vanik for Russia, the United States will be forced to opt 


56198g-3.eps
7

out of the WTO obligation toward Russia, and, because of the conditions placed on Russia, NTR status as a result of Jackson-Vanik. 

As we consider lifting Jackson-Vanik, it is important to note that 

although the trade relationship between Russia and the United 

States has grown significantly in recent years, there are still outstanding issues. The most notable is the failure of Russian authorities to adequately enforce intellectual property rights. In addition, 

there remain high tariffs in place on cars and sports utility vehicles 

that are imported from the United States, as well as issues related 

to the importation of beef and poultry into Russia. 

As Congress and the Obama administration considers lifting 

Jackson-Vanik, I believe it is imperative that all of these trade 

issues be resolved. Further, it is my belief that our trade policy toward Russia would be viewed in the larger context of our overall 

bilateral relationship. 

The U.S. has many critical national interests that are profoundly 

impacted by our relations with Russia, including, most importantly, 

our effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In addition, the United States is seeking strong Russian cooperation in the 

war against international terrorism and preventing terrorist groups 

from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We also have strong 

interests in the evolution of Russia’s own political system, its respect for human rights and its relations with its neighbors. 

Therefore, I look forward to listening to the witnesses today on 

the impact of Jackson-Vanik on our trade relationship and on the 

U.S. national security priorities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Elton. 

I am going to go first to the vice chair of the Subcommittee on 

Trade and Nuclear Proliferation, the gentleman from Georgia Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 

with you again on this important hearing. 

Obviously, with the end of the Cold War, Russia is no longer the 

looming threat it once was to us, and neither are we the looming 

threat that we once were to Russia. Quite the contrary, we have 

the potential now of developing one of the great partnerships in the 

history of civilization, particularly addressing the security and economic challenges facing the world, no matter whether it is the procurement and the safety of nuclear weapons and ending proliferation, the hot spots of dealing with Iran, our relations with China, 

keeping weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons out of 

the hands of terrorists. 

Wherever we are in dealing with security of the world, Russia 

and the United States loom as great, necessary partners. In order 

to achieve the maximum level of cooperation, it is vitally important 

that we set aside broad philosophical differences, some that still 

linger, and shrug off the last vestiges of this Cold War. 

Our subcommittee must approach today’s topic with recognition 

of the delicate balance necessary to promote America’s best interests abroad, and we must promote a trade policy that encourages 

the responsible growth of American business here at home and 

abroad, but never at the expense of three things; never at the expense of our national security, nor in the face of egregious and apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:15 Oct 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EU\042710\56198 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

palling human rights violations abroad, and nor at the cost of the 

American workers here at home. Those are the three pillars of 

things we must not do. 

But as the global markets recover, we are presented with a fortuitous opportunity of recognizing the mistakes of the past and 

strengthening American standards as the prime engine of global 

economic development. We must encourage a rising tide where economic growth coincides with increased living standards and greater 

democracy. We must eliminate technical barriers to trade and tariffs on U.S. goods, and we must protect intellectual property as well 

as human rights and the rights of labor. 

So, as we gather here today, I think the fundamental question 

that we have before us was best phrased a few centuries ago by 

our good friend William Shakespeare, who said, To be or not to be, 

that is the question. To have Jackson-Vanik or not have JacksonVanik, that is the question before us today. What would be the impact if we have it; what is the impact if we remove it in terms of 

our Russian relations? 

Then, finally, I think we have another opportunity to, in the 

words of the great Humphrey Bogart from the movie Casablanca—

as the movie ends, if you recall, he puts his arm around the captain 

and he says, ‘‘Louis, I think we have the beginning of a wonderful 

friendship.’’ That is what we have here in the possibilities with 

Russia. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to thank the gentleman for his eloquence 

and his remembering that great American Humphrey Bogart. 

With that, let me go to the ranking member, the gentleman from 

California Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Jackson-Vanik helped millions by promoting freedom of immigration and other freedoms. It is indelibly written into the history of 

United States-Soviet relations. To ask whether it is useful is no 

slight to its great legacy. 

Some argue that Jackson-Vanik’s continued application to Russia 

is a major diplomatic impediment. It impedes cooperation on the 

Iran policies, some say. That is an oversell. Russia, unfortunately, 

appears determined to accommodate Iran, a policy that will eventually bite it, Jackson-Vanik or not. On the other hand, I don’t see 

Russia’s bad Iran policy or our other foreign policy and trade concerns with Moscow as strong reasons to maintain Jackson-Vanik. 

This legislation addresses specific circumstances, and fortunately, while Russia suffers many human rights problems, problems this administration is largely silent on, there is freedom to 

emigrate from Russia. 

When it comes to big disputes, and we have several with Russia, 

I don’t see how Jackson-Vanik has much of a chit. Jackson-Vanik 

could be maintained while continuing to determine that Russia 

isn’t impeding emigration, as has been done for 16 years, but there 

is something advantageous here in us recognizing that this area 

has improved and put Russia with almost every other country that 

isn’t subject to Jackson-Vanik, including oppressive China. 

Russians, including Russian democrats, resent being targeted by 

this annual review, especially when some in Congress link JacksonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:15 Oct 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EU\042710\56198 HFA PsN: SHIRL
9

Vanik status to unrelated issues that can be addressed differently. 

Linking Jackson-Vanik to poultry trade disputes, for example, can’t 

strengthen our ability to push human rights in Russia. 

I look forward to hearing the wide range of views here today, Mr. 

Chairman, and I thank you for calling this hearing. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. 

Now my other colleague from California, the chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, you are surrounded by Californians. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I noticed. 

Mr. SHERMAN. In any case, I am a little less enthusiastic about 

repealing Jackson-Vanik or failing to apply it in the manner that 

has prevented Russia from joining the WTO. That doesn’t mean I 

couldn’t reach that conclusion, it is just that I lack the bubbling enthusiasm of some of my colleagues. 

I do not think that we have seen a real reset in our relationship 

with Russia. It is true in supplying Afghanistan, we can fly over 

their airspace, but we have air bases in newly independent former 

Soviet republics which are critical to dealing with Afghanistan and 

which Russia tries to undermine and expel at every turn. 

While Russia may eventually reluctantly agree to some sort of 

sanctions on Iran at the United Nations, you can be sure that they 

will be so tiny as to have no meaningful effect on Iran’s economy, 

let alone any meaningful possibility of causing Iran to change its 

nuclear policy. 

We concluded the START negotiations. Doing so was perhaps 

good for the world. It also was a chance for Russia to stand side 

by side with the United States as coequal world superpowers, an 

honor that they don’t enjoy near as often as they did before the fall 

of the Soviet Union. 

Now, I believe that the only way we can really improve Russia’s 

behavior is by offering concessions on things that Russia really 

cares about. Jackson-Vanik is just one of the many things that we 

could offer. 

Now, I am a man of faith, but I do not believe in a faith-based 

foreign policy. When it comes to making concessions to Russia, 

whether it be Jackson-Vanik or anything else, we should trust but 

verify. More particularly, we should get explicit—sometimes private, but at least explicit—clear agreements for meaningful steps 

taken by Russia in return for the steps taken by the United States. 

Now, high-level Russian diplomats have repeatedly requested 

that we ‘‘graduate’’ them from Jackson-Vanik or eliminate JacksonVanik. Whichever device is used would be the same for Russia. 

They have described it as notorious in the Russian press. Boris 

Yeltsin once joked that every kid in Russia knows the names of 

Jackson and Vanik, and none of them particularly like either gentleman. 

This Jackson-Vanik modification is critical to Russia joining the 

World Trade Organization. Their efforts have been greatly complicated by the fact that we do not have permanent and unconditional normal trade relations or most-favored-nation status with 

them, and that is as a result of Jackson-Vanik. 

10

Both President Putin and President Medvedev have argued in 

favor of their country joining the World Trade Organization, acknowledging that their country’s inability to join the WTO has 

stunted the Russian economy and made it less competitive. According to the Congressional Research Service, the change the United 

States would experience from Russia’s graduation in terms of our 

trading relationship would be minimal. Russian imports have entered the United States on a constantly renewed normal trade relations basis since 1992. So this is not primarily a balance of payments issue or even a jobs issue, this is a foreign policy issue. 

Now, I have often said and that I would like to see a grand bargain with Russia in which we would tender concessions not only on 

Jackson-Vanik, but on other issues of importance to Russia; that 

we would listen carefully and perhaps modify our positions with regard to such issues as Acacia, South Ossetia and Moldova. But this 

major grand bargain would have to be in return for truly crippling, 

immediate mandatory United Nations sanctions on Iran. The State 

Department isn’t even talking about such sanctions, so it seems unlikely that our State Department is going to negotiate a grand bargain worthy of the title. 

Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons should be our 

number one foreign policy objective. I do not expect Russia to massively change its policy toward Iran just on the Jackson-Vanik 

issue alone, and I don’t think that it is credible for us to say the 

only thing we are willing to change is Jackson-Vanik, and we are 

waiting for Russia to vote for massive and crippling sanctions on 

Iran. 

So, our purpose here at these hearings is to focus on JacksonVanik as perhaps the sole immediate concession that we are willing 

to offer the Russian side. If we do so, we—as others have noted, 

it can be said that Moscow is in compliance with the purpose of 

Jackson-Vanik, which was to allow chiefly Soviet Jews to emigrate. 

But while the Jews of the Soviet Union are no longer being held 

hostage, their sacred papers are, and this is clearly something that 

needs to be dealt with before we change Jackson-Vanik. I refer to 

the Schneerson collection of books and archives, which are sacred 

chiefly to those Jews in the Chabad or Lubavitch movement. 

Without objection, I will put into the record the many letters that 

I have sent to such Russian leaders as Vladimir Putin, which I 

have hand-delivered at the Russian Embassy to the Ambassador, 

which I have handed to virtually every Russian dignitary who has 

come to the United States and visited Capitol Hill since 2004. And 

when I didn’t personally hand these letters to them, my good friend 

Dana Rohrabacher did. I want to note also for the record that I 

have never received a response. 

I did hear third-hand a rumor that the Russian response would, 

after 6 years, be that they seem to have some procedural defenses 

usable in both Russian and perhaps even American courts, but not 

a single word has been uttered as to why as a matter of justice the 

Russian state should retain these documents sacred to the Chabad 

movement, in particular, the Schneerson collection of papers divided between the Schneerson Archives and the Schneerson Library. 

11

Let me focus chiefly for today on the Archives. These were legally 

removed from the Soviet Union in the 1920s by Rabbi Schneerson. 

They were seized by the Nazis and then fell into the hands of the 

Red Army. It is well established that assets seized by the Nazis 

should be returned to their rightful owners, and yet the Red Army 

and the Soviet state continues to hold these Archives. 

Contrast that to the fact that certain Russian archives, chiefly 

the Smolensk Archives, fell into American hands, I believe, after 

being captured by the Nazis. It took us a while, but in 2002, we 

returned these documents to the Russian state. It is disappointing 

that this unilateral concession, this return of important papers, 

was not matched by the return of the Schneerson documents to the 

Chabad movement. 

Now, it is said that Jackson-Vanik has achieved its purpose. 

Jews are no longer being held hostage. But the sacred papers of the 

Chabad community are still held hostage. 

Tom Lantos in April 2007 declared that while he was chairman, 

Jackson-Vanik would not be lifted unless the Schneerson collection 

was returned to the Chabad movement. I cannot make that pledge 

quite as strong because I am not chairman of the full committee, 

but I will pledge to work hard to make sure that Tom Lantos’ 

pledge remains viable, and that, having returned the Smolensk Archives, we should not be asked to sweep away Jackson-Vanik until 

not only the people, but the sacred documents are also released. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my friend. 

I now go to the gentleman from California, the ranking member 

on the Subcommittee on Oversight, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for calling this hearing and following up on discussions 

that we have had with people, with our counterparts in Russia, 

who are sincerely trying to develop a better relationship with us. 

It was very difficult to explain to them why Jackson-Vanik is still 

on the books. I see one of our witnesses, my old friend Ambassador 

Steve Sestanovich, who worked with me during the Reagan White 

House. He worked there during the time when I remember Ronald 

Reagan went to Berlin, and there was considerable debate about 

what he should be saying, but when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, 

he said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. That was a long time 

ago. You look great for all these years, Steve. 

But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that was a long time ago, and so 

much has happened. So I would ask my fellow colleagues to join 

me; when it comes to Jackson-Vanik, let’s tear down this wall. It 

is about time that the relic, this ancient relic of the Cold War, be 

discarded. That doesn’t mean we don’t have issues between us, but 

let’s take this off the table, because it is an impediment to negotiations and honest talks about setting up a better relationship between our countries. 

This is especially true when one realizes that today what you 

have in Russia is, yes, an imperfect democratic society. We can talk 

about the imperfections all day long. We happen to have a lot of 

imperfections in our society as well. However, there are some demonstrable things that need to be better in Russia. But, by and 

large, when you go to Russia, as compared to when I went to RusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:15 Oct 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EU\042710\56198 HFA PsN: SHIRL
12

sia in 1984, the churches are filled in Russia. In fact, the Russian 

people are very religious people compared to many other people in 

the world. 

You go there and you hear criticism of the government in Russia. 

There are opposition parties. Yes, they complain they didn’t get 

permits to do this or that, but there are opposition parties, and 

their voice is heard, and they get to have demonstrations. There 

are actually opposition newspapers. You hear people on radio complaining about the administration. 

Now, there are some problems that we would like to point out, 

things that were done that we wouldn’t have liked to have seen 

done in terms of some of the communications industry, but by and 

large there has been an overwhelming reform that has gone on in 

Russia in these last 30 years since Jackson-Vanik was put into 

place, an overwhelming reform that is so visible and so apparent. 

People are free to travel now where they weren’t permitted to travel. Not only were they not permitted to travel, they could be shot 

trying to get over the fence back in the 1980s. 

We still have Jackson-Vanik, and we have not opened up the economic and political cooperation that we need to develop the kind 

of close relationship that would be beneficial to our people. 

Let’s just note this: At the same time while we are keeping these 

relics from the Cold War on the table, we have provided China 

with most-favored-nation status, permanent most-favored-nation 

status. We have provided China continued access to our markets. 

There has been transfers of technology. There has been major investments. We have built the Chinese economy, and there hasn’t 

been one iota of political reform in China. 

For us to complain about the shortcomings of Russia while permitting this massive buildup of the Chinese economy that is now 

ruled by a government that has had none of this reform is so contradictory that we can see why perhaps the Russians are confused 

whether or not we want them to be our friends or not. 

Well, if we are to have peace in this world, if we are to have 

prosperity in this world, if Americans are going to be secure, we 

have got to have a good relationship with Russia. Whether it is 

combating radical Islam, or whether it is confronting the Frankenstein monster of a totalitarian China emerging on the world scene, 

either one of these things that are great threats to us, we need 

Russia on our side. We need to start treating them fairly and be 

rational and quit having things like Jackson-Vanik, relics of the 

Cold War, around to be impediments to developing a better relationship. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I think the final member on our Democratic side who wants to 

make a comment is also from California, Congresswoman Diane 

Watson. 

But, Diane, before I recognize you, I just want to note for the 

record, and I know that Brad Sherman possibly had a private conversation, and I will let him identify the conversation with Mr. 

Lantos, but I would be remiss not to note that on February 21st, 

2007, over Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, it was reported 

that U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos had called for an end to a decVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:15 Oct 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EU\042710\56198 HFA PsN: SHIRL
13

ades-old U.S. restriction on trade with Russia. Speaking in Moscow, Lantos called the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment a relic of 

the Cold War and vowed to spare no effort in seeking its removal. 

So, we have somewhat of a disagreement, but I wanted to read 

that for the record. 

I now call on Congresswoman Watson. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Diane, if I could just speak for 1 minute? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You will still have all the time you need. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no doubt that in February 2007, Tom Lantos wanted to see us repeal Jackson-Vanik. He then met with people concerned about the Schneerson collection in April 2007, and 

that is when he took the position that, of course, he would like to 

see Jackson-Vanik abolished, but only when these papers are 

turned over. I think he and I would have thought then that this 

would be a relatively simple matter. 

These papers are providing no particular benefit to Russia. It is 

like the dog on top of the pile of hay chasing every other animal 

away. The dog is not going to eat the hay. He is just there because 

the cow wants it. 

I also would point out—and I know the title of this hearing says 

that maybe Jackson-Vanik is a relic of history—not all relics of history should be swept into the dust bin of history. The U.S. ownership of Alaska is a relic of the Lincoln administration. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman and will agree, if he so 

chooses, since the Subcommittee on Europe would have jurisdiction, we would be happy to call for a separate hearing on the 

Schneerson Papers and accommodate your concerns. 

Having said that, let me now recognize the gentlelady from California Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was there with Congressman Lantos when he made that statement, and I got the feeling that we should support it. And I think Mr. Rohrabacher was 

maybe traveling with us at the time. 

Past U.S. Presidents have continued to determine that Russia 

has been in full compliance with Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 

since September 1994. The Congress has not given any President 

the authority to repeal Jackson-Vanik. However, it is important to 

recognize the responsibility that we as policymakers have to consider any consequences of possible trade injury repealing JacksonVanik would cause the U.S. commerce. 

I am so pleased to hear you say, Mr. Chairman, that we will 

have a subsequent hearing on this issue. I think it is very important to look at it from both sides. But I was very pleased with the 

atmosphere that we got from the members of their Parliament and 

the openness that was not there when I first went to Russia in the 

1960s. So we do need to really just deeply ask this question and 

weigh it. 

So I look forward to listening to the panel, and I thank them for 

appearing before the committee. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentlelady. 

Now we come to the important part of the afternoon, which is to 

listen to our distinguished witnesses. Let me begin by introducing 

14

Ed Verona. By the way, you all have extensive re ́sume ́s, and I will 

shorten them and just pick out the highlights. 

Ed Verona was appointed president and CEO of the U.S.-Russia 

Business Council on June 1, 2008. Prior to that, he was the vice 

president of ExxonMobil Russia. In August, he was based in Moscow. He has a B.A. in political science from the University of Arizona and a master’s of international management from the American Graduate School of Global Management. 

Next we have will Mark Levin. Mark Levin has been the executive director of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry since 

1992. In November 2008, Mr. Levin was the Soviet Jewry Freedom 

Award recipient at the Boston-based Russian Jewish Community 

Foundation’s annual gala. In September 2008, Ukrainian President 

Yushchenko awarded him the Order of Merit Medal in New York, 

and in June 2006, he was honored for 25 years of distinguished 

service with NCJS here in Washington. He has an extensive background. Prior to coming to NCJS, he worked with the American 

Israel Public Affairs Committee, and he is a graduate of the University of Maryland. 

Ambassador Sestanovich is the George Kennan Senior fellow for 

Russian and Eurasian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 

and the Kathryn and Shelby Davis professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University. His particular areas of expertise are 

Russia and the former Soviet Union, the Caucasus and Central 

Asia, and U.S. foreign policy. He served as Ambassador-at-Large 

and special adviser to the Secretary of State for the New Independent States from 1997 to 2001. In this capacity, he was the 

State Department’s principal officer responsible for policy tours to 

states of the former Soviet Union. He has his Ph.D. from Harvard 

and his B.A. from Cornell. He has written numerous books. 

Next we have Dr. Edward Lozansky, who is the president of the 

American University in Moscow, the first private university in Russia, which he founded in 1990 with Dr. Yuri Ossipian, at that time 

Gorbachev’s science advisor, and Gavriil Popov, former mayor of 

Moscow. He is also founder and president of the World Russian 

Forum, an annual convention here in the U.S. Congress since 1981, 

to discuss the most important issues in the United States-Russia 

relationship and to promote the idea of an United States-Russian 

strategic alliance. He graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Engineering, and received his Ph.D. in theoretical and 

mathematical physics from the Moscow Institute of Atomic Energy. 

He is the author of 14 books and over 400 articles in the areas of 

science and humanities. He is a foreign member of the Russian 

Academy of Social Services. 

Mark Talisman was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. He graduated from Harvard with honors. For 14 years he was the chief of 

staff to the coauthor of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, Congressman Charles Vanik. He is the founding director of the Washington, 

DC, office of the Council of Jewish Federations. He is married with 

two children and two grandchildren. 

Next we have David Satter. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson 

Institute and a fellow in the Foreign Policy Institute of the John 

Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He 

was the Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times of London 

15

from 1976 to 1982. He has written on Russia and the former Soviet 

Union for more than three decades. He contributes frequently on 

Russian affairs to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, 

Forbes and National Review Online. He is presently completing a 

new book about the Russian attitude toward the Communist past. 

Welcome, all. 

We will begin with Mr. Verona. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD S. VERONA, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S.-RUSSIA BUSINESS COUNCIL 

Mr. VERONA. Thank you very much, Chairman Delahunt. Thank 

you for the honor of allowing me to testify here today on a subject 

which is of vital importance to the organization which I have the 

privilege to lead. 

The USRBC represents approximately 250 companies, 80 percent 

of which are American, with the remainder being Russian and from 

third countries. Our membership encompasses a broad swath of industries, with companies ranging in size from those in the Fortune 

100 to small consultancies and nonprofit organizations. They are 

leaders in the aerospace, automotive, consumers goods, high-tech 

and financial services sectors, among others. 

Our members employ a substantial number of U.S. citizens, who 

produce manufactured goods, develop and market advanced technologies, create entertainment products and provide financial and 

other services to one of the fastest-growing emerging-market economies. During most of the past decade, our U.S. member companies 

found Russia to be one of their most lucrative global markets, with 

many seeing annual growth rates in sales and revenues of over 20 

percent. 

Indeed, the growth in U.S.-Russia trade has been nothing short of remarkable over most of the past decade, from $9 billion in 2001 

to $36 billion in 2008. Before the global recession hit in the latter 

half of 2008, our bilateral trade was on track to exceed $40 billion 

that year. While still modest in terms of overall U.S. trade, this 

volume represents a fourfold increase over the 2001–2008 period. 

U.S. exports to Russia, which comprise about a third of the total, 

are, for the most part, high-value-added goods that have provided 

skilled jobs for American workers and have earned American 

brands a solid reputation in Russia for quality. 

We believe that the potential for increasing U.S. exports to Russia is much greater than the levels already achieved. With the global economic and trade recovery now underway, and with the return 

of economic growth in Russia, we anticipate a gradual resumption 

of growth in bilateral trade. 

Unlike their counterparts in most developed markets, Russian 

consumers are coming out of this recession relatively debt free and, 

therefore, more likely to resume purchasing patterns of the past, 

including many iconic American brand products which they equate 

with a better quality of life, and our member companies are ready 

to take advantage of that opportunity. 

I mention the foregoing since I believe it is useful to establish 

why U.S. business has a stake in the question that has been posted 

by this panel: Is it time to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment 

for Russia? 

16

On the basis of the Trade Act of 1974, with regard to restrictions 

on immigration from the Soviet Union, it would appear that the 

main reason for that legislation was a situation that no longer pertains in the case of Russia. In fact, every U.S. President, as previously mentioned here, since 1994 has found Russia to be in compliance with the emigration provisions of the amendment and has 

waived its application to Russia. 

The late Congressman Tom Lantos, now cited several times, who 

for years was one of the leading proponents of the amendment, 

said, as Chairman Delahunt has mentioned, shortly before he died 

that it was time to put behind us this relic of the Cold War, and 

he would spare no effort to bring that about. 

With respect to the other condition of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, namely the absence of a market economy, I would only note 

that the United States has officially recognized the Russian Federation as a market economy since 2002. It is hard to argue today 

in favor of maintaining Jackson-Vanik on the ground of either condition, emigration restrictions or the lack of a market economy. On 

the other hand, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the continued application of this amendment is undermining American efforts to encourage Russia to move toward a society and an economic system based on the rule of law. 

Three consecutive United States administrations have urged 

Russia to adopt and uphold internationally accepted standards of 

jurisprudence and advocated Russia’s membership in rules-based 

international financial and trade organizations. Yet in the case of 

Jackson-Vanik, we appear to twist the interpretation and implementation of our own law. The State Department has attested in 

numerous annual human rights reports that Russia does not restrict emigration on the basis of religious or ethnic identity. 

The United States also supports Russia’s accession to the WTO. 

Failure on our part to reflect in our trade legislation the fundamental changes that have occurred since the enactment of JacksonVanik would appear to contradict the findings and policy positions 

of our own government. 

There are some who argue that we should not give something to 

Russia in return for nothing. Seen from Russia’s perspective, this 

amounts to shifting the goalposts. It raises doubts about U.S. adherence to the letter and intent of the law, and sets a precedent 

of spurious reciprocity that Russia could exploit to its advantages 

in other circumstances. 

Keeping Jackson-Vanik on the books as bargaining leverage, 

which demonstrably it no longer affords, engenders cynicism and 

resentment and complicates efforts to establish a normal relationship with Russia. 

The USRBC acts as the Secretariat for the Coalition for U.S.-

Russia Trade, an organization representing more than 60 companies and trade associations who stand ready to advocate congressional graduation of Russia from the provisions of the JacksonVanik amendment and adoption of permanent normal trade relations with us once that country enters the WTO. Within the coalition are companies that have concerns about a number of trade 

issues with respect to Russia. Specifically there are questions about 

Russia’s implementation and enforcement of intellectual property 

17

rights, about lapses in following science-based regulatory standards 

for imported poultry and pork products, and about the selective imposition of import tariffs against U.S. manufacturers. 

These and other critically important issues for business are being 

addressed in Geneva through negotiations on Russia’s WTO accession. That is the appropriate venue, and the WTO is the appropriate instrument for ensuring Russian conformity with international trade rules. 

When Russia eventually enters the WTO on the basis of a commercially meaningful agreement, the United States will be prevented from enjoying the benefits of greater market access to Russia if we have not in the interim lifted Jackson-Vanik. This is a 

prerequisite to granting PNTR, without which we will be in violation of WTO rules and, therefore, at a disadvantage to the other 

nations who will compete against us to sell goods and services to 

the vibrant Russian market which I described before. The result 

would be fewer American jobs as export opportunities are lost. 

In our recommendations to the Obama administration in January 2009, the USRBC urged the administration to rescind JacksonVanik without prior condition as a gesture of goodwill to Russia 

and as a way to create momentum for the reset of the relationship. 

My experience convinces me that the Jackson-Vanik amendment 

has had no dissuasive or positive effect on Russia’s trade or domestic economic policies. Rather, it has served as a convenient pretext 

for Russia failing to take the steps necessary to bring itself into 

compliance with the rules-based trading community. I believe, 

therefore, that it is a relic of a bygone era, and that it is time for 

the United States to remove its applicability to Russia. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verona follows:]

18


56198a-1.eps
19


56198a-2.eps
20


56198a-3.eps
21

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Verona. 

Mr. Levin. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK B. LEVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOVIET JEWRY 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my full 

statement be admitted into the record, and I will summarize. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

Mr. LEVIN. Since 1971, the NCJS has represented nearly 50 national Jewish organizations. They include the Anti-Defamation 

League, B’nai B’rith International, Hadassah and AIPAC, as well 

as hundreds of local Jewish community councils, committees and 

federations across the country. 

2010 marks the 30th anniversary of my professional involvement 

with NCJS. I made my first trip to Russia in 1982 when I led a 

congressional delegation that met with Soviet officials and Jewish 

activists. I have worked on Jackson-Vanik issues since the start of 

my tenure with NCJS. 

The cause of free emigration is personally and professionally very 

important to me. It heartens me to see former Soviet bloc countries 

rejoin the community of free nations. Several of these countries 

have already graduated from Jackson-Vanik requirements in recent 

years, most recently Ukraine in 2006. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to summarize our basic points. First, NCJS supports the graduation of the 

Russian Federation from the Jackson-Vanik amendments; graduation, not repeal of the amendment. The Russian Federation has fulfilled the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik legislation, and we believe that the administration and Congress should move forward on 

graduation for Russia. This development would be a key step forward for Russia and for the Russian-American relationship. 

Second, we base our position on the undeniable fact that Russia 

today allows free emigration for all of its citizens, something that 

was denied to them during the 74 years of Soviet rule. 

Also I wish to note, as you did, Mr. Chairman, that there are no 

longer any visa tourist requirements between Russia and Israel. 

Russia’s Jewish community has undergone nothing short of a renaissance over the last 20 years. Synagogues, day schools, community centers and kosher restaurants are now open in many large 

Russian cities. Over 1 million Russian-speaking Jews have emigrated to Israel, the United States and elsewhere since 1991. All 

of these facts are true indicators of Russia’s satisfaction of JacksonVanik requirements and a testament to the amendment’s extraordinary success in helping to secure freedom of emigration for Russian Jews and others wishing to emigrate from Russia. 

NCSJ has supported a Presidential Jackson-Vanik waiver for 

Russia since 1991. We worked closely with President George W. 

Bush to promote Russia’s graduation starting in 2001. In 2009, 

President Barack Obama said that graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik would be a foreign policy priority for his administration, 

something that we recommended during the transition period. 

Given the progress made by Russia in observing freedom of 

movement since the fall of communism, we continue to press for 

Russia’s graduation. The United States Government has granted 

22

Russia an exemption from Jackson-Vanik requirements by a Presidential compliance determination every year since 1994. This was 

something that was done with our strong endorsement. 

After 16 years of proven compliance, the time has come to graduate Russia from the amendment. Mr. Chairman, almost all major 

Russian Jewish organizations strongly support graduating Russia 

from Jackson-Vanik. This is one of the best arguments I can make 

in favor of graduation. The U.S. Congress created the JacksonVanik amendment with the plight of the Soviet Jewish community 

in mind. This community, now Russian, no longer Soviet, says 

today these requirements are no longer needed. 

This does not excuse the Russian Government from addressing 

the very real problems in the Russian Federation that still confront 

its Jewish communities and others. First, I would like to note antiSemitic incidents continue across the country. Secondly, the rise of 

ultraviolent, nationalistic skinhead and neo-Nazi youth groups is a 

very troubling phenomenon, as is the Russian Government’s inconsistent prosecution of hate crimes. And lastly, certain aspects of the 

1997 law on religion, which requires registration of religious organizations in communities with the authorities, continue to be a 

problem. 

NCSJ will keep engaging the Russian Government strongly and 

persistently on these and other problematic areas in the human 

rights field. We meet regularly with Russian officials in the United 

States and Russia and the international fora to make our position 

known. We have raised our general concern over human rights in 

Russia at every level of Russia’s Government. 

We laud the praiseworthy attempt of Senator Jackson and Congressman Vanik and their congressional colleagues who crafted this 

groundbreaking legislation nearly 40 years ago as a sign of America’s commitment to freedom of emigration and religion worldwide, 

and now we think it is time to move forward and recognize the profound changes for the better that have taken place in Russia and 

in Russia’s Jewish community. 

Jackson-Vanik was instrumental in creating the opportunity for 

Jews and others throughout the former Soviet Union to move freely 

and to find new ways to express their identity. The United States’ 

reset in relations with Russia offers a similar potential for progress 

in ways we did not imagine just 20 years ago. 

NCSJ and our member organizations are working to keep Russia’s Jewish revival going. We want to ensure that the freedom to 

leave remains in place in Russia and elsewhere, and that those 

who decide to stay can continue to build their communities. NCSJ 

looks forward to continuing to work with Congress on these vital 

issues. 

And, Mr. Chairman, again, our position is to support graduation, 

not repeal of the legislation. We believe that Jackson-Vanik is not 

a relic; we believe that Jackson-Vanik is a testament to America’s 

commitment to freedom, and that Jackson-Vanik is one of the great 

success stories of post-World War II in relationship to American 

foreign policy. P. 

Mr. Chairman, lastly, I just want to thank you again for this opportunity and look forward to working with you and others on the 

subcommittees. 

23

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:]


56198b-1.eps
24


56198b-2.eps
25


56198b-3.eps
26


56198b-4.eps
27


56198b-5.eps
28


56198b-6.eps
29


56198b-7.eps
30


56198b-8.eps
31


56198b-9.eps
32

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Levin. 

Ambassador Sestanovich. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEPHEN SESTANOVICH, 

GEORGE F. KENNAN SENIOR FELLOW FOR RUSSIAN AND 

EURASIAN STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

(FORMER AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE AND SPECIAL ADVISER 

TO THE SECRETARY FOR THE NEW INDEPENDENT STATES) 

Ambassador SESTANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to join in today’s discussion. I have a fuller 

statement that I hope can be included in the record. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

Ambassador SESTANOVICH. The Jackson-Vanik amendment has a 

proud and honorable past, but it has sunk into a state of purposelessness and confusion. It once symbolized American human rights 

concerns and facilitated the free emigration of hundreds of thousands of people. Today it remains on the books for reasons that 

have nothing to do with free emigration, which Russia has allowed 

for years. Instead, many Members of Congress seem to believe that 

keeping the amendment in force can assure better treatment of 

American products in the Russian market. 

This transformation of landmark human rights legislation into a 

trade weapon is dispiriting to many people, but there is no avoiding 

it. The Jackson-Vanik amendment is inextricably intertwined today 

with disputes about meat and poultry and other American exports. 

No proposal for how to deal with it is likely to succeed unless it 

also takes commercial interest into account. That is why the default policy of many on Jackson-Vanik of both Republican and 

Democratic administrations has been to do nothing until accession 

to the WTO, Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization, 

is included. Congress would then be expected to pass a resolution 

that graduates Russia; that is, that declares the amendment no 

longer applies to it. 

Russia’s actions over the past year, including new restrictions on 

American exports, and Prime Minister Putin’s mishandling of negotiations with the WTO, have reinforced this default strategy. Nevertheless, waiting for WTO accession before graduation has several 

drawbacks. It means that Congress will not act until it has no 

choice but to approve the final result. It means that if accession 

talks drag on, American exporters will remain vulnerable to arbitrary restrictions imposed on them by the Russian bureaucracy. 

And most importantly, it dodges the key task that the U.S. Government will face after graduation: How to advance the original goals 

of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which apply not only to free emigration, but to human rights. 

Today there are some signs that Russian policymakers understand how unsustainable and counterproductive their handling of 

trade policy has been. If the next few months bring signs of a new 

Russian approach, Congress should be prepared to devise a new approach as well, one that advances both American commercial interests as well as Jackson-Vanik’s original concern. Here is how it 

might work. 

The core element of a new approach would, of course, involve a 

willingness to graduate Russia from the coverage of the law, but 

33

it would include other elements as well. Congress might require 

side letters fully explaining the administration’s view of remaining 

accession problems. Congress will want firm and specific commitments about how the administration intends to address these problems. Congress should also require before voting on graduation that 

the administration set out its future strategy for addressing issues 

of human rights, democracy promotion and engagement with Russian civil society. The resolution that graduates Russia from Jackson-Vanik might also provide for delay in taking effect until Russia’s full accession to the WTO, but graduation would happen automatically unless both Houses of Congress voted for a resolution of 

disapproval. If such a resolution passed, the status quo would be 

restored; that is, normal trading relations but not permanent normal trading relations. 

Compared to the current strategy of waiting for the WTO to complete the process of accession, this approach would serve American 

interests in three important respects. First, economic: By confirming that PNTR would take effect automatically with WTO accession, it would add to Russian incentives to drop its 

neoprotectionist measures. Second, political: It would reinforce the 

so-called reset of Russian-American relations and highlight the economic benefits that President Medvedev has said he is looking for 

from it. It would also highlight how little Russia has otherwise 

done to put aside the preoccupations of the Cold War. Finally, this 

approach would focus the attention of both Congress and the administration on the key issue that led to the adoption of the Jackson-Vanik amendment in the first place, the evolution of Russia’s 

own political and legal system. 

The United States cannot expect to advance its interest in Russia’s democratic evolution in the same way that we did in the 1970s 

and 1980s when Congressman Rohrabacher and I worked together. 

We need a modernized strategy, one that reflects both the dramatic 

changes that have taken place inside Russia and those that have 

not. The administration has some interesting ideas in this regard, 

and some of them have begun to be put into practice. Congress can 

help to consolidate and institutionalize these innovations by making them part of the process of graduation. 

The Jackson-Vanik amendment no longer offers us an effective 

policy. The task of Congress is to use graduation to refocus our 

strategy on the importance of Russia’s continuing democratic evolution. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sestanovich follows:]

34


56198d-1.eps
35


56198d-2.eps
36


56198d-3.eps
37


56198d-4.eps
38


56198d-5.eps
39


56198d-6.eps
40


56198d-7.eps
41

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Dr. Lozansky. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD D. LOZANSKY, PH.D., FOUNDER AND 

PRESIDENT, WORLD RUSSIA FORUM 

Mr. LOZANSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have a full 

statement which I would like to add to the record. 

My short answer to the subject of this panel is very clear and unequivocal: This graduation is absolutely necessary and is long overdue. I think it had to be done almost 20 years ago when communism collapsed and the new country which emerged from the 

ruins of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation, has lifted all restrictions not only on citizens’ rights for emigration and travel, but 

even such term as ‘‘exit visa’’ has been eliminated from the judicial 

vocabulary. 

On this distinguished panel I probably am the only one who benefited personally from the Jackson-Vanik amendment since I was 

separated from my family for more than 6 years, and I believe that, 

due to the Jackson-Vanik amendment, eventually my wife and 

child were able to come to the United States and join me here—

by the way, my wife is here with me, and we have now three 

grandchildren. So I can—from a personal experience—tell you that 

when she came, we personally thanked Senator Jackson. We came 

to Congress. We met Senator Jackson, Senator Kennedy and over 

100 Members of Congress who signed a petition to Mr. Brezhnev 

to release my wife and child and come here. 

So it was a great thing, but every political initiative, every political move has some time limits, and the time is now to graduate 

Russia from this amendment because it serves no purpose. All the 

requirements which were demanded are fulfilled. Russians—not 

only Jews, but every Russian citizen—could now travel back and 

forth. And it is interesting that even Jews who emigrated to Israel 

and the United States or Canada or other countries go back and 

forth, and some of them return. Some of them still live in Israel 

and the United States, but do business and actually benefit from 

their contacts in both countries. And the Jackson-Vanik amendment actually makes a problem for them, because every time Russians ask them what is going on, why we still have this JacksonVanik on the book if you go back and forth. 

And I have to say that even there is no state anti-Semitism in 

Russia anymore, the Jackson-Vanik amendment maybe is the reason for some people expressing anti-Semitic views because they see 

it as a Jewish problem which creates a problem for United StatesRussia relations. 

Also, freedom of the press was not really a part of the JacksonVanik amendment, still it is very important to think about democracy. And we keep hearing that there is no freedom of the press 

in Russia. This is not so. I go back and forth all the time. In fact, 

I am now teaching even a course at Moscow State University. Yes, 

three major channels are under government control, but there are 

hundreds, or maybe even not thousands, of TV channels which are 

free and operate as private channels. 

Moreover, interesting—and I don’t think that too many people in 

this audience know that, except Russian experts—that there are 

42

sites, Internet sites, which are freely accessible to Russians, no restrictions, no censorship; have government-funded sites which 

translate articles, even most critical articles about Putin, about 

Medvedev in Russia. So every Russian citizen has access not only 

to information with Russian newspapers, but also to American 

media. And including, of course, critical articles of my colleague, 

David Satter, Russians can read them openly on the Internet. And 

now we know that close to 40 or even 50 percent of Russians have 

access. So there is freedom of the press to this extent. It isn’t perfect, but it exists. 

I already mentioned that I am teaching a course now at Moscow 

State University on U.S.-Russian relations. I can say anything I 

want, no restrictions. Moreover, I am inviting on Skype American 

experts who can also address Russian students and tell them their 

position. And some of them are pretty critical, and there is a lively 

discussion. But after each lecture students keep asking, why are 

you keeping this Jackson-Vanik amendment in the books, because 

we don’t know why you are doing this, because if on one hand you 

are saying that you want better relations, but then this amendment actually ruins chances for better U.S.-Russian cooperation. 

As an example: Many American think tanks now who have offices in Moscow, I happen to share my office of American University in Moscow on the same floor as Heritage Foundation. Everyone 

knows that the Heritage Foundation is very critical of Russian policy and of Vladimir Putin and President Medvedev and everyone 

else. Still they can say anything they want. They have access to the 

media, access to public opinion and including, by the way, the 

Foundation, they also have offices in one of the most prestigious 

places, Moscow Pushkin Square. They have regular seminars, discussions. They have visitors from the United States. 

So Russia is a free country. Yes, it is not perfect democracy in 

the American sense of the word, but it is free country. 

We are now talking about the Jackson-Vanik amendment. It is 

a very narrow issue. If the United States lifts and graduates Russia from this amendment, I believe it will be a tremendous boost 

to the United States-Russian cooperation in many issues, including 

Iran, including nuclear nonproliferation, terrorism, and many other 

issues which the United States faces. That is why I really urge all 

Members of Congress both to graduate Russia from this amendment as soon as possible and had to be done 20 years ago. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lozansky follows:]

43


56198e-1.eps
44


56198e-2.eps
45


56198e-3.eps
46


56198e-4.eps
47

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Doctor. 

And now Mr. Talisman. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK TALISMAN, PRESIDENT, PROJECT 

JUDAICA FOUNDATION 

Mr. TALISMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciated Mr. 

Scott’s lyrical and cultural references to start a hearing. We should 

have done that years ago at the Ways and Means Committee. It 

would have lightened things a little. And also a number of other 

things which I want to touch on which you have brought up which 

enhance the record statement that I made, which I hope will be inserted appropriately. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

Mr. TALISMAN. Jackson-Vanik was an idea that I didn’t even 

think was going to work when Charlie Vanik and I were talking 

about it. You should note that—and this is the place I can say it 

now, in the record officially where he lived for so long—that he 

went on his own personal codel in December 1971 and wouldn’t 

even allow me to accompany him on the back of a Harley in black 

leather to tour Mother Russia. And it was during that time the effects of a travel ban and education ban were put in force. 

This was a Catholic kid raised in Cleveland. I knew his parents, 

his mother, very well. And engrained in him, as with your constituents up in Massachusetts, was what I called Bible talk as street 

language, not for special favors from the Church. And he saw the 

antithetical activities going on the ground, and he came back absolutely outraged. And I spent my moment in hell on bread and 

water at the Congressional Reading Room finding a precedent. 


56198e-5.eps
48

Until I found it, I was not released. And I found it in a little book 

from Mr. Orbach, a nice green little volume of precedents of some 

sort with two tsars, with Abraham Lincoln and our other professor, 

Professor Wilson, in 1912, with suspension of American trade with 

both because of pogroms not only against the Jewish population, 

but within the embassies where there were Jews serving their 

country and got beat up when they left the embassy grounds. So 

it was not new in our body politic. 

The Vanik amendment died with the session. And then came 

1972, which was a huge tidal wave of all sorts of mixed emotions, 

needless to say, because while Mr. Nixon was among the brightest 

Presidents we had among our folk on the other side of the aisle, 

he was not a guy you wanted to travel to Russia with. So as a consequence, when that bond took place, and the opening came there 

and in China, and Scoop Jackson did his thing and we did for 18 

months before the Senate could act—and that is very important, 

because that was 18 months hanging in space as to whether this 

concept would work. The kind of activities that are represented 

here at the table at much later years that engendered a huge swell 

of activity for something brand new in terms of citizen action at a 

precinct level all over this country makes me have to say, Mr. 

Rohrabacher, that we are offended personally at the notion—and I 

mean this not personally—of talking about the antique nature of 

this relic, because that makes me much older than I feel. And—

and—I can name you in private things that I know in the law that 

I was involved in, including one that was applied yesterday to save 

a human life that came from a law that was established by Executive Order in 1979. If it weren’t on the books gathering dust, we 

couldn’t have revived it. And I got to say, my advice to you all is 

do not repeal it, keep it in the tool bag, and let Russia properly be 

liberated. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Graduated. 

Mr. TALISMAN. No, I am saying liberated first as a psychiatric 

state of mind; and secondly, by term of the art ‘‘be graduated,’’ and 

replace graduation for repeal. 

I had this talk before the late great chairman—Congressman 

Lantos, for whom I have the highest regard and knew for 40 years, 

and it was after he made the statement you referred to. And he 

said to me personally, I understand now; I will temper my language, is what he said to me. Because, you know, part of the cultural effects of the Cold War were use of language, and the kind 

of language we use sometimes—I don’t know about you, but I know 

when I was writing speeches for Mr. Vanik, both of us wanted to 

try to find a technique to put things that were coming out of our 

mouth back in before they were recognized. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No one on this panel has ever had that problem. 

Mr. TALISMAN. I know. I should have premised that. 

The fact is that I have also learned a personal lesson, because 

I felt I had a price on my head among those with whom I had contact in the Soviet Union. It was a death-dealing kind of thing for 

me because my family came from there, and my great grandfather 

was the Grand Rabbi of Russia. And we sort of knew when he left 

in 1903—he told me personally, he lived a long life—he said to me, 

don’t follow me in my profession; go out and work in the precincts 

49

to help the democracy work. Because when he came here, he kissed 

the ground because he voted within a month after arriving. We had 

good precinct captains apparently. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I don’t want to ask if he was legal or illegal. 

Mr. TALISMAN. Did it matter? Where do you come from? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am an Irish American, Mr. Talisman. I know 

the drill. 

Mr. TALISMAN. Anyway, I had the most amazing thing happen to 

me personally. I did an exhibition called Scrolls from the Dead Sea, 

the real ones that had been hidden for years, and it opened at the 

Madison Building at the Library of Congress. And I always had a 

habit of all the 25 major exhibits I have done here to invite the embassies, because they never get invited to things like that, the 

whole embassy. Even the people who were driving cars, everybody, 

their families. I would have a dedicated evening. And I asked the 

Russian Ambassador, who had been trying to see me lots. And I reversed the tables, and they came. And within a month I had a telephone call. 

Now, instinctively I did not accept the invitation he gave to go 

within the compound on Wisconsin Avenue. I couldn’t do that yet. 

But we did have lunch, and he asked me the most astonishing 

thing. And this was when things were pretty tough after freedom 

came in Russia. He said, you know, we have a problem with America. And I said, here we go again. The problem was different, and 

some of you know this from your talks and your visits. They have 

always felt like the stepchildren of World War II even though their 

losses were enormous. And Stalin essentially stopped communism 

to get everybody in the war after all the screw-ups. He said, we 

want you to go to Russia. We will give you the keys to every case 

you want to and every storage place you want to open. We need 

the story told of the 1,184 days of the Russian involvement in 

World War II. Because as Eisenhower himself says on film, and 

this was the Ambassador, we did not win the war at D-Day with 

5 million Russians on the eastern front and our blood all over the 

place. They were there. 

And I did it. I was there for 18 months in every nook and cranny 

of their storage with the most amazing artifacts that were real, including the hand notations of Hitler and of Stalin on all those treaties that we talked about, with the treaties, their own copies, everything. And every morning at 10 o’clock in the morning for 10 

days at the Reagan Building—this was the first exhibit there—I 

was on national television, channel 1, across Russia taking a 1-

hour tour for the Russian nation for all 11 time zones. What it 

meant to the Russian people was absolutely remarkable, and it 

shows what cultural cooperation, and it meant that to the success 

of cultural ministers. 

The one suggestion that comes out that comes from the little repartee you just had is that while the Chabad treasures of documents 

which are so vital to the community are really important, they are 

only important within the context of the fact that Russia took everything it wanted from—as booty of war from the entry into Germany. That meant it took a lot of Nazi stolen art belonging to the 

Jewish community leadership. It is enormous, and they all know it. 

And we have a State Department conference which I cochaired, a 

50

huge conference, and subsequent conferences where Russia has actually codified all that was taken, and they say it is fine, but it is 

ours. Well, these are the—this is a giant example of what needs to 

be worked on in a normal, in regular order, as is said in this 

House. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Talisman. 

Mr. TALISMAN. And that is it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Talisman follows:]


56198c-1.eps
51


56198c-2.eps
52


56198c-3.eps
53

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Satter. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID SATTER, SENIOR FELLOW, 

HUDSON INSTITUTE 

Mr. SATTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

The future of the Jackson-Vanik amendment has now become an 

important issue in United States-Russian relations. The reason is 

that the United States, having announced a reset in United StatesRussian relations, cancelled an antimissile system in Eastern Europe and ignored Russian human rights abuses, all with little positive result, and is running out of ways to show its goodwill. 

Those who support rescinding the amendment point out that 

Russia has been in compliance with its provisions for the last 16 

years. They argue it makes no sense to retain a measure that has 

achieved its purpose and only serves to embitter bilateral relations. 

Unfortunately, however, we are in danger of being too literal. It is 

true that Russia now allows free emigration, but the JacksonVanik amendment was never based on an unbreakable link between trade and emigration. Opponents of the amendment correctly argued at the time that trade has nothing to do with emigration. The purpose of the amendment was to use the economic power 

of the United States to compel the Soviet Union to respect human 

rights. In this respect it is far from obsolete when applied to Russia 

today. 

By any measure Russia is more liberal than the Soviet Union, 

but it is also totally lawless. And the absence of secure rights is 

not an accident; it exists because it is necessary to assure the 

power of a kleptocratic elite which puts its interests ahead of those 

of the nation. This creates a parallel with what existed under the 

Soviet Union. Like the Soviet authorities, the present Russian leaders use a supposed foreign menace to divert the attention of the 

population from their rightless situation. The target of choice is not 

Iran or North Korea, countries which could pose a real threat to 

Russia, but rather the United States. 

The Jackson-Vanik amendment in and of itself cannot have a decisive impact on United States-Russian relations, but in deciding 

whether to rescind it, it is important to remember that good relations with Russia are not an end in themselves. The late Andre 

Sakharov pointed out that there is a direct connection between the 

Soviet Union’s internal repression and its external expansionism. 

In Russia today massive corruption and lawlessness give rise to 

policies that frustrate U.S. objectives as a matter of proactive selfdefense. The object of American policy should be to seek to change 

this fundamental relationship. 

The Jackson-Vanik amendment should not be eliminated to bury 

the Cold War or reinvigorate the dubious reset. It can be rescinded, 

but this should be done only in response to examples of clear 

progress in democratic governance, capable of limiting the scope of 

arbitrary power in Russia and improving the lot of the population. 

The following are examples of areas in which improvements 

could legitimately be tied to the elimination of Jackson-Vanik. First 

of all, the legal system. In the opinion of Russians, the legal system 

54

is prejudiced, inefficient, corrupt and ready to defend whoever can 

pay for it. A Supreme Court judge Tamara Morshchakova argued 

that judicial independence in Russia is nonexistent, stating that 

any official can dictate any decision in any case. A good example 

is the situation of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Putin opponent who 

now faces his second trial, this time accused of stealing virtually 

the entire production of the Yukos Oil Company. If convicted, and 

it is virtually a foregone conclusion that he will be, he could spend 

the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted in 2005 of failing 

to pay taxes on Yukos profits. At that time no one suggested that 

the oil on which those taxes were levied had been embezzled. 

Another sign of the state of the rule of law in Russia is that Russians file more complaints in the European Court than people from 

any of the 46 countries that make up the Council of Europe. Most 

of the thousands of complaints are never heard, but of the small 

number that have been, almost all have gone against Russia. 

Perhaps more important is the question of selective terror. There 

is no mass repression in Russia, but journalists and human rights 

activists risk their lives if their reporting threatens powerful interests. At least 17 journalists have been murdered in Russia since 

2000. In not a single case has the person who ordered the killing 

been found. In cases such as those of Anna Politkovskaya and the 

American Paul Klebnikov, where underlings had been charged only 

to be acquitted under puzzling circumstances, the alleged participants have appeared to have a maze of links to the security services. Natalya Estimirova, a single mother who was virtually the 

only source of information on torture, abduction and murders carried out by the security services in Chechnya, was herself abducted 

in Grozny and murdered last year. Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer for 

Hermitage Capital Management who exposed a $230 million tax 

fraud carried out by Russian officials, was accused of corruption 

himself and jailed. He then died in a prison medical isolation unit 

after warning the prison staff that someone was trying to murder 

him. Subsequent events indicate that he accurately foretold his 

fate. 

And finally, anti-American propaganda in the Russian media. 

The reset in Russian relations is largely a figment of our imagination and is something which operates in only one direction, with us 

implicitly acknowledging that we have done something wrong, 

which, of course, we haven’t. Anti-Western propaganda in the Russian media continues, and it is pervasive, and it affects the way in 

which the Russian population views the United States. 

The Russian regime reacts badly to U.S. efforts to support Russian democracy, but we have an interest in the success of democratic processes in Russia. Democracy in Russia, the world’s second 

nuclear power, means stability. At the same time, undemocratic 

Russia is unpredictable. In a crisis it is too easy to mobilize a 

rightless population against the United States. 

The Jackson-Vanik amendment surely will eventually be rescinded with regard to Russia, but this should be done in response 

to improvements in Russia’s internal situation. In the absence of 

such improvement, haste in scrapping Jackson-Vanik is simply not 

necessary. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Satter follows:]

55


56198f-1.eps
56


56198f-2.eps
57

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Satter. 

Let me direct a question to you, Ambassador Sestanovich. You 

just heard the testimony by Mr. Satter. I will tell you what my 

problem is. We speak to the rule of law, and we maintain that this 

is an abiding principle in our democracy, and yet we have heard 

arguments and valid observations about Russian behavior. But the 

law, as I understand it, is clear, and it is clear in the sense that 

its rationale is predicated on what I consider to be a human right, 

the right to travel, the right to emigrate. I have been advocating, 

by the way, for Americans’ right to travel to Cuba. I don’t like the 

fact that we have a travel police here in the United States called 

OFAC where grandmothers are fined because they took a bicycle 

tour around Cuba. 

So I am there on this particular fundamental right, this value, 

but what I am hearing is we need to get something. You know, we 

can give it when we see improvements in democratic governance in 

Russia. 

What I would submit, and I would ask you, Ambassador, and everyone else can comment on it, in the eyes of Americans are we 

eroding the principle of rule of law, respect for the law, when we 

say this was about the right to travel and emigration, but now it 

is about a lot of other things, too, when the overwhelming consensus of scholarly analysis of Jackson-Vanik as drafted by Mr. 

Talisman and Representative Vanik was to ensure that it would 

end restrictions on emigration? Now we are taking that and we are 

using it not as a scalpel, but, boy, we have got it, and we are going 

to use it, and we don’t give a damn about the rule of law. Is that 

the message that we are sending? 

Ambassador SESTANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


56198f-3.eps
58

If you look at the language of Jackson-Vanik, it actually says in 

the very first sentence that its purpose is to assure the continued 

dedication of the United States to fundamental human rights. It focused on emigration, and there were many historical reasons for 

that. Over time the law became a symbol of what it announced in 

its very first sentence, which is a commitment to fundamental 

human rights. But I agree with you, the connection that it established and the condition that it established was——

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt. If one read the legislative history and reviewed the Congressional Record in terms of the debate 

in committee, on the floor, both in the House and the Senate, I 

dare say it was exclusively limited to the plight of Soviet Jewry. 

Ambassador SESTANOVICH. Right. That is a correct, I think, description of the legislative history, although, I will be honest with 

you, I haven’t read it. 

I would answer you slightly differently. If I thought, and if any 

member of the panel here thought, that you could solve the problem of the lawlessness of the Russian system by keeping JacksonVanik on the books or by trying to pursue some kind of deal, I 

think we would all be in favor of it. My problem with trying to 

solve all of these problems of Russia’s internal evolution is not that 

Jackson and Vanik didn’t want to solve them, it is that you can’t 

do it. And we need to retain a policy that focuses on the importance 

of Russia’s internal evolution for reasons that I think most people 

here would probably agree with. That kind of evolution is important in the United States, but you can’t do it through JacksonVanik. That leverage just isn’t there. 

Whether it stays on the books or not, we are not going to be able 

to bring about the kind of change that we would like. That is why 

in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I emphasize the importance of having—of coming up with a new policy, a modernized policy, that addresses some of those concerns. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Before I go to Mr. Talisman, I noted in your prepared statement that you quoted Natan Sharansky, saying that 

this great tool, which is Jackson-Vanik, for the advancement of 

human rights has become a weapon of the U.S. agricultural lot. 

You know, I think that is a very insightful remark. And I think to 

introduce the commercial interest, and I am not naı ̈ve, into this 

issue in some ways does a disservice to the legacy of Jackson-Vanik 

because it was about human rights. 

Mr. Talisman. 

Mr. TALISMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The legislative history as we sort of lived it day by day was emigration, it was not only Soviet Jewry. We met with all faiths in 

basements in the middle of the night, and some of the members, 

including Lou Stokes, got arrested for it. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. And I don’t mean to focus specifically 

on——

Mr. TALISMAN. No, no, I am not blaming, but I want the record 

to show that that was the focus, and not poultry. That is the point. 

It denigrates the elevation here. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. And that was the point I was just making to Ambassador Sestanovich, that it was about human rights 

with a special focus on emigration. 

59

Does anyone else want to take a shot? Mr. Levin and then Dr. 

Lozansky, and then I will yield to my colleague from California, the 

one to my left, not the one to my right. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we, in my organization, over the years 

have tried to maintain a clear position of support for the original 

intention of the amendment. In fact, over many years there have 

been numerous attempts by different Members of Congress in both 

parties to expand the scope and definition of the amendment, and 

it is something that my organization, my membership, opposed, because as Ambassador Sestanovich has said, there are many issues 

that need to be addressed and should be addressed in dealing with 

Russia’s overall human rights record. 

The beauty of Jackson-Vanik is that while it does talk about the 

promotion of human rights, it focused on a particular freedom, a 

freedom that has been expressed for not just in the United States, 

not just in the 21st century, but for thousands of years, the right 

of free movement, and we have lost that focus over the last few 

years. 

And just one other point. When we testified in 2002, we talked 

about steps that the Bush administration could take, or any administration could take, to ensure that this issue wouldn’t be lost and 

that our other concerns wouldn’t be forgotten. In fact, President 

Bush wrote a letter to NCSJ talking about assurances that he had 

received from his counterpart. It is something we could add to the 

record if you would like. 

And I don’t think whether it is NCSJ or broad-based human 

rights groups, if Russia has graduated, that we are going to forget 

about these other concerns. We will take care of this, I know the 

Congress won’t, and then look at—continue to press on these other 

concerns. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate that. At the same time, you know, 

as Mr. Verona points out, I don’t want to be in a position to lose 

jobs for American workers at a time when we need them. And it 

is clear that, as Mr. Verona pointed out—that, you know, Russia 

is emerging relatively—you know, relatively debt free, and that 

market that was increasing, and it had been abysmally low, is an 

opportunity for American commercial interests. 

Dr. Lozansky. 

Mr. LOZANSKY. Well, at least for me Jackson-Vanik was always 

about emigration. And I remember when I personally met Senator 

Jackson, we discussed about the amendment, and I thanked him 

personally. And he also—at least in my mind, he talked about emigration. And I wonder what would Scoop Jackson say now if someone would say that some of U.S. Members of Congress including 

using this as a chicken-meat approach to human rights. So many 

Members of Congress are now on the record saying that Russia 

cannot be graduated from Jackson-Vanik until they buy more 

American chicken. Well, American chicken is great, I love it, and 

I think we should sell it to the Russians. But linking this to Jackson-Vanik, I think it is not very good. 

But also I want to stress that—it is a charity for Russia. First 

of all, it will cost American taxpayers nothing, but in turn it will 

bring great goodwill from Russian people, and I think it will highly 

increase—it is the first step, and so far we can’t really put a long 

60

list of achievements. But I can assure you if we graduated Russia 

of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, this list will raise and only increase dramatically. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Doctor. 

I am going to go to my colleague, the ranking member Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of Mr. 

Sherman. I think that giving back the sacred documents and books 

and papers to Chabad would be a great gesture of goodwill, 

wouldn’t cost anybody anything. And if there is a message that we 

can give to people who are listening to the other government is 

why not do this? This would be a great gesture of goodwill. 

I associate myself with Mr. Sherman’s remarks, although I do 

not believe that should hold us up in assessing what Jackson-Vanik 

is all about. Let us just note that, first of all, in our own country 

is Russia—should Russia be considered a democratic country that 

is flawed now, or should it be considered still a rogue nation, a lawless nation? 

A lot of Americans don’t like to remember this. I lived in North 

Carolina when I was a young boy, and I remember the Ku Klux 

Klan in North Carolina even in those days, in the 1950s. But for 

at least 70 years we had a terrorist organization that were murdering people who were trying to organize the right of a group of 

our fellow citizens to vote. They were murdering Black people in 

order to terrorize them. The judges let them go. The government 

didn’t enforce the law for 70 years in our country’s history. Now, 

was our country a democratic country at that time, or was it a 

rogue, lawless Nation? No. It was a flawed democratic country, and 

we had our flaws. We needed to work on it. 

There are things that Russia now has that are flawed, but it is 

essentially a democratic country and should be treated that way. 

And if they do, we should be working with the forces who want to 

help reform that society, and perhaps maybe as we needed to reform our judicial system so that the Ku Klux Klan wasn’t running 

all over the place murdering Blacks, maybe we need to make sure 

we work with Russian people to help them make sure their judiciary system is protected. 

Mr. Satter, you made some good points about some of the flaws 

that I am talking about. Do you believe that these same restrictions that you now want to maintain, the Jackson-Vanik restrictions legally maintain, do you think they should be applied to 

China? 

Mr. SATTER. I hesitate to answer questions about China because 

I haven’t studied China the way I have studied Russia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It doesn’t take very much study to understand that there hasn’t been any reform in China. You don’t have 

to spend 2 days in the library to understand that all of the things 

you are complaining about with Russia have not been done in 

China, yet we have a demonstrably more positive relationship toward China than we do toward Russia. 

Mr. SATTER. Well, in general terms I certainly feel that we 

should work and put pressure to the extent that we can on the ChiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:15 Oct 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EU\042710\56198 HFA PsN: SHIRL
61

nese leadership to respect human rights, just as we do in the Soviet Union, just as we should in the case of Russia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you don’t know if you would impose this? 

Mr. SATTER. Simply I don’t feel qualified to give such a precise 

answer. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. To all those people who don’t feel qualified, 

let me suggest that they go to Google and Google ‘‘Chinese soldier 

shoots Tibetans at the border,’’ and what you will find is to this 

day that if Tibetans try to leave Tibet, Chinese snipers will kill 

them as they are trying to leave Tibet. And there is a picture going 

on right on Google. 

The contradiction between the way we are treating China, which 

is the world’s worst human rights abuser, and Russia, which has 

had the most progress in human rights in my lifetime, is staggering. And no wonder it leads some of the people in Russia to 

doubt our sincerity, the good people in Russia, as well as perhaps 

the bad people as well. 

I would again suggest that we—I will just suggest—thank you 

very much for your testimony today. 

Mr. Chairman, I think you have a great group of witnesses, and 

the points you have made I generally agree on. And I listened to 

what you had to say, Mr. Satter. 

Mr. SATTER. Well, thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Dan, I am sure if I go to Google, I will see that picture. I am 

also sure if I went to China and I went on Google, I would not see 

that picture. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But if you were in Russia, you would see it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ambassador, you put forward an interesting legislative proposal. I think it is sophisticated except in one aspect 

where you talk about a resolution of disapproval. That is what Congress does when we want to give ourselves the illusion that we 

have some control, while depriving ourselves of all control. A resolution of disapproval, even if it were passed by both Houses of Congress, would probably be vetoed by the executive branch and then 

would be effective only if we overrid the veto in both Houses of 

Congress. 

I suggest instead that you provide for expedited consideration of 

final approval or simply drop the measure altogether. Expedited 

approval is when Congress really retains control, and I would think 

resolution of disapproval is worse than nothing because it gives us 

the illusion. 

Much has been said about Tom Lantos. It is testimony to his status that we are talking about his position. It seems clear that in 

February 2007, he was for unconditional removal of Jackson-Vanik 

from Russia. But in April—and in my opening statement I specifically said that it was in April 2007 that he conditioned that on one 

very modest condition, and that is that the Chabad papers, the 

Schneerson Papers be turned over. And I believe that that was his 

consistent position from April 2007 until his death almost a year 

later. 

Jackson-Vanik was about Soviet Jews. Yes, it covered other 

groups as well, but it was always interpreted to be Soviet Jews. 

62

The people are free to leave Russia, but their sacred documents are 

still held hostage. I should point out that Lubavitch, the town 

where the Chabad movement was based, and, in fact, it is the 

Lubavitch rabbi that created these papers, is in the Smolensk region of Russia. And we turned over in 2002, coincidentally perhaps, 

the Smolensk archives that came into our possession during World 

War II. And it is regrettable that Soviet Russian leaders at that 

time, having obtained the archives that they had asked for, did not 

return to the rightful owner the rabbi’s papers. 

Mr. Levin, the archives, half of the papers I am talking about, 

were papers that Stalin allowed to be taken out of the Soviet 

Union, or at least—I don’t know if he was, I doubt he was personally involved—but a government under his control. And yet now 

the current Government of Russia refuses to allow these documents 

to leave. Why? Any insight into the Russian position other than, 

well, there are some Jews in the United States that want these papers, therefore they will not be turned over? 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Sherman, I can’t speak for the Russian Federation, nor will I try, but I think——

Mr. SHERMAN. Can you mention any advantage or a benefit that 

Russia obtains by holding these papers? 

Mr. LEVIN. No, I can’t. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are these a great tourist attraction? Are they 

treated as important? Are thousands of Russians lining up each 

day to see these the way that thousands of Americans line up to 

see the Liberty Bell? 

Mr. LEVIN. You should know that for the last 20 years on and 

off, but mostly on, NCSJ has worked with the Chabad leadership 

to try to move this issue forward. And we have been on record urging the Russian Government to return the Library or to work out 

some sort of arrangement that satisfies both Chabad and the government. 

It should also be noted that there is some controversy between 

the Chabad community themselves about where the Library should 

reside. I would leave that up to Chabad to deal with. But make no 

mistake that our position is very clear, this collection should be in 

the hands of the rightful owners of the Chabad community. And we 

continue to—we will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity. I don’t know, and——

Mr. SHERMAN. There are only 6 minutes left, so I will simply conclude with a comment on Mr. Satter’s comments. And that is that 

I think if Jackson-Vanik is leveraged, it should be only something—we should look to something commensurate and relevant, 

and I am not sure that in return for Jackson-Vanik being removed, 

that the people who dominate Russia are likely to take actions that 

actually imperil their continued governing of the state, and we 

might want to look for something a little smaller and more relevant 

to the original first purposes of Jackson-Vanik. 

With that, I will yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. 

And let me recognize Mr. Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

One of the reasons why I find this particular hearing so vitally 

important, within about 4 weeks I have to go give a paper on the 

63

future of Russia, United States, a new partnership. The interesting 

thing, I am going over to the Soviet Union to get this paper in Latvia. And our areas of concern are really in the new partnership, 

how we can work together to keep nuclear weapons and weapons 

of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, the Iran situation, missile defense, energy security. There is such a plethora of 

things we have got to work on. 

So the question is if this Jackson-Vanik treaty comes up—because this is NATO, and we are going to have a parliamentary assembly and have meetings, I want to hear from you all, because I 

have been fascinated with each of your presentations, but I want 

to be clear in what each of you are saying. 

So if each of you could just very briefly tell me, in the event it 

is brought up, which it will be brought up in the discussion, the 

removal of, or should we say the graduation of, Jackson-Vanik, 

what do we gain by having it repealed or graduated in terms of the 

future of Russia-United States relations, and what do we gain if we 

don’t repeal it? In other words, back to my first point, to be or not 

to be, to do or not to do, where is the benefit for the United States 

either way as we move to establish a new partnership and the advice you can give me to present this paper? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We have 3 minutes, so we are going to ask each 

of the panelists to respond very quickly. 

Mr. VERONA. I think we, one, uphold our own legal traditions. I 

think when we have a law on the books that is no longer applicable, we remove it, or we remove applicability to a single country. 

I think also if we pass other legislation affecting other countries, 

other circumstances, attempting to use a form of inducement, if we 

don’t show that we are willing to rescind the law or to graduate 

a country from the effect of the law when they comply, eventually 

it erodes any credibility that a future compulsive action could have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Levin? 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Scott, we demonstrate that we fulfill the commitments and the intent of the law, and we demonstrate that when 

hundreds of thousands of people are able to move freely from a 

place that they once were not. Then it is time to recognize that 

movement and graduate. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Ambassador? 

Ambassador SESTANOVICH. Congressman, your first step in 

speaking to a Latvian audience will be not to call it the ‘‘Soviet 

Union.’’ You want to say ‘‘former Soviet Union.’’ There is even a 

question——

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you for that correction. I appreciate it. I will 

do that. 

Ambassador SESTANOVICH. The question that will be on the 

minds of people in your audience is in repealing or graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik, are we suggesting that we don’t care about 

things that we used to care about? And not just human rights, but, 

for example, the defense of our little allies that are on the border 

of Russia. What your audience will want to hear is that the repeal 

of Jackson-Vanik is a narrow decision reflecting the law and the solution of a problem that once bothered us, that once limited the 

64

rights of Latvians, but that it doesn’t mean that the United States 

is suckered in evaluating and defending its own vital interests. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. 

Dr. Lozansky. 

Mr. LOZANSKY. I would compare this graduation as removal of a 

huge irritating splinter from the wound, from the injury, which will 

create tremendous positive momentum for United States-Russian 

relations and cooperation on all the issues you just mentioned. I 

strongly believe in that, and I think that we have to do that as 

soon as possible. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. 

Mr. Talisman. 

Mr. TALISMAN. I think graduation is essential, and I think the 

use of repeal is poison. It is absolute poison. Graduation, not repeal. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Satter? 

Mr. SATTER. Mr. Scott, I think it is a question of symbolism. 

Graduation of Russia will not change much, but the refusal to 

countenance it is a signal to Russia that, in fact, we don’t accept 

everything that goes on there; that we have objections, we reserve 

the right to make objections; and that goodwill gestures will be 

based on their being justified. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to thank this panel. It has been outstanding. I am going to be looking to some of you to assist me in 

drafting legislation, which I intend to file within the next several 

weeks, that will deal with the graduation of Russia from the aegis 

of the amendment. 

Thank you all so much. We are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

66


56198n-1.eps
67


56198n-2.eps
68


56198m.eps
69

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND TRADE


56198j-1.eps
70


56198j-2.eps
71


56198j-3.eps
72


56198j-4.eps
73


56198j-5.eps
74


56198j-6.eps
75


56198j-7.eps
76


56198j-8.eps
77

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. MARK B. LEVIN, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOVIET JEWRY


56198h.eps
78

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BILL DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE


56198i-1.eps
79

Æ


56198i-2.eps