PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Dec 19, 2023
No Russian Agriculture Act
This bill requires the Department of the Treasury to instruct U.S. representatives to international financial institutions (e.g., the International Monetary Fund) to vote and advocate for such institutions to (1) support projects that decrease reliance on Russia for agricultural commodities, (2) ensure the resilience of global grain supplies, and (3) stimulate private investment in such projects.
This requirement shall be repealed at the earlier of (1) five years after this bill's enactment, or (2) 30 days after the President reports to Congress that termination of the requirement is important to U.S. national interest.
People & committees
Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: 1/11/2024 CR H68-69)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: 1/11/2024 CR H68-69)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H125)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. McHenry objected to the Yea - Nay vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4768.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H68-69)
Mr. McHenry moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 266.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 118-327.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 118-327.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 49 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 27, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4768 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4768 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4768 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4768 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.