Rep. Doggett: The Timing Could Not Be Worse for Consideration of Russia’s WTO Accession and Granting Normal Permanent Trade Relations
June 20, 2012
"I believe, for a number of years, that we needed to move forward with Russia entering the WTO and with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik but I fully subscribe to the comments and issues that have been raised by ranking Member Levin as an excellent statement of where we are today. Indeed, as Ambassador Kirk just testified, the timing could not be worse for consideration of this matter.
"We know that over the course of the last year, the Russians have harassed and libeled our very excellent Ambassador, Ambassador McFaul to Russia. We know they had a very questionable election, that this very month the Russian Duma approved legislation to raise the fine on anyone who participates in an unauthorized protest from $60 dollars to $9,000 dollars – for just showing up at a protest. We know that the Russian's main interest of in trade, of late, appears to have been forwarding weapons to the Assad government in Syria to murder its own people including, as the Secretary of State recently observed, sending the attack helicopters that we see on television each night to murder innocent women and children in Syria. Even the Washington Post editorial board, which I believe has been a cheerleader of every trade agreement that Ambassador Kirk, or any of his predecessors in any administration have every advanced here, says that a bill that grants Russia trade preferences and removes human rights conditions hardly seems the right response to Mr. Putin's recent behavior. The Magnitsky case is not about one of the many courageous human rights protestors in Russia. It is directly linked to trade. It involves an attorney who found that, in one of the largest investment funds in Russia, that the kleptocracy there, the Interior Ministry and the Police, stole $230 million dollars. It is important not only from a human rights standpoint, but it is important from a commerce and trade standpoint and why it should be involved in this case.
"Now you both told us in your testimony that the opponents of the Putin regime are in favor of lifting Jackson-Vanik, but that is only half the story, and it's only half the story from a number of months back. I am sure you recall the op-ed that appeared from Boris Nemtsov in the Wall Street Journal back in March, and let me just quote from it because I think it is [an] important part of the story that has not been told this morning: ‘Jackson-Vanik is a relic and its time has passed, but allowing it to disappear with nothing in its place and right on the heels of the fantastically corrupt elections of March the 4th, turns it into little more than a gift to Mr. Putin. Replacing Jackson-Vanik with the Magnitsky bill would promote better relations between the people of the United States and Russia, while refusing to provide aid and comfort to a tyrant and his regime at this critical moment in history.'
"That is a more-full and complete statement of what the opposition has said than what we've heard this morning. I believe that, Ambassador Kirk, you're sincere in saying that you care about human rights, as we all do, in Russia. The question is whether we're going to do anything about it. Senator Baucus has made it clear that the Magnitsky bill, some form of it, will be joined to this trade agreement. Senator McCain has been quoted this morning as saying that anything less than the full Magnitsky bill attached to this measure will doom it to failure. Putting aside, as is difficult to put aside, the problems in Syria which raise real questions about whether we should act immediately on this, at a minimum, I believe Senator McCain is right and that the Magnitsky bill without all the ‘ifs', ‘ands' and ‘ors', that are designed to make it meaningless and let the Administration waive or postpone or delay or circumvent its requirements. If you want this measure passed, just simply, do what has been proposed in the Senate and incorporate the Magnitsky bill with this measure and we can move forward on it. Though I often disagree with Mr. Brady on these matters, I agree fully with his comments as quoted in today's Congressional Quarterly, that it is the will of the Senate or the House that this be incorporated that that's what will need to be done. Well, it is the will of at least this Member, and I think of a number of others, that we not, at this critical time in our relations with Russia, forget about these other issues. They can be combined and we can and should move forward with a full and complete response to the outrage that is happening there."
"We know that over the course of the last year, the Russians have harassed and libeled our very excellent Ambassador, Ambassador McFaul to Russia. We know they had a very questionable election, that this very month the Russian Duma approved legislation to raise the fine on anyone who participates in an unauthorized protest from $60 dollars to $9,000 dollars – for just showing up at a protest. We know that the Russian's main interest of in trade, of late, appears to have been forwarding weapons to the Assad government in Syria to murder its own people including, as the Secretary of State recently observed, sending the attack helicopters that we see on television each night to murder innocent women and children in Syria. Even the Washington Post editorial board, which I believe has been a cheerleader of every trade agreement that Ambassador Kirk, or any of his predecessors in any administration have every advanced here, says that a bill that grants Russia trade preferences and removes human rights conditions hardly seems the right response to Mr. Putin's recent behavior. The Magnitsky case is not about one of the many courageous human rights protestors in Russia. It is directly linked to trade. It involves an attorney who found that, in one of the largest investment funds in Russia, that the kleptocracy there, the Interior Ministry and the Police, stole $230 million dollars. It is important not only from a human rights standpoint, but it is important from a commerce and trade standpoint and why it should be involved in this case.
"Now you both told us in your testimony that the opponents of the Putin regime are in favor of lifting Jackson-Vanik, but that is only half the story, and it's only half the story from a number of months back. I am sure you recall the op-ed that appeared from Boris Nemtsov in the Wall Street Journal back in March, and let me just quote from it because I think it is [an] important part of the story that has not been told this morning: ‘Jackson-Vanik is a relic and its time has passed, but allowing it to disappear with nothing in its place and right on the heels of the fantastically corrupt elections of March the 4th, turns it into little more than a gift to Mr. Putin. Replacing Jackson-Vanik with the Magnitsky bill would promote better relations between the people of the United States and Russia, while refusing to provide aid and comfort to a tyrant and his regime at this critical moment in history.'
"That is a more-full and complete statement of what the opposition has said than what we've heard this morning. I believe that, Ambassador Kirk, you're sincere in saying that you care about human rights, as we all do, in Russia. The question is whether we're going to do anything about it. Senator Baucus has made it clear that the Magnitsky bill, some form of it, will be joined to this trade agreement. Senator McCain has been quoted this morning as saying that anything less than the full Magnitsky bill attached to this measure will doom it to failure. Putting aside, as is difficult to put aside, the problems in Syria which raise real questions about whether we should act immediately on this, at a minimum, I believe Senator McCain is right and that the Magnitsky bill without all the ‘ifs', ‘ands' and ‘ors', that are designed to make it meaningless and let the Administration waive or postpone or delay or circumvent its requirements. If you want this measure passed, just simply, do what has been proposed in the Senate and incorporate the Magnitsky bill with this measure and we can move forward on it. Though I often disagree with Mr. Brady on these matters, I agree fully with his comments as quoted in today's Congressional Quarterly, that it is the will of the Senate or the House that this be incorporated that that's what will need to be done. Well, it is the will of at least this Member, and I think of a number of others, that we not, at this critical time in our relations with Russia, forget about these other issues. They can be combined and we can and should move forward with a full and complete response to the outrage that is happening there."