Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the dean of our delegation for yielding me the time. Let me just say that it is a real privilege to serve in the Massachusetts delegation. I think some of the most colorful and effective political personalities have come from Massachusetts. And I'm proud to be part of this delegation. But I'm particularly proud to be part of a delegation that includes John Olver and Barney Frank. My new district includes many of the towns and cities that John Olver has represented over the years. As I've gotten to know these communities, I've gotten to realize how much love the people of these cities and towns have for John Olver, how much they appreciate his incredible work. And I have also come to appreciate all that he has done: transportation and infrastructure projects; new quality, affordable housing; protection of open space; daycare centers; support for colleges and universities. And I can go on and on and on. As Niki Tsongas pointed out, his intellect is unequaled. Sometimes it's a little bit intimidating. I'm afraid to ask John Olver a question because I don't want to know that much. Nonetheless, there is nobody who knows more detail about every single project in every single community in his district than John Olver. John's a quiet man, but he's a determined man. He's someone with deep, strong convictions and someone who has a spine of steel. He cares about people halfway down the block and he cares about people halfway around the world. I had the unique experience of engaging in civil disobedience with John not once but twice, protesting the genocide in Darfur. And we shared time in a cell together on two different occasions. A lot of people wouldn't expect John to be involved in that type of protest. But he was there. He was there because he thought it was important. And he thought it was important that the world know that people are watching what was happening in Darfur and in the Sudan. He's taught me a lot, and I value his friendship very much. I'm going to be his new Congressman, so I expect I will hear from him on a regular basis. As for Barney, I will miss him, like everyone here, very, very much. When I was an aide to Joe Moakley in the early 1980s, no matter who Joe Moakley was meeting with, he had the TV on, watching the proceedings on C-SPAN. But when Barney came to the floor, he'd tell everybody to be quiet, shut up, and listen. This is going to be good. And he would increase the volume and everybody would sit there and watch Barney Frank in action. There is no one I enjoy and there is no one I think most of my colleagues enjoy seeing debate on the floor than Barney Frank. And I would say that there is probably no one the Republicans fear more during debate than Barney Frank. He has the ability to be able to make the most important points but also maintain a sense of humor. It has been one of the reasons why he's been so effective. I have had the good fortune of sharing communities with Barney over the years. We represented the city of Fall River together. And I think it's important for people to know that in addition to being this national leader, Barney Frank is also a very effective bread-and- butter, nuts-and-bolts politician who cared very, very deeply about every single issue that occurred in his district, whether it was an economic development initiative, whether it was a bridge or a road, whether it was helping a veteran get his medals from World War II or helping Mrs. O'Leary find her lost Social Security check, or becoming the champion of fishermen on the east coast. He immersed himself in these issues, and he was an unbelievably powerful spokesperson for all these issues. But Barney is not only, in my opinion, a great Member of Congress. He's also a very, very good man. Look at the causes that he has championed. We've heard about his efforts on behalf of LGBT rights, civil rights, human rights, affordable housing, a voice for working families, reining in the excesses of these financial institutions on Wall Street. But for me, what I have admired about him is that he has been a steadfast and unequal voice on behalf of poor people in this country. I regret very much that so much of what goes on here in Washington neglects paying attention to the very least among us. And Barney has been out there, even though it's unfashionable, talking about the need for affordable housing for people who are poor, making sure that people have enough eat, making sure that people get what they need so they can have ladders of opportunity to succeed. And I'm going to miss his voice on those issues in particular. Because, to me, they're so important. I happen to believe if government stands for anything, it ought to stand for the most vulnerable in this country. So, Barney, thank you. One other thing. My mother wants you to run for Senate. She told you that at the airport. She wanted me to tell you that again. But I will close by saying that it is with great affection and love and friendship and so much respect that I stand here tonight to pay tribute to two people who I think are giants in this institution: John Olver and Barney Frank. I thank the dean for yielding me the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, George McGovern was a leader in the battle to end hunger--here in the United States and around the world. His recent passing should remind all of us of the need to continue his fight. Hunger is a political condition. We have the food and know-how to end it--what we're missing is the political will. As a tribute to Senator McGovern, let's all help create that political will. Mr. Speaker, I submit a number of tributes to the great man. George McGovern--An Outstanding Leader on Children's Hunger and Nutrition (By Gus Schumacher) George McGovern will be remembered for much during his extraordinary 90 years--for some it is for his difficult loss to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election, for others it is for his heroics while serving as a WWII bomber pilot. I will always remember the former Congressman and Senator from South Dakota for his unflinching public service, his integrity and his great courage over decades to sustain a passionate commitment to assisting the poor and hungry both domestically and overseas. I was fortunate to get know Senator McGovern in the late 1990's during my tenure as Undersecretary at the USDA while he served as our Ambassador to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. During those meetings he continually pressured us for more support to the world's hungry, especially children. When he returned to the United States, he continued his pressure on us to fund what soon would become the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. On his return from Rome, Senator McGovern convinced former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas to write a joint OpEd column in the Washington Post on the paucity of good nutrition for school children in developing countries--children trying to learn, but their learning impeded by scarce food and classroom hunger. Building on his domestic lifelong efforts to improve nutrition for school lunches in America, he fostered the initial Woman, Infants and Children (WIC) program for pregnant mothers and their young children. With the help of Senator Dole, the two senior statesmen from opposite sides of the political aisle helped generate major improvements in the food stamp program, together again the Senators said, we need to generate support and funding for such programs overseas. Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), no relation to Senator McGovern, read that Washington Post article, called President Clinton and asked him to invite McGovern to the White House. The President quickly invited him over to the Cabinet Room and asked a number of senior officials from the White House, USAID and USDA to join the briefing. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and I were among those at this seminal meeting. McGovern was passionate on his proposal and quickly convinced the President who then turned to Secretary Glickman and me to use our authorities under the Commodity Credit Corporation legislation (Secretary Glickman was then Chair and I was then President of CCC) to ramp up a pilot program in 2001. It was extremely successful and Congress subsequently included funding in each farm bill since that historic White House meeting. McGovern's passion for improving children nutrition was infectious. He never flagged on this work and here at Wholesome Wave his passion and dedication is reflected in our efforts to deepen his early work on food stamps and WIC with our nutrition incentives for these programs in more than 300 farmers markets across the country. Our work benefits many of the families that McGovern was so passionate to assist. He will be much missed, but his legacy to assist hungry children here at home and overseas is continuing. Endnote The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole program) helps support education, child development, and food security for some of the world's poorest children. It provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are committed to universal education.The McGovern-Dole program was originally authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The legislation called for the use of $100 million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds to launch the program in fiscal year 2003, with future funding coming from Congressional appropriators. The program was reauthorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. That legislation provides for the use of $84 million in CCC funds and allows for annual Congressional appropriations, which has been approximately $100 million annually in recent years. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service and is named in honor of Ambassador and former Senator George McGovern and former Senator Robert Dole for their tireless efforts to encourage a global commitment to school feeding and child nutrition.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, Senator George McGovern, passed away last October at the age of 90. He represented the best of the Democratic Party and the best of American politics. His voice and decency will be missed. I submit two articles that pay tribute to this remarkable man. [From the Nation, Oct. 22, 2012] George McGovern, the ``Atticus Finch'' of American Politics (By Jim McGovern) George McGovern lived to be 90. By any measure, he had a long and productive life. Yet I can't help but feeling sad-- not just because I lost my most treasured friend--but because the world lost a consistently steady and refreshingly liberal voice of sanity and common sense. To me, George McGovern was the ``Atticus Finch'' of American politics. Like the main character in Harper Lee's brilliant novel To Kill A Mockingbird George McGovern spoke the truth even when--especially when--it was uncomfortable. He spoke the truth about the folly of Vietnam and our excessive military budget. He spoke the truth about corruption in the Nixon White House. And he spoke the truth about the tragedy of hunger in the United States and around the world. He paid a heavy political price for his candor and honesty. But as he always said, ``there are worse things than losing an election.'' George McGovern never lost his soul and he never betrayed his conscience. In 1997, when I was being sworn-in as a freshman member of the United States House of Representatives, I asked him to stand by my side as I took the oath of office. During a rather long ceremony leading up to the big moment, I asked him if he had any advice. He gave me the same advice he received when he started out: ``If you want to be a good member of Congress you have to get over the fear of losing an election.'' Having just won a close, hard-fought election, I was expecting him to say: ``keep your head low'' or ``don't make any waves.'' But George McGovern believed that serving in Congress was a rare privilege, that it was an opportunity to move the country forward instead of a constant struggle to get oneself re-elected. I have tried to heed that sage advice as much as possible-- although, to be perfectly honest, I haven't yet completely gotten over the fear of losing an election! My first encounter with Senator McGovern was from a great distance in 1972. As a 7th grader in Worcester, Massachusetts, I tried mightily to get him elected President of the United States. While he lost 49 states, he did carry Massachusetts. During my college years, I interned in his Senate office, and then in 1984, I ran his Massachusetts campaign when he tried again for the presidency. I will never forget his powerful appeal to voters to stay true to their own principles and values when he declared, ``Don't throw away your conscience.'' George McGovern was perhaps the most courageous man I've ever known. And it was not just because he was a bomber pilot in World War II, fighting against Hitler and winning the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service. I admired him for his guts, in being who he was, in conservative South Dakota. To oppose the war in Vietnam was not easy in the early 1960s. Yet, George McGovern's valiant and sincere position was right, and the voters of his home state sent him to the United States Senate three times. He came across as a gentle man but he had a spine of steel. He was decent and kind. He wasn't afraid of the political consequences of his liberalism and never trimmed his sails for the convenience of the moment. His steadfastness used to drive his staff crazy. But every one of them knew they were working for a great man. Senator McGovern was obsessed with the issue of hunger. He was ashamed that in the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat. He led the efforts in the Senate--along with Senator Bob Dole--to expand food and nutrition programs. He also couldn't tolerate the hundreds of millions of people all around the world who were hungry. I will never forget attending a meeting with the Senator and President Clinton in 2000, when George McGovern proposed an international program aimed at guaranteeing every child at least one nutritious meal a day in a school setting. Bill Clinton listened intently and then said, ``Let's do it.'' That was the magic of George McGovern; he could get you to believe that anything was possible. And today, the McGovern- Dole Food for Education Program is feeding millions of kids and helping them get an education. At a recent celebration of his 90th birthday, he told me he wanted to live another 10 years to ensure that hunger on this planet is no more. He had a lot more work to do. Like Atticus Finch, George McGovern never gave up. He loved his country and dedicated his life fighting for what is ``just and noble in human affairs.'' The world is going to miss George McGovern. I already do.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I regret that my Republican friends are turning this House of Representatives into a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. The bill that we are talking about right now on the House floor basically gives the majority who run this House the authority to bring up suspension bills from now until December 28. Suspension bills, for those who don't know, are bills really of not much consequence, by and large. They are bills that most of the time could pass by a voice vote. Last night in the Rules Committee the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, suggested that instead of doing suspension bills we ought to be doing bills of some consequence, like reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, doing postal reform, doing a farm bill, or what we're talking about right now--passing a middle class tax cut extension. Those are real things that mean real things to real people in this country, and yet we're not talking about any of those things. We're talking today about basically doing not much of anything between now and December 28. Last night in the Rules Committee we were told, well, we're trying to negotiate a deal on this fiscal cliff. Well, the reality is that there are a few Members of this House who are probably in discussions with the White House about trying to work out a deal, but the vast majority here, Democrats and Republicans, are being asked to do nothing. Last night we came back and we voted on one bill, to approve the Journal. That's all we had to do last night, to approve the Journal. We haven't reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. We haven't extended the middle class tax cut. We haven't reauthorized the farm bill--I can go on and on and on--but we had to come back and have a Journal vote last night. The time has come for us to get back to work. The election was clear: the views advocated by Governor Romney and the Republican majority were rejected. The President won comfortably. Democrats won more seats in the Senate, we won more seats here in the House. I think it's a pretty clear message that the American people think that we ought to do what's right in terms of balancing the budget, and that is ask the Donald Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more. We have already cut, I should say to the gentleman, $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. A lot of those cuts are in programs that I think help people. So, $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending we've already cut, and my friends on the Republican side are saying that Donald Trump can't pay one penny more. Give me a break. Give me a break. This is about fairness. This is about justice. This is about doing the right thing. At the very minimum, we should be debating now not suspension bills, but we should be debating the extension of the middle class tax cut. That is why we need to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to allow us to bring this bill to the floor. If my Republican friends say they agree with us on a middle class tax cut, fine, let's vote it, vote overwhelmingly for it. You don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. Let's give the middle class certainty. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I just want to say when we were in charge, we were able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We passed some pretty important and substantive legislation that I'm proud of. We should be talking about real things that matter to real people right now instead of just extending the suspension authority.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. I know those of us in the Massachusetts delegation always welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to Tip O'Neill, a giant of this House and a legend in Massachusetts politics. For decades, Tip O'Neill represented the people of his district with distinction, hard work, and wit. And for 10 years, he led this House as Speaker. Tip got into politics for all the right reasons: to help people. As a New Deal Democrat, he believed that while government doesn't have all the answers, it can and should be a force for good. And while he may be best remembered for his admonition that ``all politics is local'' and he always put his constituents first, he also made a great mark in national and international affairs. He fought to protect and preserve Social Security and the safety net. He worked for peace in Northern Ireland and against the war in Vietnam. And he was a great source of advice to me and so many others: when you're running for office, always ask for someone's vote, and always say thank you. Never judge a beauty pageant or pick a raffle number because you'll make one person happy and hundreds of people mad. In his second term, Tip was appointed to the House Rules Committee. When he entered the Democratic leadership, my old boss and mentor Joe Moakley took that seat. And when Joe Moakley died, I was given the honor of taking his place on the Rules Committee. So I feel a strong personal responsibility to maintain Tip O'Neill's legacy. I want to thank the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor and for the effort to designate this Federal building in honor of Tip O'Neill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: Tip O'Neill believed that politics was an honorable profession. He believed that government should be there for the poor and the vulnerable and the elderly, and he believed in extending ladders of opportunity so that everyone-- regardless of their background--could succeed. And I hope that all of us--the Congress and the White House--as we enter these discussions on our budget, I hope we will remember Tip O'Neill's example. Tip O'Neill was a champion for all those who had no voice. We should be too.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. In reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen for their assurances and clarifications. I want to thank this Congress for their bipartisan support of this Magnitsky Act, which, I think, makes it clear that, if the United States of America stands for anything, we stand out loud and foursquare for human rights.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for all of his efforts and support on this and on so many other issues. It is a privilege to serve with him. I also want to thank the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Both of these individuals are responsible for making sure the final version of the Magnitsky Act included in this bill is strong, workable, and precedent-setting. It is a major piece of human rights legislation, and I am very, very grateful for their leadership. Madam Speaker, today is the third anniversary of the death of Sergei Magnitsky, in whose honor title IV of this bill is named. He died on November 16, 2009, after enduring torture and beatings while being imprisoned for blowing the whistle on the largest tax fraud in Russian history. He did the right thing, and he paid for it with his life at the hands of brutal and corrupt Russian officials. His case remains in impunity. Yet, under title IV of this bill, the United States will not stand by silently and let his killers and abusers and those who covered up these crimes get away with it. Those identified as responsible for these crimes will be named, their assets frozen, and a visa ban imposed. We won't be acting alone. On September 26, the European Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution recommending that the European Union establish a common list of officials responsible for the death and cover-up of Sergei Magnitsky and to impose an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and freeze any financial assets they may hold inside the European Union. Let me be perfectly clear. This bill is not simply about the case of Sergei Magnitsky. It applies to all of those who engage in gross human rights violations or corruption. It is precedent-setting human rights legislation. The House should be proud of what it is accomplishing today for human rights and the rule of law for the Magnitsky family, for the Russian people, for honorable Russian officials, and for human rights defenders inside and outside Russia. Because this bill includes the Magnitsky Act, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6156 and would like to insert the European Parliament's report and an article from the American Enterprise Institute in the Record at this point. Report With a Proposal for a European Parliament Recommendation to the Council on Establishing Common Visa Restrictions for Russian Officials Involved in the Sergei Magnitsky Case proposal for a european parliament recommendation to the council on establishing common visa restrictions for russian officials involved in the sergei magnitsky case (2012/2142(INI)) The European Parliament, having regard to Article 215 of the TFEU, having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Guy Verhoefstadt and Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the Aide Group (B7-0196/2012), having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on the rule of law in Russia, having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2010 on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2009 and the European Union's policy on the matter, having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the upcoming EU-Russia Summit on 15 December 2011 and the outcome of the Duma elections on 4 December 2011, having regard to its recommendation of 2 February 2012 to the Council on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures, having regard to the adoption of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act by the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, seeking to impose visa bans and asset freezes on Russian officials allegedly involved in the detention, abuse and death of Sergei Magnitsky, having regard to the draft resolution entitled `Rule of law in Russia: case of Sergei Magnitsky', which was presented to the 2012 annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, calling on national parliaments to take action to impose visa sanctions and asset freezes, having regard to Rule 121(3) of its Rules of Procedure, having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0285/2012), A. whereas the arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights; B. whereas the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system; C. whereas the Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe and of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, and whereas the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order; D. whereas, despite the 2011 conclusions of the inquiry conducted by the Russian President's Human Rights Council on the illegality of Sergei Magnitsky's arrest, detention and being denied access to justice, the investigations are stalled and the officials involved have been exonerated and even assigned to the posthumous case; whereas such actions on the part of the authorities demonstrate the politically motivated nature of Magnitsky's prosecution; E. whereas the European Union has urged the Russian authorities on many occasions and formats, from regular human rights consultations to summit-level meetings, to conduct thorough independent investigations in this special, well documented case, and to put an end to the current climate of impunity; F. whereas the case of Sergei Magnitsky is only one but the most prominent and well documented case of abuse of powers by the Russian law enforcement authorities, heavily violating the rule of law; whereas a multitude of other juridical cases exist using systematically the pretext of economic crimes and alleged corruption for eliminating business competitors or political rivals; G. whereas visa restrictions and other restrictive measures are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, but constitute a political signal of the EU's concern to a larger target audience and thus remain a necessary and legitimate foreign policy tool; H. whereas EU sanctions on the Magnitsky case could prompt the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to address, in a more concrete and convincing manner, the question of the rule of law in Russia and the current climate of impunity; I. whereas several national parliaments of EU Member States--among them Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Poland--have already passed resolutions urging their governments to introduce sanctions on the Magnitsky case, while several other national parliaments, such as those in Portugal, France, Spain and Latvia, are at the initial drafting stage for such resolutions; 1. Addresses the following recommendations to the Council: (a) to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow; (b) to impose and implement an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and to freeze any financial assets they or their immediate family may hold inside the European Union; (c) to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case, and to bring all those responsible to justice; (d) to urge the Russian authorities to put an end to the widespread corruption and to reform the judicial system, and bring it into line with international standards, by creating an independent, just and transparent system that cannot, under any circumstances, be misused for political reasons; (e) to raise, in the course of bilateral meetings with Russian authorities, this issue as well as the issue of intimidation and impunity in cases involving human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers, in a more determined, resolute and result-oriented manner; 2. Encourages the Council to take a coherent and proactive stance on other serious human rights violations in Russia, on the basis of well documented, converging and independent sources and convincing evidence, and to introduce similar restrictive measures against offenders as a last resort measure; 3. Underlines that the commitment of the Russian authorities to basic values such as the rule of law, and respect for human rights and basic freedoms, remains the main prerequisite for EU-Russia relations and for the development of a stable and reliable partnership between the two parties; 4. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the Member States, the Russian State Duma and the Government of the Russian Federation. proposal for a recommendation B7-0196/2012 The European Parliament, having regard to Article 215 of the TFEU, having regard to the European Parliament recommendation to the Council on a consistent policy on restrictive measures, adopted on 2 February 2012, having regard to the decision by the United States to impose travel restrictions on 60 officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case and to similar considerations in a number of other countries, having regard to Rule 121(1) of its Rules of Procedure, A. whereas the arrest and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represents a well documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights in Russia, and serves as a chilling reminder of the many documented shortcomings in the respect shown for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Russia; B. whereas Russia, as a member of the Council of Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, and whereas the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help Russia modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order, in line with Council of Europe standards; C. whereas there is an increasing need for a firm, robust and comprehensive EU policy towards Russia, offering support and assistance backed up by firm and fair criticism, including sanctions and restrictive measures when needed; D. whereas visa restrictions and other restrictive measures are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, but constitute a political signal of the EU's concern to a larger target audience and thus remain a necessary and legitimate foreign policy tool; 1. Addresses the following recommendations to the Council: (a) to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow; (b) to impose and implement an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and to freeze any financial assets they or their immediate family may hold inside the European Union; (c) to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case; 2. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the Member States, and the State Duma and Government of Russia.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the majority and minority floor managers--the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman)-- just to clarify the congressional intent regarding the use of the classified annex mentioned in section 404(c)(2) of H.R. 6156. Section 404 of the bill would hold accountable Magnitsky's killers and other human rights violators by placing targeted sanctions on them. In particular, the bill imposes a visa ban and asset freeze on individuals responsible for participating in or for covering up Sergei Magnitsky's detention, abuse and death, and on individuals responsible for certain other gross violations of human rights. As part of that accountability, section 404 requires the President to publish a list of the people responsible for those particular abuses. It is my understanding that the congressional intent behind title IV is for people subject to sanctions to be placed on an unclassified list in a transparent manner and that any classified annex may be used only as an exception and not the rule. The administration may list a person in the classified annex only if the President determines that it is absolutely vital to the national security interests of the United States and provides Congress with prior notice and justification. I yield to the floor manager for the majority, Mr. Burton, such time as he requires to clarify his own understanding.

Mr. McGOVERN. In reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I yield to the floor manager for the minority, Mr. Berman, such time as he requires to clarify his understanding.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume first of all to thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement, but also to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate him on his new appointment. I look forward to working with him. So congratulations. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again point out that trade bills oftentimes are very controversial. There's often a resistance to attach any additional language, whether it be human rights language or labor rights language, to trade bills. But in this case, again, working in a bipartisan way, I think the attachment of the Sergei Magnitsky bill to this trade bill is probably the most significant piece of human rights legislation attached to any trade bill since I've been here in Congress. This is a big deal. This sends a message to human rights violators in Russia, those who are guilty of corruption, that there's a consequence. And even if that consequence is not bringing you to justice within Russia, the United States--and we will be joined, hopefully, by our allies--will make sure that there are visa bans that are put in place and that assets are frozen, that there is a consequence. Again, our hope is that this language will prop up those in Russia who want to push for reform, who believe in accountability and believe in tackling issues like impunity. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who was incredibly helpful to me in making sure that these two pieces of legislation were brought together and I think in a way that makes it possible for me to be able to support this bill. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert two articles into the Congressional Record--one of The New York Times, entitled, ``Russia plans to retry dead lawyer in tax case,'' and the other from The Washington Post, entitled, ``The Kremlin's blacklist.'' Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Magnitsky Act has been a bipartisan and bicameral effort. The final Magnitsky language in title IV of H.R. 6156 is the result of genuine collaboration and compromise. I want to again thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. I would like to thank Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Hoyer, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and our ranking member, Mr. Berman of California, as well as Mr. Levin, who has been so very helpful on the Ways and Means Committee, for all of their support in drafting the bill under consideration by the House this week. It has been a pleasure to work with all of these individuals. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Magnitsky provisions are strong, flexible enough to be well implemented and will allow us to have a cooperative relationship with Russia on trade and other issues while holding human rights violators accountable, including those responsible for the brutal treatment and death of Sergei Magnitsky. As I stated earlier, I would not be supporting PNTR for the Russian Federation if this bill did not include a Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. I agree with what has been said about the importance of increased trade in terms of promoting more positive reforms in countries like Russia, but there is always a problem when you have a country that doesn't abide by the rule of law, where impunity rules the day. In cases like that, I think it is important to have a tool like the Magnitsky legislation to make it clear to those in Russia--not just those involved with the Sergei Magnitsky tragedy, but with other terrible human rights crimes, those who are involved in corruption--to make it clear to them that there is a consequence and that, even if within their own countries they are not brought to justice, the world will know who they are and take appropriate action. There will be visa bans, and we will go after their assets. To me, this is a very, very powerful tool that complements the benefits of PNTR for Russia. I would say to my colleagues that this does represent a genuine compromise--the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which I am the author of in the House and Senator Cardin is the author of in the Senate. In the House, we originally wanted this to be global in its approach, but in the spirit of compromise, it has been narrowed down to Russia. I think, if this proves to be a good tool and if it is implemented properly, hopefully, we can broaden it, because I do think that it is important for the United States to make it clear to the world that, if we stand for anything, we stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. With regard to the rule, I just want to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that this rule on a bipartisan bill includes lockdown provisions that restrict the rights of the minority in this body. I would have preferred that this rule have only included procedures for the bipartisan PNTR-Magnitsky bill, but in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'm not going to dwell on that. I'm just going to point it out for the record. In conclusion, let me just make this one observation. This is an example of bipartisanship, of people coming together and of our supporting an important piece of legislation. I hope that some of this rubs off on some of the bills that we're going to be considering in the days and weeks to come, but this really is how this House of Representatives should be run. Again, my compliments to the leadership of the Republican Party and to the leadership of my own party. It was not just gratuitous. I meant it. This was a process by which those of us who care about the issue of human rights felt that we were included. As a result, I think we've come up with a bill that deserves support. I think it will make a positive difference in the lives of a lot of people in Russia. In terms of trade, I think it will result in a situation where there is a more level playing field, where we have an agreement that just doesn't benefit the few at the expense of the many; we may have an agreement here that will help benefit the many. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. [From the New York Times, Feb. 7, 2012] Russia Plans to Retry Dead Lawyer in Tax Case (By Andrew E. Kramer) Moscow.--The police in Russia plan to resubmit for trial a tax evasion case in which the primary defendant died in detention more than two years ago, his former employer said Tuesday. The trial of the defendant, Sergei L. Magnitsky, would be the first posthumous prosecution in Russian legal history, according to a statement by the former employer, Hermitage Capital. The death of Mr. Magnitsky, a lawyer, in November 2009 drew international criticism over Russia's human rights record, especially after accusations arose that he had been denied proper medical care. The State Department has barred officials linked to Mr. Magnitsky's prosecutions from entering the United States. Parliaments in nine European countries are considering similar bans. Police officials reopened the case against Mr. Magnitsky last summer, saying it would provide a chance for relatives and supporters to clear his name. Relatives, though, said they had not asked for that, and executives at Hermitage said the motive was something else entirely: to vindicate the officials Mr. Magnitsky had accused of corruption. Hermitage Capital's executive director, William F. Browder, who lives in London, will be a co-defendant in the case; he will be tried in absentia, a procedure used only intermittently in the post-Soviet period but restored under a Russian law that took effect in 2006. The statement from Hermitage said that even in the Soviet period, no defendant had been tried after death. But a Russian Supreme Court ruling last summer allowed the police to conduct posthumous investigations. Calls to the press service of the Investigative Committee of the Interior Ministry, which is handling the case, were not answered on Tuesday. Mr. Browder maintains that the posthumous case against Mr. Magnitsky, who died in pretrial detention when he was 37, is intended to intimidate his family and discourage them from pressing for the prosecution of the police and tax officials who they say orchestrated his imprisonment. A conviction of Mr. Magnitsky might also appear to vindicate the officials he had accused of wrongdoing. The Hermitage statement said a police investigator had offered to drop the case in a letter to Mr. Magnitsky's mother last week, but only if relatives stated that they had no ``desire to protect the honor and dignity of the deceased.'' Mr. Browder said in the statement, ``If the Russian Interior Ministry thinks that running a show trial against me and Sergei will stop our campaign for justice, they are dead wrong.'' Mr. Magnitsky was detained in 2008 on suspicion of helping Hermitage Capital evade $17.4 million in taxes. That accusation came after Mr. Magnitsky testified against Interior Ministry officials, saying they had used Hermitage companies to embezzle $230 million from the Russian Treasury by filing false corporate tax returns. Mr. Magnitsky's supporters say they believe that the prosecution was retaliatory, and that investigators assigned to his case, including individuals he had accused, denied him medical care before his death.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California, the honorable chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I want to thank him for his eloquent statement, and I want to thank him for bringing this to the floor. As he mentioned, he and I both coauthored a Dear Colleague and supported the underlying legislation. And it was a pleasure to work with him on this important bill. And I know that there will be other opportunities to say this before he departs. But I want to thank him for his service to this House of Representatives, which I know he loves very deeply. And I want to thank him for his service to our country. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6156 joins together two pieces of legislation that deal with trade and human rights in the Russian Federation. The distinguished chairman has provided a clear description of the provisions in this bill that grant permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR, to the nations of Moldova and the Russian Federation. It is fairly straightforward. Simply put, after 18 years of negotiations, Russia joined the World Trade Organization in August. That membership will require Russia--for the first time--to play by the same rules of trade as the United States and virtually every other nation in the world. But under WTO rules, the United States cannot take advantage of Russia's WTO membership unless and until Congress grants Russia permanent normal trade relations, replacing the 1974 special bilateral agreement with Russia known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment. The United States is not required to change any U.S. law as a result of Russia's WTO membership other than this change to the 1974 trade law. This is in contrast to bilateral free trade agreements where the United States is required to provide duty-free treatment. If that were all there was to H.R. 6156, it would pass or fail along familiar lines of trade-related legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6156 will become known as a landmark piece of trade legislation not because it grants PNTR for Russia and Moldova but because it includes title IV, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. Let me share with my colleagues just a little bit about the life and death of Sergei Magnitsky, in whose honor this section of the bill is named. After exposing the largest tax fraud in Russian history, tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky was wrongly arrested and tortured in a Russian prison. Six months later, he became seriously ill. He was denied medical attention despite 20 formal requests. On the night of November 16, 2009--3 years ago tomorrow--his condition became critical. Instead of being treated in a hospital, he was taken to an isolation cell, chained to a bed, and beaten by eight prison guards for 1 hour and 18 minutes, which resulted in his death. Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old. He left behind a wife and two children. Those responsible for his abuse and murder have yet to be punished. And sadly, he is not alone. His story is emblematic of corruption, human rights abuses, and impunity in Russia. Since the death of Sergei Magnitsky, the human rights situation inside the Russian Federation has continued to deteriorate. Russia's parliamentary elections last December were marked by mass protests over alleged electoral fraud. Since Vladimir Putin was reelected president in May of 2012, his government has taken a harsh and confrontational approach to ongoing protests, cracking down on the Russian people's growing discontent with corruption and creeping authoritarianism. Russian authorities have used excessive force to break up peaceful demonstrations and detained and raided the homes of opposition leaders. Russian civil society has also been a target of increasing repression. Beginning in June and with astonishing speed, the Russian Duma passed a series of draconian laws that restrict freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. Many observers fear that these laws will be used as a political weapon to stifle criticism of the government. They make it harder for Russian civil society to operate effectively and create a climate of fear and self-censorship. Civil society's sense of isolation is only compounded by the Russian Government's recent decision to expel organizations like USAID from the country. In addition, journalists and human rights activists continue to face grave dangers in pursuing their work. Just last month, Tanya Lokshina with the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch received a series of threats to herself and her unborn child, most likely in connection to her efforts to expose impunity for human rights abuses. Her experience is not unique. While Russian authorities have tried to silence critics, NGOs, and independent media, the world is still awaiting justice for many violent attacks on dissidents and journalists. I would like to note for my colleagues that today at 2 p.m. the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will be holding a hearing on human rights in the Russian Federation, and Ms. Lokshina will be one of the witnesses. In this context, the story of Sergei Magnitsky remains especially important. At a time when the human rights situation in the country is going from bad to worse, it is all the more important to hold Russian human rights violators accountable. Mr. Speaker, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which is title IV of H.R. 6156 as reported by the Rules Committee, places an asset freeze and visa ban on those individuals responsible for Sergei Magnitsky's torture and death, as well as on Russian officials engaged in corruption and gross violations of human rights. This is beyond just Sergei Magnitsky. These measures provide a degree of accountability and reinforce the administration's toolkit to respond to crimes by individual government officials. Passage of the Magnitsky act sends a clear message to the Russian people that we support their fundamental human rights. Importantly, it also sends a strong message to those Russian officials who support the rule of law and who reject corruption and human rights abuses. It lets them know that their efforts and their achievements are valued by the United States and the international community. Only individuals within the Russian Government who abuse their office and engage in corruption and human rights crimes will find their assets and visas under scrutiny and subject to U.S. sanction. So let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. I would not be supporting PNTR for the Russian Federation if it did not include title IV, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. And, Mr. Speaker, let me just close by again thanking not only the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, but I want to thank the Republican leadership, the Speaker of the House; the Democratic leadership, the minority leader and our minority whip; as well as the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for working together to come up with an agreement here that I think deserves bipartisan support. So I urge all my colleagues to support the Magnitsky act by voting for the underlying legislation, H.R. 6156, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on October 2, while Congress was campaigning, the Pentagon registered the 2,000th fatality in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. Today, that number has risen to 2,026. It is imperative that we all remember the terrible human price that has been paid, is being paid, and will continue to be paid by our troops in Afghanistan and their families. This year there have been 60 so-called ``blue on green'' killings of U.S. troops by Afghan soldiers that we're training. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan kill themselves at a rate of one every 80 minutes. More Active Duty U.S. military personnel have died by suicide since the war in Afghanistan began than have died fighting there. Nearly 18,000 have been wounded in Afghanistan alone. Let us bring them all home. Let us provide our veterans and active military the care and benefits that they have so bravely earned. Let's end the war in Afghanistan now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for several years now I have come to the floor of the House and called for an end to the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in the history of the United States. I have been joined by others--some Democrats, some Republicans, some liberals, some conservatives--who have consistently raised their voices in opposition to the war. Today, once again, I stand here in the aftermath of more senseless killings of Americans, not only by Taliban forces, but by forces associated with the Afghan Government--a government we support and are told to trust. It is hard to believe that in the midst of a Presidential campaign so little is being said about the war. During the Republican National Convention, nominee Mitt Romney never once mentioned the war or the troops in his acceptance speech--not even a sentence, not a phrase, nothing. As one who has been to Afghanistan twice, met with our troops, talked to returning veterans and been to visit them in the hospital, I find that silence shocking and offensive. I also find offensive the fact that this House of Representatives has refused to even debate this issue. When the Department of Defense authorization bill came to the floor earlier this year, the Republican leadership of this House refused to allow a bipartisan amendment that I and Walter Jones of North Carolina offered. That amendment called for an accelerated withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. The chairman of the Rules Committee at the time said there were a lot of other important issues to be debated on the defense bill. My question is: What in the world is more important than this war? The Afghan Government is one of the most corrupt in the world. Our troops have already accomplished their mission, not only ridding Afghanistan of al Qaeda, but killing Osama bin Laden. By the way, they got him in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. So why are we still there? There is a culture in Washington that engulfs both Republicans and Democrats; it is a culture that makes it easy to go to war but impossible to get out. There is no question that ending the war in Afghanistan will be messy; there is no nice, neat way to do it. There will be no signing of a peace treaty, no grand parade. The President tells us that we will turn over control of security operations to the Afghans by 2014, but it is unclear how many U.S. forces will remain or what their role will be. And Mitt Romney says nothing. Mr. Speaker, there ought to be a major portion of this Presidential campaign dedicated to the issue of Afghanistan. Vague deadlines or generalities no longer suffice. Too many brave American service men and women have paid with their lives. And while candidates talk about the debt our government carries, no one points out that we borrow the billions to pay for this war. We don't even pay for it; it goes on the credit card. And we've been doing this for over a decade in this Congress. We can't spend one additional penny to feed hungry children or create a single job or build a single bridge without finding an offset; yet when it comes to war, there are no offsets, no new revenue, just another blank check. Something is terribly wrong with this picture. Finally, I would remind my colleagues here in the House that we are all responsible for this war, and we are complicit in the silence, lack of debate, and lack of oversight. That is wrong. We owe our service men and women so much better. We owe this country better. End the war and bring our troops home now.