Suspending Normal Trade Relations with Russia and Belarus Act

Mr. President, I have lent my voice with my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate many times, here on the Senate floor, and elsewhere back home in Kansas in condemnation of Vladimir Putin's attack, invasion, the death and destruction that his actions--his sole actions--have taken on the people of Ukraine. But those actions have consequences broader than just within the borders of the independent country of Ukraine. I want today to bring awareness to a pressing consequence coming out of this invasion, and that is hunger.

A month ago, Russia, the world's largest supplier of wheat, invaded Ukraine. Ukraine is the fifth largest

supplier of wheat. Together, they account for about 30 percent of global exports. This has exacerbated--tremendously exacerbated--the already existing global food crisis, and it will only get worse.

Coming from a State like Kansas, coming from Kansas, America's largest supplier of wheat, I can tell you the effects this invasion will have on the stability of our ag markets here in the United States, and it should be alarming and could prove to be a catastrophic outcome for our global food supply.

When there is a shortage of food, one of the things we can do is produce more. I would tell you that while the prices of agricultural commodities we grow in Kansas and across the United States have increased, I also would tell you that the input cost--the things that a farmer or a rancher has to purchase in order to produce that crop, to produce that outcome--has increased even more dramatically.

I would encourage the administration and this Congress to do more in regard to the cost of everything. The increasing cost of food for the American consumer and the absence of food for many around the world can be alleviated by increasing the supply--can be addressed at least in part by increasing the supply.

To help do that, we need to make certain that we increase our own production of oil and natural gas and of fertilizer. The cost of fertilizer is a huge input cost for the Kansas farmer, and we still have tariffs on phosphates coming from Morocco. The Department of Commerce is contemplating tariffs on nutrients for fertilizer coming from Trinidad and Tobago.

Increasing the cost of the inputs of producing food is a very damaging thing to occur and should stop. We need to reduce the price-- slow the increase in the price of diesel fuel and fertilizer. Natural gas is a major component of producing fertilizer, and diesel fuel is hugely important.

Again, we need to increase the supplies of our fossil fuels to help the farmers survive during these times.

Today, I wear on behalf of Kansans the sunflower pin. It is the State flower of our State, but it also is an important symbol in Ukraine. It is a symbol of the resistance to Putin's invasion.

Just as Kansas is the breadbasket of America, Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe. Ukraine, as I said earlier, is a large grain- producing country, not just in wheat but a top 10 global exporter of corn, sunflower oil, and other commodities. It provides produce to markets not just in Europe but to some of the most vulnerable countries throughout the Middle East.

According to the magazine The Economist, ``The last time Egypt raised bread prices, the Soviet Union was still intact.''

Food stability is essential to political stability. We may recall that it was an increase in food prices that sparked mass protests throughout the Arab world a decade ago.

As we have seen in the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Afghanistan and the developing crisis caused by the invasion of Ukraine, it is critical to utilize every tool at our disposal to meet these challenges. And it extends much further than the countries we see in the news each day. Currently, 45 million people across 43 countries are on the brink of famine. Hunger isn't an isolated issue; it affects each and every one of us.

Prior to this assault, Afghanistan was facing a dire food shortage, with 23 million people going hungry. This will worsen as Putin's assault continues.

In Sudan, 87 percent of the country's wheat comes from Russia and Ukraine. By the end of this year, an expected 20 million people will be food insecure, one in two Sudanese.

In Bangladesh, despite progress in recent years, 11 million people are still suffering from acute hunger.

In Ethiopia, 20 million people currently require food support, and this will worsen as Putin's assault continues.

According to the U.N. agency chiefs, Yemen is teetering on the edge of an outright catastrophe.

The No. 1 driver of hunger on the planet is manmade conflict, according to the World Food Programme. As Russia's tyranny continues-- this Putin-made war--countries around the globe will teeter on the edge, falling further into widespread hunger.

As the cochair of the Senate Hunger Caucus and a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Program--what I like to call Food for Peace and the Dole-McGovern Program--combatting any threat of hunger is not only the smart thing to do, it is the morally right thing to do to save the lives of not only those living in Ukraine but around the world.

In January and, again, earlier this month, I called on USDA Secretary Vilsack and USAID Administrator Power to release the resources within the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, an emergency international food assistance program to combat global hunger in times of ``exceptional need.'' The Emerson Trust was created in 1980 for a moment just like this: when existing global hunger programs cannot--cannot--adequately address the prospects of multiple looming famines.

As both the immediate and long-term effects on Ukraine's agriculture sector become clearer, the United States should work--the United States, with the rest of the world, should work to quickly provide the necessary commodities through sale or donation to meet countries' unsatisfied food and commodity needs. Doing so will help alleviate a greater humanitarian crisis than has already been caused by the unprovoked invasion and will help foster political stability in food- insecure countries.

We are seeing the worst of evil--Putin's invasion of Ukraine--and the tremendous cost--humanitarian cost, loss-of-freedom cost--by that invasion. We can also see the best in humanity: helping a starving world to be fed.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I think it is incredibly important that we read bills before we vote on them, that we have adequate debate, and that we really understand what we are doing.

The Magnitsky Act was originally an act that sought to sanction people in Russia--still does--but was expanded beyond Russia, and now, this bill would expand it further.

When you are going to sanction people, there has to be an argument about whom you are going to sanction, so the original Magnitsky Act has in law that you would sanction people who have gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Well, that sounds good, but the Magnitsky Act goes a step further and defines what these are. Gross violations of human rights include torture; cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment; punishment or long detention without charges and trial; causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons--a lot of this applies to, really, what happened to Magnitsky; this was named after him because of what happened to him--other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person.

What we are having happen right now is sort of--they are trying to pull a fast one, basically. We are going to get rid of all definitions of gross human rights, and we are going to replace them with not a list of things like torture and murder, indefinite detention; we are going to replace it with the words ``serious human rights abuse.''

Well, it still sounds pretty good, but it is like, what does that mean? The problem is that many different people have different definitions of rights. The left, including the U.N., believes you have a right to an abortion, to a house, to the internet, to healthcare. So you can see how, if you have wide-open, vague, vastly ambiguous language, someone could be President and say: The leader of that country is denying the human right to abortion, so therefore, we must sanction them. Without any sort of tribunal, without any sort of due process, they would just simply sanction them. Or what if they are not providing the internet?

So the thing is, words are important. You can't have vacuous sort of definitions. Where did this definition--it came from the Trump administration. So basically, what they are trying to do is mirror the Trump administration, which gave unlimited authority to the President. It is kind of surprising, for all the superficial rhetoric and opposition to President Trump, that they are trying to adopt his language now. But this language also comes from the Biden administration because the one thing Presidents have in common is they like unlimited power without checks and balances.

If this language goes through, it will remove any checks and balances or any definitions as to what human rights abuses are. It is a terrible mistake. It is rash, and we shouldn't do it.

I have offered an amendment, and I will offer it here in a moment. My amendment simply includes the definition that I just read. Gross violation of human rights--torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, indefinite detention. That is what we would put in the bill, is the actual definition. These aren't my words; these are the words of the mostly Democrats who wrote the bill, the Magnitsky Act.

What they are trying to do is take the Magnitsky Act and drive an enormous hole in it that you can push anything through and do sanctions on anybody, anywhere in the world, based on a vague, ambiguous, and vast definition that is not specific.

All I am asking is that you keep the Magnitsky Act. The irony here is the very authors of the Magnitsky Act are on the floor saying: We don't want the Magnitsky Act anymore. We want a big, enormous hole, that the President can sanction anybody in the world anytime.

It is a terrible idea. It is ripe for abuse from a President.

Many on the other side had arguments with the previous President, and they worried about him having unlimited power. So they want to give unlimited power to their President because they like him better. Well, guess what? I am an equal opportunity, ecumenical kind of guy who says: No President should have vast powers. All Presidents' powers should be circumspect. All Presidents' powers should be controlled.

All I am asking for is that we pass the original Magnitsky Act. So this is going to be forever. This isn't a year or 2. When we first started into the Magnitsky Act, we were going to do it for just a year or 2 and see how it is going. This is forever. It will never come back up again. And we are doing it with 5 minutes' worth of debate, not going through a committee, and we are just simply going to say: Do whatever you want. Sanction anybody in the entire world.

It is a huge mistake, it is a huge expansion of government power, of Presidential power, and it will lead to abuse. And I promise you, the moment there is a Republican President back in the White House, the other side will be squawking, saying: Why is he doing this? Why is he doing this?

So I would say take a step back. We could talk about this over the next several days. We could come to an agreement. I have even said we could expand the definition. The definition of ``gross violation of human rights'' from Magnitsky should not be thrown away. And we could add to it. If there are other things, such as corruption, that you don't think are included, give us some words, and we will talk about it and see if we can come to a compromise. That is what was offered, and what we get back is that, oh, everybody else agrees on the other side, so I should be quiet. I am talking about something that is arcane. This is your

language. This is the Magnitsky Act from the last 5 years, and you are calling it arcane?

This is a very reasonable request. It is a very unreasonable request to ram this down the throats of Americans, to expand Presidential power with no checks and balances, and I absolutely object to it.

I will offer as a counter, though, a unanimous consent request that is at the desk to have my amendment pass immediately, and if my amendment is passed immediately, that the remaining request from Senator Schumer be passed as well.

Mr. President, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object to the request from the Senator from Idaho, it is my understanding that the Senator's modification would not include provisions that were included in the House-passed legislation that modifies the global Magnitsky sanction regime.

I just would like to speak for a moment, if I might. There is no question that we stand with the people of Ukraine against the unprovoked attack by Mr. Putin. We are inspired every day by the courage of the Ukrainian people and by their inspirational leader, President Zelenskyy.

The United States has shown leadership, and I congratulate the Biden administration. We have led the free world in providing defensive lethal weapons to Ukraine to defend itself. We have provided humanitarian assistance, joining the global community, including dealing with 3 million Ukrainians that are now refugees in other countries and 10 million that have been displaced as a result of Mr. Putin's unprovoked attack.

And we have led on sanctions. We have led in getting the global unity to impose sanctions against not just the Russian sectors, but also against individuals. And when Mr. Zelenskyy spoke before the Members of Congress, he specifically mentioned the importance of these sanctions; and he asked us to expand those covered by the sanctions to include the enablers, those that are enabling Mr. Putin--the oligarchs--to be able to fund his aggression against Ukraine.

So what did the House send over to us? In their bill, they sent over a global Magnitsky modification. It is identical to legislation that was filed by Senator Portman and myself that included the revocation of PNTR for Russia, along with the global Magnitsky. First and foremost, it removes the sunset that is in the legislation that would sunset this year.

Mr. Zelenskyy asked for us to be resolved in being willing to stand up to Mr. Putin, that it would take some time. A clear message is that we remove the sunset on the global Magnitsky statute. And we know how difficult it is to get legislation passed in this body.

It also expands the global Magnitsky to include the enablers--exactly what Mr. Zelenskyy asked us to do--those that enabled--the oligarchs that allowed him to be able to finance this. The language that is included in here is very similar to the language that was included in President Trump's Executive order. This is critical legislation.

Now, let me just tell you how appropriate it is that it is included in a PNTR bill--because the first Magnitsky sanction bill--and Senator Wyden was very important in getting this done--was included in the original PNTR bill for Russia, and we were able to get it done at that time.

We then made it a global Magnitsky, and my partner on that was the late Senator McCain. It has always been bipartisan. My partner now is Senator Wicker. The two of us have joined forces to make sure we get it done now. It is critically important in order to impose banking restrictions on those that are targeted under the global Magnitsky, as well as visa restrictions on being able to travel.

How important is it? Ask Mr. Usmanov, who is one of the principal oligarchs to Mr. Putin, who solves Mr. Putin's business problems. Guess how he solves those problems? Well, his yacht has now been confiscated in Germany. That is how important these sanctions are and how we have to move them forward.

So, if I understand my colleague's request, it would deny the opportunity for us to act on the global Magnitsky, which Mr. Zelenskyy has specifically asked us to do. We would lose that opportunity. We would be sending this bill back to the House that is not in session, which means there will be a further delay in repealing PNTR for Russia, which is something we need to do now, today. We can get it to the President for signature today under the majority leader's request.

And as the majority leader has indicated, I support the energy ban--I support the Russian energy ban. President Biden has already taken steps to do that. And I agree with my colleague from Idaho. I would like to incorporate that in statute, but there is no urgency to do that as there is on repealing PNTR and the global Magnitsky. That is the urgency. That is what we need to get done today. That is what we can get to the President this afternoon under the majority leader's request, and that will be denied if my friend from Idaho's request were granted.

So, for all those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, let me thank the chairman on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his incredible leadership on this issue and so many others.

I want to point out that our committee has already approved this language. This is already approved. This is not something that is new to this body. We have been debating this for some time. It has been the United States and the U.S. Senate that have taken the leadership to provide tools to go after human rights abusers. We were the first to act, but, as a result of our action, Europe has now acted, the UK has acted, and Canada has acted. So we have provided global leadership. It is one of the strongest tools we have against human rights violators, and our No. 1 target today is Mr. Putin and what he has done.

So we have a chance to really show our leadership--continued leadership--in this area.

I am also encouraged by Senator Crapo's assurances that we are going to try to get this done today. We want to get this bill to the President. We want to have it clear that we reauthorized it in a way that would be effective moving forward.

On one last point, if I might, no one knows exactly what happened in the first summit meeting between President Putin and President Trump, but the reports were that probably one of the very first issues that was raised by Mr. Putin was global Magnitsky sanctions, how it is so sensitive to him.

A clear message against Mr. Putin is the passage of the reauthorization and, as the chairman said, fine-tuning of the global Magnitsky statute. I hope we can get that done today. I thank my colleagues for their comments.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I reserve the right to object in regard to the Senator from Kentucky's request.

Mr. President, first, let me just correct some of the statements that were made. This bill went through the committee. It was voted on in the committee. Amendments were offered in the committee. The Senator from Kentucky was present during the markup in the committee. That is the way legislation should be considered in this body.

We are talking about how the Senate can work the way it should? Let the committees function. And that is exactly what we did in regard to the legislation that is on the floor. It went through the regular process. And the Senator's request is despite the fact that the majority leader has said he will allow a vote on the floor and let the Members of the Senate make the decision as to whether they agree or disagree with the arguments made by the author of the amendment. That is how a democracy should work. That is how the legislative process should work.

So I am somewhat shocked that the Senator would object to the majority leader's request that would allow the legislation to come to the floor and let the Senate work its will by majority vote. That is what the majority leader said.

Let me give you a little bit more history on this. The original Magnitsky bill was originally attached to the PNTR for Russia, and it was aimed solely at the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. We wanted to hold those responsible for his death accountable. That is why the language the Senator is referring to was included in the original act. It was aimed at one episode and one set of abusers.

It became such a successful tool for diplomacy that, working with Senator McCain, the two of us worked on making it a global bill so that it would apply beyond just Russia and that we could use this to advance American foreign policy.

And we worked--and quite frankly, we didn't have the enthusiastic support of the administration because the Senator from Kentucky is right: Administrations like to have their own authority; they don't like Congress to intercede. And on the Magnitsky, we can make recommendations as to who should be considered for sanctions. So it was a major step forward, and we were able to pass Global Magnitsky.

In the meantime, President Trump worked with us on this. He was a supporter of using this tool. And he passed an Executive order--signed an Executive order, that included provisions that we asked him to include in the Executive order because we recognized that corruption was the fuel for Mr. Putin and Russia and authoritarian regimes. So we wanted to make sure that we could include corruption. We wanted to make sure that we could include the enablers--those who enabled these human rights abusers to do what they do, and that was included in the Executive order.

And we worked with the Trump administration. And we have worked with the Biden administration. And we now have a workable standard. And better than that, as a result of our leadership, we have gotten our countries around the world to conform to our tool. The European Union has passed Global Magnitsky. The UK has passed Global Magnitsky. Canada has passed Global Magnitsky. Japan is considering it as we speak.

It is becoming the standard. So from a process point of view, what was passed out of our committee, what was passed out of the House committee, both authorizing committees have agreed on this language, which has been signed off by Treasury so they know they can use it, which has due process in it because we are dealing with property rights.

So now let's get to the substance of what the gentleman's amendment would do. The substance of it is that it would not allow us to do what we need to do in regards to Mr. Putin and Russia as a result of his invasion of Ukraine. And the sponsor of this amendment is very clear what he is trying to do. He is trying to take back the current authority under the Executive order and would, therefore, not even be useful at all in regards to going after Mr. Putin.

We would be taking a step back. It was just a few days ago that President Zelenskyy asked us to expand the individual sanctions, and that is what is on the floor right now in the majority leader's request, so we can expand it, we can give him the tools he needs, so that we can respond and help the people of Ukraine. That is what is involved here.

But with the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, we would be moving backwards. We would be doing just the opposite. It would weaken where we are today. So I am really puzzled as to why we can't trust the judgment of the Members of the Senate to make this decision. Let's argue over the 2 hours that the majority leader will give us to argue this point. I look forward to that argument on the floor of the Senate. I already had that argument in our committee. Because the two--the gentleman from Kentucky and I, along with the Presiding Officer, served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We had this argument in committee. And if I am correct, I believe, the vote was all but one supporting my position.

So we have already had this debate where it should take place among the experts. And the gentleman's not satisfied with that. I am at a loss here because I know how important it is for us to move forward to help the people of Ukraine.

Every day, we see the bodies on the ground. We see the horrific action by Mr. Putin, and we really want to do everything we can to help the people of Ukraine. The action the majority leader is asking us to take will help the people of Ukraine. And as I understand it, one Senator is going to deny us the opportunity to take a very positive step, to stand up for democracy, and for standing up for the people of Ukraine.

I object to the request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden's nominee to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson brings an exceptional level of experience to the bench. After serving for nearly 8 years on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Jackson has more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court Justice and more than almost any Justice in a century. She will also be only the second sitting Justice to have served on all three levels of the Federal judiciary.

Judge Jackson's nomination is historic. If confirmed, she will be the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court, bringing a long overdue representation to the Bench. After serving as an assistant Federal public defender in Washington, DC, Judge Jackson will also be the first former Federal public defender to serve on our Nation's highest Court.

It matters that someone nominated to sit on our Nation's highest Court has represented people other than corporate clients. It matters that someone nominated has had real experience with people who can't afford lawyers. It matters that someone nominated has had real experience in fighting for the public interest.

The Sixth Amendment of our Constitution grants criminal defendants the right to have the assistance of counsel in their defenses, but it wasn't until 1963, in Gideon v. Wainwright, that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Constitution required State courts to appoint lawyers for defendants who could not otherwise afford one.

Now, some Republicans have complained about the very idea of having a public defender on the Supreme Court, but their objections run squarely afoul of the meaning of the Constitution. This fundamental constitutional right to counsel is safeguarded by the work public defenders do every single day. Public defenders are literally on the frontlines of helping America live up to our constitutional ideals. Every American who supports and defends the Constitution should welcome a Supreme Court Justice who has worked so hard to turn our constitutional ideals into reality.

When asked about her work as a public defender, Judge Jackson said:

Every person who is accused of criminal conduct by the

government, regardless of wealth and despite the nature of

the accusations, is entitled to the assistance of counsel.

Judge Jackson restates a foundational constitutional point, one that she has lived--up close and personal.

Public defenders understand better than anyone that none of us should be defined by the worst thing we have ever done. Everyone, regardless of who they are or what they have been accused of, deserves a lawyer. Our legal system, as imperfect as it may be, strives to deliver equal justice under law. It is only because of the commitment of public defenders, civil rights attorneys, and legal aid lawyers that we can aspire to achieving that ideal.

That is why we need Judge Jackson's expertise on the Supreme Court, and that is why, for a long time now, I have called for prioritizing professional diversity on our Federal bench.

For far too long, our Federal judiciary has been dominated by those who only have experience representing the wealthy and well connected, but what about those who don't have money or influence? We need more judges with experience in representing the voiceless and the disadvantaged. The makeup of our Federal and State courts has never fully reflected the American people. Over time, this lack of representation has formed cracks in the foundation of our legal system--cracks that weaken public trust and threaten the legitimacy of our institutions.

A diverse judiciary matters. Judges--all judges--draw on their past personal and professional experiences when analyzing the law and reviewing the facts of individual cases. Judges who have experience as public defenders, civil rights attorneys, and legal aid lawyers are well equipped to understand the circumstances that bring everyday Americans into courtrooms. It is that background that strengthens public trust and that reinforces the legitimacy of our judicial system.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said it best:

If the court doesn't have legitimacy with the American

public, it can't do all that much. All kinds of different

people should be able to look at the court and say, ``I see

somebody there who looks like me, who thinks the way I do,

who has experiences of the kind that I had.'' And that's the

kind of thing that gives the court public legitimacy.

Justice Kagan is right. Our judiciary will, undoubtedly, be made stronger because of Judge Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

It is not only her work as a public defender that informs Judge Jackson's experience. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Jackson served first as an assistant special counsel and, later, as the Vice Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. These experiences give her deep insight into the sentencing guidelines and enhance her ability to think critically about our criminal legal system's impact on ordinary people.

Judge Jackson's first stint on the Commission inspired her to become an assistant Federal public defender in order to gain practical, firsthand insight into our criminal legal system. Her work in the trenches, representing those without means or power, provided Judge Jackson with an invaluable perspective into our system of justice, and it gave her the opportunity to effectuate the fundamental right to counsel, which is outlined in our Constitution.

I look forward to supporting her confirmation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as I have said all week long, there has been an imperative for the Senate to unite and quickly pass legislation stripping Russia of normal trade relation status with the United States. The House has acted; the White House supports it.

As the President meets with our allies in Europe, it is very important we send a message to the world that we are united in making sure Putin pays a heavy price for his war on Ukraine. After the House passed PNTR last week by 424 to 8, including the support from Leader McCarthy, it is unreasonable and deadly wrong for the Senate not to do the same, especially while the President is abroad. So we are seeking consent to move this legislation forward ASAP.

After a day of long negotiations yesterday, I reached an agreement with Senator Crapo, with concurrence from Senators Wyden and Manchin, to move forward on PNTR while also taking action on oil ban legislation separately.

Now, I understand that Senator Paul has further objection and is demanding we amend this agreement with a major change to the legislation. Senator Paul appears to be the lone Senator demanding this. I believe that all other 99 Senators are in agreement to proceed.

Look, all of us want to see this bill move quickly because it is so very much needed and it is so bipartisan. I

am willing to include, as part of our unanimous consent right now, that Senator Paul be entitled to have his amendment with a majority vote threshold.

The question before Senator Paul is, even though the vote was 424 to 8 in the House and is very bipartisan here in the Senate, is he going to tank PNTR because his arcane interpretation is not forced into the bill? Can Senator Paul take yes for an answer? Can he let us move forward today to hold Putin accountable?

Every Senator would like his proposal or her proposal put in the bill, but in the Senate, we vote; and we are willing to give the Senator a vote, even though we greatly disagree with his interpretation of the law that is here.

I truly, I earnestly, and I strongly hope that my Republican colleague does not object to bipartisan legislation that would deal a heavy, heavy blow on Putin's Russia, especially after the House of Representatives acted with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Many of our Republican colleagues have criticized the Biden administration for supposedly not acting quickly enough on Putin, but now, one Republican Senator is holding up this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. I strongly hope some of my other Republican colleagues can persuade Senator Paul to accept our agreement here so that we can move forward. Let us be equally resolute in standing with Ukraine and fighting back against Putin's brutal war by passing PNTR in the Senate right away.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of H.R. 6968, the Russian Oil Ban, and H.R. 7108, Russia PNTR, both of which are at the desk; that there be 2 hours for debate on the bills en bloc equally divided between the two leaders or designees; that it be in order for Senator Crapo, or a designee, to offer the Crapo-Wyden amendment at the desk to H.R. 6968; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided prior to the vote on the amendment; that it be in order for Senator Paul to offer the amendment at the desk to H.R. 7108; that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to a vote on the Paul amendment, and that these be the only amendments in order to either bill; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bills be considered read a third time en bloc and the Senate vote on passage of H.R. 7108, as amended, if amended, and H.R. 6968, as amended, if amended; finally, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without further intervening action or debate.

Before I yield to my friend from the State of Maryland, the author of the Magnitsky Act, let me just say this to my good friend from Kentucky: Every Senator would like their amendment to be easily inserted into a bill, but in the Senate, we vote. I am offering the Senator a vote on his amendment. If each Senator said ``my way or the highway,'' we would have total paralysis even on an important piece of legislation like this.

I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions on amendment No. 5002 and H.R. 4521 ripen at 5:30 p.m., Monday, March 28; that if cloture is invoked on the substitute, all postcloture time be considered expired; the remaining pending amendments be withdrawn; no further amendments be in order; the substitute amendment be agreed to; the cloture motion on the bill be withdrawn; the bill, H.R. 4521, be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, yes, I give the Senator from Vermont my firm commitment to do whatever I can to get an agreement to have votes on his two motions to instruct when the message comes back from the House on this measure.

Having made that commitment, I ask the Senator from Vermont whether he might allow the Senate to agree to my original unanimous consent request?

Madam President, I would like to thank my fellow Senator, Senator Ernst from Iowa, for leading the delegation trip that we took this past weekend, the bipartisan delegation. It was most informative, impactful, and she did a wonderful job leading that. I was proud of the efforts.

I am here to join my colleagues today to discuss the invasion--the unjust and immoral invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin--in light of the trip that we just took to Germany and to Poland. In a way, I am kind of hesitant to do so, not because there isn't a lot to say or a lot to share but because of the powerful words that some of the Ukrainians whom we met implored us, which was: Enough talking. It is time to act.

I could not agree more. But out of deep respect for them, I would like to take a moment to make sure we all understand why we have to act and why we must act now.

As Americans, you realize this when you talk to--we did, certainly, when we were talking with Germans and other Europeans. We don't have the same perspective sometimes that Europeans have who faced World War II. One of the most powerful comments conveyed when we were meeting with German officials was that their new generation who has heard for decades about the atrocities from their parents and their grandparents--they were told this would never happen again. And yet what we see is that it is happening again.

This is an unjust war, and there seems to be no level of atrocity that Vladimir Putin is unwilling to commit. Putin overestimated his ability, his army, his ability to conquer. ``This must be over in 3 days,'' according to him. He overestimated his own abilities, and he grossly underestimated the will of the Ukrainian people and the will to not just live but to live freely.

On top of this, Putin has also failed to understand the commitment of the free world--of NATO--to stand up for freedom. We certainly saw that over the last several days.

We, in our Nation and in our history, know that freedom is worth fighting for, and it is also worth defending. Generations have done this in our past and will do this in the future. We believe this to our core.

We also believe that the deliberate and evil bombing of hospitals, targeting supply routes, and killing civilians are the actions of war criminals.

But in the face of all of this evil, we see hope. We see hope from the Ukrainian people; we see hope from the Ukrainian leadership; we see hope from the Ukrainian military; and we see hope in our own military forces as a part of NATO, including all nations of NATO as well as the generosity of people around the world, the nongovernmental organizations we saw helping at the refugee center, and, most especially, the Polish people. We saw them stepping in militarily. And on the humanitarian side, we saw an incredible outpouring. We saw this firsthand at the refugee center.

Poland has now taken in over 2 million people into their country, which is more than the entire population of my State. During our trip, as I said, we visited the refugee center where Ukrainians are going first to be processed as they are leaving and having to flee their country. After this, they end up not at another refugee center but most likely in somebody's home or a friend's. That is the level of care and support that they are receiving. And that is the level of care and support that they deserve as a tribute of their willingness to fight and defend their freedom. Many of these women and children--mostly women and children--are leaving their husbands and their homes behind.

Ukraine is united. As we were told, Ukraine will fight to the last man. May it never come to the last man because the free world must help. Make no mistake, the United States of America has chosen a side. We side with freedom. We side with the people of Ukraine.

Just a few weeks ago, Congress passed $14 billion in support for Ukraine and Central European allies amid Putin's unprovoked war. It is critical to get these funds and equipment to them now because time is of the essence.

As an example, Congress took an extra week to pass this package. When you are there on the ground talking to the leadership who are trying to push back on Putin, a week is a lifetime--a week is a lifetime. So we cannot afford to hesitate or to cause inaction.

In our efforts to get them funds--lethal aid--and to oppose sanctions on Russia, we must act now and keep acting.

Madam President, as you know--you were on the trip, as well--we met with diplomats and generals, representatives from many of our executive branch Agencies, NGOs, brave soldiers, including many from our home States. But I will never forget the words of a woman we met named Katarina, whom we met at the refugee processing center. She said, in desperate tones, she didn't want to leave Ukraine. She didn't want to leave her home. She wants to live in freedom and peace, but she has a 6-year-old and 8-year-old who are constantly hearing the sirens of bomb alerts, the sounds of bombing--just the violence. She had no choice. She had to leave to protect her children.

Let's do what we can, as much as we can, and as fast as we can--and that last part is critical--to return freedom to Ukraine and justice to those who do not respect the sovereignty of nations. This is really what we owe every child in Ukraine, in Germany, in Poland, and in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I would inquire through the Chair if my colleague has any remaining speakers on his side.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

By the way, to my friend across the aisle, I concur. I am eager for a return to regular order, and I hope we work towards that.

I want to thank Chairwoman Velazquez, the extraordinary staff of the Small Business Committee, my staff, and so many in the Capitol complex who have brought us to this day; Representatives Blumenauer and Quigley; my good friend, Brian Fitzpatrick, from across the aisle, and so many others. In fact, 300 Democrats and Republicans are on bills right now to replenish the RRF, and I want to thank them all for getting us here today.

I am a small business owner myself. I have been listening to this debate with open ears and open eyes, a long business career, now I own a couple coffee shops. I used to have three, but we had to close one during the pandemic.

I know how hard it is, how hard it has been, and how hard it will be. But we didn't take PPP. We didn't take an IDA loan. We didn't take any of the government support programs. That is why I am here to advocate for the 177,000--177,000--small restaurants and cafes and millions of owners, operators, and employees all around the country in my district and yours who were approved for RRF funds and have been waiting for almost a full year for us to make good on a very simple promise.

I want to thank the thousands of other small entrepreneurs and enterprises in the fitness, live events, hospitality, and other hard- hit sectors who have been waiting so patiently--but desperately--for support.

A singular principle has guided me in this 8-month journey to get to today to see this bill become law, and it is the universal and core American principle of fairness.

We promised American entrepreneurs during the worst of COVID that we would be there for them. We promised that those who required financial support to survive that we would distribute it on a level playing field. We promised that there would be no program just for the wealthy or the well-connected, and we promised them that their government, the United States of America, would not pick winners and losers. It is a theme I hear constantly from my friends across the aisle, and I agree with it.

But lo and behold, what did we do?

We did just that. We picked winners and losers by woefully underfunding the RRF and all but ignoring other small businesses dependent on public gathering that were ravaged by the pandemic. Most of the 100,000 restaurants and cafes that received support weathered the storm because of that support. They kept their lights on and their people paid, and they are now returning to viability. I think we can all agree on that. But 177,000 restaurants and cafes, often next door to or across the street from those who received RRF support, got nothing. One restaurant on one side of the street got full support, and the other one applied, was approved, and got nothing. This is patently and grossly unfair.

Actually, let me correct myself. I shouldn't say they got nothing.

Do you know what they got?

They got nonforgivable bank loans. They took on credit card debt. They mortgaged their homes. Many lost

hope and closed their doors. And, yes, a number took their own lives. They lost hope and took their own lives. I have sat around tables with tears hearing those stories about how their debts mounted and their dreams slipped away.

So to my friends across the aisle who plan to vote against this measure, particularly those whose own businesses were recipients of COVID aid that was passed in this Chamber, I ask a very simple question: How would you feel if you and your business were among the 177,000 that got nothing?

How would you feel?

And was it not wasteful spending or inflationary spending when you took the money?

My goodness. Today, we have got one last opportunity. I do believe it is the last opportunity to make good on a very simple promise that we made at the outset of this pandemic. Best of all, we are going to convert the moneys recovered from the prosecution of fraud into fairness. That is right, from fraud to fairness. The money that was fraudulently obtained is rightfully supposed to go to those whom we hope to benefit if we pass this bill today.

Now, we may not always agree on policy. But, my goodness, I would like to think that Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress can agree on the basic principle of fairness.

That is why I will not urge; rather, I will ask, that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3807, to vote ``yes'' for American small businesses, and to vote ``yes'' for fairness.

I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

And I would respond, this bill is about economic resilience. You can't be independent if you go bankrupt. You can't be independent if you can't operate your business. I have gone into restaurant after restaurant in my district, and the owners of those restaurants have had thanks for me, for the Congress, and, yes, for the administration, including Donald Trump, who signed many of these bills, that at a time of extraordinary stress--through no fault of their own, but a pandemic that attacked all of us--they were able to keep their heads above water, pay their employees, even if they couldn't be open, transfer to carry out, and do so many things that they were able to do to remain viable, which is, by the way, why almost every State has a surplus.

Why? Because revenues did not fall as they were projected to fall. That is true in my State. I think it is true in almost every State.

Why didn't revenues fall? Because we kept people above water.

Now, in this particular program that passed--in many respects with bipartisan support in 2020, December of 2020, as well--there were some 250,000-plus who were eligible under the rules that we drafted and passed but only about 100,000 of them got relief, which means that we left behind 150,000 people who were eligible under the rules that we set.

And now some would say to those that were left behind, You are on your own. That is not what we are going to do today. We are not going to tell them you are on your own. We are going to tell them we understand how important you are to the life of our country, to the economy of our country, to the people of our country.

When we enacted the American Rescue Plan--which I want to make clear did not get any Republican votes--we set aside $28.6 billion in emergency grants to help restaurants and bars that have experienced significant revenue losses due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Those restrictions were necessary, which is why, hopefully, we are coming out of not only the initial assault but the variants' assault.

The aim was to help them stay open to keep their employees on the payroll. I suggest if we had not done that, it wouldn't be independence that they would have experienced, they would have experienced recession and perhaps depression.

That funding quickly ran out, however, with only a third of restaurants that applied for assistance ultimately receiving it.

The legislation before us today would replenish the Small Business Administration's Restaurant Revitalization Fund with an additional $42 billion so that the more than 150,000 restaurants still waiting in the cue can finally get the help they need.

Those applicants have been waiting since funding ran out last year. And according to the Independent Restaurant Coalition, Mr. Speaker, 86 percent of owners indicated that they may close down if they aren't able to access these grants.

More than 90,000 restaurants and bars already have shut down in this pandemic. Think about the impact of that on neighborhoods, communities, and local economies.

Congress should act and act quickly.

I share the view of the gentleman who spoke before me that we need to make sure that we eliminate fraud, we eliminate abuse, and that we claw back money that was received through fraud. All that does is hurt those who really need it. And what this legislation says is we are going to get back that money that was fraudulently received by individuals and give it to people who legitimately need it and qualify, such as restaurants, gyms, health clubs, salons, music venues, and other places where people hope to congregate but couldn't because of necessary pandemic restrictions.

They will get a lifeline as we all hope to get ``back to normal.'' We all want to be back to normal. But we want to be back to normal with businesses that are still alive, still able to serve the public.

Importantly, that lifeline to keep legitimate small businesses afloat is paid for, as I said, by recapturing funds that were earlier disbursed to fraudulent applicants.

We are going after bad actors and rewarding good actors.

While this is an issue important to so many members of our caucus, I thank Representative Blumenauer for sponsoring this legislation, as well as Representative Phillips for his championing this cause over the past several months.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and the small businesses that it will help and the millions of employees that it will help.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has passed, and we have just had read, the passage of H.R. 7108, which is the Suspending Normal Trading Relations with Russia and Belarus Act. That passed 100 to zero in the United States Senate.

We expect at the end of this series of votes for that bill to be on the floor on suspension. So there will be no break. We will continue to that.

Thereafter, we expect the Suspending Energy Imports From Russia Act, which we voted on overwhelmingly, to be sent to us. That is currently 79 to zero in the United States Senate.

We are going to pass both of those bills in this House as soon as we get them, and it is my expectation that will complete the business for this week.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate him on his leadership. The connection between human rights and economics is a connection that many of us have seen for a while. When it comes to some countries, for example China, when I was trying to get an adjustment in trade with China based on human rights, I was told, Oh, blah, blah, blah. But I said then and I say now of Russia, if we do not speak out for human rights because of commercial interests, we lose all moral authority to speak out for human rights in any small country in the world if these big countries are left off the hook.

Madam Speaker, as we convene today, war rages in Ukraine. Yesterday, the Congress had the great honor and privilege of receiving a virtual address by President Zelenskyy, whose heroic leadership has rallied his nation and inspired the world. Our Members were very moved by his powerful remarks as well as the heart-wrenching footage he shared showing the terror and brutality which Putin has unleashed in Ukraine, including committing war crimes against children.

So it is with great respect for President Zelenskyy's leadership and with unwavering support for the people of Ukraine that the House today takes another strong step to punish Russia for its war crimes.

It is my hope that this legislation receives strong bipartisan support, and I thank the chairman, Mr. Neal, and the ranking member, Mr. Brady, for working together to make that a reality because it is a recognition that is worthy of the valor and courage of the people of Ukraine.

The unimaginable courage, resilience, and determination of the Ukrainian people has been on full display, as they fight to not only protect their homeland but to defend democracy itself. The assault that Putin is making on Ukraine is an assault on democracy writ large. He is so cowardly and so insecure; he can't stand to see a democracy across the way from Russia for fear that the Russian people will see a better way instead of his autocracy. And so the Ukrainians are fighting for democracy writ large.

Yet, tragically, Putin has repeatedly responded by accelerating brutality, indiscriminately bombing major cities, attacking civilians attempting to evacuate the violence, and even murdering mothers and babies in a maternity hospital.

Russia's cruel and unprovoked invasion has already forced nearly 3 million Ukrainians to flee their homes, creating what the United Nations has called the fastest growing refugee crisis in Europe since World War II.

Because Putin shows no sign of ceasing his horrible aggression, the Congress today will take another step, in lockstep with the Biden administration and many of our allies, to tighten our stranglehold on the Russian economy.

The legislation the House will pass today represents an intense action to further isolate Russia and decimate its economy. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Brady and Mr. Neal for giving us this opportunity.

With this bill, the United States will suspend permanent normal trade relations with Russia, which means they will no longer enjoy preferential tariff treatment, take steps to review Russia's access to the World Trade Organization, and reauthorize and strengthen the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, so that we can impose even further individual sanctions.

In doing so, we will make it as difficult as possible for Russia to do business with the United States and our allies, and we will also suspend normal trade relations with Belarus for its shameful complicity in Russia's aggression.

Congress and the country salute Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Ranking Member Kevin Brady, who led the way to steer this legislation to the floor and garner strong bipartisan support for its passage. I would also like to thank Congressman Lloyd Doggett and Congressman Earl Blumenauer for their relentless leadership in showing that the House was ready with this legislation so we could act quickly and decisively and have the improving touches that Mr. Brady and Mr. Neal added to it.

The legislation we pass today builds on swift, devastating sanctions already being imposed on Russia by America and our allies. We take this step with extraordinary unity not only within Congress on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, but also between the Congress and the administration.

And we do so with historic coordination with our neighbors abroad, as the members of the G7 and European Union have all agreed to revoke most-favored-nation status from Russia.

On behalf of the Congress, I salute President Biden for unifying our allies so that we could move together with this crushing blow. And we will continue working together to make Putin accountable for his despicable crimes as he violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

What Putin is doing in Ukraine, bombing civilians, targeting children, is outside, Madam Speaker, the circle of civilized human behavior. He is committing war crimes and he must be held accountable.

Madam Speaker, I urge a strong, bipartisan ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Luetkemeyer for the great work that he does for small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to small businesses throughout my district, they tell me that they are fraught by skyrocketing inflation, rising energy costs, workforce shortages, burdensome regulations, just regular hassles coming from the type of regulations that have been imposed and the type of tax burdens and such.

The Biden administration continues, however, to push a policy agenda that is absolutely detrimental to small business--there is no question about it--creating additional headwinds such as inflation. Let's talk about inflation.

The excessive and unnecessary spending enacted by Democrats in the last 14 months, exceeding $2 trillion, well over $2 trillion just in the rescue plan, almost $9 trillion over the course of the last couple of years, has obviously contributed to the record levels of inflation; up nearly 8 percent since last

year, just last year alone, the highest level since 1981.

We look back on that as the most historic inflation ever. Well, it is happening now, and yet, we are talking about exacerbating it with higher levels of spending.

Let's talk about energy prices. The Biden administration's blatant and deliberate detrimental policies on domestic energy production has caused prices at the pump to nearly double since last year, making it clearly more difficult for small businesses to get their goods to market; making it more difficult for customers to get to the small businesses.

We must support our domestic energy production and make energy affordable again. It is almost that simple.

Let's talk about the workforce shortages. Disincentives to work, extended by the American Rescue Plan, have made it very difficult for small businesses to recruit and retain workers. We should all know that. Go visit any small business and they will tell you just that.

Sure, it is starting to come back, as it would once those incentives not to work were minimized or eliminated. That is what we need to do, create incentives to work, not discourage work.

Let's talk about tax increases. The persistent threat of increased taxes from Democrats in Congress and the Biden administration send shivers down the spine of small businesses, creates enormous uncertainty, while it makes it difficult for them to plan and invest in their businesses.

Let's talk about regulations. Since taking office 14 months ago, the Biden administration has instituted hundreds of new regulations costing over $200 billion in real terms, and burdening businesses with what has been estimated as 130 million hours of additional paperwork.

Instead of saddling our small businesses with burdensome and costly regulations, we should be trying to actually create an environment that breeds growth and success and allows owners to invest in their business and employees.

The solution to the difficulties that America's small businesses are facing is not to pump $55 billion of new, unpaid spending into the economy. This will exacerbate much of what I just went through.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason just to criticize legislation without a solution. We have a solution, the ENTREE Act, introduced by Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, is fully paid for and delivers $60 billion in aid to America's restaurants who were excluded by the previous Democrats' unconstitutional and discriminatory RRF rollout which was proven illegal.

Unlike the bill we are considering today, the ENTREE Act would replenish the Restaurant Revitalization Fund by repurposing unused American Rescue Plan dollars and would not further contribute to the hyperinflation that all American small businesses--and our deficit-- that all businesses are burdened by today and, again, the highest since nearly 50 years.

So, the real solution is a smart, responsible approach that provides targeted relief without exacerbating the many crises small business owners are facing today.

Every idea, Mr. Speaker, in this Congress cannot be solved by spending billions of dollars more of taxpayer money, as stated earlier, over $10 trillion in excess over the last 2 years. It has got to stop somewhere, sometime.

We need to stop this out-of-control spending, reduce inflation, stop the assault on domestic energy production, lower energy costs, and create a business environment that is friendly to growth, not friendly to a tax, spend, and over-regulatory Big Government.

The solution, again, is not difficult. But it must be definitely not adding another $55 billion of spending. American job creators need to be the most competitive in the world. We need to do what we can do to create an environment for that.

The policies of the Biden administration and far too many Democrats in this House have made life more difficult for small businesses. This must change.