America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength Act of 2022

Floor Speech

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 has already done.

On March 8, the Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means reached an 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 these trade benefits to Russia without congressional approval.

Each bill passed by over 400 votes, but the House decided to only transmit the bill on Russia's trade status, its permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR piece, even though it had 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 President Biden provided one in his Executive order.

Speaker Pelosi was asked just that question when she put the 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 is 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 its 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 to the energy import ban. These conditions are like those Congress had done in the bipartisan CAATSA legislation, which we negotiated when I was the 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 U.S. Congress acting definitively and with certainty through our congressional action, our allies will all be more encouraged to take similar stands against Russian energy exports, which account for over a third of Russia's budget.

I seek to continue 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 such as 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 the 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. I agree with the majority leader on this. 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 the 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 would like to ask that the Senator modify his request 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. I would like to say to my colleague Senator Cardin, I believe we could easily work the global Magnitsky legislation into whatever we do today. I don't believe there will be objections to moving ahead on that. It is not included in what I submitted because that was not a part of the original four-corners agreement which I am proposing. I think that could be added.

I also have colleagues on my side of the aisle who have other items they would like to see discussed because the idea we are talking about here is to move ahead with no amendments on legislation that is major. And I am willing to discuss that as well, but I believe we need time to work this out.

We can get this done today. And even though the House is not in session today, our passage of global legislation on this entire issue would send a powerful message that the House could affirm when it does come back into session next week.

So I will still need to object, but I will commit to my colleagues on the other side that I will work with you today to try to iron out these differences. I need to have assurances that these other pieces that, for some unexplained reason, the House has not been willing to put into this package can be put into a package that will pass. And if we can get to that point, we can move today.

So I commit that I will work with you; but at this point, I must object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAPO. I thank Leader Schumer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source