Madam President, reserving the right to
object, I rise to address Ukraine’s perilous situation.
There is broad agreement in this
Chamber, and in the House of Representatives, that America’s response—in all
areas—to Russia and Belarus’s aggression against Ukraine must be comprehensive
and strong.
Leveraging the benefits of the U.S.
trade relationship with Russia is just such a response that will add to the
pressures on Putin to rethink his actions in Ukraine, and punish him for what
he’s already done.
On March 8, Democrat and Republican
leadership in the Senate Finance Committee and House Committee on Ways &
Means reached agreement on precisely that type of response.
- The bicameral, bipartisan agreement is
called the “Suspending Normal Trade Relations with Russia and Belarus Act,” and
its provisions include:
Banning Russian energy imports,
including various forms of petroleum, natural gas, and coal; - Moving Russia and Belarus to the
same pariah trade status as North Korea and Cuba; - Providing the President additional
authority to raise tariffs on Russia and Belarus even further; - Calling on WTO Members to take
similar actions to deprive Russia of its trade benefits; and - Sending a crystal clear message to
Russia’s dictator, Vladimir Putin, that he will never see these trade
benefits restored until he reverses his aggression, stops threatening our
NATO allies and recognizes the right of the Ukrainian people to live
freely.
None of this is controversial; and all
of it is necessary.
Yet, only a day after the deal was made,
and with neither warning nor explanation, the House split the energy ban from
the trade status provision, and bifurcated the two measures further by imposing
separate standards on Putin’s actions in Ukraine before any president can think
to restore trade benefits to Russia without Congressional approval.
Each bill passed by over 400 votes, but
the House decided to only transmit its bill on Russia’s trade status, its
Permanent Normal Trade Relations, or PNTR piece, even though it passed more
than a week after the energy ban.
The important point is that our House
colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree both restrictions need to happen. Some may wonder why the urgent need for
the congressional energy import ban, after the President provided one in his
Executive Order.
Speaker Pelosi was asked
just that question when she put her new House version of the import ban up for
a vote, and she stated,
correctly, to her House colleagues —“you’re here to legislate.”
Absolutely, that’s why we
are here.
And our legislative
response—more especially its certification requirements—must deliver an
unmistakable message to Putin: no relief until you stop your aggression and
recognize Ukraine’s inalienable right to live free and choose its leaders.
The energy ban and trade
status revocation are complementary, and they must work together.
While President Biden’s
executive order to ban Russian oil was a positive step, the Senate and House
need to impose tough conditions on Putin’s treatment of Ukraine to be met
before any President seeks an end the energy import ban.
These conditions are like those Congress
had done in the bipartisan Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions
Act, or CAATSA, legislation which we negotiated when I was Banking Committee
Chairman during the Trump Administration.
Enacting a Russian oil ban will
demonstrate to the Ukrainian people and our NATO allies that Congress is
committed to cutting off Russia’s funding for its war effort.
Many of our allies, including in Europe,
are debating whether to adopt an energy ban against Russia. By the United States Congress acting definitively
and with certainty through our congressional action, our allies will be all the
more encouraged to take similar stands against Russian energy exports—which
account for over a third of Russia’s budget.
I seek to continue to our bipartisan
tradition by introducing text that is as close to the original deal as possible
except in two respects—that respond to the points made by our Majority
Leader—both made to facilitate our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
First, I am making a single technical
correction made at the request of Senators Manchin and Murkowski to comport
with the timeline of the President’s Executive Order regarding the oil
ban. So that no delay, which was
mentioned as a possible problem, will exist.
This edit is necessary to avoid that delay and it solves that problem.
Second, I have revised the certification
criteria that would allow the restoration of trade benefits to match exactly
what the House passed.
The original deal provided that benefits
could not be restored until Russia withdrew its forces and stopped posing an
immediate threat to NATO allies and partners.
To secure bipartisan support, I yielded to what the House passed: that Russia need only reach an agreement with
a president to withdraw its forces rather than have definitively withdrawn
them, and that Russia not pose a threat to NATO members, as opposed to NATO members
and their partners.
Again, this is to match what the House
has requested.
Mind you, I have many colleagues on my
side who would like to do many more things—and I agree with their
requests. But on the trade front, I am
willing to make these concessions to get this done.
My view is that we
should act quickly, we must do it together, and we must do it today. There is no reason to wait for another
revenue bill to come from the House before we act.
So let us mark the bravery
of Ukrainian people by passing the strongest legislation we can today in the
trade space.
Accordingly, I am asking the Senator to
modify his request to take the firm, comprehensive action against Vladimir
Putin that circumstances require.
I ask the Senator to modify his to make
it in order for the Crapo substitute amendment, which is at the desk, to be
considered and agreed to, and that the Senate vote on the passage of the bill,
as amended.
###