American Energy Independence from Russia Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 972 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, let me wish a good morning to my good friend, Mr. Cole. It feels like just a couple of hours ago I was saying good morning. Let me say to the gentleman that he looks marvelous for getting no sleep, and it is great to be with my friend.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 972, providing for consideration of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. It provides for a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2471 with a House amendment and 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It divides the question on adoption of the motion into two votes in the order specified by the chair, and provides that if any portion of the divided question fails, then the House shall be considered to have made no disposition of the Senate amendment.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 75, the Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2022, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6968, the Suspending Energy Imports From Russia Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, the bills contained in the rule are about investing in our communities and families here at home and living up to our values abroad.

Throughout last summer, House Democrats were hard at work passing appropriations bills funding nearly all of the Federal Government to build on the momentum of our economic recovery. This full-year omnibus is the product of extensive bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Both sides have come together to produce an agreement to fund the government that I think has resulted in a very, very good bill.

That means this agreement does not include everything I wanted, and I know it doesn't include everything my Republican friends wanted. But I think, at the end of the day, it is a good package that is going to benefit the American people.

I especially want to recognize Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger and thank them for forging a bipartisan path forward. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the incredible staff of the Appropriations Committee as well as the incredible staff of the Rules Committee--Democrats and Republicans--who have worked tirelessly to bring this legislation to the floor today. I think most of my colleagues here do not appreciate how hard the staff works, and I think the American people ought to be proud of those who serve up here in both parties for their public service.

The work of Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger could not have come at a more critical time. We are at a moment in history that demands a strong and confident America,

and the certainty provided by this omnibus will allow us to tackle some of our country's biggest challenges by helping to support good-paying American jobs; by building ladders of opportunity for hardworking families; by confronting the existential threat of climate change; and by investing in lifesaving research into maternal health, mental health, and opioid abuse.

I am proud that we negotiated a government funding package that centers on the needs of middle-class and working families, not the rich and not on powerful special interests.

I am particularly proud that one of the provisions included in this package--funding for a White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, Hunger, and Health--is something that we have worked together on in a bipartisan way at the Rules Committee and with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.

We live in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of this planet, yet as we gather here today, close to 40 million of our fellow citizens don't know where their next meal is going to come from. There is not a single congressional district in America that is hunger-free. We ought to be ashamed of that.

Hunger is a political condition. We can solve this problem, but we need to have the political will. This conference, I hope, will provide that political will.

I will remind my colleagues the last time we had a conference on this subject was 54 years ago, so I am looking forward to working with the White House and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to forge a path forward to end hunger in America once and for all.

Madam Speaker, this rule also provides for consideration of a short- term continuing resolution that keeps the government funded at current levels through March 15 to give the United States Senate adequate time to pass this full-year omnibus agreement and get it to President Biden's desk so that he can sign it.

And in the wake of the unprovoked and horrific invasion of Ukraine at the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin, this Congress is taking urgent bipartisan action to protect global peace and security and hold Putin's corrupt regime accountable.

Yesterday, I co-chaired a meeting of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. We had a detailed discussion about what was happening in Ukraine and the fact that what is happening has risen to the level of war crimes, and there needs to be accountability.

We have all seen the awful pictures and the awful videos, Madam Speaker, families gunned down, apartment buildings bombed, and the indiscriminate use of force, yet still the people of Ukraine are courageously standing up for freedom. Congress, the Biden administration, and the people of the United States must stand with them, and that is exactly what this measure does.

By encouraging World Trade Organization members to suspend concessions to Russia; taking steps to review Russia's international trade status; and, very importantly, by reauthorizing a strengthened Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act so that the United States can impose further sanctions on human rights abusers in Russia and around the globe, America is standing up to bullies like Putin who think they can invade their way into an empire and blackmail the world with their oil.

I want to commend President Biden for taking action to stop the import of Russian energy products into the United States, action which our legislation supports.

I should also say, Madam Speaker, that I had kind of hoped that this could have come up under suspension because I like to think there is no dissent on what we are doing in this legislation. I am concerned that some of my friends on the other side objected to the strengthening of human rights provisions in the Magnitsky Act.

Ironically, the language that we are using is language very similar to the executive order put forward by President Trump. I don't agree with him on a lot of things--almost nothing--but I think he was right signing an executive order to actually strengthen the human rights criteria for the Magnitsky legislation. We ought to hold human rights abusers--those guilty of corruption--accountable. And for anybody-- anybody--to want to weaken the standard and to want to let some people off the hook, I think, is unconscionable. So I hope there is a strong bipartisan vote on this.

Finally, I want to highlight that our bipartisan omnibus agreement includes $13.6 billion in emergency military, humanitarian, and economic support for Ukraine. This week, the United Nations has warned that this is the ``fastest growing refugee crisis in Europe since World War II.'' I am proud that we are taking the moral obligation of humanitarian assistance seriously.

Together, these measures, in addition to the strong leadership shown by President Biden working quickly and in close consultation with our allies and partners, have placed enormous pressure on President Putin and his corrupt oligarchs to end this war. I hope that he does that immediately.

The final thing that I am going to say is to echo what I began with. This bill is not perfect through the eyes of anybody, whether you are a liberal Democrat like me or whether you are a conservative Republican, and this rule allows people to express their support and their lack of support for different parts of this bill very clearly.

Some think that the defense section is too high. I personally do. But we have an opportunity to be able to vote yes or no on that.

Some think that the investments in domestic spending are too high. I think they are not high enough, but whatever. People have an opportunity to be able to vote yes or no on that.

So, I hope that we can get support for the rule. I hope that we can get this legislation passed today, sent over to the Senate, and help the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say that I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma. There is this old adage that says you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. Much of what he cited is something that I think we can all agree on: investments in medical research, support for the NIH, investments in trying to find ways to manage and cure cancer. All of those things are incredibly important, and I think they bring us together.

Some of the things he said I disagree with. I believe it is a mistake to deny women their legal reproductive rights, and I think the defense budget is way too big. Spending more on something doesn't necessarily get you a better result. We need to spend more efficiently and more effectively. We have a military budget that is so bloated, that is so excessive, so filled with cost overruns, that even Dr. Strangelove would be impressed. We need to do better.

Having said that, I am aware that we have to be able to deal on legislation within the reality that we live in. We have a 50/50 Senate; we have a majority here in the House, not as big as I would like. Hopefully, that changes in November. But the bottom line is, we have to work with what we have. I think that is what has occurred here.

We continue to hear this claim that President Biden's climate policies are somehow to blame for the latest spike in gas prices. I think we need to just set the record straight here. Domestic energy production is up, it is rising, and it is approaching records. There are over 9,000 approved drilling permits the oil industry is not using. The truth is that changes in domestic energy policy often take years to impact global energy markets.

Instead, what is happening here is oil companies are using Putin's war as an excuse to jack up prices at the pump even more. They argue for looser regulations, cheaper drilling, and more pollution.

This is Putin's price hike. Quite frankly, at this time of global crisis, I

would like to appeal to the patriotism of Big Oil in this country to not make record profits their priority, to actually put the American people's interest and, in fact, the global interest first. Let's not fool ourselves that greed isn't at play here.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4 opinion article written by the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva, entitled ``Oil and gas lobbyists are using Ukraine to push for a drilling free-for-all in the U.S.''

[From the Guardian, Mar. 4, 2022]

Oil and Gas Lobbyists Are Using Ukraine To Push for a Drilling Free-

for-All in the US

(By Raul M Grijalva)

Last week, we all watched in horror as Vladimir Putin

launched a deadly, catastrophic attack on Ukraine, violating

international treaties across the board. Most of us swiftly

condemned his actions and pledged support for the Ukrainian

people whose country, homes and lives are under attack.

But the fossil-fuel industry had a different take. They saw

an opportunity--and a shameless one at that--to turn violence

and bloodshed into an oil and gas propaganda-generating

scheme. Within hours, industry-led talking points were oozing

into press releases, social media and opinion pieces, telling

us the key to ending this crisis is to immediately hand US

public lands and waters over to fossil-fuel companies and

quickly loosen the regulatory strings.

Our top priority must be ending Putin's hostilities, but as

chair of the US House committee on natural resources, I feel

duty-bound to set the record straight. We can't let the

fossil-fuel industry scare us into a domestic drilling free-

for-all that is neither economically warranted nor

environmentally sound.

Despite industry's claims to the contrary, President Biden

has not hobbled US oil and gas development. In fact, much to

my deep disappointment and protest, this administration

actually approved more US drilling permits per month in 2021

than President Trump did during each of the first three years

of his presidency. Before the pandemic, oil and gas

production from public lands and waters reached an all-time

high, and the current administration has done little to

change that trajectory over the last 13 months.

Fossil-fuel companies and their backers in Congress also

profess that more drilling on public lands and waters would

lower gas prices for Americans. But if that's true, why

hasn't record oil extraction from both federal and non-

federal lands over the last decade done anything to

consistently lower, or at least stabilize, prices at the

pump?

The fact is that crude oil is a volatile global commodity.

Worldwide supply, demand, and unpredictable events--like

wars--influence the price of gas, not the current

administration's decision to approve a few new leases or

permits.

Even if we take industry's claims at face value, nothing is

keeping fossil-fuel companies from more drilling on public

lands right now. The oil industry already controls at least

26m acres of public land and is sitting on more than 9,000

approved drilling permits they're not using.

They have a similarly gratuitous surplus offshore, where

nearly 75% of their active federal oil and gas leases,

covering over 8m acres, have yet to produce a single drop.

Any new leases issued today wouldn't produce anything of

value for years, or even decades in some cases.

If industry did start to ramp up production from federal

leases, the overall increase to the total US supply would

likely be marginal. In 2020, public lands and waters only

accounted for 22% and 11% of oil and gas production,

respectively. The vast majority of oil and gas resources are

beneath state and private lands--not public lands or federal

waters.

With the facts laid bare, we see the fossil-fuel industry's

crocodile tears for what they are--the same old demands for

cheaper leases and looser regulations they've been peddling

for decades. These pleas have nothing to do with countering

Putin's invasion or stabilizing gas prices, and everything to

do with making oil and gas development as easy and profitable

as possible.

The US is the world's top oil and gas producer. Doubling

down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only

perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place.

And quite frankly, we can't afford to maintain the status

quo. In its newest report the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most dire warning yet on the

rapidly accelerating climate crisis. If we fail to enact

major mitigation efforts, like curbing fossil-fuel

development, both quickly and substantially, we will ``miss a

brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a

livable and sustainable future for all''.

Fortunately, there is a path forward that simultaneously

cuts the lifeline to fossil-fuel despots like Putin,

stabilizes energy prices here at home, and creates a safer,

more sustainable planet. We must wean ourselves off our oil

and gas dependence and make transformational investments in

cleaner renewable energy technologies, like those in the

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Build Back Better Act and

the Competes Act, and we must do it now.

The fossil-fuel industry has had hold of the microphone for

far too long. It's time we let the facts speak for

themselves.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to correct the record on one thing. The gentleman said he didn't get a copy of the text of what we are considering here today. It was put into his Dropbox, and he could have downloaded it. It was emailed to his staff. It was posted online. Yeah, we didn't print off a 3,000-page bill because I believe in saving trees. But it was available, and I just want to point that out for the record. I will also just say--and again with great respect for my two colleagues on the Rules Committee--I don't share their enthusiasm about big oil companies. I just don't. They are making all-time-high record profits while Americans are paying more at the gas pump.

I will remind my friends that when Donald Trump was President, we had unemployment at about 14.9 percent, which was terrible. It is now down to 3.8 percent, which is driving up demand. Nobody is questioning the fact that there is a supply-and-demand problem here. But we also ought to understand that part of these price hikes, in addition to the Putin price hike, is the oil company price hike, and as we try to figure out how to alleviate the burden on the American people, which we are trying to do, we also have to figure out how we do it in a way where any savings or any tax incentives that we might provide are actually passed on to the consumer because the oil industry in this country, the big oil companies, have a history of price gouging, and the fact that they are doing it now I think is unconscionable.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Give me a break. I hope my friends know better, and I hope they know what drives the price of oil. They talk as if there is just one little switch you can turn on. I hear them talking, just bring the Keystone pipeline back online. By the way, it was never built, and it was years away from bringing any oil to the United States--foreign oil, by the way; Canada is another country. Even if it were built, we are told it may lower prices by maybe one cent a gallon and lock us into the same dependence on fossil fuels that got us into this mess to begin with.

We have been arguing for years with my friends to make the transition away from fossil fuels to greener, cleaner energy so every time there is a world crisis we are not having this discussion, but instead they continue to be in the pockets of the oil companies. Follow the money. Follow the money. Look where the oil companies are putting their money.

By the way, when they say we should do more drilling, the oil companies now have been provided 9,000 new drilling permits on public lands. Much to my disappointment, the Biden administration is actually outpacing even the Trump administration in approving new drilling permits on public lands and water. So give me a break.

Here is the reality, and let me spell it out for my friends; and I think they know better, but again it is politics as usual: Oil is a global commodity. Prices rise when supply chains are disrupted or demand is interrupted, like we saw during COVID. Prices rise when oil- producing countries launch destabilizing invasions; and, yes, when oil companies think they can use either of these as an excuse to jack up the prices, they do.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4 article from Newsweek entitled, ``'Little Evidence' Keystone Pipeline Would Level Prices Despite GOP Claims.''

[From Newsweek, Mar. 4, 2022]

`Little Evidence' Keystone Pipeline Would Level Prices Despite GOP

Claims

(By Alexandra Hutzler)

Republicans are hitting President Joe Biden over his

decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline as gas prices

rise across the country in the wake of Russia's invasion of

Ukraine.

Former Vice President Mike Pence said last week ``gas

prices have risen across the country because of this

Administration's war on energy--shutting down the Keystone

Pipeline, shutting down oil and gas leases in this country--

while they were incomprehensibly green-lighting the Nord

Stream 2 deal for the Russians.''

Senator Tim Scott told Fox News on Wednesday canceling the

pipeline was ``catastrophic'' and that ``the prices we're

seeing today are reflective of his decisions a year ago, not

reflective of the conflict that started days ago.''

But James Glynn, a senior research scholar at Columbia

University's Center on Global Energy Policy, said the

Keystone pipeline--even if operational--likely wouldn't have

had an impact on the global energy markets.

``There is little evidence to back up the argument that

Keystone XL would have averted some of this price spike,''

Glynn told Newsweek. ``The Keystone pipeline capacity is less

than one-tenth of Russian oil exports.''

``Even if Keystone XL was filled with fully additional

Canadian export capacity, which would have been an unlikely

scenario, it would not balance the global oil markets where

the price of oil is set through a global arbitrage of the

last marginal available barrel,'' Glynn continued.

The current national average for a gallon of gasoline is

$3.837, according to the American Automobile Association

(AAA). That's an increase of over 20 cents from the national

average reported the week before.

The White House has also emphasized that the Keystone

Pipeline was never running, and was less than 10 percent

completed when the project was shut down, amid criticism from

the Republican Party.

``The Keystone Pipeline has never been operational,'' press

secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday ``It would

take years to have any impact. I know a number of members of

Congress have suggested that, but that is a proposed solution

that has no relationship or would have no impact on what the

problem is we, here, all agree is an issue.''

The pipeline project would have expanded an existing

conduit for transporting tar-sands oil from Canada through

the U.S. to the Gulf Coast. After years of legal challenges

and environmental activism to shut the project down, the

company behind it officially halted construction in June 2021

after Biden revoked a key permit.

``The Keystone pipeline is not a viable solution because

you can't build a pipeline in an hour, right?'' David Sacco,

a practitioner in residence in the finance program at the

University of New Haven, told Newsweek. ``The company that

was building it shut it down a year ago. So that's not

viable. But I think the argument that our energy policies

have been a pretty significant contribution to this [crisis]

are certainly valid from an economic standpoint.''

Sacco said there's an argument to be made that the U.S. and

other nations purchasing oil from Russia has ``allowed their

economy to strengthen, has allowed Putin to basically fund

his military and expansion policies.''

In addition to rising prices, Republicans have hit the

Biden administration for energy policies they say make the

U.S. more dependent on foreign oil.

``Biden has given up the best defense we had against

Putin's evil vision for the world--energy independence,''

Senator Marsha Blackburn said in a statement this week. ``We

need to make America energy independent again. It's time to

divest from Russian energy and stop funding Putin's war, and

reauthorize the Keystone Pipeline.''

One energy proposal that has received bipartisan support on

Capitol Hill is to ban Russian oil imports. House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she was ``all for'' the proposal.

While Biden has said ``nothing is off the table,'' the

administration has so far resisted slapping Moscow's energy

sector with sanctions because it could further drive up

prices at the gas pumps.

Sacco said he believed gas prices could go up to $5 per

gallon as the Russia-Ukraine crisis unfolds.

Biden has said it's a priority for his team to ease the

financial burden on Americans as prices rise. The

administration just announced it is coordinating with other

nations to release 60 million barrels of oil in global

reserves, half of which would come from the U.S. Strategic

Petroleum Reserve.

``The American people understand that defending democracy

and liberty is never without cost,'' Biden said last month

while speaking on the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Madam Speaker, I also urge all my colleagues to do a little research and look at the profits of Big Oil in this country. Look at what they are making. While Americans are paying more at the pump, their executives are making more and more and more. You can defend Big Oil if you want. And I get it, maybe there is some benefit politically to doing that. Again, follow the money. But I have to tell you, I think people are sick of this. We have seen this movie before.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are all trying to figure out a way to alleviate the burden of energy costs on consumers. I mean, it is brutal for a lot of families in this country.

Listening to some of the speeches here, I kind of feel like we should have an amendment that would require Members of Congress to take a basic course in economics to understand how supply and demand works.

Again, the oil companies have 9,000 leases that they are not utilizing as we speak.

I include in the Record an article titled ``Exclusive: Oil companies' profits soared to $174 billion this year as U.S. gas prices rose.''

[From the Guardian, Dec. 6, 2021]

Exclusive: Oil Companies' Profits Soared to $174bn This Year as US Gas

Prices Rose

(By Oliver Milman)

The largest oil and gas companies made a combined $174bn in

profits in the first nine months of the year as gasoline

prices climbed in the US, according to a new report.

The bumper profit totals, provided exclusively to the

Guardian, show that in the third quarter of 2021 alone, 24

top oil and gas companies made more than $74bn in net income.

From January to September, the net income of the group, which

includes Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP, was $174bn.

Exxon alone posted a net income of $6.75bn in the third

quarter, its highest profit since 2017, and has seen its

revenue jump by 60% on the same period last year. The company

credited the rising cost of oil for bolstering these profits,

as did BP, which made $3.3bn in third-quarter profit.

``Rising commodity prices certainly helped,'' Bernard Looney,

chief executive of BP, told investors at the latest earnings

report.

Gasoline prices have hit a seven-year high in the US due to

the rising cost of oil, with Americans now paying about $3.40

for a gallon of fuel compared with around $2.10 a year ago.

The Biden administration has warned the price hikes are

hurting low-income people, even as it attempts to implement a

climate agenda that would see America move away from fossil

fuels, and has released 50m barrels of oil from the national

strategic reserve to help dampen costs.

But oil and gas companies have shown little willingness so

far to ramp up production to help reduce costs and the new

report, by the government watchdog group Accountable.US,

accuses them of ``taking advantage of bloated prices,

fleecing American families along the way'' amid ongoing

fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic.

``Americans looking for someone to blame for the pain they

experience at the pump need look no further than the wealthy

oil and gas company executives who choose to line their own

pockets rather than lower gas prices with the billions of

dollars in profit big oil rakes in month after month,'' said

Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US.

The analysis of major oil companies' financials shows that

11 of the group gave payouts to shareholders worth more than

$36.5bn collectively this year, while a dozen bought back

$8bn-worth of stock. This apparent focus, rather than on

further drilling, has caused some frustration within the

federal government, with Jennifer Granholm, the US energy

secretary, stating that ``the oil and gas companies are not

flipping the switch as quickly as the demand requires.''

A glut of new oil drilling has made the US awash with oil

in recent years, turning the country into a top-level

exporter as well as domestic supplier, but this has kept

prices low to the displeasure of investors.

``A lot of this has been driven by investor sentiment,''

said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC

Capital Markets, of the current reluctance to expand

production. ``They don't want them to spoil the party.''

The situation has left the White House in an awkward

position with its commitments to rapidly reduce planet-

heating emissions, with environmentalists furious at

administration attempts to expand drilling and fossil fuel

companies also unhappy over some of its earlier climate-

related moves, such as shutting down the controversial

Keystone XL pipeline.

The oil and gas industry has fought Joe Biden's attempts to

pause new drilling permits on federal land, despite its

unwillingness to expand operations in order to reap the

returns of costlier oil and the fact the industry currently

sits on 14m acres of already leased land that isn't being

used, an area about double the size of Massachusetts.

``It's not the government that is banning them from

drilling more,'' Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond

James, told CNN. ``It's pressure from their shareholders.''

Aside from its role in the current high gasoline prices,

the oil and gas industry is a leading driver of the climate

crisis, the reality of which it sought to conceal from the

public for decades. and is a key instigator of the air

pollution that kills nearly 9 million a year, a death toll

three times that of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

The American Petroleum Institute, a leading industry lobby

group, pointed to a blog that blamed the Biden administration

for policies that ``significantly weaken the incentives to

invest in America's energy future'' but did not answer

questions on production rates of oil companies.

Madam Speaker, I love the fact that we can't even get anybody to express the slightest bit of outrage over the fact that oil companies are gouging us, making record profits, while Americans are paying more at the gas pump.

I mean, I get it. They are very supportive of some on the other side, but, I mean, give me a break. I think the American people understand this.

We need to figure out a way to lower gas prices to alleviate the burden on working families here. But to get up and defend oil companies and oil company executives and put forward bills and ideas that are oil companies' wish lists when they have 9,000 leases right now that they are not utilizing--and why? Because they are making record profits.

I would also say to my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are dealing with here today contains a lot of good stuff. The gentleman from Oklahoma alluded to it in his opening remarks about the incredible investments in medical research.

I was at the White House, as was the gentleman from Oklahoma, when President Biden announced the relaunch of his Cancer Moonshot program. I mean, the issue when it comes to curing cancer is not whether we can. The issue is when we will do it. That depends on investments. That depends on supporting innovation and medical research. This bill does that. That is a good thing. It should bring us all together.

As we have talked about, we are going to deal with a bill to help Ukraine, especially with humanitarian assistance, given the refugee crisis. We are going to strengthen the Global Magnitsky law so that we have stronger human rights language, which some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, have opposed.

I am reading in The New York Times today an article, ``Republicans, Once Harsh Ukraine Critics, Pivot to Strong Support.'' I am glad about that. I am hoping that the people who called Ukraine the most corrupt country in the world under the previous administration will now at least vote to support that country as they are under attack by Vladimir Putin.

Anyway, there is some really good stuff in this bill, and I am looking forward to getting to the debate on this.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman asked a question: Are we going to pick America or our adversaries? Interesting question. My friends on the other side have spent all of their time criticizing President Biden and very little mention of Putin. I think that says it all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 950 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to state what I think we are all feeling here today, and that is that our prayers are with the Ukrainian people during this very perilous time.

I want to acknowledge the unity displayed in the yesterday afternoon Rules Committee meeting when Democrats and Republicans came together and with one voice condemned Vladimir Putin's blatant aggression, his brutality, and the horrific actions the Russian state is now taking against the people of Ukraine. It was almost as if there was no distinction between political parties, and I think that is as it should be because Vladimir Putin is not a genius, as some have said, and he is not smart. He is a bully. He is a dictator.

I cochair the Human Rights Commission in Congress. We have done countless hearings on his brutality against the Russian people. He jails people he disagrees with, he kills people he disagrees with, and he tortures people he disagrees with. He truly is an international pariah.

After this latest action, he will be in the same category as Kim Jong-un in North Korea.

So I just want to acknowledge the unity yesterday in the Rules Committee, and I want my Republican friends to know how grateful I was to have us all speak as one, especially during this difficult time. I know it is important not just for the Ukrainian people but in Russia that we are speaking as one because when people start to make excuses for the Russian dictator or start to find ways to praise him, that gets played on Russian TV and exaggerated in a way to indicate that somehow we are not unified here when I believe that we are.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 950, providing for consideration of H.R. 3967, the Honoring Our PACT Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Takano, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and makes in order 28 amendments. Lastly, the rule provides en bloc authority to Chairman Takano and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to stand up for our veterans. For a long time now, more and more have been speaking out--pleading--to be taken seriously about the health impacts of the toxic chemicals they dealt with while serving our country.

Many encountered water at military bases that were contaminated with toxins, like harmful forever chemicals. They breathed in toxic fumes at burn pits where jet fuel was used to incinerate things like paint, petroleum, and plastic. And they were exposed with radiation when being tasked to clean up after nuclear tests, without being given the proper safety equipment.

These were duties we demanded of them. And as a result, many veterans have been left to suffer with severe health challenges like cancers, infertility, and respiratory conditions. Many more have died, and others are just too sick to work.

We aren't talking about just a few people here, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about millions and millions of veterans who answered the call to serve.

When they asked us to take care of them, for too long, they were just brushed aside not just by Congress but also by the Department of Defense, year after year after year.

They were told the science wasn't clear. And they were told that providing the medical care that they needed and that they earned was just too high.

Maybe some bureaucrat somewhere viewed denying veterans' disability claims as an exercise in frugality. Maybe drowning them in paperwork and setting an unreasonably high bar to get benefits just became the norm. I don't know.

But that finally ends here and now, Mr. Speaker. The legislation included in this rule will cut the burdensome red tape. It will streamline the VA's review process, and it will get veterans exposed to toxins the care that they so badly need.

H.R. 3967 tasks the VA with providing standardized trainings to better handle these claims, and it requires them to conduct outreach and provide resources to veterans exposed to deadly chemicals.

Thanks to this bill, no longer will the burden to prove toxic exposure be placed on veterans themselves. And it is about damn time, Mr. Speaker.

If this bill becomes law, it will help an estimated 1.4 million veterans by fiscal year 2031. That is something that we should all be proud of.

The Honoring our PACT Act recognizes that just thanking our veterans for their service isn't enough. We must back up those words with action.

Some may suggest that we should just maintain the status quo or make the scope of this bill much, much smaller. Let me remind them that Congress made the choice to spend trillions

of dollars over the last 20 years on sending our servicemembers into harm's way. Those decisions came at a cost of more than $6 trillion. That is trillion with a T.

How in the world, Mr. Speaker, can anyone justify spending trillions of dollars on sending servicemembers to fight abroad just to nickel and dime them on healthcare costs once they return home? That is unconscionable.

Taking care of toxic-exposed veterans is a cost of war, period. If anyone here has reservations about paying it, they should think long and hard before calling for our servicemembers to fight in another conflict halfway around the world.

Our veterans put their lives on the line for us. They made sacrifices that are hard to even imagine. They fought to protect us, and they shouldn't have to then fight their country for the benefits that they have earned.

Let's take care of our veterans. Let's pass this bill and the underlying legislation. And let's honor our veterans with more than just words.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I just want to say that he is right. We could probably pass the very short bill that the Republicans have put forward, H.R. 6659, and send it to the President. But our bill, which is actually more than 80 pages, goes into much more depth and covers a lot more.

Republicans want to do just a little bit. We want to actually solve the challenges that so many of our veterans face.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which states that President Biden would basically sign the bill we are discussing here today into law.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3967--Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT)

Act--Rep. Takano, D-California and 100 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3967, which would

expand veterans' access to health care and benefits to

address the health effects of harmful environmental exposures

that occurred during military service.

The President believes that our Nation has only one truly

sacred obligation: to properly prepare and equip our service

members when we send them into harm's way and to care for

them and their families when they return home. Far too often,

military service comes with a cost, and we owe it to our

veterans and their families to address these consequences

comprehensively. Unfortunately, it has taken decades to

understand the deleterious effects of environmental

exposures--leaving too many without access to the benefits

and services they need.

H.R. 3967 would make changes to the definitions for who is

eligible for VA health care based on presumed toxic exposure

during military service, including from bum pits, radiation,

or other environmental conditions. H.R. 3967 would also make

changes to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA's) process

for determining presumptive service connection and mandate

several research studies related to military related

environmental exposures. It would also establish new

registries related to exposures, which would provide new data

on the long-term impacts from environmental exposures. H.R.

3697 also would allow a Federal cause of action related to

contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and

establish training requirements for health providers, and

require an outreach plan to educate veterans about their

eligibility for benefits and services related to toxic

exposure.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress to enact this legislation and ensuring it is

effectively implemented. We must address the toxic legacy of

environmental exposures sustained by veterans during their

military service and fulfill our sacred obligation to our

veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. We must

also ensure that VA has the resources it needs to implement

this legislation.

We have an opportunity today to move a bill forward that will pass the House, even if many Republicans will not vote for it; send it to the Senate; get them to act on it; and send to the President a bill for him to sign that will actually do the job and be more than just a press release.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we begin on a note of basically saying that it was wonderful that we were all united in standing up to Vladimir Putin and speaking with one voice. I think we need to kind of amend that at this point.

Let me just say that we need to stand with the people of Ukraine. We need to stand with President Zelensky, who has had the guts to stand up to Vladimir Putin, but also to the former President who tried to extort him and who withheld essential defensive military aid in exchange for trying to get from him some manufactured dirt on the President's son. Let's be a little bit careful about what charges we are throwing around here.

Again, I am sorry that my Republican colleagues are feeling the need to come here and play partisan politics in the middle of a global crisis, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Yet, for all their criticism on how this administration is handling the crisis in Ukraine, they have been all over the map on what they would do differently. They talk about energy independence, yet they are the ones who have consistently voted against and opposed green and renewable energy here at home, which is the fastest way to achieve real energy independence.

I include in the Record a February 23 Washington Post opinion piece entitled ``Republicans say Biden is `weak' on Ukraine. What would they do differently?'' By the way, just a spoiler alert, the answer is: They have no idea.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2022]

Opinion: Republicans Say Biden is `Weak' on Ukraine. What Would They

Do Differently?

(By Paul Waldman)

There was a time in American history when foreign crises

were considered a moment for unity. We said ``politics stops

at

the water's edge,'' meaning that partisanship had to be put

aside so the country could show the world a united front, and

both parties usually agreed.

The public acted that way, too. Presidents' approval

ratings would rise whenever we found ourselves in any sort of

conflict with a foreign adversary; this was called the

``rally 'round the flag effect,'' and it occurred even when

things went badly. For instance, President Jimmy Carter's

approval ratings shot up by almost 30 points after Americans

were taken hostage in Tehran.

But no more. Even the most straightforward of foreign

policy challenges become yet another opportunity for the

opposition to say the president is a failure and a villain,

which is what Republicans are doing now as we confront

Russian leader Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

But that doesn't mean the Republican Party can decide what

it believes.

One of Donald Trump's legacies is that in some GOP

quarters, Putin is now regarded as akin to a hero. That

starts with Trump himself, who reacted to the invasion by

calling Putin's aggression ``genius,'' ``smart,'' and

``savvy.'' Meanwhile, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has been

so relentless in passing on the Kremlin's perspective that

Russian state TV regularly airs clips from his show.

That exacerbates the profoundly unsettled nature of

contemporary foreign policy thinking in the GOP. The right

has struggled to find a singular voice over the past 15 years

or so, once the thrill of the Global War on Terror ran

aground in the disaster of the Iraq War.

In the 2016 presidential primaries, Republican candidates

struggled over whether and how to call the war a mistake, and

where that would leave the party's traditional hawkishness.

Then Trump took over, with less a foreign policy doctrine

than a shifting collection of impulses, including a distrust

of ambitious adventures and an obsequiousness toward Putin

that can be described only as pathetic.

So how should a Republican hawk respond to the current

crisis? The answer is clear: Just make it about President

Biden.

The GOP critique is both blessedly free of substance and

plays right into the anxieties about manhood that determine

approximately 75 percent of everything Republicans do these

days.

So whether you're a Putin fanboy or a cold warrior, you

can agree that the real problem here is weakness. Why is this

crisis happening? Because Biden is weak. What should America

do now? Not be weak, because Biden is weak. Is your favorite

baseball team going to win the pennant this year? They would,

if Biden wasn't so weak.

``Biden weakness invited Russian aggression, Republicans

say,'' reads a Fox News headline. Biden is ``the weakest

president that America has ever had,'' says former Trump

administration ambassador to United Nations Nikki Haley. ``No

one fears this pathetic old geezer'' says the National

Review.

The House Republican Conference tweeted a picture of

Biden, with the caption ``This is what weakness on the world

stage looks like.'' Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the

third-ranking Republican in the House, tweeted, ``Biden is

unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. He has consistently

given into Putin's demands and shown nothing but weakness.''

Though some Republicans say the sanctions at the center of

Biden's strategy should have started earlier, you'll have a

hard time finding one who can specify in any detail what

Biden's ``weakness'' toward Russia has consisted of to this

point, nor what a ``strong'' president would be doing

instead. Mounting a ground invasion to take Moscow? Launching

nuclear weapons? What?

If the answer is ``What Biden is doing, but, you know,

more,'' that's not very persuasive. But as far as they're

concerned, ``strength'' isn't something presidents

demonstrate with their actions; it's more of an ineffable

quality that Republican presidents possess by definition

while Democratic presidents lack.

Consider Trump. Short of literally getting down on his

hands and knees to shine Putin's shoes, there's almost no way

you could imagine Trump having been weaker toward Putin than

he actually was. Trump continually praised the Russian

dictator, dismissed his misdeeds and went out of his way to

denigrate NATO--just as Putin would want.

It culminated in the utterly disgraceful display at the

2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump was asked about Russian

interference in the 2016 election and declared he was taking

Putin's word over the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies,

because ``President Putin was extremely strong and powerful

in his denial today.''

It was so embarrassing that even Republicans were shocked;

then-Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said Trump ``made us look

like a pushover.'' Sen. John McCain called it ``one of the

most disgraceful performances by an American president in

memory.'' Nevertheless, today Republicans claim that when it

came to Russia, Trump was a paragon of strength.

And however this crisis ends, they will insist that

everything would have worked out far better if only Biden

were stronger. Whatever that means.

To be clear, everyone has the right to criticize the

president; having politics end at the water's edge brings its

own problems. Nor is there anything wrong with intraparty

differences. But rather than a lively debate over alternative

courses of action, what we're seeing now from the GOP is

mostly juvenile name-calling.

Not that we had much reason to expect anything different.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond, because I like the gentleman too much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, two quick things. One, my friends are touting this whatever it is, this all-of-the-above approach to dealing with our energy challenges. But I am looking at this proposal, and it just seems it is the same old, same old, fossil fuels, fossil fuels, fossil fuels. I wonder who wrote this. I wonder where this came from.

Why isn't there any mention of green energy or clean energy or solar energy or renewable energy, any of the things that, quite frankly, the majority of the American people want us to do? Why isn't it here?

Well, I will make a suggestion to people who are tuning in: Follow the money. Follow the money. This is Big Oil's wish list. If you want to continue to find ourselves in circumstances, whenever there is an international crisis, that we have to kowtow to Big Oil, then listen to them.

But on the Democratic side, we want to wean ourselves off of the same old, same old. And ``all-of-the-above,'' by the way, is not just oil, oil, oil.

The second thing I want to say is that my friends on the other side always love to talk about how much they support our veterans. Well, we actually have a bill here that will support our veterans. It is a big deal. You all received a letter from all the leading veterans' service organizations of this country saying to please pass this bill.

They don't want to talk about it. They say: Oh, support this minuscule bill, the alternative that we are putting up here, by the way, which our veterans' organizations do not prefer.

If you really want to help our veterans, if you are sincere about what you say when you say let's support our veterans, then how about voting that way. Talk is cheap around here. How about putting your vote where your rhetoric is and supporting this underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about a major veterans bill, and the gentleman couldn't even bring himself to mention veterans once in his statement.

To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, talking about taking all cars off the road, who is talking about that? I will tell the gentleman that if we go ahead with what he wants to do on the Keystone pipeline, that is equivalent to adding another 5 million cars on the road. That is what that would mean to our environment.

My Republican friends, if they want to think small when it comes to veterans, have at it. Veterans' organizations are watching. We are hearing from veterans all across the country who want this bill passed. They want us to pass this comprehensive bill. We will do that.

If you want to do your minuscule bill, you have a substitute, you can vote for it. It is in your substitute. We want to actually do something in a comprehensive way to meet the concerns that our veterans have expressed for years and years and years. If you want to take a pass, go ahead. That is what you do on our most important issues. This probably is no exception.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that President Biden didn't try to extort President Zelensky by withholding money to get him to manufacture dirt on one of his political opponents. But I find this a little bit comical.

My Republican friends say that they want to bring up this Senate bill, which is much narrower than what we are doing right now, yet they want you to defeat the previous question not so they can bring up that Senate bill, but so they can bring up this giveaway to the oil companies. Again, follow the money. Follow the money. This is a bill that was written in some back room in some oil company and, quite frankly, it is unconscionable. They never let a crisis go to waste.

Today we are talking about trying to help our veterans, and it would be nice if on this one issue of helping our veterans we could all come together, but I guess that is asking too much.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 28, 2021, Military.com article titled: ``VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by Burn Pits to File Claims, But Many Are Still Being Turned Away,'' and I include in the Record an April 12, 2021, ``NBC News'' article titled: ``Veterans Face Uphill Battle to Receive Treatment For `Burn Pit' Exposure.''

[From Military.com, Apr. 28, 2021]

VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by Burn Pits To File Claims, But

Many Are Still Being Turned Away

(By Steve Beynon)

Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough

wants more veterans who believe they were sickened by

exposure to burn pits overseas to seek help from the

department, despite many being turned away.

``We're urging vets to come forward with their claims,''

McDonough said at a press briefing Monday. ``Our commitment

is to treat each claim with the care it deserves. As we get

more claims, we can aggregate those claims to draw bigger

conclusions.''

As of March 31, the VA had denied 72% of burn pit claims,

according to agency data obtained by Military.com. Between

June 2007 and March 31, the VA processed 15,640 disability

compensation claims related to burn pit exposure. Of those,

3,510 veterans had at least one burn pit issue granted.

The top three diagnoses related to burn pits are bronchial

asthma, chronic bronchitis and allergic rhinitis, according

to department data. The most common reasons for a veteran to

be denied is not having a diagnosed medical condition or

being unable to connect the condition to their service--43.1%

and 42.8% of denials, respectively.

But the data doesn't reflect the scope of the issue. The

number of patients filing claims might be disproportionately

small given VA estimates that 3.5 million veterans have been

exposed to burn pits since 1990. It is unclear how many are

sick due to their exposure or have died as a result.

McDonough suggests that more data is needed, and he wants

more veterans to seek help from the VA so officials can get a

better grasp on the issue.

The burn pit data also could be inherently flawed. To get

the data, the VA had to use text mining, searching for

keywords such as ``burn pit'' and ``burn pits'' in its

patient databases, according to department records. This

means patients coming forward with issues related to burn

pits might not automatically be listed as burn pit patients

if that phrase wasn't used in their records.

Out of the 2.5 million Global War on Terrorism veterans,

781,384 have filed claims related to respiratory issues.

According to VA data obtained by Military.com, 63% were

granted. Of all the GWOT veterans, 42,686 filed for claims

related to cancer; 37% of those claims were granted.

The VA's research shows GWOT veterans are three times more

likely than non-deployed veterans to file claims related to

respiratory issues and twice as likely to file claims for

cancer.

``Although the GWOT-deployed and GWOT non-deployed

population sizes are relatively the same, the GWOT-deployed

cohort has more than two times the number of service-

connected cancers,'' according to the agency's findings.

Burn pits are often referred to as the post-9/11

generation's Agent Orange, referencing the bureaucratic maze

and uneven claims process veterans have to navigate, and what

could be a decades-long legislative fight to issue easy-to-

access health care and disability compensation.

The House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees and

advocacy groups have made toxic exposure the top issue this

year. Congress is looking at some two dozen bills, ranging

from incremental improvements to sweeping health care bills

for all 3.5 million veterans exposed to burn pits and other

toxic environments.

But it's unclear what can actually make it to President Joe

Biden's desk. Some lawmakers and advocates are concerned over

what is very likely to be a huge tab to cover the cost of

opening the VA up to a huge swath of new patients.

Mr. Speaker, the world is watching. And I am not going to be lectured by someone who takes their marching orders from Donald Trump, who said that Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a genius and savvy move. I wish the gentleman would have condemned that.

Listening to that speech, you would think that Joe Biden invaded Ukraine. I mean, he spent all this time criticizing Joe Biden, John Kerry, and everybody else but hardly criticized Vladimir Putin.

You know, look, I also wish, because I think it would be helpful for this country and a signal to the world, if the gentleman who just spoke would reprimand Members of his own party who cozy up to white nationalists and go to pro-Putin rallies. That would send a signal to people in this country and to people around the world on whose side we are on.

Bottom line is, the people of Ukraine are being invaded by a brutal dictator, Vladimir Putin. And when their standard-bearer, Donald Trump, was in charge, he spread propaganda about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, which was a lie. He ousted a well-regarded U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because they weren't doing what he wanted to in terms of finding dirt on his political opponents. He froze military assistance to Ukraine; they said nothing. He withheld a White House meeting with Zelensky, turned Ukraine policy over to Giuliani--I could go on and on and on.

We are not going to be lectured by them. Instead, we are going to move forward and pass a bill to help America's veterans, with or without them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I want to thank and acknowledge Jeff Gohringer, who has served as the communications director for the House Committee on Rules in both the majority and minority over the last 6 years. Today is his last day with the Committee on Rules, and I speak for Members and staff on both sides of the aisle when I say to Jeff that we are grateful

for your years of service in this institution. We wish you well in your future endeavors, and you will always have a home here.

I also thank James Fitzella, who is leaving as well. The staff are incredible on the Committee on Rules, and James will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that we heard a lot on the other side and barely a mention about our veterans. The gentlewoman from Washington, who came on the floor just recently and read the oil company talking points, couldn't even bring herself to mention veterans once.

The bill that we are talking about here today is to make sure veterans who have been exposed to toxic chemicals, who get cancer, who get other ailments, get the healthcare they need.

You would like to think that we could all come together on it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania keeps on talking about this narrow bill. I mean, they are not even serious about it because if they were, they would have used the previous question vote, which would give them the right to control the floor, to bring that up. But they didn't. Instead, they are bringing up an oil company's wish list.

This really is obnoxious. I get it. They don't like President Biden, and they will let no crisis go by without trying to make it about President Biden.

But let me just say this: We should be together in standing with the people of Ukraine, and we should be together in standing with our veterans.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 950

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 6858) to strengthen United States energy security,

encourage domestic production of crude oil, petroleum

products, and natural gas, and for other purposes. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The

bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion

except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 6858.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning- hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

The House will consider an omnibus appropriations package so the House and Senate can both pass it before March 11. As the Republican minority whip knows, on March 11 at 12 o'clock, if we have not passed additional authorization for the funding of the government, the government will shut down. It is imperative that we act.

In light of the fact that many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle will be going to Philadelphia for a legislative retreat on the Wednesday preceding March 11, March 9, we need to act by that time and send something to the Senate. I hope we can do that.

The House will also consider H. Con. Res. 70, condemning threats of violence against historically Black colleges and universities--too many of which we have seen in recent weeks--and reaffirming support of HBCUs and their students, introduced by Representative Alma Adams. That will be considered under suspension of the rules.

The House will also consider other bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Additional legislative items, of course, are possible.

I want to say that, clearly, one of the principal focuses that we have is the onslaught and criminal behavior led by Vladimir Putin, which is occurring in Ukraine. The President spoke to the country and to us on Tuesday in the State of the Union message, in which he made it clear that we need to be unified. In fact, we passed a resolution in which--for the most part, save three of our Members--we were unified.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would remain unified in the face of what is the breaking of international law and could be called a genocide of the Ukrainian people by Vladimir Putin. I am hopeful that we will remain unified and focused on that issue as we proceed.

As I said, I hope we can be unified and seek to pursue that which unifies us. If we did everything that the gentleman suggests is in that bill, it would not make an immediate difference, and the gentleman knows that. The gentleman knows that there are literally millions of acres available for additional pumping, oil rigs to be arrayed both offshore and onshore. The gentleman knows we just released 300 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Excuse me. Thirty million.

So this administration has taken actions immediately to assist the Europeans. In addition, of course, the Europeans have done something. As the gentleman knows in terms of reliance, the Germans, in a very difficult political decision for them, have canceled any further actions dealing with receiving energy through a pipeline in Germany known as Nord Stream 2.

He knows further that there is consideration to reactivate or to not decommission nuclear plants which provide not only clean energy but abundant energy. In my part of the world in a southern Maryland district that I represent, we have a nuclear power plant that produces clean energy for us in abundance. Very frankly, I have heard this argument when we had recession; I have heard this argument when we had the stock market go down, and the stock market go up. We are producing more energy than any other country on Earth right now. We are exporting energy right now.

Now, the issue as to whether or not--we have a relatively small sector, but the gentleman is correct, we are receiving oil in some jurisdictions from Russia--as to whether we ought to continue that, I think that is a valid argument, and we ought to pursue it.

But I want to say to the gentleman very, very frankly that we need to be focused on what we have done and what we are doing. NATO is unified. NATO is taking unified action. All the nations of NATO are taking actions both with respect to stopping any benefits to Russia which may facilitate the funding of their operations. We have taken very, very substantial sanctions, as you know, and we have cut off the Russian central bank which freezes Putin's strategic reserve funds. He had $600 billion that he was relying on that he called the ``war fund''.

We have imposed full sanctions on Russia's other major financial institutions, state-owned enterprises critical to its economy. We have removed Russian banks from SWIFT, an action that nobody thought the Europeans would join us in, but they have. We have secured new export controls to cut off Russia's access to tech inputs, including microchips. We have frozen the assets of Putin and oligarchs close to him and launched a task force to hunt down and freeze more of their wealth. We have stopped the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that I talked about which would have made Germany and some of Europe even more dependent on energy from Russia.

Again, some months ago, nobody would have thought that was possible. President Biden has achieved that.

We have done $1 billion in security assistance to Ukraine over the past year--a massive increase over past administrations--and have also announced a $1 billion sovereign loan guaranty to shore up Ukraine's economy.

America, essentially, is energy independent. As I said, we are exporting energy. If we didn't export energy, we may be fully independent. Having said that, the gentleman comes from an area of the country that refines some of the kind of oil we get from Russia, heavy crude, as the gentleman knows much better than I do because he is very, very familiar with that industry.

Energy is important. We believe as well that assuring energy that is not damaging to our global health is also important. I would be for not buying any oil from Russia. Then what would happen is--and may happen yet--is the price of oil would go up. The gentleman knows that. And then the gentleman would rise and say to me: How can you possibly allow prices to be where they are?

I want to honestly tell the American people that we are not sending troops. We will not have people on the front lines. But we will pay a cost to take the actions that the President has courageously taken and that President Zelensky has courageously taken to defend Ukraine's freedom. We will pay a cost.

So the President is trying to balance that with doing what needs to be done. I, frankly, think he is doing what needs to be done, and I am very proud of the fact that, as I said yesterday, we joined together in a bipartisan way to support the Ukrainian people.

We have differences of opinion on energy policy. For the most part, I think many of your Members don't believe global warming is the threat that we believe it is on this side of the aisle. So we have differences of agreement on energy. But what we don't have differences of opinion on, I hope, is that we ought to decrease to the extent we possibly can any economic benefits to Putin--not the Russian people, but to Putin and the war machine that he has put in place, and, as you and I have agreed, killing Ukrainians unprovoked, unjustified, and illegal under international law. So that is the real issue we ought to be focused on.

Yes, we ought to continue to have a fulsome debate on energy policy-- very, very important. But I will tell the gentleman, as I said before, there are millions of acres--millions--currently available to produce more energy in this country.

The gentleman's party was in charge for a long period of time of both the House, Senate, and the Presidency under President Trump, and essentially the policies that the gentleman--I don't know all the policies in that bill, obviously, I haven't read that bill--that could have been affected during that period of time.

So the bottom line is, the gentleman is correct. We need to make sure that Putin pays a horrific price and that we substantially reduce the resources he has available to perpetrate this international crime. And in the process, we ought to remember that this Congress appropriated over $400 million some years ago to help Ukraine, and President Trump held that money hostage, urging Mr. Zelensky to see if he could get dirt on President Biden. President Trump has recently said how brilliant he thinks Mr. Putin is and that our President is dumb. That doesn't reflect unity. That doesn't reflect a country that is together to confront an enemy. That undermines our democracy.

Mr. Pompeo has also said he thinks Putin is brilliant. I think Putin is an international criminal. He says he is very shrewd and very capable. There are many dictators and tyrants of the world that you can say that about. He didn't say he was a criminal--I am talking about Pompeo and Trump--or that he was committing a genocide, as you and I have said. Those were not words that either the former of Secretary of State or the former President of the United States used just recently after the invasion.

So I say to my friend very sincerely: We have differences of views on energy. We don't have difference of views, however, on diminishing very radically any resources which Putin could rely on to perpetrate his unjustified and criminal invasion of a sovereign country who has shown no threat to Russia or the Russian people.

At some point in time we will continue this argument about drilling and production of more oil. We will continue, I think, to try to be unified on the issue at hand. America's unity expressed to the rest of the world will give the Ukrainians, I think, more confidence and give NATO more confidence. And I might say when I mentioned that NATO has taken extraordinary steps, President Biden, unlike his predecessor, created respect and unity among the NATO allies. Germany, in particular, on Nord Stream 2, the former President uniformly demeaned Ms. Merkel and the Chancellor of Germany, and our relations with Germany were very strained. President Biden has put those together-- critically important in facing Putin down at this point in time.

As General Milley said in our briefing--this was not classified--he said he

thought Russia was going to lose in the end--or at least Putin was going to lose.

The Russian people do not want this war. The Russian people do not feel threatened by Ukraine.

Putin wants to create empire, and that is what I think we ought to stay focused on and unified on. We will debate energy policy, but let us not deceive the American public that any policies of this administration have undermined the ability to drill and produce additional energy on those millions of acres that are available on public lands and in public waters right now. Right now.

Will the gentleman yield so I can clarify?

I do not believe energy ought to be taken off the table. I want to assure my friend that is not my position, nor is it our collective position as a party. I understand what the gentleman said. I agree with the gentleman that to the extent that we can decrease any-- any--underline any--resources available to Putin and his war machine, we ought to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, the Speaker just announced, minutes ago, she is opposed to importing any oil from Russia. So the comment I just made to the gentleman, if you are trying to project that we want to see Russia advantaged by any expenditures we have on imports, now the Speaker has said exactly what I just said. We are not for that. Okay?

There are 26 million acres right now available and unaffected, as I understand it, by any of the constraints that you have talked about, available for additional drilling. There are 11 million acres, so that is 37 million acres currently available for production of additional product in the United States of America, right now.

So the red herring of somehow President Biden is constraining the production of oil in this country, as I understand it--now, you are much more aware of this because you come from a producing State and, obviously, are focused on this.

But the fact of the matter is, I am told that these 37 million acres are unaffected and are ready for production right now.

Now, the debate we have, Mr. Whip, is about what kind of fuels we ought to be using. You talked a lot about carbon emissions. Scientists tell us that carbon emission is a danger. As a matter of fact, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, testified when asked, ``What is the greatest threat to America's security?'' some--I think it was last year; it may have been the year before that--said global warming. That is what they said.

Right now, we have an immediate challenge. Nothing you suggest will affect that immediate challenge beyond the Speaker and I both telling you we agree, and I hope the President pursues this: No money to Russia, period. No buying of Russian products.

Now, the gentleman mentions that, oh, he urged Russia to produce more energy last year. Why did he urge that? He urged all OPEC nations to produce more energy. Why? Because he did not want Americans to pay more at the pump. I think that is a policy you would probably support, trying to keep prices down.

With the oil cartel, when you constrain supply, what happens? Demand doesn't diminish because people have to drive to work; they have to get their kids to school; they have to get home. Demand stays steady.

What happens, inevitably, when supply is constrained and demand stays where it is or it goes up, prices rise. Yes, you are right, the President stands accused of trying to get more supply on the market to bring prices at the pump down.

But we do have a fundamental disagreement, and frankly, we ought not to be talking about it now. We had an energy bill that most of your side did not vote for. We get that. There is a legitimate difference of opinion of where we ought to invest our dollars. We believe we ought to invest our dollars in renewable energy that will be there for some time and does not pollute our air, increase our heat, and make our storms worse for the safety of our globe and our people for decades and centuries to come.

But, we do agree that we want to stop Putin.

Now, the reason I pointed out Trump, because Trump didn't stop Putin. He regaled Putin: He is my friend. I know him. We can get together.

Putin is a thug. He is a criminal thug. He is an international criminal. I think we all agree on that. And it doesn't help for the former President of the United States to tell the world I think their guy, this criminal, this thug, is smart, or in Pompeo's words, brilliant and our guy is dumb.

Our guy is not dumb. He is very smart. I have known him for 50 years. He may disagree on policy, but that is not because he is dumb. He has a different perspective.

Very frankly, he is not withholding money from Zelensky. He is making sure Zelensky gets money.

Trump tried to hold hostage money for Ukrainian security that we appropriated because we wanted early on to make sure that Zelensky and the Ukrainian people had the resources they needed. Mr. Trump withheld them. Now, ultimately, he paid them out, after it was disclosed--after it was disclosed.

We are going to continue to differ on energy policy, but don't mislead the American people when you have 37 million acres available for additional production unaffected by the restraints that you talk about. He is talking about new stuff.

So, my friend, let's focus, in this instance, at this time of crisis, on how we can make sure that America is perceived as unified and of one mind, as we did right after 9/11 and as we did yesterday.

But we abandon that very quickly in this polarized society in which we are living. We need to be unified, and we need to be honest with the American people. It is not going to be cost-free because neither Biden--and Biden, by the way, is urging the Saudis to increase production and others to increase production.

But as the gentleman knows, we far outstrip any of those nations in the production of energy and oil. China, a country that is three times, four times our size, four times our size, is producing 25 percent of what we produce.

America is producing a lot of energy. It did so under Obama. As the gentleman knows, energy production in the country rose during the Obama years. It rose during the Trump years. And it still is at a high plateau.

The only thing I would say to my friend, the whip: We have differences on energy policy. We ought to discuss those. That is an honest difference of opinion. I want to be energy independent.

I hope you heard the President talk about Make It In America. All of my colleagues rose and sort of pointed at me because I have been talking about making it America, which is producing energy as well, for a good period of time. I started the Make It In America agenda in 2010 and have been talking about it every year since.

We need to be energy independent, and we can use energy as an element of foreign policy and strategic policy as well, which is why the Speaker said, just minutes ago, as I said to you, we ought not to be buying oil from Russia, period.

Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman clarify when he says, ``just the other day''?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that question. The answer to it is the Office of the Attending Physician and the Sergeants at Arms in both the Senate and the House are looking at that, both from a health standpoint and from a security standpoint.

I think all of us agree that the American public's access to the Capitol ought to be as fulsome as possible, given constraints of health concerns and of security concerns. So I join the gentleman in saying, as I have said to the press, as soon as we can do that responsibly, we ought to do it. I agree with the gentleman.

I want to add something that is of great concern to me. I hope we have agreement in this House, and I hope we have agreement in the United States Senate. I have been shocked, deeply saddened, when your party passes a resolution and tells the American people that January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

If we are telling people in this country that January 6 was legitimate political discourse, we are going to have great concerns about opening up this Capitol for the safety of our Members, for the safety of the public who wants to visit, and for the safety of our staff.

I would ask my friend; does he believe that January 6 reflected legitimate political discourse?

I was shocked, astounded, that a major political party in this country would tell the American people what they saw on January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

Will he please reject that concept, reject that conclusion, that what they saw on January 6 had anything to do with legitimate political discourse.

Yes, I want to open up the Capitol, but I don't want to make any representation to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that what happened on January 6 bore any resemblance to what we as Americans believe is legitimate political discourse.

Rightfully, Senator McConnell and former candidate for President of the United States, Mitt Romney, rejected that out of hand. I would hope you and your party would do so on this floor and tell the American people, yes, we want to open up this Capitol, but do not delude yourself that anything you saw on January 6 bears any resemblance in any way to legitimate political discourse.

I had not brought that up, but I am constrained to do so as we talk about opening up our Capitol.

Tuesday night, we were an armed camp. You saw it, I saw it, we all saw it, the fence around the Capitol, men and women with automatic weapons, both military and civilian, because of what happened on January 6, because of the concern they had for the safety of our democracy and of the ability of the President of the United States to come and give a State of the Union address to the assembled Members of the Congress of the United States and the United States Senate. That is why all of that was there.

Very frankly, inexplicably, the Republican Party's national committee passed a resolution, apparently overwhelmingly, that told the American people that January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

Mr. Speaker, the equivalency that my friend from Louisiana tries to make between citizens, some who committed crimes, but citizens who are acting because they are seeing their children's lives taken because of the color of their skin and what happened on January 6 to undermine our democracy, our Constitution, and our election of a President of the United States, reflects the resolution the Republican National Committee passed, legitimate political discourse.

They weren't talking about the people--some people saw, obviously, the President incite those people to come from where that political discourse, that discussion--which sounded like incitement to me, maybe not to you--and

they came from the White House, at the President's instruction, Mr. Speaker: Go down to the Capitol, stop the steal, give them hell, fight like hell. Instructing the Vice President of the United States to do what the Vice President of the United States concluded was illegal, not within his power, and they came into the Capitol calling for the life of the Vice President and the Speaker of this House.

There is no equivalency. But they continue, Mr. Speaker, to make that equivalency, to justify what was done on January 6, that, oh, well, everybody does it. No, they don't. It is the first time in history that it has happened.

The whip and I are talking about what I think we both want to do, open up this Capitol, make it more accessible, have people come in, gun free, weapon free--come into this Capitol and see their democracy in action. That resolution was read by the American people as, oh, it is okay, legitimate political--there was nothing about January 6 that was legitimate political discourse, including what the President of the United States had to say, at that point in time, Donald Trump. That wasn't legitimate at all.

Sixty courts determined Joe Biden was elected. He still, to this day, lies to the American people. Sadly, too many people believe him, which led to January 6 and the violence. I am sure that the whip believes they ought to be held accountable if they came in here and waved guns at people and killed a police officer. I appreciate that he said that.

If he believes, as Romney believes, as McConnell believes--McConnell didn't say they were talking about the people talking in political discourse, should we do this, should we do that. McConnell responded to that resolution exactly as I have, understanding exactly what it meant, inexplicable.

Very frankly, if we are going to open up this Capitol, we need all of us to tell every American we are opening up the Capitol to peaceful-- sure, political discussion; that is what this place is all about. That, Mr. Speaker, is what this discourse is about, differences of opinion, how we resolve them, how we reach consensus, how we hopefully bring people together. But not by waving racist flags, not by hanging a gallows in front of the Capitol. That is not how we do it.

We ought to all, all 435 of us, reject it out of hand. We should not in any way try to make it look like, well, some other people did this, and some other people did that, and, therefore, it is okay.

They attacked our democracy, our Constitution, this country. They were traitors. We ought to all reject that kind of conduct out of hand, not try to rationalize it with some other group did this and some other group did that, people with grievances.

The Constitution does not guarantee being able to shoot at people, police or nonpolice. It doesn't justify destroying property. That is criminal activity. I agree with that 100 percent. And no city was burned down. A little bit of hyperbole there, Mr. Speaker.

Were there things done that shouldn't have been done? Yes. Were there things that shouldn't have been done and things that happened on this Capitol? Yes.

But January 6 was not analogous to any of those things. It was an attempt to undermine our democracy, our Constitution, and the election of the President of the United States by this Congress in approving what we should have no discretion in one way or the other. That is what lawfully is done in each State when they send their electors here.

What President Trump kept asking Mr. Pence to do was ignore the votes of the American people, ignore the lawfully elected electors and the result of their deliberations.

Mr. Scalise is my friend. He is a good man. A famous quote says that nothing is necessary for the spread of evil but that good men do nothing. And that is why I tell my friend I was so appalled at the rhetoric of that Republican National Committee resolution and what it says to people around this country who may have a grievance, who may be angry.

As Senator McConnell interpreted it, the resolution was speaking to what happened on January 6, whether it was at the White House and incitement, whether it was at the White House and deployment, or whether it was here in execution of what was clearly a coordinated effort to prohibit the Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties. Expressed and acted out.

So I say to my friend in conclusion, I didn't mean to get into this today, but your questions obviously spurred my feeling about this because, yes, we want to open up the Capitol, but I don't want to give any citizen the thought that the Capitol is being opened so they can come in here, threaten the lives of a Vice President, threaten the lives of a Speaker, threaten the lives of the minority leader or the Republican whip or any others of us.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican whip is my friend. He was badly injured by a criminal who may have been deranged or whatever, but no excuse, who attacked him because he was a Republican. Totally unjustified. Totally heinous in its execution. The whip has shown extraordinary courage, Mr. Speaker, in coming back. I know it has been hard. It has been tough for him, and all of us admire him for the courage he has shown in coming back, and we condemn in the severest terms any kind of action that would have put him or any other of our Members, our staff, or the visitors to this Capitol at risk.

We are considering it. We want to open it up. The American people ought to have access to their Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I share the gentleman's expression of unified support with the people of Ukraine. Clearly, we stand with the heroic people of Ukraine, President Zelensky, and the inspiration he has been showing to the world, and the strong people of Ukraine.

What we are seeing from Russia is barbaric. One of my colleagues, Representative Spartz, who actually was born in Ukraine, she has been very outspoken about the genocide that is happening to the people of Ukraine. As the gentleman mentioned, the resolution that we passed with Mr. Meeks and Mrs. Spartz, it was bipartisan, and an overwhelming vote of support standing with the people of Ukraine.

Clearly, they have asked for a number of very specific things: some military equipment, supplies, as well as humanitarian relief. We need to continue to push as hard as we can to make sure it is delivered as expeditiously as possible as we watch continuous barbaric attacks, raids, bombing, carpet bombing, cluster bombs, things that are illegal under international law, yet Putin continues to commit these barbaric crimes against the people of Ukraine. They are tough people, and they are not going to give up their country. We need to do everything we can to help them.

One other thing that was mentioned in this resolution because people, obviously, want to know what they can do. There are a number of steps that are being taken and there are other steps that we would also like to see this Congress take. In the resolution there were two provisions specifically that I wanted to bring up.

One of the resolution requests was that we--the United States Congress--pledge support working with Europe and international partners to bolster Europe's energy security and reduce its dependence on Russian energy imports.

The resolution that we passed also goes on to say: We resolve that we underscore the importance of maintaining United States' energy independence for the benefit of the American people and United States' allies. With that there was a piece of legislation that was just filed earlier this week to do just that. H.R. 6858, offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and Mr. Westerman, the ranking members of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, goes to the heart of what we can do as a country and as a Congress to take leverage away from Vladimir Putin as it relates to energy.

We can all see over the years how Europe has become very dependent on Russian energy. They, unfortunately, get over 40 percent of their oil from Russia. This is also putting billions of dollars in the pocket of Vladimir Putin. When you look at the price of oil today, over $110 a barrel, just look at the daily benefit that that gives to Vladimir Putin. He is making over $700 million every single day selling oil to the United States and Europe. Think about that.

Vladimir Putin is pocketing today over $700 million, and he is going to get another $700 million tomorrow and another the day after by selling his oil to the United States and to Europe. There are things we can do to stop that. That is what H.R. 6858 goes to the heart of. Some of those things are very specific.

President Biden, just a few weeks ago, put a complete freeze on all oil and gas projects in America. All oil and gas projects. That means we are not allowing the United States to provide for the resources of our country and our allies. We used to be exporting oil to our allies around the world, it is becoming harder to do that because those policies by President Biden are shutting off American energy, and at the same time President Biden was asking Vladimir Putin to produce more oil for us.

There is no reason we should be asking Russia to do what we in America can do, yet that is a policy that was put in place. President Biden can reverse that today. I have called on President Biden to reverse all of these specific actions today. This legislation would at least show that Congress is ready to allow ourselves to be energy independent so that we can take that leverage away from Putin. We can take that $700 million away from Putin.

Obviously, there are a number of other things, just permits for things like LNG--natural gas--Putin is supplying a tremendous amount of natural gas to Europe. There are six projects right now sitting on the Biden administration's desk to approve LNG permit applications for major projects, multibillion-dollar, private-sector-funded projects in America to allow us to ship natural gas to our European allies so they don't need to get it from Putin. Not one of those permits has been approved in over a year.

Same thing, permits for pipelines. It is not just the Keystone pipeline. There are many other pipeline projects including two States in the Northeast. In the United States, States like Massachusetts are importing their oil from Vladimir Putin because they can't get it through pipelines in America. This opens that up.

It does a number of other things to allow America to become energy independent, but, more importantly, to take the leverage away from Vladimir Putin that he has today that he is using to pocket over $700 million a day by selling his energy to us and Europe. I would love to see that bill on the floor, and I think a lot of other people would, too, to send a message to Putin that we are not going to be a part of helping him finance this barbaric war on Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if we could look at bringing H.R. 6858 to the floor, have a full debate, and pass a strong piece of legislation that would send a signal to our

friends around the world, surely to the people of Ukraine, but also to Vladimir Putin that he is not going to be able to finance his war off the backs of oil he is selling to the United States and Europe and using that against the people of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to gentleman.

Thirty million, I believe it is.

Mr. Speaker, there are many areas where we have been unified in our response to Ukraine, but it is not unifying to say leave Russia's oil off the table in terms of sanctions. That was left out by President Biden. When he issued sanctions he specifically exempted Russia's oil, and that is not unifying. There are a lot of people who are angry about that because we are watching the amount of money that Putin is putting in his pocket every day, and he is using that money.

So you take other sanctions, you take other things off the table, the banking system might be hit hard, except if he is able to put $700 million--and it is probably closer to $1 billion a day now with this higher price of oil because of what he has done and because of what our country has done to take energy off the table.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I appreciate that clarification because it is in President Biden's set of sanctions that he specifically exempted energy. Clearly, that is not unifying, even to us.

But it is the money that is still allowed to be flowing into Russia, into Putin's pocket, to finance the war that many of us want to get at.

If H.R. 6858, after the gentleman looks at it, has some provisions that we could work on, I think it would be very unifying to the country to say we are finally going to confront what might be Vladimir Putin's largest source of funding, and that is his oil exports to the United States. It offends many, many people that, today, we are getting over 100,000 barrels every single day from Russia because we took things like the Keystone pipeline off the table.

That would have brought us oil from Canada. Canada is a friend, by the way. And it is not like the need and the demand just went away. The demand is still there.

President Biden said no, we don't want Canadian oil. But it wasn't because he didn't want any oil. He didn't say no, we don't want any pipelines. He just said no to the Canada-to-America pipeline, but he said yes to the Nord Stream 2, initially. But he also said to Vladimir Putin: Would you produce more oil?

And let's keep in mind--I know there is this conversation about the planet. Let's be honest about carbon emissions. Carbon is emitted all around the globe. So if we shut down production in America, which has been done--and it is not just on Federal lands where the President is not issuing permits. He put a freeze just 2 weeks ago on all new permits.

But it is also the banking system that he is using to go after oil and gas companies, so there is no investment being made in America. They are making investments, billions of dollars of investment, in other countries. They are just not making it here in America because of those policies.

Again, that just gives more leverage to Putin. We were paying less than $2 per gallon under President Trump. I know the gentleman wanted to bring up President Trump.

President Trump stood up to Putin, by the way. You didn't see an invasion anywhere in Ukraine under President Trump. You surely did under President Obama and Vice President Biden when Putin walked in and took Crimea with no consequence. Afghanistan, the weakness that was being showed clearly was being watched by Putin and Xi and other adversaries as a preface to then go and start marshaling troops on the Ukraine border.

President Trump didn't let that happen. He stood up to Putin and pushed back on Putin. He also used energy as a weapon against our enemies because we were producing enough to not only meet our needs but to export to our friends around the world.

Surely, lower pricing was a benefit to Americans, but it also helped our allies around the world. That has been taken off the table.

But let's talk about the carbon emission side because oil is being produced. It is just that a lot of it isn't being produced here that would otherwise be in the mix.

So if you look at, for example, Russian oil, Russia emits probably 40 percent more carbon to make the same oil that otherwise would be made in the United States because we have better standards in America.

I know a lot of people love beating up on America. We do it better than anybody else. Our technology is better than anybody else. In fact, our technology for producing energy is the envy of the world. It should be the model for the world because if we are not making it, Russia is going to be making it.

Believe me, futures prices of oil have an impact on price today, which is why, when President Biden walked in and shut the spigots off in America--sure, there is production going on from previous leases that happened under previous administrations, including President Trump, that was driving the price down. But when he walked in day one and said no to the Keystone pipeline--in other words, no to Canada's oil but yes to Russia's oil--that had an impact on price.

When he said no to Federal drilling, which then he expanded to all drilling, any new permits--sure, the stuff that is going on out there is still going on, but there is no new investment being made in America. It is being made in other countries, including Russia, including OPEC nations. Because of that, they are able to control the price because they are cartels.

We had literally taken the monopoly away from OPEC and Russia when we were producing enough and using the resources of this great Nation, by the way, in a much more energy efficient way than anywhere else in the world. We were reducing carbon emissions in America while producing our own energy, while manufacturing more in America. The more things are shut down here, they are being made in other places, and those other places emit more carbon.

China is building a coal plant probably every single week. China emits more carbon, probably five times more carbon, to make many of the same things we make in America.

So the less we make here, it is still being made; it is just being made in other countries. They get the jobs, but they also emit more carbon. So, as people talk about carbon emissions, don't leave that point out because it is an important point.

Again, it was President Biden himself who asked Putin to produce more oil, just last year. The oil produced in Russia has a higher carbon price than made here in America.

And it makes us less secure. It makes Putin more strong. It gives him hundreds of millions of dollars a day that we can take off the table.

I think that would be very unifying if we had that debate and said: Can we get an agreement on some of these provisions that would actually strengthen our country?

Even if Russian wasn't invading Ukraine, it would be smart American policy. It would reduce carbon emissions. But especially considering what is going on in Russia, this is much more pertinent today to have this discussion. Again, I think it can be unifying.

Just because right now we may not see eye to eye, I think there is a way to see eye to eye on this if we actually had that debate and looked at it from a global perspective, not just in a silo in America because, again, there is a global market for oil. Carbon emissions are global.

The countries that are taking the things away that we are shutting down here in America emit more carbon. It is a fact. Why shouldn't we be talking about that, too, and, frankly, taking away the leverage that Putin would have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

As we talk about this energy policy difference, again, I do think it could be unifying. I do think we can get to a point where we recognize some of the impediments that are real today. While the President says Make It In America, there are things that President Biden is doing that are blocking the ability for us to make it in America.

Again, I have talked about some of the regulatory agencies that are making it very hard even on some of those lands the gentleman references that could be open for production where they can't because they reinstated some of the things like WOTUS and some of the other regulations that were removed so that States could look at the ability to permit applications where now they are not able to do that, where banking systems, through Treasury, through the SEC, are blocking financial institutions or bullying financial institutions to not allow investment by American banks into American production of energy.

It is real. It is going on. It is a problem. And it is why many of those energy companies are making their billions of investments in other countries right now.

Again, when you have John Kerry, the President's global warming czar, just the other day saying he hopes Russia helps us with this.

Mr. Speaker, probably about 4 days ago, where he was talking about getting energy production addressed and some other things addressed. We shouldn't have a strategy that involves Russia helping us right now or Putin helping us right now.

So don't give Vladimir Putin that leverage. He has leverage. While Nord Stream 2 is blocked today, Nord Stream 1, the original Nord Stream

pipeline, is still operating, providing over 40 percent of Germany's energy. That was what President Trump was critical of Merkel about, why are you signing contracts that make your country more dependent on Russia? He said that verbatim. He was right back then. Germany probably wishes they wouldn't have done it today because they were hamstrung in the beginning of this. They are now helping, but they are also dependent on Russian oil.

We should be looking at things that we can do to not only wean ourselves off of Russian oil but our allies around the world. There are real specific things we can do and there are impediments in this country today that exist that are unnecessary, that are hurting our ability to shut down Russia's ability to use energy as leverage. They are doing it right now. They are using it not only as leverage but as a financing source. Putin still is pocketing over $700 million a day by selling oil to Europe and America.

If there are things that we can come to an agreement on that would address it, I think it would be important that we do it as fast as possible to take away those points so that Putin has to think twice about continuing what he is doing, this barbaric genocide that is happening in Ukraine.

So just saying that while it might not be something we recognize as unifying today, I think it could end up being something unifying in a short period of time, if we can keep working through those differences. I would just encourage that we try to do that.

If there is anything else on that, I would yield, but there is one other issue I wanted to raise as well.

The Senate just a few days ago passed unanimously a resolution asking to open up the Capitol again to the American people, our constituents, who still are not able to come to the Capitol to visit with Members of Congress, to sit in the gallery, to participate even in the State of the Union. It was a unanimous resolution in the Senate.

There is a companion resolution by Congressman Steil that was filed, H. Res. 961, that would do the same thing and express from the House side what the Senate just expressed, that it is time to open the Capitol to the public again. The Senate Republicans and Democrats came to an agreement to do it. I would just ask that we do the same and show the American people that the people's House is open to the people of the Nation. If the Senate can come to an agreement on it--again, I don't think there is anything controversial in the resolution, but I would ask that we would bring that up as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have been very clear from the very beginning, anyone who broke into this Capitol ought to be held accountable and is being held accountable. More arrests have been made than probably all of the cities where people were burning down cities across America in the summer. That is something that ought to be addressed, and the Democratic Party doesn't want to talk about that. They just want to talk about January 6.

These resolutions are not about January 6. It is allowing the American people to exercise their First Amendment right to come and meet with their Members of Congress, which they are not able to do right now.

If you look at that resolution, the head of the RNC even came out and said that is not what they were referring to, what the gentleman just alluded to. They said they were talking about the people who weren't even in the District of Columbia on January 6 who are being targeted right now. That is what they said that they were doing. Go take that up with them.

I have been clear about what has happened to the people who broke into this Capitol and that everybody who breaks the law ought to be held accountable, not just the people who broke in here on January 6, but also people who burned the cities down over the summer of 2020 who haven't been held accountable. That is something that angers people all over the country. They want to see the law equally carried out for people who broke the law, no matter where they were, here or in cities across America.

If you want to criticize one side of it, at least be willing to criticize the other side of it, too. I surely have. I haven't heard it from the other side. I would be more than happy to hear the gentleman talk about people who were shooting at cops, killed cops, beat up people in streets, burned down police stations, government buildings in cities, took over cities, and haven't been held accountable. Shouldn't they also be held accountable? I say both should be held accountable. Does the gentleman agree with that?

And I yield to the gentleman.

Just again, we condemn violence of all kinds: Political violence, people that just commit violence because they want to or they think they can get away with it or they think somebody will bail them out if they do it. But we should do it across the board, and the punishment fits the crime. The laws are on the books. It is the prosecutors who go after the people, and they are in some instances. It should be in all instances.

I will continue to call it out on both sides. I would hope on the other side we hear that as well, not just when they see it in one place, but when they see it in all places, and I would hope we would open up the people's House and get the Capitol back open to the American people who want to and have a right to come and express their views on issues.

They might want to send an email, they might want to make a phone call, but they also might want to go to the office and sign that log book and try to sit down either with the Member of Congress or their staff to convey their feelings, and we just hope that happens. Again, the Senate unanimously said they want that to happen. I would hope the House would do it, too.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 979 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met on and reported a rule, House Resolution 979, providing for consideration of H.R. 963, the FAIR Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order one amendment and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, the bills we discuss today have to do with fundamental American values.

The first bill under this rule, the FAIR Act, simply restores the right of individuals to have their day in court.

It prevents the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts.

Most likely, all of us have signed a contract with a forced arbitration clause, and many may not even know it. How many Americans have read their cell phone contract? How many have read their credit card contract?

Too many consumer contracts are written to protect the pockets of corporations, leaving consumers at the mercy of a system created by, paid by, and focused on minimizing liabilities of corporate companies.

These documents are dozens of pages long, and most contain clauses that require arbitration in case of a legal dispute and prevent the consumer from going to court as an alternative. There is no negotiation or choice.

Ask yourselves, if you saw something that you objected to in a contract for your cell phone, what option do you have to change it? The answer is no choice at all.

That is why this is called forced arbitration, and these requirements game the system in favor of one party, large corporations. If there is a dispute, corporations get to pick the location of arbitration, and in many cases, it is out of State; pick the arbitrator; and pay for them. Yes, the impartial arbitrator, who depends on corporate contractors, is paid for by the corporation. And corporations get to shield the results from the public. Imagine that.

The FAIR Act stops this harmful and abusive behavior. It bans forced arbitration clauses in employment, civil rights, and consumer disputes.

Congress just passed legislation that changed this process for disputes involving sexual harassment. However, there are tens of millions of Americans who are still affected by forced arbitration in other contexts, and this legislation provides those same protections to them as well.

Ensuring fairness under the law is at the center of the second bill being considered under this rule, the CROWN Act. This bill would ensure that discrimination based on race is not masked as discrimination about hairstyles.

This is legislation that we passed by a voice vote last Congress with no objection from the other side. But this year, Republicans decided that something had changed--not with the legislation, but with their Conference--since they objected to the consideration of this bill under suspension.

The CROWN Act simply clarifies what studies have shown, that oftentimes women, particularly Black women, are discriminated against based on their natural hair.

Courts have rejected previous guidance finding that discrimination on the basis of hairstyle or hair texture is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. So, this legislation simply makes these protections clear, that you cannot discriminate on the basis of a person's hair texture or hairstyle if that style or texture is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.

I believe that both of these bills will help to make our legal system more fair for every single one of us. I urge passage of the rule and these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am going to share three stories from hardworking Americans.

Connie Nagrampa, a California resident, started working as a franchisee for a marketing company. The company cheated her out of her investments, her life investments. When she tried to seek accountability, they forced her into arbitration.

The company, conveniently enough for them, chose to move the arbitration process across the country to the city of Boston. A California resident was expected to fly herself and pay for all of her expenses to Boston to seek justice. It was too expensive, obviously, for somebody who has just lost her life savings. She lost the arbitration as a result, and the arbitrator said she had to pay more money to the company. Connie spent years attempting to overturn that unjust cause.

Now let me tell you about a brave American Navy reservist, Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ziober, whose employer fired him the same day he was deployed to Afghanistan. This is blatantly illegal under Federal law. But because the employer had forced all of their employees to sign a forced arbitration clause, he was unable to make his claim in Federal court and get his job back.

That is what they are defending.

Let me tell you about another brave military servicemember, Charles Beard, whose rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA, were violated by his bank.

SCRA is a bipartisan law which provides financial and legal protections to servicemembers and their families when they are on Active Duty. This is especially important given how vulnerable Active Duty servicemembers can be to predatory lending schemes, identity theft, or other unfair financial practices when they are deployed or on Active Duty.

Mr. Beard is a former sergeant in the Army National Guard, now 100 percent VA disabled. When he was on tour in Iraq, his wife at the time and their five children relied on one vehicle. One day the bank decided to repossess that vehicle. It was no longer convenient to keep that loan open for somebody risking their life for us, our country.

This, too, was a violation of the Federal law SCRA because he was deployed. When he tried to hold the bank publicly accountable in court, he was forced into arbitration because of a forced arbitration clause buried in the fine print.

These are just three stories of hardworking Americans. These are the stories of real people that we need to stand up for and protect.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are supposed to be debating two very important bills to help Americans continue to thrive in this great country, but instead my colleagues across the aisle want to debate

about something that they know is incorrect.

There are over 9,000 approved drilling permits the oil industry is not using. And the truth is that changes in domestic energy policy often take years to impact global energy markets. They know that.

But instead, what is happening here is oil companies are using Putin's war as an excuse to jack up prices at the pump even more, and then they argue for looser regulations, cheaper drilling, and more pollution.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4, 2022, opinion article from The Guardian written by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva entitled ``Oil and Gas Lobbyists are Using Ukraine to Push for a Drilling Free-for-All in the U.S.''

[From the Guardian, Mar. 4, 2022]

Oil and Gas Lobbyists Are Using Ukraine To Push for a Drilling Free-

for-All in the US

(By Raul M. Grijalva)

Last week, we all watched in horror as Vladimir Putin

launched a deadly, catastrophic attack on Ukraine, violating

international treaties across the board. Most of us swiftly

condemned his actions and pledged support for the Ukrainian

people whose country, homes and lives are under attack.

But the fossil-fuel industry had a different take. They saw

an opportunity--and a shameless one at that--to turn violence

and bloodshed into an oil and gas propaganda-generating

scheme. Within hours, industry-led talking points were oozing

into press releases, social media and opinion pieces, telling

us the key to ending this crisis is to immediately hand US

public lands and waters over to fossil-fuel companies and

quickly loosen the regulatory strings.

Our top priority must be ending Putin's hostilities, but as

chair of the US House committee on natural resources, I feel

duty-bound to set the record straight. We can't let the

fossil-fuel industry scare us into a domestic drilling free-

for-all that is neither economically warranted nor

environmentally sound.

Despite industry's claims to the contrary, President Biden

has not hobbled US oil and gas development. In fact, much to

my deep disappointment and protest, this administration

actually approved more US drilling permits per month in 2021

than President Trump did during each of the first three years

of his presidency. Before the pandemic, oil and gas

production from public lands and waters reached an all-time

high, and the current administration has done little to

change that trajectory over the last 13 months.

Fossil-fuel companies and their backers in Congress also

profess that more drilling on public lands and waters would

lower gas prices for Americans. But if that's true, why

hasn't record oil extraction from both federal and non-

federal lands over the last decade done anything to

consistently lower, or at least stabilize, prices at the

pump?

The fact is that crude oil is a volatile global commodity.

Worldwide supply, demand, and unpredictable events--like

wars--influence the price of gas, not the current

administration's decision to approve a few new leases or

permits.

Even if we take industry's claims at face value, nothing is

keeping fossil-fuel companies from more drilling on public

lands right now. The oil industry already controls at least

26m acres of public land and is sitting on more than 9,000

approved drilling permits they're not using.

They have a similarly gratuitous surplus offshore, where

nearly 75% of their active federal oil and gas leases,

covering over 8m acres, have yet to produce a single drop.

Any new leases issued today wouldn't produce anything of

value for years, or even decades in some cases.

If industry did start to ramp up production from federal

leases, the overall increase to the total US supply would

likely be marginal. In 2020, public lands and waters only

accounted for 22% and 11% of oil and gas production,

respectively. The vast majority of oil and gas resources are

beneath state and private lands--not public lands or federal

waters.

With the facts laid bare, we see the fossil-fuel industry's

crocodile tears for what they are--the same old demands for

cheaper leases and looser regulations they've been peddling

for decades. These pleas have nothing to do with countering

Putin's invasion or stabilizing gas prices, and everything to

do with making oil and gas development as easy and profitable

as possible.

The US is the world's top oil and gas producer. Doubling

down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only

perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place.

And quite frankly, we can't afford to maintain the status

quo. In its newest report the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most dire warning yet on the

rapidly accelerating climate crisis. If we fail to enact

major mitigation efforts, like curbing fossil-fuel

development, both quickly and substantially, we will ``miss a

brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a

livable and sustainable future for all''.

Fortunately, there is a path forward that simultaneously

cuts the lifeline to fossil-fuel despots like Putin,

stabilizes energy prices here at home, and creates a safer,

more sustainable planet. We must wean ourselves off our oil

and gas dependence and make transformational investments in

cleaner renewable energy technologies, like those in the

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Build Back Better Act and

the Competes Act, and we must do it now.

The fossil-fuel industry has had hold of the microphone for

far too long. It's time we let the facts speak for

themselves.

Madam Speaker, if my colleagues were so concerned about oil prices or the welfare and security of humanity in the crisis that is happening in Ukraine, maybe they should have stepped up and inquired about the five meetings that the previous administration held in secret without staff, only a translator, with Vladimir Putin.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the rule allows for consideration of these two bills, which will ensure that we are providing better protections for consumers and employees.

The FAIR Act stops large corporations from gaming the system in their favor, and allows consumers the opportunity to have their day in court.

And the CROWN Act ensures that we do not allow discrimination in any way, shape, or form. These are commonsense bills that help the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.