Hoyer: If We Do Not Pass this Bill, There Will be Great Joy in the Kremlin and Great Devastation in Kyiv

September 15, 2026 Press Release WASHINGTON, DC –Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) testified before the House Committee on Rules in support of his amendment to the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026. Below are a transcript and video of his remarks: Image Click here to watch a video of his remarks. "My statement is relatively short. The discussion of this is much more complicated. Nobody in this House believes that I am a defender of Donald Trump's failure to address this issue head on and effectively. No one has opposed his tariff policies any more than I have. They have been harmful to the American people [and] harmful to our relationship in the international community. Madam Chair and Ranking Member McGovern and distinguished Members of the committee, my amendments meant to address an issue of concern for many Members about this bill. A lot of what we've heard in this debate is about affecting other countries than are set forth in the formula in the bill, and those countries are limited by the bill to being impacted. However, none of us on our side trust Donald Trump to be bound by the strictures of legislation or of the Constitution of the United States. That's not why I co-sponsored this bill because I had some trust in Donald Trump, who I think is far more partial to Russia than he is to Ukraine. That's a tough statement, but I think that's borne out by conduct. "I support Ranking Member Meeks’ numbers three, four, and five amendments. I think they strengthen the bill; I think they give more confidence to people. I do not support his removal of the tariffs. Not because I'm for the tariffs, although I think the tariffs will have some prophylactic effect on some of those named countries of which there are now ten – there used to be nine, but they struck two of the '-stans' and counted it as two rather than one. Eighty-six senators supported this bill because they thought it would help Ukraine. Eighty-seven senators support the bill now because Mr. McConnell has come back and he supports the bill. My amendment simply states the ten countries that will be affected, which will be most of the opposition that was articulated, I think, by – correctly by Mr. Meeks, because we have seen the President go far beyond his legal strictures. Nothing we do to pass this bill or defeat this bill, will adversely affect his inclination to do just that. If we don't pass this bill, it's not going to affect the President at all. "Specifically, it tightens the scope of the legal tariff authority by naming the countries, as I said. I agree with the Administration [that] we ought to pass this bill. It's a marker. It's a, ‘You said this.’ Now the Russians lied in Budapest, when they said they were going to take the nuclear weapons in '94 and honor the boundaries of Ukraine. They lied. The Russians lie regularly. I agree with the Administration that we ought to have sanctions. Our experience is that the President does not put sanctions on Russia or Belarus or others. That is unfortunate. The last time we acted on Ukraine positively was April 20th, 2024; two years and [five] months ago. This bill would prevent manipulation of data on oil and gas imports, as well as sanctions evasions, in order to make them qualify or not. That language is pretty specific. It says no country that does not qualify for the formula – what we don't trust is the formula, which is why we need to name the countries so that we, acting in our constitutional responsibility, do in fact give authority for those 9 or 10 countries – the two '-stans' being the 10th, and that he would have to come back if he wanted to add another country. He doesn't want to do that. And so, unfortunately, after talking to the White House, they don't want that amendment. It does not change the substance of the bill one iota, if you believe that the formula will be honored by the President of the United States, period. "I believe the change sufficiently addresses the concerns that have been raised, and I hope we can adopt it so the House can move forward on a strongly bipartisan basis with passage of this bill. My friend, Mr. Meeks, who co-sponsored the Ukraine Support Act with me – we introduced it together. As a matter of fact, I urged him to do that with me. It was a strong bill. I wish the Senate would pass it – it won’t – and if it did pass it, the President would veto it. The President won’t veto this bill, and once he signs on to it, we can say, ‘You said you will do this.’ Does that mean anything? Perhaps not. I urge the committee to include my amendment to the rule, bringing the bill to the Floor. I absolutely agree with the statement made in the report of Mr. Meeks and Mr. Neal. Here's what they said: ‘ We firmly support Ukraine in its fight against Russia's brutal, unjustified invasion .’ And then they said, ‘ Ukraine's victory against Russian aggression is critical to the U.S. national security .’ I think we all believe that. I hope the president believes it. But whether this bill passes or not will not affect the President's view one way or the other. What it will affect is a statement by the Congress of the United States is, ‘This is what ought to happen. Sanctions ought to be imposed, tariffs or penalize countries who are funding Russia's ability to make war.’ We now have a Department of War. How ironic. "I urge the committee to make in order amendments that will facilitate the actions of the Congress of the United States to act nearly unanimously, which will send a strong, powerful message. But if we do not pass this bill, there will be great joy in the Kremlin and great devastation in Kyiv, who will see something that they thought they had in hand – a strong statement by the United States of America’s Congress – disappear because of a fight over tariffs. Their morale will tank and we will be still, since April 2024, having not taken the action. I’m for giving them $15 billion and for putting on sanctions. But we need to pass something, and none of you believe, in the next two years, we're going to be able to pass things – whether we take the majority or not – that the President can't veto and that we could override. "Chairman, the Ranking Member – and I'll close with this Madam Chair – the Ranking Member said this may be a Chamberlain-Churchill moment. I agree with him. However, I believe that he chose this to be a Churchill moment rejecting this legislation. I believe it will be a Chamberlain moment, where we will leave unstated the policy of the Congress of the United States, and allow the President's actions to be the only voice that is being heard. That is not in the best interests of our country, of Ukraine, of international law, and peace and freedom. I thank you for the time." Issues : National Security & Veterans