[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 54 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1806-S1808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                UKRAINE

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor, again today, to 
stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This is the seventh 
week in a row I have come out here to talk about the atrocities being 
committed by Russia and what more the United States and this Congress 
can do to support Ukraine in its fight for survival.
  It has now been more than a month since Russia's assault on our ally 
Ukraine, an independent sovereign democracy, a democracy that just 
wants to live in peace.
  Earlier today, Russia continued its cowardly and brutal bombing 
attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine. Some civilians, like those 
trapped in and surrounding Mariupol, are dying due to a lack of access 
to water and food.
  Russia continues its assault on humanitarian corridors which are 
designed to allow safe passage for civilians fleeing the conflict and 
for lifesaving humanitarian aid to come in to those who can't get out.
  You may recall the theater in Mariupol, where people were taking 
refuge in the basement and using it as a bomb shelter. The words 
``children'' in Russian were emblazed with huge letters clear enough to 
see from the sky so that it would not be a target, but it was.
  We just learned Friday that roughly 300 Ukrainian civilians were 
killed in that basement when the theater was hit by Russian bombs about 
a week ago--mostly women and children.
  Vladimir Putin's war has resulted in death and destruction not seen 
in Europe since World War II. Thousands of civilians have been killed. 
Roughly, 10 million people have been displaced from their homes, and 
3.6 million refugees, almost all women and children and the elderly, 
have fled the country they love, while men have stayed behind to fight 
the invaders.
  In my recent visit to the Polish-Ukrainian border with three 
colleagues, I talked to dozens of refugees. Through their tears, they 
spoke of their apartments or houses that were destroyed. They spoke 
about their friends or family members who were injured or even killed. 
They talked about the pain of being separated from their husbands or 
fathers or brothers who had stayed behind to fight, not knowing their 
fate.
  They pleaded for us to do more--to stop the missiles, stop the bombs, 
and they all said they wanted to return to their homeland as soon as 
they possibly could.
  President Biden is just back from the region where he, too, met with 
refugees, and I am glad he went. He was clearly moved by what he saw 
and heard. I thought his speech in Poland Saturday was a powerful 
indictment of Russia's invasion and a strong statement of support for 
Ukraine, as well as a reminder that this battle in Ukraine is about the 
larger issue of freedom and democracy versus tyranny and 
authoritarianism.

[[Page S1807]]

  Unfortunately, a compelling speech was overshadowed by an off-the-
cuff remark at the end, saying of Putin that ``this man cannot stay in 
power.''
  This was read as supporting regime change in Russia. There is no 
question in my mind that the world would be a better place and a safer 
place without Vladimir Putin as President of Russia, but this remark 
unfortunately played into Russia's propaganda efforts from the start, 
that NATO, Ukraine, and NATO support of Ukraine are all threats to 
Russia and attempts to overthrow the Russian Government.
  None of that is true, of course. All Ukraine wants to do is live in 
peace with its neighbor. NATO is a purely defensive pact, not offensive 
in any respect--simply countries pledging to defend one another from 
attacks. Regime change is neither our policy in this instance or our 
broader strategic objective.
  I can imagine that having met with the refugees and having heard 
their heartbreaking stories that the President was expressing his 
frustration. I get it. But the President's words and the reaction to 
them reminds us that this is a true national security crisis, and in 
this sensitive moment, it requires the United States to speak with 
clarity and to speak, wherever possible, in unity with our allies in 
NATO and beyond.
  Unfortunately, that did not always happen on this trip, whether it 
was the President talking about our response to the use of chemical 
weapons, U.S. troops who may end up in Ukraine, or regime change.
  But tonight I want to focus on another positive aspect of the 
President's trip that relates to sanctions and offer a few ideas of 
where we go from here.
  With regard to our sanctions on Russia, I believe there are a number 
of additional steps we can and should take. I was glad to hear on March 
24 that the Treasury Department issued sanctions against dozens of 
defense companies, 328 members of the duma legislative body, and the 
chief executive of SberBank. Gold-related transactions involving Russia 
may be sanctionable by U.S. authorities, the Treasury Department has 
also said in a statement. We should do that.
  But we should also expand full blocking sanctions to all Russian 
banks, revoking international tax and trade agreements that give Russia 
privileges not appropriate for a pariah country; seizing, not just 
freezing, assets from Kremlin supporters; keeping oligarchs from 
laundering money through expensive art and more.
  I have introduced legislation on some of these ideas. I have 
advocated for all of them here on the floor of the Senate and 
elsewhere, and I will continue to do so, but tonight I want to focus on 
what I think is the single most important sanction, the one that could 
make the biggest difference.
  Our top priority should be cutting off Russia's No. 1 source of 
income that fuels the war machine, and that is receipts from energy. 
Energy is, by far, Russia's biggest export. It accounts for roughly 
half of Russia's entire Federal budget. Over the past year, the average 
oil revenues going back to Russia from their exports to the United 
States alone was about $50 million a day.

  Under pressure from Congress, the administration changed its view and 
chose to block Russian oil, natural gas, and coal imports. And that is 
good. It made no sense for to us to help fund the Russian war effort, 
especially when we have our own natural resources here in North America 
that we can gain access to and actually do so in a way that is better 
for the environment than Russian oil, that is produced in a way that 
emits more methane and CO2, and, of course, has to be 
shipped by sea to our shores, causing more emissions.
  I recognize that sanctioning Russian energy is far more difficult for 
some of our allies in Europe which are far more dependent on Russian 
energy than we were. But the same argument applies. We can't be funding 
this brutal war.
  I welcomed the announcement during the President's trip on the 
creation of a joint United States-European Union task force to help 
reduce Europe's dependence on Russian energy and strengthen Europe's 
energy security.
  Specifically, this initiative will help provide at least 15 billion 
cubic meters, bcm, of LNG exports from the United States, liquefied 
natural gas, this year, with the goal of shipping 50 bcm of U.S. LNG to 
Europe annually through at least 2030.
  This is a very positive step forward because it is telling the 
Europeans you can cut your dependency on Russia and stop spending money 
that goes into the war machine and we will back you up. The United 
States has plenty of natural gas; it is produced in a cleaner way, by 
the way; and we are happy to back you up.
  This agreement is not a silver bullet, but it is a step in the right 
direction. It is smart to support our domestic energy producers as a 
means of supporting our national and our economic security but also as 
a way to support our allies in Europe.
  And in light of this Russian invasion, the importance of the United 
States having a robust, ``all of the above'' approach to power our 
Nation, which includes fossil fuels, renewable energies, carbon capture 
technologies, nuclear power, hydrogen, that cannot be overstated.
  For context, Europe imported approximately 155 bcm of gas from Russia 
in 2021 and approximately 22 bcm from the United States through LNG. So 
50 bcm from the United States on top of that will lead to a significant 
increase in U.S. LNG exports and really help Europe.
  But if this is to work, the administration is going to have to follow 
through on these commitments to help get more hydrocarbons on the 
global market to consumers in Europe.
  If the price is higher in Europe, as predicted, some of the LNG 
supply will go to Europe instead of Asia, and that will help. That will 
be based on market forces, but in order to ensure that we meet this 
increased supply to Europe, we have to increase our production here at 
home and develop the associated infrastructure, such as pipelines and 
terminals, to get that natural gas to market.
  Unfortunately, we aren't off to a great start. The President's tax 
proposals released with their fiscal year 2023 budget request to 
Congress eliminates important tax provisions used by our domestic 
producers, like the deduction for intangible drilling costs, or IDCs, 
which allows natural gas and oil producers to deduct costs that are 
necessary for the drilling and preparation of wells.
  This includes things like wages, fuel, survey work. Taxpayers get to 
deduct their cost of doing business. IDCs are one such cost for energy 
companies, and shortsighted proposals like those in the budget would 
only serve to discourage domestic energy production at a time when we 
need it.
  On Friday, I spoke at a natural gas seminar in Ohio and met with 
energy producers that are working in the Marcellus and the Utica shale 
in Ohio. We are now a major gas-producing State, thanks to those Utica 
and Marcellus shale finds, and the producers in Ohio had a lot of 
thoughts about what was going on that day in Europe.

  They were glad about the agreement between the EU and the United 
States, but they drove home to me the key point that we have energy 
here in the ground, but the current administration's policies have made 
it very difficult to get that product to market, both domestically and 
internationally.
  Unfortunately, the Biden administration has consistently sent a 
message to these producers and others that one of their goals is to 
phase out the use of fossil fuels altogether. This rhetoric, combined 
with actions like canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline, suspending new 
leases on Federal lands and waters, redefining waters of the United 
States, or WOTUS, which makes it harder to permit energy projects, has 
led to a lot of uncertainty within the oil and gas industry, which has 
a chilling effect on domestic energy production--again, at a time when 
we need it. We need ``all of the above.''
  In light of this new LNG initiative with the European Union, the 
Biden administration's actions must now meet its commitments. An 
important part of building out our domestic energy infrastructure for 
gas, renewables, and everything in between is streamlining the Federal 
permitting process, whether it is a wind power project, solar power 
project, or a natural gas project. Historically, it can take a decade 
or more for the Federal Government to issue permits to build pipelines 
and other necessary infrastructure.

[[Page S1808]]

  I coauthored a law called FAST-41, which improves the permitting 
process for these big projects by requiring Agencies to work together 
to set out a plan and a timeline for permitting projects.
  It also created the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, 
which can help resolve disputes over the permitting process and get a 
green light on a project much more quickly. FAST-41 has worked. It has 
helped projects save billions of dollars and years of time, all while 
upholding environmental standards.
  The bipartisan infrastructure bill expanded the Council's authorities 
and made it permanent, and the recent fiscal year 2022 government 
funding bill included $10 million for the Council to help support its 
operations. I urge the Biden administration to use this FAST-41 process 
to reduce bureaucratic redtape in permitting these projects so we can 
deliver the liquefied natural gas to Europe, as we promised, in a 
timely fashion so that we can begin to reduce their dependency on 
Russian oil and stop sending billions of dollars to fund the Russian 
war machine.
  This is where energy security and national security come together. We 
need to lead our European allies in doing all we can to sanction 
Russian's energy sector.
  We have talked a lot about cutting off the natural gas and the 
revenue that fuels the war machine in Russia, but we also need to 
tighten up these bank sanctions as they relate to energy. As an 
example, it is simply unacceptable that sanctions against Russia's 
biggest banks, including VTB Bank, do not apply to energy transactions 
until June 24. This is simply too late. We need to act much more 
quickly.
  While President Biden was in Poland, inside Ukraine, Russian missiles 
were striking cities all across the country, including the western city 
of Lviv, not very far from the Polish border.
  President Biden must lead the alliance to redouble their efforts to 
stop this madness to ensure Russia is not rewarded for its war crimes. 
It is one thing to keep the alliance together; it is another to lead 
the alliance out of its comfort zone to a more aggressive stance to 
actually win this war.
  So in addition to the energy and other sanctions we have discussed 
tonight, what more can we and our allies do to help Ukraine win this 
war? And note I say ``win this war'' because if we act swiftly, I think 
we can help Ukraine actually win and keep Ukraine as a viable democracy 
and save thousands of lives. But they need our help, especially to stop 
the missiles and artillery that are raining down on civilians every day 
and every night. As we talk here tonight, this is happening in Ukraine.
  The Ukrainians have made it very clear they desperately need more air 
defense. President Zelenskyy talked about it again in the last 24 
hours. Based on the news media reports, the United States is providing 
some SA-8s, an older, Soviet-era defense system, to Ukraine. I was glad 
to hear that. However, the media reports also say that the more capable 
S-300 Soviet-era systems we have in our inventory are not being sent. 
If this is true, this is a big disappointment and shows a lack of 
urgency.
  While I commend the President for the strong speech he delivered over 
the weekend, the actions of the administration have to match that 
rhetoric. There are additional weapons that they are desperately 
needing that we are not yet providing, particularly these anti-air 
systems and more munitions for their own anti-air systems. Often it is 
a matter of us facilitating the transfer of these weapons from former 
Warsaw Pact countries that are all along the border--the Eastern 
European, Central European countries that are close to Ukraine and can 
provide these incredibly important military anti-air systems, but we 
need to help them. We need to facilitate that and backfill their needs 
at home.
  They have asked for our help across the board, but specifically for 
tanks, for anti-ship systems, which is really important right now 
because so many of these missiles are coming from these ships in the 
Black Sea.
  President Zelenskyy needs to be listened to. He knows what they need. 
He says: We need more, and we need it more quickly.
  We must also keep sending Stinger missiles, which are effective at 
shooting down Russian helicopters and planes at lower altitudes.
  We must find ways to quickly provide Ukraine with more armed drones, 
such as the Turkish TB2s and one-use loitering munitions, which the 
Ukrainians know how to use and have been very effective on the 
battlefield with.
  Two weeks ago, it was announced that we were sending 100 so-called 
Switchblade loitering munitions. One hundred will go very quickly. We 
need to send more, and we need to send them quickly.

  To our Israeli friends, I would ask them to sell to us or other 
countries, and we should agree to buy, their Harop drones, which 
Ukraine could really use right now. The bottom line is we need to flood 
the zone when it comes to providing Ukraine with military assistance.
  They are not asking us to fight for them, but they are asking for the 
tools to be able to defend themselves, particularly with regard to this 
endless bombing. And they have a chance to win if we do that. There 
should be no gaps in our weapons transfers. We need to lead the NATO 
allies and others when it comes to providing and coordinating support.
  There are loopholes in the sanctions we talked about tonight. We need 
to do more to ensure that those are closed. We need to do more to 
ensure that the weapons are being received.
  We should act fast to let the people of Ukraine know with certainty 
that we do stand with them. The popular Ukrainian national rallying cry 
``Slava Ukraini'' when translated into English is ``Glory to Ukraine.'' 
The response to it is ``Glory to the Heroes,'' ``Heroyam Slava.''
  In the midst of this atrocity, there are so many heroes, and we need 
to back them up. There are so many heroes to glorify in Ukraine: the 
soldiers, professionals, and civilians who have taken up arms; the 
doctors and the nurses and the firefighters; and the volunteers 
providing food and water and blankets. We pray for them all, and we 
pray for their families. Godspeed to them in their simple quest, a 
battle for a free and independent Ukraine, a country that can chart its 
own course.
  America needs to stand with the people of Ukraine. We must show the 
world, both our adversaries and our allies, that we stand with Ukraine.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The majority leader.


                     Nomination of Lisa DeNell Cook

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a few moments I will file a 
discharge petition to move forward on the nomination of Lisa DeNell 
Cook to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  Not very long ago, a nominee like Ms. Cook would have sailed toward 
final confirmation. She serves on the advisory board of the Federal 
Reserve Bank of Chicago. She is a professor of economics at Michigan 
State and has served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers. 
She would also be the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve 
Board of Governors.
  Sadly, every single Republican in the committee voted in lockstep 
against Ms. Cook--that was in the Banking Committee--providing no good 
explanation for obstructing this qualified and historic nominee.
  Nonetheless, the step I am taking now will make sure Ms. Cook's 
nomination will move forward, setting up a vote as soon as tomorrow.

                          ____________________