Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Russia PNTR bill that is before us takes a long overdue action by ending the application of Jackson-Vanik sanctions to Russia. Jackson-Vanik is no longer relevant to Russia because Russia no longer restricts the free emigration of its people. The Soviet Union began to relax its restrictions on Jewish emigration in 1987, during Gorbachev's perestroika. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, millions of Soviet Jews were permitted to leave. Since then, Russia has allowed free emigration. I have felt for a long time that we should have graduated Russia from Jackson-Vanik when Jackson-Vanik's noble purpose was achieved, rather than waiting years, often in the effort to make other points relative to Russia on other issues. First some history. In 2007, I met with Rabbi Lazar, chief rabbi of Russia, regarding Jackson-Vanik. He urged passage of legislation ending the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia. Also in 2007, I received a letter from the chairman of the Federation of Jewish Communities, which represents presidents and rabbis of over 200 Jewish communities in Russia, a letter which urged me to work to graduate Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment in view of the fact that its goals had already been met. Part of his letter reads as follows: [W]e are thankful for all your efforts toward gaining freedom for our country's Jews. We will always appreciate the role of Jackson-Vanik in bringing about change. We also remain grateful to those who forced the U.S.S.R.'s Communist regime to permit Jews to emigrate, and to end discrimination. For us this was a huge morale boost--Jews behind the Iron Curtain were thrilled that Americans were willing to risk political and economic confrontation, in order to stand up for the freedom and rights of their fellow human beings. He continued: Nevertheless, in the last 15 years the situation has changed, radically. The freedom for Soviet Jews to live wherever they desire was fully obtained; nearly a million Jews from the F.S.U. now live in Israel, while hundreds of thousands live in other countries throughout the world. We are positive that these developments were in part thanks to the American lawmakers who supported the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Yet we now see a backward migration, when Jews from abroad move back to Russia. This proves that Jews in Russia feel as confident as those inhabiting other countries of the Free World. The rabbi added: ``The provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment have already achieved the goals of its initiators.'' That was in 2007. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. So I am glad, very glad, that finally, the Jackson-Vanik law is no longer going to apply to Russia. Not only does the bill under consideration grant Russia PNTR, it also contains enforcement provisions that my brother, Congressman Sander Levin, fought for to address concerns about Russia's compliance with its WTO obligations and other trade concerns such as Russia's persistent failure to stop intellectual property rights infringement, and to help promote the rule of law in Russia. These are important enforcement tools that will give us a chance to monitor Russia's progress in fulfilling its commitments. I have looked forward to getting these actions accomplished in PNTR legislation. The bill before us also includes the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 which was inspired by the Russian whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, who was ruthlessly murdered. The legislation would require that human rights violators in Russia be identified and that we deny them U.S. visas as well as freeze their U.S. assets. However, and here's the problem for me, the Magnitsky language before us is not the Magnitsky language adopted by our Finance and Foreign Relations committees. Their Magnitsky language applied the same sanctions to human rights violators wherever they might be--whether in Russia, or Syria, or Sudan, or North Korea, or China, or in any other country. In other words, the Senate committee-approved bill wisely adopted a global Magnitsky standard. The reasoning for this is sound, because while the mechanism of U.S. visa denial for human rights violators was inspired by a single case in a single nation, the principles that it seeks to advance are universal. This bipartisan Senate committee bill, unlike the House-passed version of the Magnitsky Act that we will soon vote on, does not single out Russian human-rights violators for visa denial, but would apply the visa denial mechanism to people from any country who violate important human rights standards. The United States should be clear and firm in its commitment to protecting human rights, wherever the violations occur, and to holding those who violate those rights accountable to the best of our ability, including denying them visas to come to our country. Human rights do not end at the borders of Russia, and anyone who violates those standards, as so many did so blatantly in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, should be held accountable. Applying the Magnitsky provisions globally, as the Senate bill approved by our committees did, follows in the spirit of Jackson-Vanik, which, while inspired by events in the Soviet Union, was not limited to the Soviet Union. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee both voted unanimously to report a version of the Magnitsky bill that applies its sanctions globally. Senators Cardin and Kyl have worked, on a bipartisan basis, to build support for that global standard, and I strongly support their effort. I commend them on their effort. So why is that Senate committee-reported bill not before the Senate? Why would we deny visas only to Russian human rights violators? Why diminish the universality of the values the Magnitsky bill seeks to uphold? Applying the sanctions contained in this bill solely to Russians, as the House version does, not only diminishes a universal value. Because it adds a political twist, it will stoke a nationalistic response in Russia. If this bill does not apply the same rule to all human rights violators, if it singles out Russian human rights violators, President Putin will no doubt appeal to the nationalistic passions of many Russians by saying that our bill isn't aimed at protecting human rights, but is aimed at Russia. We should not hand President Putin that argument. The Senate bill, as approved by our committees, very appropriately pays tribute to the man whose tragic death inspired the legislation, and applies its message universally. I deeply regret that the House bill before us does not take that approach. I don't understand why we are not taking up the Senate version, the version approved by our two committees, and applying these standards universally. The only answer I get is that the House of Representatives might not accept the Senate version. Well, we should do what we believe in, as reflected in two unanimous votes in two committees, and not be derailed by a prediction that the House will not accept our version. There is time left in this session to test that prediction. The failure to do so is inexplicable to me. The House of Representatives did not have a vote focusing on the issue of applying these sanctions globally. We should give them a chance to do so. In summary, it is important that we lift the Jackson-Vanik sanctions. It is important that we speak out on the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky and hold those responsible to account. These are issues on which I believe so strongly and that I have worked long and hard, particularly on Jackson-Vanik, to achieve. Taking these steps should be a cause of celebration. But the violations of human rights that the Magnitsky bill seeks to remedy are far too widespread for us to apply remedies only to Russians human rights violators. The United States has an opportunity here to make a strong, unmistakable statement about the sanctity of human rights. We should want that statement to ring out not just in Moscow, but around the world. I know some of my colleagues have expressed hope that we can pass legislation to address this issue in the next Congress. I know of no reason to believe that we will have significantly greater chances of accomplishing this goal next year than we do today. Mr. President, over the next few weeks, we have time to conference and pass a defense authorization bill. We have time to debate and avoid the fiscal cliff. We have time to address a farm bill and dozens of other important issues. And we have time to address the transcendent issue of the universal rights of mankind. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in extending condolences to the family of Senator Warren Rudman, and add my voice to those saluting a distinguished, effective and principled member of this body. It has been hard in the last few months, for those of us who knew and served with him, not to think of Warren Rudman. More than 2 decades ago, our circumstances were strikingly similar to the situation in which we find ourselves today. Rising Federal budget deficits were the cause of alarm. Almost everyone agreed that we needed to bring them down. The difficulty was how. Meeting the widely differing priorities among members of Congress--and the American people we represented-- seemed impossible. Senator Rudman, along with Senator Ernest Hollings and Senator Phil Gramm, crafted a solution. It is fair to say no one liked it very much. None of us here at the time, including me, voted for it with great enthusiasm. That was its genius. By establishing a mechanism for automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that would take place in the absence of a more tailored program of deficit reduction, they sought to force all of us to make the difficult choices required to reduce the deficit. The arrangement Senators Rudman, Gramm and Hollings concocted was disagreeable to everybody, and so we looked for ways to avoid it. I voted for the 1985 agreement in part because I believed it would help force elected officials to get serious about the fact that revenue was an important part of the deficit-reduction formula. It was true then, it was true now, and Warren Rudman helped clarify that important fact. We borrowed from Warren Rudman's playbook with the sequestration provisions which are now the subject of so much debate and concern here. I dislike the blind, Draconian cuts of sequestration today as much as I disliked them in the 1980s. Now, as then, I am hopeful that members of good will can reach across the aisle to reach compromise solutions--solutions that we may dislike in part, in order to avoid even worse outcomes. If we do so, it will be because of the Sword of Damocles called sequestration that hangs over our heads. I know that is what Senator Rudman would hope for, and be working hard for, if he were still serving here. We should reflect on Senator Rudman's career today for another reason. When he decided not to stand for re-election in 1992, he did so, in the words of the New York Times, because ``the Federal Government was not functioning' and that it was impossible to get anything done in a Senate rife with posturing and partisanship.'' Maybe the lesson is that the present always looks more partisan and polarized than the past. I hope all of us can reflect on Senator Rudman's efforts to achieve practical solutions to difficult problems, his willingness to compromise, and his integrity, and keep those qualities in mind as we struggle with the many and complex problems we face today. Barbara and I were terribly saddened to learn of Warren Rudman's passing. Our thoughts are with his family and the many close friends who mourn him.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to note the absence of a quorum unless there is someone who wishes to speak. I want to try to work through this pending issue. I think it is the last issue we need to work through in some way before there will be a unanimous consent request that is propounded. If we can figure out the best way to handle this, and then offer a unanimous consent request, we will be able to reach the end of the bill this very day. So I suggest the absence of a quorum. Oh, I withhold that.

Mr. LEVIN. It is.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up a list of 11 amendments which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain: Kyl amendment No. 2927, as modified by the changes at the desk; Akaka amendment No. 3019; Toomey amendment No. 3062; Brown of Ohio amendment No. 3113, as modified by the changes at the desk; Rubio amendment No. 3175, as modified by the changes at the desk; Carper amendment No. 3241; Carper amendment No. 3242; Thune amendment No. 3277, as modified by the changes at the desk; Moran amendment No. 3285, as modified by the changes at the desk; Bennet amendment No. 3226, as modified by the changes at the desk; and Hatch amendment No. 3117, as modified by the changes at the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the only additional first-degree amendment remaining in order to the bill be the following: McCain amendment No. 3262, on Syria, as modified with changes that are at the desk; that there be 20 minutes equally divided in the usual form on the amendment; that any remaining time prior to 4:30 p.m. be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member for general debate on the bill; that at 4:30 p.m., all postcloture time be considered expired; that the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the McCain amendment, as modified; that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the McCain amendment, the Senate agree to the pending Kyl amendment, which is a Kyl-Kerry amendment, No. 3123, as modified; that upon disposition of the Kyl amendment, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of S. 3254, as amended; that upon passage of S. 3254, the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4310 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3254, as amended and passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H.R. 4310, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the Armed Services Committee appointed as conferees; that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement, all with no intervening action or debate; and finally that the bill be printed as passed by the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank all of our colleagues. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of the McCain amendment and that Senator Coons also be added as a cosponsor of the McCain amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I very much support the amendment offered by Senator McCain and thank him for it. The suffering of the Syrian people and, increasingly, the people of the region continues to grow daily. This amendment tells the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that we want a classified assessment of the effectiveness of various military solutions to the problems that are there in Syria and in the region. This information is going to help inform Congress on the challenges and the obstacles to various solutions, including the very challenges and questions which were identified by Senator Paul. Those are the kinds of questions--not the total list, but the kinds of questions-- which this assessment will help us to address. It will also help inform us about the budget and the policy decisions that the congressional defense committees make in the upcoming fiscal year. The principal purpose of this amendment, as is stated in the amendment, is ``to advance the goals of President Obama of stopping the killing of civilians in Syria and creating conditions for a transition to a democratic, pluralistic political system in Syria.'' That is what is on the mind, I believe, of all of us. This report--an assessment, to use the word in the amendment--is critically important to Congress, and I very much support the effort of Senator McCain and thank him for it.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Kyl Amendment No. 3213, as Modified

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to have a colloquy with the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. LEVIN. I first want to thank the Senator from Colorado for his work on reforming our Nation's export control laws. The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act includes provisions addressing these issues. I support his efforts in this area and I intend to work with the House of Representatives to address these reforms in conference.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will be very brief. I feel so grateful and so proud that the tradition of our committee and this Senate has been maintained on our 51st consecutive Defense authorization bill, a bill that is so vitally important to the Nation. I am grateful to all of our colleagues for working on a bipartisan basis through the normal and open legislative process to produce this bill. I am grateful to stand here with my partner, Senator McCain--we worked together on this bill--to all of the members of the committee, to our staff and the floor and cloakroom staff. We passed over 100 amendments. It was a process that allowed us to be just as accommodating as we humanly could. One person I wish to single out as someone who has worked for the committee for 41 years--this will be her last year--is Chris Cowart. She is our chief clerk, and I would like to take an additional 2 seconds to mention her name as a symbol of the staff for whom we are so grateful. I don't know if Senator McCain is here, but I know that I speak for him about our staffs and about our colleagues on the committee. I yield the floor. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while the leader is here, I would add my thanks to the majority leader. This could not have happened without the willingness of the majority leader to take a little bit of risk at this time of year with so few days left. Senator McCain and I told the majority leader that we thought we could do it in 3 days, and I want you to know that we did it in 3 days. We don't count half days. If we counted half days, it took us more than 3 days, I must confess to the majority leader. But, nonetheless, the majority leader was willing to let us start down this road. And we did it in a unanimous way. I think it is only the second time in 51 years that there has been a unanimous vote on a Defense authorization bill, and it is because of the willingness and determination of our leadership that we proceed with this bill and that we allow the kind of process to occur that we did and to take the time we did, and I am very grateful.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank the majority leader while he is still here on the floor for the support he has given to Senator McCain and myself and all of us who are working so hard to get a Defense authorization bill passed for the 52nd straight time, I believe. We haven't missed a year in 51, and I think this will be the 51st and 52nd. I want to thank Senator McCain and his staff and all of my staff for the extraordinarily hard work they have put in on the bill, both in committee and here on the floor. I thank all of my colleagues for the cooperation which has been shown to allow us to dispose of somewhere now in the area of 100 amendments. There will be even more amendments that can be cleared this afternoon. We, I believe, have a package that is ready, or almost ready, of amendments. I believe that after that, this afternoon there could be a second package of amendments which has been cleared for action by the body. We will be here this afternoon. I haven't had a chance to talk yet with Senator McCain today, but I am sure it is his plan, as it is mine, to be here with our staffs this afternoon to work with colleagues to see if we can't clear additional amendments. The cloture vote is scheduled. There has been more than adequate time. I want to thank the leader, again, for giving this time. We are now into our fourth day where we are able to address the issues on this bill. I hope cloture will pass this afternoon when the vote is taken, and that early tomorrow, since I am hopeful there won't be a need for postcloture time, we can perhaps adopt even a third package of cleared amendments tomorrow morning at some point, and then move to final passage at some time as determined by the leader, of course. I want to again urge colleagues who have amendments that we have been working on to keep working with our staffs so we can hopefully clear as many amendments as possible prior to cloture. I think that would be beneficial to all of us. We have worked together well as a body. There have been a number of accommodations which have been made by many of our colleagues to each other and to us as managers which has made it possible for us to have a smooth passage at least until this point. With that, again, I give thanks to my ranking member. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, let me tell my dear friend from Arizona that I am sorry to hear about that objection that apparently is going to be placed against the unanimous consent agreement to adopt amendments which had been cleared by both sides. But perhaps during the afternoon we could hear from the Senator from Kentucky. Perhaps he can come over and talk to us about what the problem is. But in the meantime, we are going to continue to try to line up cleared amendments in the chance he will relent from his position. Sometimes with these packages, when they are put together and someone says they object at the last minute, that objection can be addressed in some way or another. So I hope our staffs will continue to try to find ways to clear amendments--subject, of course, to there being an objection. If there is an objection, then that, of course, given the fact that we are late in the day here now and having a cloture vote late this afternoon, would be able to thwart the will of the rest of the body. But I hope the Senator from Kentucky can personally come over and let us know what the problem is. Perhaps my friend from Arizona knows what it is, but I don't. I would like to get involved in it. I yield.

Mr. LEVIN. The floor is open. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now call up a list of 20 amendments which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain: Begich amendment No. 2954; Inhofe amendment No. 2978; Blumenthal amendment No. 3015; Cardin amendment No. 3022; Cardin amendment No. 3024; Tester amendment No. 3028; Collins amendment No. 3042, as modified by the changes at the desk; McCain amendment No. 3054, as modified by the changes at the desk; Toomey amendment No. 3066; McCain amendment No. 3091, as modified by the changes at the desk; Brown of Massachusetts amendment No. 3160; Levin amendment No. 3164; Rubio amendment No. 3176, as modified by the changes at the desk; Warner amendment No. 3188; Bingaman amendment No. 3208; Snowe amendment No. 3218; Conrad amendment No. 3227; Hatch amendment No. 3268; Coons amendment No. 3289; and Paul amendment No. 3119.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.