U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

94–388PDF 2015

THE GLOBAL MAGNITSKY HUMAN RIGHTS

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 29, 2015

Serial No. 114–65

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. William Browder, chief executive officer, Hermitage Capital Management 6

Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, president, World Uyghur Congress ...................................... 12

Mr. Kenneth R. Weinstein, president and chief executive officer, Hudson 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 17

Daniel Calingaert, Ph.D., executive vice president, Freedom House .................. 25

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. William Browder: Prepared statement ........................................................... 9

Ms. Rebiya Kadeer: Prepared statement ............................................................... 14

Mr. Kenneth R. Weinstein: Prepared statement ................................................... 20

Daniel Calingaert, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ..................................................... 27

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 38

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 39

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and written responses from: 

Mr. William Browder ........................................................................................... 40

Mr. Kenneth R. Weinstein ................................................................................... 41

(1)

THE GLOBAL MAGNITSKY HUMAN RIGHTS 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and good afternoon. I apologize to our witnesses and guests for the delay. We did 

have a series of votes, and we can never anticipate that. So I want 

to apologize for that rather significant delay of 1⁄2 hour. 

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 directed the President to publish and update a list of each person the 

President has reason to conclude was responsible for the detention, 

abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, a leader and accounting advisor with Firestone Duncan, an international law and accounting 

firm with offices in Moscow and London. 

William Browder, chief executive officer of Hermitage Capital 

Management, Limited, one of today’s witnesses and a driving force 

behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act and the legislation that has now 

been introduced and is pending before our committee, has provided 

a detailed account of the violent expropriation of the assets of Hermitage, the largest foreign investment brokerage in Russia, by 

rampant Russian Government corruption, bribery, fraud, forgery, 

cronyism, and outright theft. 

Magnitsky had documented Hermitage’s loss and other financial dealings, including draining some $230 million from the Russian 

Treasury by tax fraud. He was arrested in November 2008 reportedly for tax evasion, and denied medical care, family visits, or due 

legal process, while in custody. He was beaten and tortured and 

died in prison in November 2009. He was 37 years old and married 

with two young children. 

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 

targeted those who participated in related liability concealment efforts, financially benefitted from Sergei Magnitsky’s detention, 

abuse, or death, or were involved in the criminal conspiracy uncovered by Magnitsky or responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, 

or other human rights violations committed against individuals 

2

seeking to expose illegal activity carried out by Russian officials or 

against persons seeking to promote human rights and freedoms. 

The act directed the Secretaries of State and Treasury to annually report to Congress on actions taken to implement the act, including rejecting visa applications, revoking existing visas, and 

blocking property transactions for persons the President put on the 

Magnitsky list. 

The United States is, as we all know, the land of opportunity, 

but it should not be for those who misused and murdered Sergei 

Magnitsky. Without the original act, the government officials and 

business people who perpetrated crimes against a young man, 

against a major international firm, and against even the Russian 

people themselves by stealing from them could have taken their illgotten gains and come to this country to purchase property and live 

the good life in the United States. 

Today’s hearing will examine the need for H.R. 624, the Global 

Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which extends these 

human rights and anti-corruption tools to other countries. The 

House passed the 2012 Magnitsky Act by a vote of 365 to 43, and 

there is a strong majority-minority co-sponsorship for H.R. 624. 

Since the original Magnitsky Act became law in December 2012, 

human rights victims and advocates from around the world and 

anti-corruption champions have asked for a Global Magnitsky Act, 

first asking that such acts be enacted for specific countries. 

H.R. 624 ensures, with minimal cost or burden to the U.S., that 

our Government gives some justice to victims and stands in solidarity with them in a tangible way, shines a spotlight on perpetrators making them pariahs, and pressures governments to prosecute 

perpetrators who are their citizens. 

The Global Magnitsky Act is intended to destruct the impunity 

and comfort that far too many international human rights violators 

currently enjoy, and to keep their tainted money out of our financial systems. It also fights the human rights abuses and corruption 

that generate national security terrorism and economic threats to 

the United States. 

A few years ago Teodorin Obiang Mangue, son of the President 

of Equatorial Guinea, visited the United States regularly using 

funds siphoned from American companies operating in his country. 

He lived a glamorous life in Malibu, California, dating celebrities 

and collecting expensive cars. When France issued a warrant for 

his arrest after he refused to appear at a money laundering hearing, his father provided him with diplomatic immunity to escape 

prosecution. 

In 2012, June, after years of trying to track Teodorin’s wealth, 

the U.S. Department of Justice finally filed a lawsuit in California 

court alleging massive money laundering and listing among the 

scandalous kettle of assets his $35 million Malibu mansion with a 

four-hole golf course, tennis court, and two swimming pools. That 

is just one of the acquisitions he made in the United States. 

The financial manipulations of this young man led in part to the 

closing of Riggs Bank in Washington, one of the capital’s premier 

financial institutions. Such people should not be able to steal from 

foreign firms and their own people and then use those funds to live 

lavishly in our country. 

3

Similarly, those who torture and otherwise commit the worst 

human rights violations against others should not be welcomed 

here either. And I have written legislation over the years to enforce 

that principle. The Ethiopia Freedom, Democracy, and Human 

Rights Advancement Act of 2006 would have prevented officials 

who ordered the callous shooting of peaceful demonstrators in Ethiopia from entering this country. 

The Foreign Relations Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 became law—I was the prime sponsor of it—and it required the U.S. 

Government to impose visa bans on any foreign national the Secretary of State has determined is directly involved in establishing 

or enforcing population control policies that force a woman to undergo abortions against her will or force a man or woman to undergo sterilizations against their will. 

And then there is the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 and its reauthorizations, which also became law, that imposed visa bans and 

asset freezes on government officials from the Government of 

Belarus because of their violations of basic human rights and freedoms, and that has now malaffected, as it should, one of the last 

dictators in Europe, Alexander Lukashenka, and his cronies. 

If we stand by quietly when governments refuse to prosecute 

human rights abusers and financial fraudsters, then we welcome 

those guilty of such crimes into the U.S. and into our financial systems, we are indeed enabling their crimes. The 2012 Magnitsky Act 

was a major step in freeing ourselves from aiding and abetting 

international perpetrators. 

H.R. 624 makes the next step in taking a stand against their 

crimes. If we are serious about rejecting their deeds, perhaps their 

governments and other governments will become more serious as 

well. 

I would like to yield to Ms. Bass, the ranking member of the subcommittee. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for your leadership and 

for calling today’s hearing on the Global Magnitsky Human Rights 

Accountability Act, to give us an opportunity to discuss the need 

to examine the act toward a global vehicle to hold individuals accountable for human rights abuses. 

I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses for today, 

including representatives from a range of organizations concerned 

with global human rights issues. I look forward to hearing each of 

your perspectives, including your assessment of what more can be 

done to successfully expose and address gross violations of human 

rights around the world. 

Dealing with issues of corruption and impunity are challenges to 

national governance worldwide. These challenges become particularly pronounced when governments seek to silence citizens who 

promote human rights or seek to expose illegal activities by those 

governments, be they journalists, intellectuals, or other kinds of activists and whistleblowers. To be clear, we know that this silencing 

takes multiple forms, including illegal detention, torture, and 

extrajudicial killings. 

Again, I want to thank today’s witnesses for their time and insight and look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress 

to further develop legislation to address global human rights 

4

abuses and increase the accountability of governmental officials 

who violate citizens’ human rights. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bass. 

I would like to now recognize Mr. Emmer. 

Mr. EMMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this important hearing. As a co-sponsor of the Global Magnitsky 

Human Rights Accountability Act, I feel it is important and necessary for us to hold human rights abusers accountable, and I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this hearing. Those who 

abuse human rights must face serious consequences, and this hearing, along with the Accountability Act, will strengthen the President’s ability to sanction human rights abusers. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses, and, again, 

thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member, for holding 

this important hearing, and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Emmer. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Bass, for holding today’s hearing, and thank you especially, Chairman Smith, for your long leadership on human rights. 

All people deserve to be respected and to live their lives free from 

violence, persecution, discrimination, and oppression. 

Protecting fundamental human rights is an important responsibility. It should and must remain a cornerstone of American foreign 

policy, which is why the United States has a responsibility to respond to egregious human rights abuses by imposing sanctions on 

those who commit or contribute to human rights violations. 

Last Congress I introduced the Global Respect Act, which would 

direct the President to impose visa sanctions on foreign persons 

who commit egregious human rights violations on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I think it is important to recognize the particular plight faced by LGBT individuals around the 

world, especially as many continue to be victims of violence and 

murder at shocking rates. 

This bill ensures that we take that approach, a comprehensive 

approach, to protecting human rights and to be certain that those 

who are responsible for human rights violations are held accountable. It is critically important to continue to protect the basic 

human rights of all individuals, all vulnerable and marginalized 

populations. 

The United States must be vigilant in protecting the human 

rights of racial, ethnic, linguistic minorities, women, and children, 

religious minorities, and political dissidents, among others. That is 

why I am very proud to co-sponsor the Global Magnitsky Human 

Rights Accountability Act. 

I look forward to the testimony from our very distinguished 

panel, and thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I would like to now introduce this very distinguished panel of 

doers and shakers, men and women, who have made a tremendous 

difference in the lives of especially those who have had their 

human rights violated around the globe. 

5

Beginning first with Bill Browder, who is founder and CEO of 

Hermitage Capital Management. He was the largest foreign investor in Russia until November 2005 when he was denied entry to 

the country and declared a threat to national security by the Russian Government for exposing corruption at large Russian companies. 

In 2008, Russian authorities arrested and imprisoned his lawyer, 

Sergei Magnitsky, after Mr. Magnitsky uncovered and reported a 

$230 million fraud committed by the Russian Government officials. 

Mr. Magnitsky was tortured and denied medical help in prison for 

months, and finally beaten to death by prison guards in November 

2009. 

Bill Browder has since led a global campaign to expose the corruption and human rights abuses endemic in Russia. A result of 

this campaign was the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 being signed into law, imposing visa bans and 

asset freezes on certain officials involved in Magnitsky’s death and 

on other gross violations of human rights in Russia. 

We will then hear from Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, who is a prominent 

human rights advocate and leader of the Uyghur people. She is the 

mother of 11 children and a former laundress turned millionaire. 

She spent 6 years in a Chinese prison for standing up to the authoritarian Chinese Government. Before her arrest in 1999, she 

was a well-known Uyghur businesswoman, and at one time among 

the wealthiest individuals in the People’s Republic of China. 

Ms. Kadeer has been actively campaigning for the human rights 

of the Uyghur people since her release. As a matter of fact, she has 

appeared before this subcommittee at least a half a dozen times, 

and we have benefitted greatly from her wise counsel and insight. 

She has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize several times 

since 2006, despite the Chinese Government’s efforts to discredit 

her. Ms. Kadeer remains a leading pro-democracy Uyghur leader 

and heads the World Uyghur Congress, which represents the collective interests of the Uyghur people around the world. 

We will then hear from Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, who is president 

and chief executive officer of the Hudson Institute. He joined the 

Institute in 1991 and was appointed CEO in June 2005. Mr. 

Weinstein was the president and CEO in March 2011. A political 

theorist by training whose academic work focuses on the early Enlightenment, Mr. Weinstein has written widely on international affairs for leading publications in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. 

He serves as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, 

the oversight body for U.S. Government civilian international 

media, including such networks as Voice of America, Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting. 

We will then hear from Dr. Daniel Calingaert, who is an executive vice president at Freedom House. In his role, he oversees Freedom House’s contributions to policy debate on democracy and 

human rights issues and outreach to the U.S. Congress, foreign 

governments, media, and Freedom House supporters. 

He previously supervised Freedom House’s civil society programs 

worldwide. He contributes frequently to policy and media discusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\042915\94388 SHIRL
6

sions on democracy issues, including Internet freedom, elections, 

authoritarian regimes, and democracy assistance. 

He taught at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and American University. He served as director for Asia, as a deputy director for Eastern Europe at the International Republican Institute, where he designed and managed a wide range of promotion programs. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the indulgence. I just want to welcome the students who are here from Shea 

High School in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, my constituents, and welcome them to the subcommittee. You guys should stand up, and we 

would like to recognize you. Thanks for being here. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Browder. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM BROWDER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. BROWDER. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for giving me 

the opportunity to address you today. 

The name of the law which is being considered is Sergei 

Magnitsky. Sergei Magnitsky was my lawyer in Russia, and Sergei 

Magnitsky worked for me trying to uncover government corruption 

in Russia, which led to an astounding discovery that government 

officials, working together with organized criminals, had stolen 

$230 million of taxes that we paid to the Russian Government, not 

from us but from the Russian Government. 

And Sergei, as a patriot, testified against the officials involved, 

thinking that it should not be allowed that government officials 

should steal from their own country. And he thought that the 

President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was someone who was acting 

in the national interest, and if this $230 million theft was exposed 

that the good guys would get the bad guys and that would be the 

end of the story. 

Instead, after Sergei testified against the officials, the same officials he testified against arrested him, put him in pretrial detention, tortured him in the most horrific way for 358 days, and killed 

him on November 16, 2009. 

I got the news on the 17th of November, in the morning of his 

murder. And it was by far the most horrific, traumatic, life-changing news that I could ever get, and I made a vow to his memory, 

to his family, and to myself, that I was going to make sure that 

we saw justice for Sergei Magnitsky, and that his death would not 

be a meaningless death. 

And for the last 51⁄2 years I have been on a quest to get that justice and to bring some meaning to his death, so that something 

good, possibly good, could come out of it. And originally I thought 

we could get justice inside of Russia. The details of this death were 

not a matter of speculation. He wrote everything down in the form 

of 450 complaints he filed in his 358 days in detention, documenting exactly who did what to him, when, how, where, and why. 

And those details should have been enough to prosecute more than 

a dozen people. 

7

Instead, they prosecuted nobody. They exonerated everybody involved, and on the 1-year anniversary of Sergei’s death they gave 

special state honors to some of the people who were most complicit. 

There are only two people who have ever been prosecuted in this 

case. Three years after Sergei’s death Sergei Magnitsky himself 

was prosecuted posthumously in the first-ever trial against a dead 

man in the history of Russia, and I was prosecuted as his co-defendant and sentenced to 9 years in absentia. 

It became obvious that if we couldn’t get justice inside of Russia, 

we needed to get justice outside of Russia. So I started traveling 

the world looking for justice, and I discovered that there actually 

aren’t any mechanisms for international justice. They just don’t 

exist. The best you can do is go to the State Department and have 

them possibly issue a statement, or go to the British Foreign Office 

and have them say that they are disappointed with somebody’s 

death. 

And so I started to look around to see what kind of justice could 

we get if we could invent our own mechanism for justice, and this 

crime was perpetrated for the theft of $230 million, and the people 

who did this crime wanted to not keep their money in Russia but 

keep it in the West, and they like to travel to the West, and send 

their kids to school in the West, and have their family members go 

shopping in the West. 

And so I came to this room, this exact room, in 2010, and I told 

the story I have just told you in front of the Lantos Commission 

on Human Rights in front of Congressman McGovern. And I said, 

‘‘Can you do something about this?’’ And he came up with the idea 

of what has now become known as the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which 

was to freeze assets and ban visas of the people who killed Sergei 

Magnitsky. 

The act was originally just for Sergei Magnitsky, and then a 

number of people started coming forward, including Boris Nemstov, 

an opposition leader from Russia, who said, ‘‘You have hit the 

Achilles heel of the Putin regime by doing this. They like to commit 

their crimes in Russia, but they like to enjoy their money in the 

West. Could you please expand this so it includes the other gross 

human rights abusers in Russia?’’

And Congressman McGovern, along with Senators and various 

other Members of Congress, heard these calls and added 65 words 

to the law to include all other gross human rights abusers. The law 

passed; this is one of the few things in Washington where there is 

no partisanship. This is bipartisan. Torturers and murderers have 

no support from anybody, and, as a result, it passed 92 to 4 in the 

Senate, and 89 percent in the House of Representatives, and it was 

signed into law. 

And the interesting thing that happened after it was signed into 

law was that, as I started speaking about it at conferences around 

the world, I started getting approached by people who have been 

victimized in other countries. I was approached by people from 

Tibet, from Venezuela, from Bahrain, from China, and I started 

hearing their stories, and they all asked me, ‘‘How can we do the 

same thing for our country?’’ And the answer was, there is no reason why an Uzbek human rights abuser should have a better deal 

than a Russian human rights abuser. 

8

And I am very grateful for Congressmen Smith and McGovern 

who decided to initiate and introduce this law in January of this 

year, because this is really the new technology for dealing with 

human rights abuse. 

It is not new to impose sanctions, but what is new is that we are 

living in a globalized world now where, you know, perhaps the 

Khmer Rouge didn’t go on vacation to San Tropez, but members of 

the Kazakhstani regime, who are perpetrating human rights 

abuses, are seen there all the time. 

And in a globalized world we have some leverage to do something 

here, and this is something we can do. And so I would be very glad 

to have a wider support than just your support here, and that we 

make this into law like the Russian version of the Magnitsky Act, 

and to leave Sergei Magnitsky with a legacy that his death wasn’t 

a meaningless death. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Browder follows:]

9


94388a-1.eps
10


94388a-2.eps
11


94388a-3.eps
12

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Browder, thank you so very much. 

Rebiya Kadeer. 

STATEMENT OF MS. REBIYA KADEER, PRESIDENT, WORLD 

UYGHUR CONGRESS 

[The following statement and answers were delivered through an 

interpreter.] 

Ms. KADEER. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, and Ranking 

Member Bass, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to 

be here today, and I am grateful to you for inviting me to the hearing on the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. 

And I cannot speak English, so, therefore, I prepared a written 

statement, so my assistant Omer Kanat will read my statement to 

you. 

I am very honored to be here today, and I wish to express my 

profound appreciation to Representative Smith for inviting me to 

testify. Representative Smith has been a champion in Congress for 

those who suffer from human rights abuses and has spoken out on 

behalf of the Uyghur people. 

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 

was a commitment to defend universal human rights standards, to 

hold egregious human rights violators in Russia responsible for 

their acts. The U.S. Congress should be praised for passing this 

historic legislation on human rights, and President Obama should 

be commended for signing it into law. 

The Magnitsky Act highlighted the profound injustice surrounding the case of Sergei Magnitsky and demonstrated that 

proactive measures targeting human right abuses can have immediate results. Therefore, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act is an important milestone in the protection of 

human rights worldwide. Applying the Magnitsky Act universally 

to include all officials, not just Russian ones, who order or commit 

gross human rights violations is critical and urgently needed. 

Across the globe, people are in dire need of the kind of protection 

of the Global Magnitsky Act will afford. State officials who engage 

in egregious human rights abuses often rob their citizens of public 

money and invest it overseas. It is right to deny these officials access to the United States’ financial apparatus and the territory of 

the United States. 

In China, the Uyghur people face massive, systematic, and 

human rights violations on a daily basis. This pattern of human 

rights abuses has long been in place. The annual reports of human 

rights practices in China issued by the U.S. State Department have 

detailed a broad range of rights concerns regarding Uyghurs, including enforced disappearances; jailing of political dissidents, journalists, and Webmasters; repression of independent religious leaders; forced abortions; destruction of cultural heritage; restrictions of 

movement; tight controls on freedom of expression, particularly on 

the Internet; marginalization of the Uyghur language in education 

and society; pressures exerted on foreign governments to deport 

Uyghur refugees; and targeted surveillance. 

Since Xi Jinping became China’s President 2 years ago, human 

rights violations of the Uyghur people have intensified. Excessive 

force and extrajudicial killings are a feature of a Chinese state’s seVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\042915\94388 SHIRL
13

curity approach to the region. The disproportionate use of force 

during house-to-house searches, at security checkpoints, and during 

peaceful demonstrations have led to state-initiated violence. Credible allegations of state violence in Hanerik, Elishku, Alaqagha, 

and Siriqbuya merit further investigation. 

Furthermore, the Chinese state’s persecution of Uyghur academic 

Ilham Tohti and his students demonstrates the highly vindictive 

and paranoid nature of the Chinese regime. Using legitimate and 

peaceful means to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the state on 

the deplorable conditions facing the Uyghurs, Ilham Tohti was targeted by the Chinese authorities and sentenced to life in prison in 

a legal process that was highly politicized. 

The expansion of the Magnitsky Act to apply universally to all 

officials who have directed, ordered, or committed gross human 

rights violations will show strong American leadership to protect 

the fundamental human rights of all people around the world. If 

this act becomes law, it will have a profound ripple effect, because 

mere listing some of the most well-known human rights violators 

in authoritarian states like China will send a powerful message to 

low-ranking officials that their criminal actions will not be immune 

to international scrutiny, condemnation, and consequences. 

International scrutiny is imperative to achieve tangible results in 

human rights. My case is example of what can be done when 

human rights violators are publicly named. Without international 

pressure and concern, I could have been tortured, or even killed, 

in prison. However, not everyone is as lucky as me. Many Uyghurs 

face cruel and unusual torture and punishment in the Chinese 

prison system every day. 

Enacting a Global Magnitsky Act will protect the fundamental 

human rights of the oppressed and save the lives of many peoples, 

including the Uyghurs. They will be grateful to the U.S. for taking 

an important step in the global protection of human rights around 

the world. 

There may be concerns that such an act will directly impact bilateral relations with authoritarian states. It must be noted that 

this act doesn’t specifically target a particular country or a head of 

state. It only targets individuals who are the most egregious 

human rights violators, or are the more corrupt officials, and who 

commit such violations under his or her official capacity. 

Therefore, the negative impact of this act on bilateral relations 

would be minimal, while its positive impact on improving global 

human rights and creating a model for other countries to follow 

would be huge. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kadeer follows:]

14


94388b-1.eps
15


94388b-2.eps
16


94388b-3.eps
17

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Ms. Kadeer. 

Mr. Weinstein. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH R. WEINSTEIN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HUDSON INSTITUTE 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Bass, Representative Cicilline. I deeply appreciate the invitation to 

appear before you today to discuss Chairman Smith’s bill, H.R. 624, 

the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, as well as 

the broader issue of corruption as an affront to human rights and 

a threat to U.S. national security. I want to applaud your moral 

courage and your leadership on these issues, which has been critical in the past and is needed as we go forward. 

Throughout the world, corruption undermines the rule of law, it 

erodes confidence in democratic accountability, it threatens representative government, and thereby poses a fundamental challenge to human rights. When corruption is highly entrenched, 

economies are plundered and repression is often brought to bear 

against citizens and civic organizations demanding accountable 

governance. 

Corrupt regimes, as we now see on a daily basis, also exert a 

very destablizing influence on international affairs. One only need 

to rapidly review the headlines to gain a sense of how politically 

motivated violence is fueled by profiteering and bribery, especially 

where weak governance is in place. Look around at the turmoil following the Arab Spring, the war in Ukraine, and you’ll see different facets of the danger that corruption poses to peace, prosperity, and freedom worldwide. 

Whether it be in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, or Libya, areas of significant destabilizing conflicts, vast levels of graft and cronyism 

have been crippling both national and local governments. Corruption serves as a rallying cry for extremist groups and is an obstacle 

to encountering them effectively on the battlefield. 

Across Europe, and we have heard a bit about Asia, authoritarian kleptocracy is a particularly dangerous manifestation of this 

phenomena. Beyond internal oppression, these regimes are increasingly willing to export bribery and extortion, to support client 

states, coopt foreign political factions, and undermine the advance 

of democracy abroad. And these same kleptocracies, as we have 

heard, are willing to employ appalling violence to preserve the 

parasitic arrangements that keep them in power. 

We saw what happened in the streets of Kiev in 2014 when citizens took to the streets to oust Viktor Yanukovych, the corrupt patron of Moscow, and they stood their courageously despite a wall 

of batons and a hail of bullets that killed more than 100 of their 

countrymen. 

Their popular will for closer ties to Europe, for democratization, 

and freedom prevailed, but Russia responded with invasion, annexation, and occupation. To the Kremlin, a free and democratic 

Ukraine is an unacceptable counterpoint to the corruption and 

authoritarianism of the Putin regime that we have heard so much 

about already. 

As a result, a sovereign state at the heart of Europe faces military aggression proscribed by the Budapest Memorandum on SecuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:01 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\042915\94388 SHIRL
18

rity Assurances, the Helsinki Final Act, and Article Two of the 

U.N. Charter. 

Meanwhile, fringe political parties throughout Europe, both East 

and West—and not simply fringe political parties—are being 

buoyed and bankrolled by the same corrupt governments or private 

entities that belong to government officials in these countries fueling the war in Ukraine. 

Veiled nuclear threats and provocative military maneuvers seek 

to rattle the nerves of our European partners while aggressive 

media and social media campaigns spreads disinformation, distract 

attention from the truth, and sow discord. These operations divide 

our allies, discredit the NATO security compact, and call into question the values of the post-Cold War political order. 

Fortunately, the inherent superiority of both the Western political and financial order grants the U.S. leverage to confront this 

complex national security threat. As has been noted, corrupt officials often take advantage of open societies to shelter their assets 

and gain safe haven from political pressures at home. 

With apartments and villas of grand standing and large bank accounts abroad, kleptocrats and their cronies and enablers can enjoy 

the benefits of freedom and rule of law that they or their associates 

deny to their fellow citizens. This is especially the case when public 

officials, in collusion with private entities, are allowed to abuse 

their authority with impunity. 

The legislation that you have proposed, the Global Magnitsky 

Human Rights Accountability Act, offers the United States an opportunity to close this escape valve and to refuse to serve the interests of kleptocrats and our strategic adversaries. This bill is complementary to U.S. policy and can be narrowly and appropriately 

tailored. 

The Obama administration’s 2014 fact sheet on the U.S. Global 

Anticorruption Agenda identifies corruption as a growing national 

security threat to our country and our allies around the world. Furthermore, it notes that the United States continues to take action 

to prevent the U.S. legal and financial systems from being exploited by those who engage in or who launder the proceeds of corruption. 

Government entities, including the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of Treasury are 

active in countering kleptocracy. This bill would complement their 

work by providing a mechanism for congressional action to sanction 

specific individuals most responsible for human rights abuses and 

threats to U.S. national security. 

The Global Magnitsky Act is neither a blank check to Congress 

nor an overreaching mandate imposed on the executive branch. 

Congress’ authority respecting the application of the Magnitsky Act 

is sensibly balanced by the diplomatic and national security prerogatives or priorities set by the executive branch. 

The bill provides the President with broad authority to determine 

the scope of sanctions and grant waivers, as appropriate, in the interest of national security. Conversely, the bill’s reporting requirement encourages the President to seriously consider congressional 

recommendations and make scrupulous determinations based upon 

its findings. 

19

Finally, the bill reflects beliefs broadly shared by the American 

public and our partners in the international community. The U.S. 

is the indispensable nation, the world leader primarily responsible 

for promoting the rule of law, good governance, human rights, and 

a peaceful international order. 

We are a leader in confronting criminal regimes in the name of 

freedom. Global Magnitsky will build on this legacy, setting an example for others to follow in refusing to lend legitimacy to human 

rights abusers by sheltering their stolen assets and welcoming 

them to our shores. 

The bill wisely sanctions only individuals. It leaves important 

multilateral trade and cultural exchanges upon which citizens of all 

countries benefit untouched. The bill also expresses solidarity with 

those suffering under corrupt regimes, taking actions against 

human rights abusers on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves. 

Accordingly, the bill represents an opportunity to take a stand 

against destabilizing public corruption in a conspicuous, visible, 

and effective manner, thereby lending support to the fight for democracy, rule of law, and freedom throughout the world. 

Last year, Hudson Institute founded the Kleptocracy Initiative, 

a program aimed at addressing the threats posed by corrupt authoritarian regimes to Western democracy and U.S. national security. We founded this initiative in part because of the threat posed 

to Western democracies and Western alliances by the growing financial leverage of kleptocrats and their allies in the economies of 

the West. 

Given the threat that they pose to democracy in their own countries and to the defense of freedom abroad, the individuals responsible for unconscionable acts of corruption and human rights violations should not be granted sanctuary on our soil or economic refuge in our financial sector. As such, I applaud the Global 

Magnitsky Act as an effective and appropriate countermeasure 

against these criminal regimes. 

By refusing to allow abusers of human rights the privilege of access to our financial institutions and entry upon our soil, the Global Magnitsky Act represents a momentous opportunity to demonstrate continued American leadership on this most critical effort. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. It is an honor to 

speak before this august subcommittee on an issue of such consequence to our vital national interests. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weinstein follows:]

20


94388c-1.eps
21


94388c-2.eps
22


94388c-3.eps
23


94388c-4.eps
24


94388c-5.eps
25

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Weinstein, thank you very much for your testimony and insights. 

Dr. Calingaert. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL CALINGAERT, PH.D., EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, FREEDOM HOUSE 

Mr. CALINGAERT. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, Congressman Cicilline, thanks so much for the invitation to speak 

today. I applaud your leadership on human rights issues and especially for introducing the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. 

Earlier today, Freedom House released its annual global survey 

of press freedom, and the findings were really pretty grim. We see 

the lowest rating in 10 years. In a separate report where we look 

at political and civil rights generally, we have seen 9 straight years 

of decline. 

What we are seeing, in essence, is a resurgence of authoritarian 

governments. And these governments are using tactics that are 

more and more brazen, and they are really showing open disdain 

for basic democratic standards. To pick just one example, in Egypt, 

over 1,400 political activists have been sentenced to death in mass 

trials that did not even have basic elements of due process. The 

world is becoming more hostile to our values and also our interests, 

because undemocratic forces, particularly authoritarian governments, are driving political change. 

The U.S. needs to take the initiative on human rights away from 

authoritarian governments, and the best way to do this is to target 

their weak spots; namely, impunity and corruption. 

Why should we hold individual officials to account for human 

rights abuses? Well, first, to put increased pressure on governments to respect human rights—and in most cases this means to 

follow their own constitutions and live up to their own commitments to international human rights agreements. 

Second, to deter future human rights violations. If a penalty 

hangs over a perpetrator’s head, he or she may think twice about 

committing the crime. 

Third, to force authoritarian rulers to make a difficult choice. Either they can protect the most repugnant officials in their regimes 

and attract further scrutiny to the worst aspects of their rule, or 

they can cut loose the very officials who do their dirty work and 

keep them in power. 

Why should we focus on corruption? Because it is the Achilles’ 

heel of authoritarian regimes. For ordinary citizens, human rights 

are sometimes a bit abstract, but they fully understand the harm 

caused by corruption. They detest the injustice of rulers enriching 

themselves at the public’s expense, particularly when citizens are 

struggling to make ends meet. 

The popular uprising in Ukraine against then-President 

Yanukovych was in large part a reaction to the corruption in the 

government. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act 

of 2012 provided a sound policy instrument to address human 

rights abuses in Russia. It introduced a measure of accountability 

for the perpetrators of those abuses. 

26

The law carefully targeted visa bans and asset freezes on individuals responsible for gross human rights violations, and it in no way 

harmed ordinary Russians. The Global Magnitsky bill would direct 

the President to extend the same consequences to perpetrators of 

human rights abuses and corrupt officials anywhere in the world. 

The global scope of this bill is a key strength. It means no country is singled out, and it would apply to countries like China and 

Saudi Arabia that tend to escape criticism for their human rights 

abuses because of competing economic or security interests. 

There are a great many others around the world like Sergei 

Magnitsky who have been targeted for abuse because they dare to 

call for justice or freedom. To cite just a few recent examples, Gao 

Yu was sentenced to 7 years in prison in China, really for doing 

her job, for being a forthright and principled journalist. 

Raif Badawi was sentenced in Saudi Arabia to 10 years in prison 

and 1,000 lashes because his Web site hosted criticism of senior religious figures. The Zone Nine bloggers in Ethiopia face a possible 

death sentence on terrorism charges because they documented 

human rights abuses and reported on political prisoners. 

In Azerbaijan, Rasul Jafarov was sentenced to 61⁄2 years for exposing the government’s poor human rights record at a time when 

that government is trying to burnish its international credentials 

and preparing for hosting the European games in June. And also, 

in Azerbaijan, Khadija Ismayilova was imprisoned because she 

dared to investigate and publish news articles about corruption by 

the family of the President Aliyev. The list could go on and on. 

The perpetrators of these and similar abuses are rarely denied 

the benefit of entry to the United States or access to our financial 

system. The Global Magnitsky bill would change that. If passed, 

this bill may elicit some angry responses from some authoritarian 

rulers or complicate U.S. relations with some governments. But 

what can they say? They can’t openly admit that they harbor individuals responsible for human rights abuses and corruption. 

When the United States defends human rights, it usually faces 

resistance—that is expected—but we press ahead because we know 

that what we are doing is right, and we refuse to let authoritarian 

rulers dictate the terms of our relationship with them. 

We can’t accept that the price of security or economic cooperation 

is to look the other way on human rights violations. We need to be 

confident enough both to continue the cooperation with other governments but still to hold human rights abusers and corrupt officials to account. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calingaert follows:]

27


94388d-1.eps
28


94388d-2.eps
29


94388d-3.eps
30


94388d-4.eps
31


94388d-5.eps
32

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimonies, and for 

yours, Dr. Caligaert. 

Let me just ask a few opening questions. This bill is all about 

micro-targeting. It is to ensure that the people who commit the 

crime, while they may not do time, they certainly won’t be able to 

come to the United States and buy and sell assets as well as physically come here. It makes them inadmissible. 

Since I did write the law in 2000 which targeted the forced abortion perpetrators in the People’s Republic of China, I had asked the 

Congressional Research Service to tell us what they think the number of people who were made inadmissible turned out to be, and 

the report came back that it was less than 30, which was an absolute horror to me. 

You know, 14 years later, although the report from the CRS was 

a few years ago, there was a lack of enforcement that I found to 

be appalling. And Rebiya Kadeer in the past has talked about how 

the Uyghurs are targeted for the coercive population control policies as a matter of genocide, not just to thin the herd, to put it in 

a very crude way, because that is how the Chinese Government 

looks at it, but as an act of genocide. 

China gets a pass frequently when it comes to human rights. I 

wrote the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. By law, they had to 

place China on Tier 3 because of its residing on the watch list for 

the requisite number of years. Then, as soon as the government—

in this case the Obama administration—had the opportunity to put 

them back onto the watch list, they did it, which was appalling to 

me. 

And so what I am suggesting is, how do we ensure that the mega 

countries, the big countries, the ones with whom we have large 

amounts of trade, perhaps those that we are afraid of, and I do 

think there is far too much fear at State on the PRC—I mean, it 

is easy to focus on Belarus and others, and I know because I know 

that law, the Belarus Democracy Act. Two hundred-plus people are 

on the list. The European Union parallels our list. Lukashenka’s 

companies and other cronies of his cannot do business here or in 

Europe, which is a great thing, but Belarus is ‘‘this’’ big [makes 

diminitive hand gesture] as compared to China. 

So, please give your thoughts on how do we ensure effectiveness. 

We purposely put a national security waiver in. As Bill Browder 

knows, no national interest waiver, which is one of the weakest of 

the standards. We have reporting to give us reasons why they are 

not taking action. Many will feed into the list of perpetrators that 

the State Department has to look at to put on the list, including 

NGOs. 

It is a big question, because, you know, I have writing human 

rights law all my career, 35 years here, and we always take a pass 

when it comes to the Chinas of this world, but we will focus on 

Honduras, we will focus on something smaller where retaliation is 

not something we are worried about. 

Bill. 

Mr. BROWDER. Having had 2 years of experience with just this 

issue, so the Magnitsky Act was passed in December 2012, and I 

have now been trying since then to get people on the Magnitsky 

33

list. This is an example, not quite as big as China, but Russia is 

a country that the current government hasn’t wanted to upset. 

And there is one provision of this law which is a very, very valuable provision of law, which we have used and I am trying to use 

going forward; there is something called a congressional trigger in 

this law. And the congressional trigger means that the chairman 

and ranking member of a certain number of committees can demand the Treasury Secretary and the State Department to review 

names of people to be sanctioned, and then they have to respond 

within 120 days with a determination of whether they are or are 

not human rights abusers or whether they would want to invoke 

executive privilege or a confidentiality provision. 

But the beauty of this law is that it is the one situation that allows Congress oversight over human rights policy of the administration. And it doesn’t matter whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. Administrations generally 

don’t like to do things, and that is the beauty of Congress. And so 

it doesn’t work perfectly. I have to come to Washington a regular 

basis. I am here this week doing this, but it is better than just 

leaving it to the devices of the administration to do something. 

Mr. SMITH. Anybody else? 

Mr. CALINGAERT. I agree with Bill Browder that I would expect, 

let us say, slow walking from any administration if the bill passes, 

but I think it would change the dynamic of the debate. In the 

human rights field, there is a lot of focus on abuses themselves and 

bringing them to light and condemning them. There are efforts to 

support human rights defenders and acknowledge their courage, 

but there are these missing pieces of really figuring out who is responsible and when and how will justice take place. 

I think there is growing attention in the human rights field, but 

there could be much more of that. I wouldn’t claim this is in any 

way systematic, but just sort of asking experts in the field, both 

about China and Iran, about how difficult would it be to compile 

information on the officials responsible for the kind of gross violations that we are talking about. 

And, you know, some groups are, but my sense is it is probably 

not as systematic as it could be, and I think the opening that the 

bill H.R. 624 provides would really invite this, because it is not just 

an opportunity for Congress to suggest names to add to the visa 

ban list, but also opportunity for human rights organizations to do 

so. 

And I think by opening that door you will get a response, and 

then it puts the onus on the administration to explain who they are 

adding to the list, and if they are keeping people off the list do they 

have good reasoning for that. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could, on the issue of retaliation and commercial 

interests, I expect there will be a significant pushback from the 

Chamber of Commerce perhaps. I am a great believer that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act had a tremendous impact on ensuring 

that our businessmen and women were not tricked or coerced or 

even unwittingly, or perhaps even willingly, become bribers of officials. 

By having that standard, it actually makes it more likely when 

we deal in other countries that we just say, ‘‘Look, I can’t do this. 

34

I can’t break the law.’’ And it helps level the playing field, at least 

for U.S. competitors, but not necessarily international. 

But I am wondering if this will incentivize this bill, more transparency, respect for international human rights, or do you think 

the argument that we will have lodged against it that it will hurt 

commercial interests—I mean, to this day, I am shocked beyond 

words—when Bill Clinton delinked Most Favored Nation status on 

May 26, 1994, with China and human rights, and we lost leverage 

as never before after all of us lauded him for linking it in the first 

place. 

Profits trumped human rights, and I have concerns that that 

pressure will build. I mean, we are seeing it even with the fast 

track proposal that is likely to be up on the floor of the House and 

the Senate for TPP. In two Congresses in a row, House has passed 

my bill called the Vietnam Human Rights Act, all kinds of benchmarks, and Vietnam gets a pass. As they did with the Bilateral 

Trade Agreement, things got worse after the trade agreement, not 

better. 

And so how do we make the case that this will lead to more 

transparency, better practices? Would any of you like to take that 

on? Because I think besides, you know, torture, which we all at this 

witness table, and on this side of the dais as well, are passionate 

about, I think this makes for a better environment for doing business, because corruption does hijack democracy. 

I chair the delegation to OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. One 

year, in Bucharest, the whole theme was corruption and how it hijacks democracies. And I don’t think that is readily understood. So 

if any of you would like to take a shot at that? Bill. 

Mr. BROWDER. Well, I think I am the case study in why this bill 

is important. I was the largest foreign investor in Russia, and the 

corruption of the regime led to them kicking me out of the country 

and trying to seize all of my assets. When a young lawyer intervened, he was then effectively executed in slow motion. And I had 

no protection whatsoever. 

And so, well, I mean, it is kind of absurd for the—it is like almost what I call a Stockholm syndrome for the people who are still 

out there, to be trying to defend their hostage takers by saying 

they shouldn’t do this. I mean, basically, what this does is gives 

businesses a tool to say that if your business is raided by a bunch 

of corrupt officials, there is consequence to those officials. 

And so it is an invalid argument to be making. They want to 

make that argument; I guarantee you. It is both an immoral and 

an invalid argument to say that by creating consequences for 

human rights abuses connected to corruption that that is bad for 

business. It is good for business. It is just not right. 

Mr. SMITH. We will ask the administration to testify, to give 

their views on the bill at our next hearing on this, but we will also 

write to them in the meantime to try to get their input to see if 

they can support this. 

I am afraid that part of the objection will be, and I would appreciate your view on this, they will say the Office of Foreign Assets 

Control does not have sufficient personnel. If past is prologue, we 

will probably get a hyperinflated number as to how many people 

need to be working this. 

35

We got this on the International Megan’s Law, we got it on a 

trafficking bill, we got it on a religious freedom bill. They say people can’t be double- and triple-hatted and make this a part of their 

portfolio. And then CBO comes in and gives us a score that becomes, you know, a killer cost. 

Do we have resources now sufficient, or do we need to be hiring 

more people, do you think? 

Mr. CALINGAERT. I can’t give a detailed assessment. I would 

make a couple of points. First of all, I would hope that if the bill 

passes that Congress would also look into the possibility of authorizing some additional funds for implementing, because even if the, 

let us say, State Department and Treasury Department agree, you 

will want to make sure that they have the people to follow up on 

the names that are submitted from Congress, from others. 

I mean, and, you know, you heard the context of my remarks. I 

think this act, and its implementation, should really receive priority because it can change this much larger dynamic in the world. 

I mean, obviously, we keep pushing on all of the different fronts 

of legislation and the work that human rights groups do, but I have 

a hard time thinking of any other tool out there that really just 

pinpoints the most noxious aspects of the worst regimes out there 

and could really be effective with the tools that we have. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Kadeer. 

Ms. KADEER. Wang Lequan was the Party Secretary of the 

Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and he ordered in July 2009 

the suppression and crackdown, and directly involved in the killing 

of the hundreds of the Uyghurs. And he was of course removed 

from his position, but he was transferred to Beijing, and he is in 

Beijing. 

He was also a corrupt official. He was involved in corruption as 

well. But the government is protecting this individual, so, therefore, now he is in Beijing in a safe place. 

And after Wang Lequan, Zhang Chunxian was elected as the 

Party Secretary of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. He 

was also involved in this crackdown, ongoing crackdown, in Uyghur 

autonomous region. But he was invited to Capitol Hill in 2009 by 

a Senator, so it is a surprise how he was granted visa. 

So there are hundreds and thousands of people involved in these 

kinds of crackdowns in human rights abuses, in corruption, so it 

should start from Capitol Hill, from the Members of the Congress. 

Members of the Congress should be very careful in inviting the 

people who are involved in these kind of corruption and human 

rights abuses. 

This Global Human Rights Accountability Act should also include 

the Chinese officials, especially the regional officials who are directly involved in human rights abuses and killing of the peaceful 

protesters, Uyghurs, in the region, for all of the Chinese officials, 

of course, but the regional officials are very much involved directly 

in these abuses. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Bill. 

Mr. BROWDER. Having dealt with a lot of difficulties and seen 

what the costs are in Russia, I think it is a bad argument for them 

to be saying it is going to cost us, we are going to have to employ 

36

a few more people. I live by the philosophy that a dollar spent 

fighting bad, fighting evil, is worth $100 trying to do good. 

And there are many, many programs that are very expensive 

where we are trying to do good, but this is one of these things 

where in the private sector almost nobody wants to fight bad, because fighting bad then involves retaliation, it involves personal 

risk. I am a perfect example of that risk. 

This is an example where the government needs to do this, because the private sector doesn’t. And so the investment is relatively 

minimal. I believe that it was a $6 million investment in the 2012 

Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. And the amount 

of money that is now being spent to support Ukraine is going to 

be in the billions. 

And so I think that it would be a stupid argument for them to 

make that they can’t employ a few more people to analyze a few 

more documents. It is like saying we can’t afford judges, so we 

should let criminals go free. 

Mr. SMITH. Well put. Unfortunately, there is a vote on the floor 

with 21⁄2 minutes left, and then there might be a followup to this 

vote. I do have some additional questions. I would like to submit 

it to you, and perhaps you could get back to us for the record. 

But thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your testimonies. It certainly has been most helpful and insightful. And I 

look forward to working with you going forward. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

38

f


94388n.eps
39

f


94388m.eps
40

f


94388e.eps
41

Æ


94388f.eps