What is even more surprising is the undertone of the hearing that we should, that Members of Congress want the court to engage in a much more active second guessing of what Congress does.

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.

We spent billions of dollars on it. And then they said, no, it isn't working.

I want to thank the chairman for holding this meeting and thank our witnesses for coming today.

It seems to me that if you are trying to work on risk that one of the best ways not to make a mistake is to not do anything, don't let anything come in.

We are working our way towards Customs reauthorization bills, so we are here today to understand the nature and the origin of the problems and to look for solutions.

We ought to get off paper and onto a computer.

Would you explain to me in terms that I can understand what it was that was attempted and what didn't work?