```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5973-H5980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              RUSSIA PNTR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that 
both Democrats and Republicans, and virtually every American, is 
talking about, and people all over the world are talking about. What is 
that issue? How do we increase global economic growth; and here in this 
country, how do we create more good American jobs.
  It's obviously a key part of the Presidential campaign. We have 
Democrats and Republicans daily stand in the well of the House of 
Representatives and offer proposals, talk about their ideas as to how 
we can create good jobs.
  We have the sad report of 380,000 people who fell off the rolls even 
looking for jobs. We have literally millions of our fellow Americans 
who are looking for jobs, and we have many businesses that are 
struggling.
  One of the great challenges that President Obama put forward was the 
goal of doubling our exports, and we all know that he very much wanted 
to do that. We, as Members of Congress, came together after a decade, 
and we finally were able to successfully pass market-opening 
opportunities for U.S. workers to sell their goods and provide our 
services in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.

                              {time}  1840

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

[[Page H5974]]

was ready for a long time, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we were 
finally able to get the legislation up here from down on Pennsylvania 
Avenue, and we were able to make it happen with strong bipartisan votes 
on all three of those agreements.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, with recognition that opening up markets around 
the world for U.S. goods and services is a key way to create jobs 
here--because, again, as we debated the Panama, Colombia, and Korea 
Trade Agreements, there were Members on both sides of the aisle who 
stood up and argued in behalf of those great agreements--we now have 
before us what I believe is an absolute no-brainer, but tragically it's 
created some political consternation over a lot of confusion.
  We know that the idea of seeing countries join the WTO, the World 
Trade Organization, creates a scenario whereby they have to comply with 
a rules-based trading system. We know that once they enter the WTO, 
there are constraints imposed on them along with the benefits that they 
get for their membership in the WTO. And there was a lot of 
negotiation, a lot of talk about Russia's entry into the World Trade 
Organization. The idea of seeing Russia forced to comply with a system 
that would prevent them from engaging in discriminatory practices, from 
engaging in the kinds of acts that prevent products and services from 
getting into their country, the structure of having to comply with a 
rules-based system is something that membership in the WTO forces and 
creates.
  Again, there were a lot of negotiations. The last was dealing with a 
border dispute with Georgia that was resolved, and that was resolved 
several months ago. That put into place a structure that allowed, on 
August 22--last month--for Russia to enter the World Trade 
Organization.
  Russia is part of the WTO. They are now, having been for over 3 
weeks, a member of the World Trade Organization. That means, as I said, 
tremendous benefits that Russia gets. They have 140 million consumers, 
and there are going to be opportunities for countries around the world 
to export into Russia. We, last year, exported $11 billion of goods and 
services into the WTO. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? We're not at the 
table anymore. We've lost out on our chance to be able to sell our 
goods and services into Russia, that market of 140 million consumers.
  Now, why is it that we've lost out? Well, we haven't been able to 
have a vote here in the Congress on Russia's accession into the WTO. 
Why hasn't that happened? Well, I hate to be political--even though 
this is the time of year when people are especially political--but we 
need to get this sent up here to the Congress so that we can put 
together what I know is going to be broad bipartisan support to make 
this happen. When it comes up, I know that we will see tremendous 
support on the Republican side of the aisle. And I say that because I'm 
particularly proud of the 73 newly elected Republican Members of 
Congress. Of the 87, 73 sent a letter to President Obama saying that 
they believe it very important for us to open up that market, so that 
if we all have this desire of creating more good jobs in the United 
States, let's open up that market to 140 million consumers. Well, 
unfortunately we're still waiting for that.
  And I know that it's not just Republicans who are in support of this, 
Mr. Speaker. We have Democrats who are passionately and strongly in 
support of it. My very dear friend from New York (Mr. Meeks) says he's 
going to join us. We've got other colleagues of ours who are going to 
join us in just a minute. But I want to say that this is something that 
absolutely should be done.
  Now, I talked about the fact that I believe it's a no-brainer, but I 
recognize that there is a lot of political consternation about this 
because it's Russia. We all know that Russia has an absolutely 
horrendous human rights policy. We know that Russia has engaged in 
trying to expand its sphere to other former republics of the Soviet 
Union. We know that there is tremendous corruption and cronyism that 
exists in Russia today, and it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable 
to any of us.
  Now, there are some, Mr. Speaker, who argue that for us to deny the 
U.S. an opportunity to have a vote on PNTR--basically repealing 
Jackson-Vanik and allowing us to proceed with this--would be a good 
thing and it would send a message to Russia, when in fact the exact 
opposite is the case. There is nothing that we could do as the United 
States of America that would be a greater boost to supporting the 
perpetuation of the aberrant behavior that we have seen from Russia 
than for us to deny a vote on permanent normal trade relations that 
would see us, then, have access to that market.
  I said that last year we exported $11 billion of goods and services 
to Russia. If we could pass PNTR here, projections are that by 2017 we 
would double that from $11 billion to $22 billion. Now, what does that 
mean? It means more good U.S. jobs. And what does it mean? It means an 
expansion of our American values. It means, again, this forced 
compliance with a rules-based trading system. It means creating a 
structure that will allow us to undermine the kind of political 
repression that exists in Russia.
  Our sticking our head in the sand would be just plain wrong. Now, 
those are not just my words, Mr. Speaker. We, on the 12th of March, 
received a letter from seven of the most prominent and outspoken human 
rights activists in Russia. They, in a letter, an open letter that was 
sent to those of us who are considering this issue, said the following. 
Now this is from these very, very prominent dissidents and activists, 
some of whom I'm sure have been imprisoned. They've had long histories 
of being opposition leaders to Vladimir Putin. So in the letter that 
they sent to us, Mr. Speaker, they said:

       Some politicians in the United States argue that the 
     removal of Russia from Jackson-Vanik would help no one but 
     the current Russian undemocratic political regime. That 
     assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious problems 
     with democracy and human rights in modern Russia, the 
     persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment 
     does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings 
     direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in 
     international markets for higher value-added products, 
     leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of 
     development and preventing it from transforming into a 
     modern, diversified, and more high-tech economy. This 
     helps Mr. Putin and his cronies.

  At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that Jackson-
Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish 
Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken Russia's political future, 
hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic 
aspirations.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to include this letter from the seven 
dissidents in the Record in its entirety, underscoring how critically 
important it is for us to take this action so that we can boost those 
who are struggling to improve the plight of those Russians who are 
seeing their human rights jeopardized based on the current policies.
                                                   March 12, 2012.

                   Remove Russia From Jackson-Vanik!

       Removal of Russia from the provisions of the Cold War era 
     Jackson-Vanik Amendment has long been an issue of political 
     debate. Although the outdated nature and irrelevance of the 
     amendment is widely recognized, some politicians in the 
     United States argue that the removal of Russia from Jackson-
     Vanik would help no one but the current Russian undemocratic 
     political regime.
       That assumption is flat wrong. Although there are obvious 
     problems with democracy and human rights in modern Russia, 
     the persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment 
     does not help to solve them at all. Moreover, it brings 
     direct harm. It limits Russia's competitiveness in 
     international markets for higher value-added products, 
     leaving Russia trapped in its current petro-state model of 
     development and preventing it from transforming into a 
     modern, diversified and more hi-tech economy.
       This helps Mr Putin and his cronies, who continue to 
     benefit from control over raw materials exports and who have 
     no real interest in diversifying Russia's economy. During the 
     period of their rule, dependence on oil and gas exports has 
     become even greater than before. Needless to say, hanging in 
     a petro-state limbo prevents the emergence in Russia of an 
     independent and advanced middle class, which should be the 
     main source of demand for pro-democracy political 
     transformation in the future. More and more talented and 
     creative Russians are leaving the country because there are 
     better opportunities for finding good jobs in hi-tech 
     industries abroad.
       At the end of the day, those who defend the argument that 
     Jackson-Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in 
     order to punish Putin's anti-democratic regime only darken 
     Russia's political future, hamper its economic development, 
     and frustrate its democratic aspirations.
       Jackson-Vanik is also a very useful tool for Mr Putin's 
     anti-American propaganda

[[Page H5975]]

     machine: it helps him to depict the United States as hostile 
     to Russia, using outdated cold-war tools to undermine 
     Russia's international competitiveness.
       We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition, 
     strongly stand behind efforts to remove Russian from the 
     provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Jackson-Vanik is 
     not helpful in any way--neither for promotion of human rights 
     and democracy in Russia, nor for the economic interests of 
     its people. Sanctions which harm the interests of ordinary 
     Russians are unhelpful and counter-productive--much more 
     effective are targeted sanctions against specific officials 
     involved in human rights abuse, like those named in the 
     Senator Benjamin Cardin's list in the Sergey Magnitsky case 
     (Senate Bill 1039).
       It is time to remove Russia from Jackson-Vanik!
     Sergey Aleksashenko,
       Political Council member, People's Freedom Party (Parnas).
     Alexander Lebedev,
       Independent businessman and politician.
     Vladimir Milov,
       Leader, ``Democratic Choice'' movement.
     Alexey Navalny,
       Attorney and civil activist.
     Boris Nemtsov,
       Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas), 
     ``Solidarity'' movement.
     Ilya Ponomarev,
       State Duma member, Just Russia Party.
     Vladimir Ryzhkov,
       Co-chairman, People's Freedom Party (Parnas).

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

       As Governors, we know from firsthand experience in our 
     States that expanding opportunities for international trade 
     and attracting foreign investment are essential to promoting 
     U.S. economic growth and creating new and better jobs right 
     here in America. Russia's impending membership in the World 
     Trade Organization offers a significant opportunity to 
     increase our trade and investment with the world's ninth-
     largest economy.

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

                              {time}  1850

  To me, this is a pretty simple thing. But I recognize that some might 
believe that it's a reward to Russia and to Vladimir Putin, and I stand 
with them for all the reasons that they're opposing it. But I argue 
that the reasons that they and I oppose the actions of Vladimir Putin 
underscore why we need to ensure that the U.S. is at the table.
  And so, with the President having stated that he has this goal of 
doubling U.S. exports, and we've got 140 million consumers there who 
very much want to have access to U.S.-manufactured products, to our 
goods and services, we need to get it done.
  And why don't I begin, since I see a number of my colleagues here, by 
recognizing my very good friend from New York (Mr. Meeks), who has 
joined us. As I recognize Mr. Meeks, I'd like to say that a number of 
Members have come up to me from both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, 
and indicated that they very much wanted to be able to be here this 
evening to talk about this.
  With that, I would like to yield time to my very good friend from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend from California 
(Mr. Dreier). And he's correct. This is a bipartisan bill that makes 
common sense, just common sense that we get this done.
  So, as I stand here today, I say to you, it is the right thing for 
America, it is the right thing for businesses in America, and it's the 
right thing for us to create jobs in America, passing PNTR for Russia.
  Mr. Dreier said Russia is the ninth largest market in the world and 
wants the United States-manufactured goods and services, and U.S. 
companies are eager to supply Russia's rapidly expanding consumer 
market. So why are we waiting to make this happen?
  While we wait, the failure of the United States Congress to grant 
permanent normal trade relations to Russia has compromised the 
competitiveness of United States businesses, hindered the increase of 
export of goods and services, and stood in the way of growth for United 
States domestic jobs.
  On August 22, the Russian Federation joined the World Trade 
Organization, concluding nearly 20 years of negotiations and 
discussions with the United States and about 150 other WTO members. And 
during these years, it wasn't easy, but Russia did complete numerous 
reforms of its businesses and trade practices and of its legal system 
to conform to the norms of the international community and to the WTO 
rules. These reforms will benefit--not hurt, benefit--U.S. companies. 
It puts them in a rules-based system.
  Now, since August 22, Russia has significantly opened its markets to 
more than 150 WTO trading partners, with the sole exception--the sole 
exception--the United States of America. That means that, since August 
22, businesses from more than 150 WTO member countries with, again, the 
sole exception of those of the United States, have conducted trade with 
Russian counterparts protected by the WTO dispute resolution 
mechanisms. And while we wait to act, U.S. businesses are at a 
competitive disadvantage.
  Business analysts say that the U.S. exporters currently underperform 
with respect to Russia. They predict that with PNTR, U.S. trade with 
Russia could admittedly double over the next 5 years.
  Now, I'm from New York, and I just look at what it means for New 
York, just a small piece. In New York, where exports to Russia nearly 
reached a half a billion dollars in 2001, half a billion dollars, now, 
that's a big deal. But when you consider the transportation, the 
shipping, the customs brokers, the airport personnel jobs involved, the 
potential economic impact is tremendous.
  Clearly, increased trade is good for New York, but it's also good for 
every State in the United States and stands to benefit every State. 
Every State, I repeat, stands to benefit from the new opportunity to 
sell more American goods and services to Russia through PNTR. So, I say 
we've got to get it right.
  Let me just conclude by saying this. I also am the ranking Democrat 
on Europe, and as I go and talk to a number of the nations who used to 
be part of the USSR, some who still have some conflicts with Russia, 
one of the things that I want to talk to them about, well, what do you 
think?
  A, are you happy to be in the WTO? They all said yes.
  B, should we get rid of Jackson-Vanik and make sure that we're able 
to trade? They all said yes, that it sends the right message and it 
compels Russia to play by some rules, and we then have a referee in 
which to make sure they do that.
  So I'm hopeful that we get this together and, before we leave here, 
we pass PNTR for Russia, because every single day that we don't, we're 
losing out on creating jobs here in America.
  I look forward to working with you, and hopefully we'll get this 
done.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful 
comments, and I would just like to underscore this notion of doubling 
our exports. Taking that level from $11 billion in the next 5 years to 
$22 billion will inure to the benefit of New York, of California, of 
Minnesota, of Louisiana, and it will provide benefits all across this 
country.
  And at the same time, it will help us deal with this human rights 
question, which is such an important one, because I haven't talked 
about it, but obviously including the legislation that deals with the 
very tragic death of Sergey Magnitsky, who was a lawyer in Russia who 
was raising questions and, basically, a whistleblower of raising 
concerns about the behavior of the Russian Government. He was left to 
die in prison. And we, with this legislation,

[[Page H5976]]

will be ensuring that those who are responsible are brought to justice 
and that it never happens again.
  And so I think that, all the way around, this can be a win-win for 
the cause of human rights and for the cause of creating jobs right 
here, and I thank my friend from New York for his thoughtful 
contribution.
  We're very pleased to be joined, Mr. Speaker, by my good friend from 
Minnesota, with whom I've been privileged to travel and has a great 
understanding and grasp of the issue of globalization and how opening 
up new markets around the world will benefit his constituents. And I'm 
happy to yield to my friend.

  Mr. PAULSEN. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  And let me just first say, with the bipartisan support of this 
important issue, which I will concur in comments from Mr. Meeks, but I 
want to say I want to thank Mr. Dreier, the chairman, because I think 
we're having these types of discussions on the floor today thanks to 
his many years of leadership to educate all of us in the House on a 
bipartisan basis about the benefits of trade, about selling American, 
and his leadership in establishing this Free Trade Caucus has been so 
valuable to me as a newer Member. And I know that our country is in 
great gratitude, and we're going to miss your leadership down the road, 
Mr. Chairman, in the future.
  Let me just say that I also want to rise in strong support for 
passing this permanent normal trade relations status with Russia. We 
must pass this legislation to give American manufacturers, American 
farmers, and American service providers a fair chance to compete and 
then win and sell more of their goods in the markets of Russia.

                              {time}  1900

  Russia joined the WTO already. They already joined the World Trade 
Organization back on August 22. They've already begun to open their 
markets to the rest of the world, so now there are about 150 countries, 
except the United States, that can fully benefit from much better 
access to the Russian marketplace. Additionally, all of these nations, 
except the United States, can benefit from Russia's WTO entrance 
commitments, including stronger international property protections, 
greater transparency, recourse to the WTO's dispute settlement 
procedures if Russia fails to meet its commitments.
  Until Congress approves PNTR, the United States cannot claim all the 
benefits that go along with Russia's entrance into the WTO membership 
obligations. From the President's Export Council, we've already heard 
some great statistics that are real. They are real, Mr. Speaker. They 
estimate that U.S. exports to Russia will double and triple over the 
next 5 years if we pass PNTR, adding jobs here in the United States. 
These are jobs in manufacturing; these are service jobs; these are jobs 
in high-tech; and all across the spectrum of other industries. There is 
no doubt that Russia's demand for foreign services and goods is 
growing. This is a country with a population of 142 million people. It 
has got a rapidly growing middle class.
  I will speak in particular about a company, Medtronic, which is a 
medical device manufacturer based in Minnesota, my home State. It's one 
of the companies that will lose out if we don't pass permanent normal 
trade relations soon. And Russia, as I mentioned, is one of the 
fastest-growing markets. It is also a fast-growing market for medical 
devices and medical technology. It's a key player in the Russian 
medical device market. In fact, since 2005, there have been 10,000 
Russian health care professionals who have been trained in Medtronic 
technologies. In the last 5 years, these Medtronic technologies and 
therapies have benefited about 70,000 patients across Russia.
  So Russia has now agreed to substantial tariff reductions for 
imported medical devices. Russian tariffs on these products will 
average about 5 percent. It is going to give U.S. medical technology 
companies the opportunity to significantly expand into the Russian 
market. Meanwhile, Russia PNTR does not require any tariff reductions 
or market liberalization by the United States. Yet all of this will go 
away and all of this will be at risk if we do not act in passing PNTR 
with Russia in the near future here.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the approval of Russia PNTR is a 
critical step towards ensuring that U.S. companies can benefit from 
Russia's WTO ascension and remain competitive in the markets today. 
Until we do that, all other WTO countries will continue to grab market 
share, market share that is much more difficult to grab back in today's 
global, competitive environment. So, when I think of a competitor and a 
company like Medtronic that's based in Minnesota, we want to make sure 
that their workers and their ingenuity and their innovation is going to 
continue to grow and prosper so we can sell American across the world. 
In other words, U.S. companies are being left behind as our competitors 
continue to grow in this very profitable market of medical devices, 
losing ground we may never be able to make up.
  With other countries gaining this head start now in the Russian 
market, our time is running out, so this PNTR really benefits the 
United States. I hope that we act next week, Mr. Chairman, before we 
head back for the election season because this is critical for jobs; 
it's bipartisan; the President can claim great ownership and credit for 
this as well if we act soon. I will do all I can to continue to work 
with you, Mr. Chairman, to move this forward as well.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I thank my friend for his 
very strong commitment to this.
  I would like to expand on this Medtronic example for a moment, if I 
could, because we talk about big pictures; we talk about numbers; we 
say, yes, we want to create jobs, but the example of Medtronic is very 
clearly a specific opportunity.
  I wonder if my friend has any examples or if he has talked to 
executives at Medtronic about the benefits of opening up that market in 
Russia, because it's true. We are horrified at the crony capitalism 
that exists in Russia, and we are horrified at the human rights 
violations that exist, but there are also many very, very good, 
dedicated, hardworking Russian people who would like to have an 
opportunity to have access to many of the products that are made right 
here in the United States. I know my friend and I have traveled around 
the globe, and one of the things that consistently comes forward is 
people saying we want to be able to purchase goods from the United 
States of America, goods manufactured in the United States of America.
  I wonder if my friend might tell us a little bit about the success of 
Medtronic and what has happened and exactly what benefit we would see 
created for jobs here and also for the consumers in Russia.

  Mr. PAULSEN. I will just say that, whether it's a company like a 
Medtronic or an agricultural-based company like a Cargill, which is 
based in my district in Minnesota as well, clearly there is the 
opportunity to sell American knowing that 95 percent of the world's 
consumers are outside of the United States. This opportunity in Russia 
with huge market share is going to mean more medical devices being sold 
in Russia. These are life-improving, these are life-saving 
technologies, and there is no doubt in a competitive environment that 
European companies are trying to access that market and are moving 
forward to do that. So a world-class leader like a Medtronic is going 
to have a vacuum unless it's able to move forward and unless Congress 
acts to give permanent normal trade relations.
  Mr. DREIER. In reclaiming my time, my friend is absolutely right, and 
I just want to again express appreciation to his commitment to our 
Trade Working Group, which is on a wide range of issues. We've been 
able to focus on creating jobs for millions of Americans as we have 
sought to recognize the benefits of exports and imports as well when it 
comes to improving the standard of living and the quality of life for 
our fellow Americans. He has been very dedicated to his constituents, 
and I appreciate your participation this evening, too.
  I am also very pleased to see that we are joined by my very good 
friend from Louisiana, another hardworking member of the House Ways and 
Means Committee and someone who understands the world extraordinarily 
well. I would like to recognize my friend Mr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Chairman Dreier.

[[Page H5977]]

  Let me say thank you, first of all, for your tremendous service to 
our country in your capacity as a Member of Congress and as chairman of 
the Rules Committee. I want to thank you for your leadership on 
international trade and in promoting America's role in international 
trade. I also want to thank you for your friendship and for your wise 
counsel. I've enjoyed the time I've been able to travel with you.
  Mr. DREIER. We've still got months to go.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. We still do, but I'll say this: I'll miss having you 
here, and I look forward to keeping in touch in the future.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely, we should do that.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you for organizing this round of speeches tonight 
to talk about this crucial piece of legislation that we need to pass 
because what it will do will be to ensure a level playing field for 
U.S. workers, U.S. farmers, employers who are competing for business in 
Russia.
  Now, we all know that, until Russia came into the WTO, it was a very 
difficult place to get market access for our businesses, especially, 
certainly, large companies, but small companies, mid-sized firms. I 
believe it is vital for Congress to grant Russia permanent normalized 
trade relations by removing them from the Jackson-Vanik amendment. If 
we don't do this, if we don't terminate that provision and grant PNTR, 
Russia will deny or could certainly deny U.S. exporters some of the 
market-opening concessions it has made to join the WTO, and the United 
States would not be able to challenge those actions in a rule-based 
system through the WTO's dispute settlement system.
  This is critically important, especially if we talk about small- and 
mid-sized firms that are in manufacturing that want to export. They 
need that kind of rules-based system to work within. Otherwise, they 
don't have the recourse to fight protracted battles in a difficult 
market like Russia's.
  Of course, it's with some trepidation that we undertake this as we 
know that the relationship between our two countries is somewhat 
tenuous. We know very well about Russia's human rights abuses. We know 
about the poor respect for the rule of law. We've heard extensive 
stories about the corruption. The reality, though, is that Russia has 
now become a full-fledged member of the World Trade Organization, and 
to avoid putting the U.S. at a disadvantage, we need to move forward 
and grant permanent normalized trade relations.
  I'll say this: that the best thing we can do as a country from a 
foreign policy standpoint with our relationship with Russia is to move 
forward with normalizing trade relations with Russia. If you want to 
see political reforms in Russia, if you want to clean up the 
corruption, if you want to see the rule of law flourish in Russia, our 
commercial relationship with Russia is critical because it will help 
build a strong, vibrant middle class in Russia, which will help bring 
about political reforms there and help overall in the world of 
security. At the same time, it's a win-win because this grants the 
United States' businesses and farmers access to a market which will 
help create good-paying, high-paying jobs here in the U.S.
  PNTR will also make permanent the trade status the United States has 
extended to Russia on an annual basis for more than a decade. So we're 
not doing anything new. We're permanently normalizing this, which 
essentially grants Russia the same access to the U.S. market that all 
of our other trading partners enjoy.

                              {time}  1910

  This is nothing new or anything special for Russia. Rather, it is far 
more important for the United States, for our manufacturers, our 
service providers, our agriculture interests who are seeking open 
access into the Russian market.
  In an attempt to continue a level playing field for international 
trade, the WTO requires members to extend normal trade relations to all 
other WTO members on an unconditional basis, unless a country does not 
want to apply WTO rules to another country. After 18 years of 
negotiations, Russia officially became a member of the WTO on August 22 
of this year. Currently, the United States has a condition that is 
placed on Russia. It dates back to the 1970s when the Soviet Union had 
restrictive immigration policies preventing Jews from leaving its 
territory.
  Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. 
However, since 1992, the United States has certified annually that 
Russia complies with the Jackson-Vanik amendment's provisions, and we 
have conferred normal trade relations on an annual basis to Russia. 
Only by graduating Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, making 
these normal trade relations permanent will the U.S. be able to be in 
full compliance with its WTO obligations, enabling U.S. businesses and 
farmers to enjoy all the trade concessions and commitments that Russia 
has made in order to join the WTO.
  Mr. DREIER. I'll just reclaim my time there to underscore the very 
important point that my friend has made, Mr. Speaker.
  We all know that the intentions behind the Jackson-Vanik amendment 
were very good. We saw horrendous policies from the Soviet Union in a 
wide range of areas. Virtually everything they did was bad as the 
Soviet Union, a totalitarian country. But the denial of opportunities 
for Jews to emigrate, especially going back to Israel, is what led to 
that amendment to the 1974 agreement.
  I would like to ask my friend to repeat again--he said that we've had 
complete compliance that we've been able to certify for now exactly two 
long decades since 1992. That's 20 years ago, 1992 to 2012. For 20 
years, we've had annual certification because there has been an 
opportunity in Russia since, thank God, the Soviet Union came down with 
the work of so many people. We saw it come down, and we now have seen 
really what you would call a Cold War-era provision that has been left 
in place for two decades.
  Why in the world would we still have this? It seems to me that it's 
the right thing for us to do to ensure that we sweep this aside so that 
we can move ahead with these market-opening opportunities. I assume 
that's the point the gentleman was making.
  I'm happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. That's exactly right. This is a Cold War relic, this 
amendment that was put into place. The gentleman is correct that since 
1992, we've on an annual basis waived its provisions, but we now need 
to move forward. The world has changed.
  As we look to move forward with expanding market access for our 
farmers, our businesses, especially small and mid-sized firms, it's 
critical that we grant permanent normalized trade relations if we're 
going to maintain U.S. competitiveness globally. Right now we're 
slipping. We're losing our competitive edge.
  A country like China, for instance, has consummated well over 100 
trade agreements just in the last couple of years. We have done three, 
and it took us 5 years since the Bush administration to put in place 
three relatively small trade agreements. We need to take advantage of 
the WTO structure. And with Russia coming on board as the ninth largest 
economy, we have a huge opportunity to promote American competitiveness 
and American business interests at no cost to us. Staying out of this 
hurts us, and that's why we need to move forward.
  If we don't act to grant PNTR to Russia, our Nation's dedicated 
workforce, our determined business community, we'll be left at a 
competitive disadvantage, vis-a-vis our foreign competitors. Given the 
slow growth of our economy and the continued high unemployment rate, we 
can't allow this to happen. And with Europe struggling, this is an 
important market to help with global growth by helping U.S. growth and 
jobs in the United States.
  I was a cosponsor of the vital legislation to grant PNTR to Russia, 
to place additional reporting requirements, of course, on both Russia 
and the U.S. administration. These conditions ensure that Russia 
implements its WTO obligations and those obligations are enforced.
  Some will raise the question of, Wait a minute, we had a problem with 
China when they came onto the WTO, and we're still struggling with 
that. We have learned from that process, and we have additional 
safeguards in this agreement that will help make sure

[[Page H5978]]

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

  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time just to underscore this point, this 
notion that the WTO, which is an entity that stems from an agreement 
that the postwar leaders put together in 1947 called the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the idea behind that was to diminish 
tariff and nontariff barriers. When we saw in the early 1990s the WTO 
put into place, the idea is to see issues like intellectual property 
violations, which we know are rampant around the world, in Russia, and 
we have intellectual property violations here in the United States, as 
well. We see lots of retaliatory action that is taken. With the 
structure of the WTO, there is pressure to live with a rules-based 
trading system to deal with these kinds of corrupt practices that go on 
with great regularity.
  I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. If we're going to work through these commercial types 
of agreements and eliminate the corruptions, the abuses, the 
intellectual property theft, we have to make the rules-based system 
work. And the WTO framework which basically grew out of the general 
agreement on tariffs and trade in the 1940s is that mechanism, and it 
works. That's what allows us to make a claim against China, for 
instance, when they're doing abusive practices. It is an equalizer. It 
basically puts in place a framework that ensures that trade is 
conducted fairly and openly. That's what U.S. workers and U.S. farmers 
are looking for.
  It's also very important as a critical piece to maintaining global 
security. If we focus on international economics, commercial 
relationships through open navigation of the seas, open trade, we're 
going to see less conflict in the world. I think this is critical from 
a security standpoint, and it's critical from a standpoint of economic 
prosperity for the United States. As the United States continues to 
face economic challenges, our national exports have remained relatively 
strong. They've probably kept us out of a recession over the last 
several quarters.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I think the gentleman makes a 
very important point about what I like to refer to as the 
interdependence of economic and political liberalization.
  We know people in this country are hurting. We all have constituents 
who are having a difficult time keeping a roof over their head, keeping 
food on the table. People have lost their jobs and their homes. We know 
it's been very tough. We know again that creating markets for these 
workers is very important. So seeing the standard of living improve 
throughout the rest of the world creates new markets for us, and it 
leads to political liberalization.
  As we see that the many people in Russia who are suffering have 
opportunities to improve their quality of life and their standard of 
living by buying U.S. goods and services, it seems to me that's going 
to lead towards greater pressure for political reform, to address these 
human rights problems, to address the crony capitalism that exists, to 
address the kind of outrageous behavior that we see with great 
regularity from Vladimir Putin.
  I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I agree with that.
  Any of these things that will help promote the development of a 
middle class in these other countries, whether it be China or Russia in 
this particular class, creates a new consumer class for American goods.
  Now, we're all patriotic. We want to buy American. I love to go to 
the store, and I'll buy something; and if the label says ``Made in 
America,'' I feel good. I feel good about it. Most Americans do. But by 
God, I want a Russian mother to buy something on the shelf that says 
``Made in America.'' We need to sell America, sell American goods 
overseas. That's where 95 percent of the world's consumers are, and our 
economy has been too much mired in domestic consumption at the expense 
of not looking into the outside world to export American-made goods to 
these consumers who live outside the United States.
  By normalizing our trade relationship with Russia, we will create the 
mechanism to do that with Russia. This will increase critical sales of 
American goods and services to Russia. Not only that, we will create 
very good high-paying jobs here in the United States. This is 
definitely a win-win situation.
  We spoke about Russia being the ninth largest world economy, 
importing more than $400 billion in goods and services. And as some of 
my colleagues may be aware, Louisiana, my State--it's a small State, 
but it's seventh among the 50 States in total exports because of our 
location on the Gulf of Mexico and our waterways and our ports.

                              {time}  1920

  In the first quarter of 2012, Louisiana farmers and small businesses 
exported nearly $14.25 billion in goods and services to the rest of the 
world. In fact, in 2011, Louisiana exported $135 million worth of goods 
to Russia, which created a lot of good jobs in Louisiana.
  Louisiana was a top supplier of PVC plastics to Russia in 2011, with 
$21.4 million in exports, but exporters in the EU and in China still 
accounted for more than 60 percent of Russian imports of that 
particular material. We have an opportunity to grow this if we grant 
this kind of permanent, normalized trade relations.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, just to underscore again, PVC is that 
material that's used in sprinklers. And I see this PVC material. I have 
been very familiar with it for many years.
  What my friend is saying is there is an opportunity for exports to 
exceed the $24 million coming from Louisiana to Russia, but right now 
we're seeing other parts of the world transcend that. By virtue of the 
fact that they have access to that consumer market in Russia, it's 
denying the people of Louisiana from being able to see an increase in 
the level of exports of PVC material into Russia.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. That's exactly right. Louisiana produces a PVC plastic, 
or looking for opportunities to get into that market, and yet they're 
being superseded by countries in Europe and China.
  In fact, Russia, when it joined the WTO, agreed to reduce its average 
tariffs on plastic products from 10 percent to 6.2 percent. If we don't 
do this, we're going to be subject to higher tariffs, putting us at a 
major competitive disadvantage, and our foreign competitors will take 
advantage of this. Again, we'll have the mechanisms in place, if we do 
grant trade relations, to have a dispute mechanism in place to ensure 
that Russia keeps its commitments to our workers, our businesses back 
here at home.
  Now, there's no reason not to move forward with this, and I hope that 
we can see some action on this relatively soon, because as each day 
kicks by, we are losing competitiveness.
  One last tidbit of information, Louisiana doesn't have large Fortune 
500 companies. We have a couple, but we have a lot of small- and mid-
sized firms that are manufacturers, and we are a leader in 
manufacturing on the small scale in the energy sector with equipment 
and services that are vital to energy production, energy security 
globally.
  These companies would love to get into the Russian market, to have 
the right protections of law so that they could sell their goods and 
services. This would lead to a lot of economic activity in Louisiana. 
It would help, you know, create good-paying jobs once again, help 
promote our energy sector, development and manufacturing in the energy 
sector, of which Louisiana--and the United States, frankly--has been a 
leader.
  Congress must continue to support these kinds of agreements to boost 
our economy here at home to create job opportunities, good-paying job 
opportunities right here at home. That's why it's so important to move 
forward on this.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation for the 
very thoughtful remarks. The dedication that my friend has shown to his 
Louisiana constituents and the American people is, really, very, very 
respected in this institution. And I want him to know how much, Mr. 
Speaker, I do appreciate his understanding of what it's going to take 
to create more jobs in Louisiana for the people there who are 
struggling and working so hard.
  One issue that I wanted to mention, I talked about it earlier, but I 
think is

[[Page H5979]]

very important, and it's really what's led to people who are in 
opposition to this, and that is this question of human rights. We have 
horror story after horror story.
  I have stood in this well and several times talked about the 
relationship that I developed with a man who is currently in prison in 
Russia, and this man's name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was in the 
energy business, a company called Yukos. He was one of the most 
successful, dedicated, and hardworking Russians. He was one of the 
greatest philanthropists in Russia, giving huge sums of money to 
support many, many charitable causes.
  But, Mr. Speaker, he was guilty of one thing and one thing only: He 
was not a supporter of Vladimir Putin. And he sat in my office in the 
Rules Committee, right upstairs here, and, having visited him in Moscow 
and then having him visit me here in the Capitol. He said that he was 
nervous, and he was concerned that he was going to face some 
consequences for his opposition to Vladimir Putin.
  Today I'm embarrassed to say how I reacted. I laughed. I said, The 
Soviet Union no longer exists. We have moved to a country that is 
independent, free, strong, vibrant, moving away from corruption, and, 
you, Mr. Khodorkovsky--Mikhail, I was calling him then--I said, You 
are, in fact, one of the most successful people in the country. There's 
no way that you would face that kind of threat.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, tragically, we saw Mikhail Khodorkovsky jailed for 
7 years, and then we saw an extension, another 7-year extension of his 
sentence. I will tell you that that is one of the reasons, because of 
the dedication that I have to the name of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who at 
this moment is suffering in a prison in Russia, it is for that reason 
that I want us to take every step that we can to ensure that we bring 
about the kind of reform and the change that is essential.
  What we've done in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is we have dealt 
with a specific case where a man died. Sergey Magnitsky was relatively 
young. He was in his thirties, a lawyer who raised questions and 
concerns about the behavior of Vladimir Putin's Russia. For that, he 
was sentenced to prison. He was beaten, tortured, and left to die.
  That has raised concern here in the United States and around the 
world. That kind of action is not acceptable, and we have to do 
everything that we can to ensure that those who are responsible are 
brought to justice and that it never, ever happens again.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that in this legislation we have the 
so-called Magnitsky bill, which was reported unanimously out of our 
House Foreign Affairs Committee. This measure has passed the Senate. We 
need to see the melding of these. We need to see this put together and 
passed so that we can say that we're going to expand our American 
values, creating jobs in the United States by opening up this market 
and, at the same time, saying we will ensure that whoever is 
responsible for this kind of outrageous behavior is brought to justice. 
We're seeing, obviously, horrendous human rights violations take place 
around the globe.
  Yesterday morning I stood here to talk about our great, great 
Ambassador, an amazing Foreign Service Officer who represented the 
United States in Damascus, Jerusalem, and other spots in the world in 
his dedicated career. Tragically, Chris Stevens was killed, as we all 
know.
  We are seeing a very, very dangerous world, and that's why it's 
important for us to stand up and take action, and that's exactly what 
this measure calling for the U.S. to be at the table with Russia by 
granting PNTR will do.
  Again, my friend has said it perfectly. Mr. Paulsen said it. Mr. 
Meeks said it. My colleague, I know, in his talking points that I 
submitted for the record, Mr. Moran, would have said it. Kevin Brady, 
the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee had to go to a meeting, but he 
very much wanted to be a part of our presentation this evening, and he 
passionately believes that this is the way for us to most effectively 
deal with the very, very serious problems that we have on economic 
growth and on human rights violations. I hope, I hope that we will be 
able to see passage as soon as possible.
  Again, I know that this is the time of year, as I said at the very 
outset, just weeks before the election, to be very partisan. This is 
something that we can have a bipartisan victory on.
  That's why, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to implore President Obama to get 
engaged on this. I know that there are many issues, again, looking at 
Africa and the Middle East. I know he is campaigning in his quest to be 
reelected. This is something that Democrats and Republicans in the 
House will pass with strong support if he will get engaged and work 
with us, work with us to ensure that we can bring this together.

                              {time}  1930

  And so I hope very much that he will do that in the coming days and 
weeks to underscore his goal of creating jobs.
  I'd like to further yield to my friend. It looks like he'd like to 
offer something.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the chairman for yielding some time back to me. 
I share his sentiments about the situation with human rights and 
liberty. America has always been the beacon of liberty--individual 
liberty. And it's also been the hope of the world with regard to human 
rights. And we have to understand, the American public has to 
understand that one of the most important tools that we have as a 
Nation is our economic strength. And it comes from each and every one 
of us in this country--from a plumber to a mechanic or someone engaged 
in small manufacturing, our farmers. That economic strength comes from 
each and every one of us. It wells up into the mighty country that we 
have.
  We think about American might in terms of military might. Yes, it's a 
great and wondrous thing, but our economic strength is even more 
important. And the way we use that to influence events in the world to 
help promote liberty, to promote human rights is to engage in trade. 
And the surest way that we're going to help promote changes in Russia 
for the better is to help that middle class. And by engaging in trade, 
that middle class will be stronger, it will be wealthier, it will want 
to engage; and that will lead to serious political reforms.
  The last thing I want to say is I share your sentiments with regard 
to Ambassador Stevens. He was a wonderful man. He served his country in 
many hotspots, difficult places. He was fearless. And I would also say 
that we oftentimes talk about our military men and women and we put 
them up on the pedestal, where we should, rightly so, but we forget to 
talk about our diplomats and our foreign service officers who do the 
same sorts of things, putting themselves in harm's way in these very 
tough places around the world. They are extremely patriotic. They do 
their duty. They make us all proud. We lost a great patriot with 
Ambassador Stevens.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful 
contribution on that. As we talk about human rights violations and the 
kind of threat that exists to those lovers of freedom around the world, 
I will say that just a couple of hours ago I talked to a friend of mine 
who is Libyan. In fact, his father was the lead opposition for four 
decades to Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. And he was in tears in our 
conversation, saying that the people of Libya owe everything to the 
United States of America. He said Benghazi would have been completely 
lost were it not for the United States of America and what it is that 
we did to bring about the kind of liberation that they so desperately 
needed, having been repressed for 42 years under Muammar Qadhafi.
  And he went on to say that as we look at Libya, it's important to 
note that the tragic murder of Ambassador Stevens did not come from the 
people of Libya. It came from individuals, a few individuals. He said 
the people of Libya love the American people and revere the American 
people. I suspect that as we're talking about Russian PNTR that the 
same thing exists in Russia. Because they're living with great 
oppression. They're living with what is little more than an 
authoritarian dictatorship with the kind of crony capitalism and the 
violations of human rights that we're speaking of. Mr. Speaker, the 
people of Russia--and I know many Russians; we all do--have great 
respect and love for us as well.
  So, again, our goal is to bring an end to repressive policies and 
use, as my

[[Page H5980]]

friend so eloquently said, the economic strength of the United States 
that is exemplified in every American who is working in whatever 
capacity at all to see our economy grow. Because we're the only 
complete superpower left in the world today, the only complete 
superpower. By virtue of that, I mean militarily, economically, and 
geopolitically. And we have to step up to the plate and continue to 
exercise that strong leadership role; and passage of permanent normal 
trade relations, taking this step will go a long way towards doing just 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my friends who participated. And I know, 
as I've asked for general leave, others who wanted to be here who were 
unable to are going to be joining in submitting statements for the 
Record.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underscore the importance of 
immediate approval legislation to repeal Jackson-Vanik establish U.S. 
permanent normal trade relations with Russia.
  There is demonstrated and widespread bipartisan support for Russian 
PNTR among our colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate. And 
we cannot and should not wait to pass this legislation which will 
greatly benefit American business and their employees as they seek 
entre into the expanding Russian market.
  We all share serious concerns with the ongoing human and political 
rights situation in the Russian Federation, but the maintenance 
Jackson-Vanik does nothing to address those concerns.
  What it does do is deny the United States and our business the 
ability to fully take advantage of the benefits of Russian accession to 
the WTO both in terms of market access and trade enforcement.
  PNTR will provide the United States with important benefits at no 
cost to us.
  With PNTR, American companies will be able to take full advantage of 
lower Russian tariffs, stronger IP protections, and other market-
opening concessions that the Russians agreed to as part of joining the 
World Trade Organization.
  Last month's WTO accession promises to open that country large and 
growing consumer market to exporters around the world.
  Unfortunately, because we have yet to establish PNTR with Russia, all 
the members of the WTO except the United States are now fully 
benefiting from increased access to the growing Russian market, which 
is the world's 9th largest economy.
  Unlike the United States, other countries also have the ability to 
use the WTO's dispute settlement process to help ensure Russia honors 
its new WTO commitments. This is particularly important in a market 
such as Russia's which is relatively new to market capitalism and 
continues to present serious problems for foreign businesses.
  Anders Aslund and Gary Hufbauer from the Peterson Institute for 
International Economics predict that U.S. exports to Russia should 
double within 5 years after accession to the WTO. Evidence from 
countries that joined the WTO between 2000 and 2010 suggest this 
statistic to be true, and maybe even a conservative estimation. If 
Exports to Russia grow at the same rate as they did for exports to 
Ukraine and the Baltics, exports could triple, approaching $30 billion. 
This would place Russia among America's large second tier-markets, such 
as Australia, India and France.
  Every day we have not passed PNTR is a day where we put this 
opportunity in jeopardy by according a competitive advantage to non-
American companies doing business in Russia.
  We have the opportunity now to pass bipartisan legislation that 
advances American economic interests, which should not dither and 
continue to allow the partisan politics of election season to prevent 
us from grasping that opportunity.

                          ____________________
```