I think that is the correct course of action, is to pursue negotiations.

I think that is fairly clear. And I also believe that he means it when he says that military options are on the table.

Surgical strikes, I would argue, will simply not work, at least by themselves.

Terminating Jackson-Vanik and extending PNTR to Russia is in the absolute best interest of American businesses, workers and innovators.

We should explore every opportunity to open markets for U.S. employers, workers, farmers, and ranchers.

I am not sure everybody on this Committee understands the Magnitsky case and why it is sitting there.

We take this issue very seriously. We share the serious concerns of the Members of the Congress.

The use of Jackson-Vanik obviously had a point at some time in the past. Probably for the last 10 years it has been irrelevant.

All of a sudden in this Committee, and you have heard it from a number of different points of view, worry about the human rights issues in some of the countries we trade in.

I want to just comment and touch on the human rights issue.

I certainly think there should be no discharge in bankruptcy of a withdraw liability.

I think it is both welcome and refreshing that there have been ideas put forward here about how to address this problem.

See I think the stories we just heard give us some guiding principles for what we ought to do here.

I think the members have been educated by this and we thank the panel for all their preparation.

I think really that is what Ms. McReynolds is talking about.

It would be catastrophically bad, in my opinion, if that happened.

Something is working.

You should not be able to discharge these departure liabilities in bankruptcy.