We are not happy about this amendment, because it changes the front end of this on the human rights and removes some of the requirements around the reporting.
We had witnesses. Vladimir Kara-Murza said,
The one thing that never works...talking about this issue here...is so-called quiet diplomacy. When somebody tells you, “Oh, we're going to raise it privately. We're going to make sure we'll discuss it with them in a polite way”, that's the best way of knowing they're not going to do anything about it. The only defence, the only hope, the only lifeline for a political prisoner who is sitting in a prison cell in Siberia, in Xinjiang, in Venezuela or wherever it may be, is publicity, advocacy and public attention.
Brandon Silver, when he appeared, said, “more public reporting can be helpful. We've found cases in which it has, more often than not, led to release.”
Marcus Kolga reflected that.
Bill Browder said, “I can tell you that in 100% of the cases, it's a good thing for governments to name and shame, to label authoritarian regimes as acting out badly and arresting people who shouldn't be arrested, and to name prisoners of conscience. It's never a bad thing.”
In light of the testimony we heard and the work that all of us have done with different diaspora communities in our meetings over the years, with prisoners of conscience and with people who have faced persecution because of their political beliefs, religious beliefs or opposition to these authoritarian regimes around the world, now we're going to take out some of the definition. We're going to, essentially, at the end of the day, reduce some of the reporting requirements and what's in those reports. The only ones, really, who are going to be happy about this are the dictators, such as Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and the ayatollahs.