It is very difficult, after you have granted the status, to then get them to really fulfill the commitments that they have made.

It is essential that both parties operate in good faith. There is scant evidence that the Russian state operates in good faith.

I believe that the United States has leverage with Russia.

Just one second. Since Senator Kerry might have been out of the room when I put the letters in the record, the piece in the Wall Street Journal by Kasparov and Nemtsov specifically referred to the letter that you quoted.

We tried to anticipate all the things that we could hold China to.

I think PNTR is definitely a plus, not just for trade relations, but it imposes a degree of discipline in trade relations that is a positive step on the rule of law.

When the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, suggests that there is no association between a country's respect for individual liberties and its business environment, he is simply denying reality.

Our leverage is, we will withhold action until that plan is forthcoming, and we can negotiate with the Russians.

It is simply unreasonable to believe that PNTR can be extended to Russia without a more thorough examination of the issues.

I think that I understand the message this hearing is intended to convey: American businesses want access to Russian markets, so we should repeal Jackson-Vanik and grant Russia permanent normal trade relations without delay and without…

They need Jackson-Vanik repealed. They want it repealed desperately. That is beyond any argument.