David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me offer some closing remarks and say that, as I reminisce, having spent virtually my entire adult life as a Member of this body, privileged to stand in this well for nearly three-and-a-half decades--making arguments, engaging in debate--as I said, I'm very gratified that we were able to work on one of the many final issues, which is the first issue of the lame duck session, in a bipartisan way as my friend from Worcester just said. I was privileged to work with him and to have him as a cosigner of this Dear Colleague letter that we sent out in support of this legislation. I am reminded, in having listened to remarks from both sides of the aisle--my California colleague (Mr. Rohrabacher) and others--that on the 6th of November 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President of the United States. He offered lots of eloquence and lots of brilliance, but he said something that at the time was seen as absolute heresy, not only here in the United States but around the world and within this hemisphere. On the 6th of November 1979, Reagan envisaged this notion of eliminating tariff barriers among all of the Americas so that we could have the free flow of goods and services and capital and ideas, and yes, people as well. That's aspirational. That's a notion that he put forward. A few years later in the Congress, I was privileged to be elected the day Ronald Reagan was elected President. I joined with my colleagues Mr. Colby and Mr. Lewis, and introduced legislation calling for the elimination of tariff barriers among Canada, the United States, and Mexico, which led to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this diminution--in fact, elimination-- of tariff and nontariff barriers is so we can enhance freedom, enhance opportunity, and improve the quality of life and the standard of living for people not only here in the United States, but around the world, as well. We understand that even in repressive societies, that if we can proceed with economic liberalization, political liberalization will follow. I have to counter the statement that was made by my California colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, about China. I am not going to stand here on the day that Xi Jinping has become the new leader of China and claim that things are perfect in China, but I will argue that permanent normal trade relations and China's accession to the World Trade Organization has been beneficial. Why? Because if one looks at the great leap forward in China, there were tens of millions of people who were killed. During the cultural revolution, well over a million people were starved to death. So you look at the great leap forward, you look at the cultural revolution in China, and you look today at the horrendous human rights violations that exist in China, and my goal is still to see us move towards political pluralism, the development of democratic institutions, a greater sense of the rule of law. But there are a few thousand political prisoners in China. It's horrible. It's not acceptable. But, Mr. Speaker, I argue that that is progress. It was 10 years ago that I was very privileged to work with President Clinton in seeing China's accession to the World Trade Organization and permanent normal trade relations established. We were able to do that right here in a bipartisan way, and things are better than they were. They're not great; they're not acceptable; but, Mr. Speaker, they are better than they were. I know there are some who--and Mr. Rohrabacher thoughtfully did point to the fact that Russia is obviously not what it was like under the Soviet Union. I mean, we can all think back to the refuseniks. I remember adopting refuseniks, Jews who were unable to emigrate from Russia. You think about all of the military expenses that were involved throughout the Cold War, stories--I just came back from Georgia and the Ukraine, overseeing their elections, having been throughout Eastern Europe and Central Europe and heard stories about the kind of repression that existed. As bad as Russia is today, it's still a marked improvement over what existed during the Cold War and the time of the Soviet Union. A lot of us held out a great deal of hope for Russia, more so than we have right now, just a few years ago, and because we've seen backward steps. I've talked about my friend Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who, at this moment, is languishing in a Russian prison for simply criticizing Vladimir Putin. I'm here today in large part because I want Mikhail Khodorkovsky to be freed. I want to see an end to that kind of treatment of individuals. Similarly, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. It was absolutely horrible that this 37-year-old lawyer, a young man with, as my friend pointed out, a wife and small children, was imprisoned for simply being a whistleblower. He was tortured, abused, and left to die 3 years ago tomorrow. Again, in the 21st century, that is intolerable. It can't be accepted. That's why we need to continue to pursue this effort on economic liberalization. I'm not going to counter what my friend said about the importance of the Magnitsky component to this legislation, but I would like to share the words of some formerly incarcerated Russians, some of whom were incarcerated human rights leaders in Russia who long before we did the Magnitsky language talked about how important this is. Let me just read a bit of this letter that is signed by seven human rights activists. It goes down the line of these Russians who have been opposition leaders in the forefront. Before we did this, understanding how important PNTR and China's accession to the WTO would be, they said: The persistence on the books of the Jackson-Vanik amendment does not help to solve the problems with democracy and human rights in modern Russia at all. Moreover, it brings direct harm. This helps Mr. Putin and his cronies. He is basically saying that repeal of Jackson-Vanik is something that is going to help undermine Putin and his cronies. They go on to say: Those who defend the argument that Jackson-Vanik's provisions should still apply to Russia in order to punish Putin's antidemocratic regime only darken Russia's political future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic aspirations. We, leading figures of the Russian political opposition, strongly stand behind the efforts to remove Russia from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. This is exactly what this measure has done before. While I'm gratified that we've been able, in a bipartisan way to include Magnitsky, there is recognition that simply repeal of Jackson- Vanik would go a long way towards undermining the political repression that exists in Russia today. Mr. Speaker, I also have to say on this overall issue of trade, thanks are being spread around. I want to express my appreciation to my very good friends and colleagues, Dave Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Kevin Brady, who chairs the Trade Subcommittee. I've worked with them for many years on the important issue of trade liberalization and in our pursuit of ensuring that we can create good American jobs, union and nonunion jobs, by opening up these markets. I also have to say that I know people like to malign the 87 newly elected Republican Members, this Tea Party class of crazy people. You read that. You hear that in the media on a regular basis. Frankly, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the leadership that they have shown on this issue and on the issues of Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are very important issues. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I express my appreciation to the fact that 73 of them signed a letter to the President saying that this needed to be brought forward. We want to work in a bipartisan way to make this happen. I urge support of this rule, and then tomorrow when we have the vote on PNTR, a strong bipartisan support in behalf of the efforts of Messrs. Camp and Levin and Brady and others. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I have no further requests for time. If the gentleman would like to close, I will then offer some closing remarks.

Mr. DREIER. I'd like to ask my friend if he has looked at the schedule that we have for the next 4 weeks. I think it's light years away until I deal with the last rule here if you look at our legislative schedule. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to express to my very dear friend from Philadelphia, express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, for his very kind words and to say that the recognition that economic liberalization is one of the greatest keys to our goal of enhancing human rights, the standard of living, and the quality of life for our fellow human beings is a very, very important point; and I just want to underscore that point that was made. Yes, the Magnitsky legislation is important, but I'm going to talk in just a moment about what some leaders in Russia have had to say specifically about PNTR and its impact on human rights. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, with that I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Huntington Beach, my fellow Californian, Mr. Rohrabacher. And pending that, let me say that he and I have been great friends since he was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. We've worked closely on a wide range of things. And I just told him, Mr. Speaker, since I'm leaving Congress, he's taught me one thing and one thing only and that is how to make margaritas. So with that, I'm happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Levin, for his very thoughtful comments and to say I was very pleased to join with Mr. McGovern--as Mr. McGovern has mentioned and as I did earlier--a joint Dear Colleague to focus on the benefits of this legislation as we tackle this important challenge of human rights. I happen to believe very fervently that economic liberalization is a key part of ensuring the ability of human rights to be recognized. That's why I think this legislation is very, very complementary in addressing not just job creation, economic growth, and improving quality of life for people, but I believe both aspects--the Magnitsky aspect and the permanent normal trade relations--together work to enhance the human rights situation that is as devastating as it is. Mr. Speaker, I know I have talked about a number of other Members, but I'd like to say that for nearly a decade and a half I've been very privileged to work on a wide range of issues, but one of the most important has been the issue of trade liberalization with my friend from Hinsdale, Illinois. She is going to be leaving this institution, as you, Mr. Speaker, are and as I will as well. But I've got to say that this institution is a better place. The issue of ensuring economic opportunity here in the United States and around the world is brighter for the work that has been done by Judy Biggert. I'm happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. When you said ``many years,'' you are my junior colleague by one term. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here listening to the very thoughtful remarks of my successor as chairman of the House Rules Committee, it reminded me of what really got him onto the Rules Committee and got him engaged with me, and interesting enough, Mr. Speaker, it was this issue. It was the issue of breaking down barriers to allow for the free flow of goods and services and capital. When he first came to this body, Mr. Speaker, we were in the midst of our battle on China's accession to the World Trade Organization and establishing PNTR at that juncture, which has been a great thing; not that it's been problem free--I acknowledge that--but it's been a great thing to be able to take the steps that we have. And it was Pete Sessions, Mr. Speaker, who came to me and said, I want to help you with this. I actually gave him an assignment, and it was to talk to a half dozen Members about how important this was. Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour he came back to me, having done the job right then, and that's why I describe him as the person--as I say, there are a lot of hardworking people here, there are a lot of hardworking people on both sides of the aisle, but no one has been more diligent and worked harder than my friend Pete Sessions, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me again express my appreciation to my good friend from Worcester, and it's been a great honor and privilege to work in a bipartisan way with him on this, as I've been privileged to work with many Democrats in this House on many different bipartisan issues over the years. And I'm getting ready to leave this place, Mr. Speaker. I'll be in January, as you will, moving on to another life. For me, it's after nearly three-and-a-half decades, and we've got lots of work ahead in the next 4 weeks. To have this trade issue as one there is something that is very gratifying for me. As I mention that I'm leaving, for his first speech since being named chairman of the Rules Committee for the next Congress, I'm very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the very thoughtful, dedicated, and hardworking gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions). Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there are lots of hard workers in this House, and we all learned as kids there is a differentiation between a workhorse and a show horse. And I've got to tell you something, Mr. Speaker--and you know this very well--there is no Democrat or Republican in the United States House of Representatives who works any harder than Pete Sessions, and I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that he is going to be succeeding me as chairman of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, as I just mentioned in my 1- minute, it is very gratifying that, as we look at this election, we have many people who have used the term ``mandate'' to describe what it is they have gotten. The President says he has a mandate to increase taxes. Some Republicans say we have a mandate to not increase taxes. Lots of people throw this word ``mandate'' around. I believe that the mandate is for us to focus on job creation and economic growth. And while we still embrace the Madisonian vision of the clash of ideas--it's a very, very important notion put forward by the author of the U.S. Constitution--at the end of the day, it's important for us to do something. And I think that the mandate from the election is that the American people want us to do everything that we can to create jobs, get the economy growing, and deal with many of the societal challenges that we face. Mr. Speaker, that's why I say it is very gratifying that the first item out of the chute after the election is something we will be able to do in a bipartisan way. Not that it hasn't been controversial, and I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that there is controversy that surrounds this issue, and I'm going to talk about it, but I will say that it is great that we'll be able to do something, with Republicans and Democrats in the House, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and the President of the United States on the same page in support of Russia's accession to the WTO and, most particularly, the opportunity for the United States of America, our workers, to have access to 142 million consumers in that country. So, Mr. Speaker, on August 22, Russia became a member of the World Trade Organization. Again, a huge economy. In fact, the last large economy to actually become a member of the WTO, and that's a good thing. It's a good thing because Vladimir Putin is not a good guy. It's a good thing because we are going to, not only with accession of the WTO but also with the multifarious provisions that are included in this measure, call on the United States Trade Representative, call on the State Department, and call on other entities to focus on things like intellectual property violations, negotiations, sanitary and phytosanitary agreements, the information technology agreement, and the government procurement agreement. There are a wide range of provisions in here that will force Russia to live with a structure that it does not have today and will not have until we take this very important action. Now one of the reasons that I have been such a strong proponent of this issue has to do with a name, and it's not the name we're going to be talking about in a minute. The name is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a businessman who was jailed and at this moment is incarcerated in the midst of a 7-year additional extension of his sentence for so-called ``tax evasion.'' Now I mention those two words in explaining why I'm here because I met Mr. Khodorkovsky, who was the head of Yukos Oil and was widely respected. I'm sure he was a great businessman. But he was widely respected and was a great philanthropist in Russia. He was a critic of Vladimir Putin's. And as we all know, and as I said, he is incarcerated today for one thing and one thing only: being a critic of Vladimir Putin's. That's really why he's in prison. Well, the reason I am standing here and am such a strong proponent of the action that we're about to take is that after I had met with Mr. Khodorkovsky in Moscow, he sat in my office right upstairs here in the Rules Committee. And in that meeting that I had with him, Mr. Khodorkovsky--a great philanthropist, one of the wealthiest people in Russia--said to me, I'm concerned about my safety and well-being. I think that there might be action taken against me. Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed to say that my reaction was to laugh at him. I said, There's no way that a man of your stature, doing the kinds of good things that you've been doing in Russia, will face anything other than broad-based support. Mr. Speaker, I was wrong. The human rights violations which have taken place against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a wide range of other people are one of the other reasons that we are here, pushing very, very strongly for permanent normal trade relations to force Russia to do something that they might not want to do, and that is to live with a rules-based trading system. The other name that leads us here, of course, is Sergei Magnitsky, a young lawyer who was simply raising questions, a so-called whistleblower, a whistleblower who was beaten to death 3 years ago tomorrow. Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of Sergei Magnitsky's death. And it is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of action in this 21st century still exists in a country that claims to be a democracy. It is horrendous, and it is unacceptable. And that's why I believe coupling the permanent normal trade relations for Russia and Moldova along with the Magnitsky language--and I want to congratulate our Senate colleagues Ben Cardin and Jon Kyl, and I know my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has been involved in pushing this. I strongly support the effort that we have had that will ensure that those who are responsible for Sergei Magnitsky's tragic, brutal beating, which led to his death 3 years ago tomorrow, will be followed and be brought to justice. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a great bipartisan effort. It's one that I think will inure to the benefit of the people of Russia and the people of the United States. And I would like to say that, remember, we're not giving up a thing. We're not lowering a single tariff. There is not a single sacrifice that's being made here in the United States of America. What we're doing is we're breaking down the barriers there. Last year, we exported $11 billion to Russia. The projection is that by 2017, our exports will be $22 billion, twice what we have today. And there are a number who anticipate that they will go actually beyond that. So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is a win-win all the way around. It's a win for the cause of human rights. It's a win for the cause of those of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--who want to create good American jobs so that we can have access to 142 million consumers. And it's a win for the people of Russia, who deserve better than they have gotten and, through the U.S. access to that market, will have an opportunity to see their standard of life and quality of life improve, because I believe passionately in the interdependence of economic and political liberalization. This accession to the WTO will enhance economic liberalization, and it will create an opportunity. I hope and pray for the kind of political reform that is desperately needed. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say how great it is to see you in the Chair, and I wish you well. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Worcester, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this being the first day that we've convened since the election, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to our chaplain, Father Conroy, for his very inspiring and thoughtful prayer. Mr. Speaker, we are here this week to deal with a very important issue. And I will say that we were all taught as kids, better late than never. We're here because U.S. workers at this point don't have access to 140 million potential consumers for their goods and services. I'm talking about the vote that we're going to have on so-called ``Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations.'' Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin is not a good guy. Vladimir Putin has inflicted horrendous human rights policies on the people of Russia. We have seen crony capitalism take hold. And that's why it's very important, Mr. Speaker, that the United States of America be at the table as part of the WTO's effort to force Russia to live with the rules-based trading system. Last year we exported $11 billion in goods and services to Russia. If we can pass PNTR, we will double that to $22 billion by 2017. Mr. Speaker, it's a very important vote. We need to make sure that it's successful this week, and I'm gratified that it's going to be done in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. 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. 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. 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. 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. DREIER. Absolutely, we should do that.

Mr. DREIER. We've still got months to go.

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.