Ending Importation of Russian Oil 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. President, Vladimir Putin has continued to wage horrific war against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. This invasion, waged upon the profits of Russia's oil and gas empire, has caused destruction and devastation beyond measure.

We must denounce Putin's war of choice, and we must call out profiteering and the ricochet effects of that conflict that affect Americans and others across the world.

This connection to conflict is only possible as a result of the fallacy of

American energy independence from oil and gas extraction--a lie that has been sold by the American Petroleum Institute or the ``American Prevarication Institute,'' as they should be called. For years, the oil and gas industry has sold Americans more snake oil than actual oil, promising security and safety in exchange for unlimited drilling, unlimited exports, unlimited profits for Big Oil and Big Gas in the United States. And after yet another year of price spikes caused by Putin and profiteering, it is time to say enough is enough with these false promises and crocodile tears from the American Petroleum Institute, from ExxonMobil, from Chevron, from all of these companies.

President Biden was right to follow my SPIGOT Act and the bipartisan consensus in the House and Senate to ban all oil imports from Russia. The only way to end Putin's oil- and gas-funded wars is to cut off his oil- and gas-funded piggy bank, which comes, unfortunately, historically, from American consumers at the pump buying Russian oil for their cars. That has to end. And, thankfully, President Biden has now made that decision.

And it is because we have a moral moment here to provide all possible humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people. We have a moral moment here to cut off the money pipeline that is funding the missiles and the tanks that are destroying the homes of innocent people in Ukraine. And we have a moral moment that ensures that we take the action to build a better world that is safe from the climate-change-fueled crisis. But our ability to meet this moral moment hinges on what we do next on the floor of the U.S. Senate, what action we take to respond to this obvious crisis that we have on the planet, all related to this oil- and gas-fueled military invasion of Ukraine--the tanks, the planes, the soldiers--all paid for by oil and gas money.

We could fail to meet this moral moment by accepting the bad faith arguments from Big Oil, which is using this horrifying invasion to push for more drilling and money to fossil fuel companies with more lands and waters lost to extraction, more profit for Big Oil at the expense of American pocketbooks; or we can meet the moral moment that the United States is willing to lead with innovation, moving away from global oil chaos and closer to clean, cheap, domestic renewable energy sources--sources that will not fall victim to price hikes from despots, dictators, and criminals overseas.

Now, we have all heard the Big Lie from Big Oil, FOX News, and the GOP, the Gas and Oil Party. Their message is: All you need to do is give us a few more leases, cut a few more regulations, provide us with a few more subsidies, and then we will be on our way to energy independence.

Trust the oil and gas companies, they say, and FOX News says, ``Yes, trust the oil and gas industry,'' but that argument is leakier than an old oil tanker, and it has been proven again and again.

If Big Oil wanted to make us energy independent, they would have already done it. Instead, they resort to their Big Lie.

So here are the facts:

Big Oil is sitting on 11,000 unused oil and gas leases, and 9,000 of those leases are on Federal lands in the United States. They have already been purchased by the oil and gas industry, mostly for $2 an acre, but they have got them; and 2,000 leases are offshore, in the waters of the United States, and they have all been already approved for drilling.

Big Oil also has 6,000 partially drilled wells that they can use to drill right now. In other words, they have already done the drilling, and they are still not going there right now, on an emergency basis, to produce that additional oil and gas.

Why is that?

Because rather than using the resources they already have to drill, they are using this crisis as an excuse to get more leases, more wells, more profit for themselves while sitting on, squatting on, the existing leases they already have that could produce the additional oil and gas that they say they want to produce. Of course, they don't want to produce that oil or else they would be doing it already. They just want more leases that they can sit on and profit from in the years ahead.

In terms of solving this crisis that we have right now, they can do it if they want, but they don't want to because it might actually drive down the price of oil or it might drive down the price of natural gas if they produce more here.

So this is not a problem of governmental overreach. If you don't trust me on this, how about trusting the oil executives themselves. In a recent survey, 60 percent of oil executives said that investors are keeping them from drilling. Just 10 percent pointed to regulations. These are the oil company executives. They say it is the investors--the millionaires in their companies--who don't want to drill, not Federal regulations.

Remember the Keystone Pipeline--the pipeline that the Republicans wanted so they could be energy independent?

In 2015, every single Republican on the floor of the U.S. Senate voted against my amendments to ban the exports of that oil from the Keystone Pipeline. They kept saying then it would lead to energy independence, and when I said, ``Fine. Let's have an amendment that says it cannot be exported,'' every single Republican voted no--allow it to be exported out of our country.

These crocodile tears from the Republican Party--from the GOP, Gas and Oil Party--are just so predictable, and it comes back every single time.

Big Oil has kept up their export shenanigans. In 2021, we exported 8.6 million barrels of oil a day while importing 8.4 million barrels per day. Last year, we imported, on average, 600,000 barrels of oil a day from Russia. At the same time, we exported the same amount to China. That is what the Republican Party and the gas and oil industry got in 2015 when we lifted the ban on the export of American oil. That is not energy independence; it is profit dependence of the American people on the agenda of Big Oil and Big Gas.

The Gas and Oil Party doesn't want to drill for oil here in America to protect Americans from economic harm; they want to do it for their own economic benefit. Big Oil has a need for greed. The Republican Party, as we just heard in the confirmation hearing, kept talking about crime in the streets. No. The big problem is crime in the suites--crime in the oil and gas executive suites of our country--and the Republican Party's inability to stand up to them so that we have true energy independence in our country. In 2021, while consumers sacrificed at the pump, with gas prices increasing by 50 percent, Big Oil made over--get this number--$200 billion in profits.

That is what is happening. That is why they don't want to drill-- because the price of oil might come down; therefore, their profits might come down, but they have built all the leases they need right now. This isn't about energy supply for consumers; it is about Big Oil's demand for profits for their shareholders and for their executives. That is what the agenda of the oil and gas industry in America is all about, not American security, not American consumers, not American environmental and healthcare issues, but the profits of their executives.

We don't need sacrifice in our country. We need innovation. We need a way to ensure that we unleash all of the potential, which we have, in our country in order to tap into all of our rich natural resources. Instead of supporting energy independence and getting out of the way of a real domestic, clean energy boom, Big Oil would rather force consumers to sacrifice with high prices at the gas pump.

We don't need Americans to sacrifice by paying high gas prices. Instead, we need to innovate and install clean energy solutions. This is our short-term and our long-term solution to price disruptions, climate chaos, environmental injustice, and wars paid for with oil and gas profits--much of it war profiteering.

Here are some more facts:

An additional 16 million electric vehicles on the road would replace all of the oil that we currently import from Russia. Let me say that again. If we would just deploy 16 million all-electric vehicles, we would back out all the oil from Russia. The next 16 million all- electric vehicles would back out all the Saudi oil that we import into the United States. ``EVs'' just doesn't stand for ``electric vehicles''; it also

stands for ``ending violence''--getting the United States tied up into situations around the world because of all of the money that these wealthy oil states get from the United States.

Here is another way to break it down:

We can put 5 million electric vehicles on the road, 5 million heat pumps in homes, and replace 75 percent of our public bus fleet with electric buses and still back out all the oil we import from Russia. In the time it would take to implement these measures, we can release the already congressionally mandated sales of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to give consumers relief at the gas pump.

We can accomplish all of this by passing my SAVE Consumers Act with Senator Heinrich, which would grant the President additional authority to implement energy efficiency standards and release another 265 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by the end of 2023.

We can do this. We can deploy the Strategic Petroleum right now, invest in a renewable, clean energy agenda, and actually produce enough energy that substitutes for all the Russian oil and do so in a very brief period of time; but we have to commit to destroying the demand by Putin's dirty energy business model by powering our own country with clean, American-made renewable energy. We can power our way to peace. We can power our way to stopping the most dangerous effects of greenhouse gases that are creating climate change on our planet.

Putin banks on divisions in the West. What he found instead was our complete solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Imagine if we were to channel that same spirit of unity to unlock a safe, healthy future and untether ourselves from Putin's dirty profits. We should agree that no country continues to have a veto on our energy security or of our friends and allies.

The future lies not in the extracted fossil fuels of the Industrial Revolution but in technologies that will power the clean energy revolution.

It is in our interest to build a well-trained, well-paid battalion of American union workers to lead countries to look to their energy needs from the red, white, and blue of the United States instead of Putin's cronies who finance Russia's repression at home and adventurism abroad.

By passing a $555-billion investment in clean energy and climate justice, we can build a made-in-America clean economy that delivers real energy independence for our country, and we can export those technologies around the world. With tax credits and rebates in wind and solar, all-electric vehicles, offshore wind, battery storage technologies, heat pumps, and advanced domestic manufacturing, we can cut costs at home while cutting off Putin's money line from oil and natural gas. These investments would reduce our dependence on global oil markets and, instead, power our country through localized clean energy.

The solar from our deserts, the solar power from those States that have near year-round Sun, the wind off of our coast from Massachusetts down to Maryland, which the Presiding Officer represents, the wind off of the west coast, the hydropower from our Southeast, the geothermal from our Northwest--all of it can be tapped, and we can end an era wherein our country is held hostage by the need to import more oil.

Our Federal climate policies are exactly what we need--this national security moment, this environmental moment, this healthcare moment, this moral moment for our country and for the planet. There is no quick solution to this quagmire that Big Oil has drilled the United States into. There are only better and worse solutions, moral and immoral solutions. We can innovate and install clean energy that produces all of the energy which we need and that protects us, protects our allies, and protects our planet at the very same time or we can continue down the pathway of false promises and profiteering.

It is our moral moment. Let's stand in solidarity with those affected by oil and gas wars and seize this chance for a cleaner, safer, more affordable future for Americans, for our allies, and for the world.

There are doubters that we can make this transition, people who say: Well, wind and solar and all-electric vehicles and battery and storage technology--that sounds fine, but it just won't solve the problem. They are the same people who said that we could not deploy the spectrum.

I was the author of the bill that accomplished and that made it possible for everyone, by 1995, to have a flip phone in their pockets at 10 cents a minute. Then, in using that very same spectrum 10 years later, a young guy, Steve Jobs, invented a phone which is a computer that has the same power as the computers on the Apollo mission to the Moon. We innovated; we moved; and we can actually see the people, in their fleeing Ukraine, all holding smartphones invented in the United States because we put together the policies that changed us from black rotary dial phones to these powerful computers in everyone's pockets.

We can do the same thing with energy. We can create a revolution. We just have to get Big Oil and Big Gas out of the way and allow our young people to innovate, allow our entrepreneurs to innovate, allow for the deployment of all of these technologies, and then children will have to look to the history books to find if there ever was such a crisis that we are living through today.

So my hope is that the Senate will respond and that they will understand how much of this conflict is created by the globe's dependence upon oil and gas. Putin is proving that to us once again, and if we look at the Middle East, we can see that hole that we have dug for ourselves and our dependence upon that region.

We have the solution. It is innovation; it is optimism; it is unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit in our country. That will be the challenge of the U.S. Senate over the next 2 months.

Will we have the same courage to respond, to take on those energy titans, in the same way that the Ukrainian people, every day, are giving us the example that we should be following?

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today's rule covers three items. The first item is a bill to ban imports of Russian oil into the United States and to impose additional sanctions following Russia's unprovoked and unjust invasion of Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, although I will be supporting this bill, I cannot help but feel that this is a half measure and a missed opportunity to exhibit unified support on immediate steps to confront Putin's evil regime.

Yesterday, Senators Wyden and Crapo introduced a much stronger bill, one that was negotiated over the weekend by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate. But rather than taking yes for an answer, the majority instead put forward a weaker bill, one that is watered down and leaves loopholes wide enough to drive a tanker through.

Banning Russian oil imports in the wake of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine should be an obvious no-brainer, just like it ought to be a no-brainer for the President to reverse his misguided policies and unleash development of America's own energy sources. But instead of doing so, the Biden administration continues to discourage domestic oil and gas production and is asking every other oil producer in the world to make up the difference.

Instead of encouraging our own domestic sources of energy, which could meet our needs, critically supply our allies, and strengthen American energy independence, President Biden instead is taking steps like unilaterally canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, imposing a ban on new oil and gas exploration and leasing on Federal lands, and telling hardworking Americans who are struggling to buy expensive gasoline to instead go buy more expensive electric vehicles.

Failing to develop America's energy resources is a missed opportunity, Madam Speaker, just like this bill. We had a better option. I wish we had taken it.

Our second item today is an omnibus appropriations package covering the remainder of the year 2022, and the third is a short-term continuing resolution to ensure continuity of government funding while Congress processes a larger bill.

Madam Speaker, it has been a very, very long road to get to this point. But

today, the House will act on a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations package. As vice ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I am encouraged that we are finally nearing completion of this fundamental function of Congress to provide full-year funding for the government.

We are here today in a time of great crisis. Two weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked and unjust war against Ukraine, its democratic neighbor to the west. Inflation has skyrocketed to a 40-year high, and due to the administration's reckless action, gas prices have continued to soar month after month after month.

Yet despite these crises, the Members of this body have worked together and have found common ground on today's legislation.

As I have said many times, one of the most consequential duties of a Member of Congress is to fund the government and keep it open and operating. At a time of crisis, this is more important than ever.

Last year, the Appropriations Committee passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee and succeeded in passing nine of those bills across the floor before the August recess. Unfortunately, these bills were partisan and did not receive support from any Republican Members, with good reason.

Today, we are 5 months into fiscal year 2022, and despite the long process, the path forward has always been clear. It was clear last July, just as it is clear today.

In order to reach a final bipartisan, bicameral deal on appropriations for FY 2022, four conditions needed to be met. I am greatly pleased that this bill meets all four.

The first is to ensure that the longstanding, bipartisan pro-life provisions historically included in the appropriations bills are restored. These include the Hyde amendment, which prevents Federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions, except in limited cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and the Weldon amendment, which protects American doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals from participating in and providing abortions if they have a moral objection.

The inclusion of these and other broadly popular provisions was and is an absolute necessity for this bill to have any chance of becoming law. I am personally deeply grateful that they are included in this package.

Second, partisan policy riders that were included in the bills that passed the House last summer needed to come out. These are provisions that both sides did not agree to and do not enjoy bipartisan consensus. At the end of the day, we needed to reach an agreement on these items to move forward. Fortunately, each of these provisions has been removed.

Third, the level of defense spending absolutely needed to come up. Unfortunately, last year, President Biden proposed a budget that underfunded national defense, repeating the mistake of the Obama-Biden administration of chronically underfunding our national defense. But earlier this year, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, both controlled by Democrats, worked together in a bipartisan manner to authorize an increase in defense spending of $25 billion over the fiscal year.

In today's bill, appropriators actually went beyond that, ensuring a robust increase in defense spending. This increase is necessary to ensure that our Armed Forces will have the funds needed to maintain our readiness and to procure the weapons and assets the warfighters of tomorrow will need to continue to succeed on the battlefield.

This includes increases for defense assets based in my own home State of Oklahoma. If the present crisis in Ukraine shows us nothing else, it should show us the need to continue to adequately fund our national defense.

Finally, the fourth condition that needed to be met was that the proposed levels of nondefense spending had to come down. In the initial set of bills that passed the House, my friends in the majority sought to include a 17 percent increase in nondefense spending. While that no doubt included many worthy items, Republicans generally felt that 17 percent was excessive, particularly given the substantial needs on the defense side of the ledger.

But the bill before us today increases nondefense spending by just 6.7 percent, which will allow for increased investments in key areas while also ensuring that we will continue to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.

Of course, this 6.7 percent ensures that there will be significant and important investments in nondefense areas across the government. I am particularly pleased that the National Institutes of Health will receive a robust $2.25 billion increase, which will help advance medical science, help address future pandemics, and continue our progress toward defeating the scourge of cancer.

We are also funding ARPA-H, one of the President's highest priorities, at $1 billion in its first year of operation. I am also encouraged that this bill provides significant increases for TRIO and GEAR UP, two programs that are close to my heart, that help first- generation students go to college. These are just a few of the programs that I could point to that are worthy of increased funding and investment, and this bill has done that.

The legislation before us today represents a negotiated compromise between the House and the Senate and obviously between Democrats and Republicans. Given that, it is a compromise. That means neither side got everything that they wanted. As I have often said, in a compromise, you have to give up more than you would like to get less than you want. Indeed, this is not the bill I would have written had I written it alone. But at the end of the day, it represents a good balance for Congress and for the Nation.

Before I finish, I want to congratulate my friends and colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, particularly Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and Ranking Member Kay Granger, without whom we would not have gotten to where we are today.

I also want to extend my huge thank you, as the chairman did, to the Appropriations Committee staff and to the Rules staff on both sides of the aisle. These staffers are truly unsung heroes who spent many long and sleepless nights over the preceding weeks, including this past weekend. We would not be here today without them.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just quickly respond to my friend's comment about the energy industry.

I am from an energy district. I am from an energy State. My constituents and their forebearers have produced more energy than they have consumed for over a hundred years, and they have shared it all over the world, but particularly across this country.

Thank God for them because, quite frankly, what Americans would be paying at the pump now would be astronomical were it not for them. Since 2005, American oil production has doubled, and that is due to their ingenuity. Frankly, we pay almost the lowest energy prices in the world.

I am sorry, but to put all of these energy price increases off on Vladimir Putin--he is certainly responsible for those this week, but the reality is, for the entire Biden Presidency, energy prices have been going up. That is because the President, on his very first day, effectively declared war on the fossil fuel industry. He canceled the Keystone Pipeline. He changed the leasing and drilling rules on Federal lands. The hostility has simply been overwhelming.

Now, where does that put us? The United States is going to Iran to ask them to increase energy production, the largest sponsor of state tyranny.

We are sending representatives to Venezuela. Why don't we just call people in Houston and Oklahoma City and Cheyenne? We have got lots of places that know how to produce energy and have been doing it cheaply, efficiently, fairly, and cleanly for decades.

The reality is, let's not attack them. They are our salvation in a time of trial, and they are our national security moving forward. I feel very strongly about that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend and distinguished member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will refrain from correcting my friend again and just send him something to read.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act for immediate consideration.

Two weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin shocked the world by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In doing so, Mr. Putin revealed his true self, and that is a bully, a thug, a tyrant bent on subverting his democratic neighbor to the west. In challenging not only Ukraine, but also the rest of the civilized world, Mr. Putin's powerful weapon is not his army, potent though that may be, but the dependence of much of the rest of the world on Russian oil and gas. Already he has begun to put the squeeze on democratic states seeking to challenge his invasion of Ukraine by threatening to cut off their supplies of energy.

The American Energy Independence from Russia Act would address the challenge and would reposition the United States to be energy self- sufficient. It would immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline, would restart oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and waters, and would expand liquid natural gas exports at the moment Europe needs the most. In doing so, it would ensure that America remains energy independent and can act to address Russian aggression without risking economic damage.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my good friend and a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to further explain our amendment.

Madam Speaker, to further discuss the need for America to be energy independent, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and my good friend.

I yield the gentleman from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.

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

Just to remind my friend, it was the last administration that actually began lethal aid to Ukraine. The Obama administration did not. The record there is pretty clear as to who has helped the Ukrainians.

Madam Speaker, to further discuss the need to get America out from under the thumb of Russia, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, for further explanation of our energy independence bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and fellow Oklahoman.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, our second rule of the day now covers four items. As we discussed earlier, the first item is a bill to ban imports of Russian oil into the United States and to impose additional sanctions following Russia's unprovoked and unjust invasion of Ukraine.

Although I will be supporting this bill, it is a missed opportunity to exhibit unified support for the immediate steps to confront Vladimir Putin's evil empire. A much stronger bill has been introduced in the Senate that was negotiated over the weekend by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. Why the majority would forgo taking yes for an answer and instead introduce a much weaker, watered-down bill is beyond me.

Our second bill is an omnibus appropriations bill covering the remainder of fiscal year 2022. Our third bill is a short-term continuing resolution to ensure the continuity of government funding while Congress finishes the larger bill. And our fourth bill is a $15 billion standalone COVID supplemental.

The omnibus appropriations bill was a long time in coming. Indeed, we are over 5 months into fiscal year 2022, and it is more than a little frustrating that it has taken us this long to get here. But we are here now, and the bill before us represents a realistic compromise between the House and the Senate and between Democrats and Republicans.

The omnibus bill is far, far better than the partisan bills the House passed last summer. This bill preserves the historic legacy of bipartisan pro-life riders like the Hyde amendment and the Weldon amendment, both of which absolutely had to be in this package in order to become law. It omits new partisan policy riders on which there is no consensus. It increases defense spending by more than $25 billion over last year, which is clearly necessary in the wake of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. And it provides for an appropriate, measured increase in nondefense spending, which will allow for continued investments in programs like the National Institutes of Health, ARPA-H, TRIO, and GEAR UP. The limited increase in nondefense spending allows us to make responsible investments in key programs while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

While it spends more than I would have preferred, it is still a very reasonable compromise.

Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, I want to, once again, congratulate Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and Ranking Member Kay Granger of the Appropriations Committee on today's bill and thank them for their hard work.

On the new addition, the $15 billion COVID supplemental, I think there are serious concerns with this additional unpaid-for increase. According to the CBO, there is currently more than $340 billion in unobligated funds available for repurposing and appropriation. Indeed, instead of providing new resources like this bill does, we should rescind or repurpose existing COVID resources for these purposes, as the bill we considered earlier today would have done.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have more remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, for immediate consideration.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen the clear consequences of President Biden's war on the oil and gas industry. Emboldened by Russia's role as the key source of energy for much of Europe, Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked invasion of his neighbor, Ukraine. Gas prices are soaring, with the pressures of unchecked inflation and Putin's threats to cut off oil and gas exports pushing them ever higher.

Indeed, Mr. Putin has begun to deploy his most potent weapon, which is to threaten to cut off Europe's energy supply right in the dead of winter.

Madam Speaker, this was all avoidable. The United States has the capacity to be energy independent if only we choose to be. We can stand on our own two feet, confident in the knowledge that we can meet all of our domestic energy needs right here at home, and we can provide assistance to our allies to ensure their protection against Russian threats.

Unfortunately, President Biden's actions since taking office have made this impossible. On day one of his Presidency, he terminated the Keystone XL pipeline, and he subsequently froze oil and gas leasing on Federal lands. In lieu of the U.S. producing oil and gas that we need, he is instead asking every other oil producing country but the United States to step up. Many of these are hardly friends of our country or, frankly, humanity. It is simply astonishing.

The American Energy Independence from Russia Act would address this challenge and ensure American energy self-sufficiency. It would immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline; it would restart oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and waters; and it would expand liquid natural gas exports at the moment Europe needs them most. It would free the United States and our allies to act in opposition to Vladimir Putin's brutal and barbarous assault on his neighbor without fear.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question and a ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I advise my friend I am prepared to close.

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

Madam Speaker, before I go to my formal remarks, my friend and I will have a discussion about energy.

I am a big believer in renewables. My own State gets 42 percent of its electricity from wind power, and we are number two in the country. I would put our record up against anybody.

We really do believe in ``all of the above.'' But we are very proud of having produced energy for over 100 years for this country in abundance, far beyond our needs, and exported at reasonable prices.

I would also remind my friend, whatever the prices are--and I wish they were lower--they are cheaper here than just about anyplace else in the world, and we can thank, literally, the thousands of people I am privileged to represent.

Many of us represent over 10 million of the men and women who actually produce the energy this country needs and, frankly, the rest of the world needs right now. I don't think they ought to be demeaned. I don't think their motives ought to be questioned. They are an extraordinary group of people, and they are patriotic and step forward whenever we need them. When times are bad, nobody seems to care what happens to them. When times get tougher, everybody wants them to step forward, invest more, and do more, and they do. They will continue to do that in this time of crisis. So, I don't think we need to be divided on this.

There is no question we need more oil and gas now; Europe needs more oil and gas now; and we have been taught a serious lesson about the dangers of becoming reliant on people like Mr. Putin when they have the ability to impact world prices.

Madam Speaker, in closing, although I oppose the rule, I am greatly encouraged by the underlying appropriations measure. While it is not perfect--no bill ever is--and could always be better, it does represent a good compromise between Democrats and Republicans that will ensure full-year funding for fiscal year 2022.

The bill before us continues Congress' policy of increasing our investments in defense spending, which is of critical importance at this time of global crisis. It provides for needed investments in health, including increasing funding for combating future pandemics and research into diseases like cancer. It funds education, infrastructure, energy production, roads, and care for our Nation's veterans.

It includes also--and I want to thank my friend for doing this--his proposal for a much-needed White House conference on hunger, and it is an area we work together on. I am proud to acknowledge his leadership in that.

It is, in sum, a bill Congress can collectively be proud of, and it is a bill that does the right thing for the American people.

On the Russia oil ban, I am disappointed. The Democrats walked away from a strong bipartisan, bicameral deal that could have united us as a Congress and led to swift passage in the Senate. As it currently stands, it is unclear what fate awaits this legislation in the Senate. I am hopeful that my friends on the other side will reflect on this missed opportunity and work with Republicans to not only stand up against Russian aggression abroad but also for homegrown American energy resources that are critical to achieving our goals and checking Vladimir Putin.

On the new $15 billion unpaid-for COVID supplemental, the data is clear that there are already adequate resources available. These could be fully utilized before additional funds are provided.

Madam Speaker, while I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, I encourage all Members to support the bipartisan and bicameral omnibus appropriations bill.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I am requesting votes on two very important issues regarding this competition bill: No. 1 to put the Senate on record in opposition to providing $53 billion in corporate welfare to the highly profitable microchip industry, with no protections for the American taxpayer; and two, to eliminate the $10 million bailout included in this bill for Blue Origin, a space company owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in this country who is now worth over $180 billion.

So, Mr. President, I ask the majority leader: Will you now give me your commitment to receive two rollcall votes next week on each of these motions to instruct at a simple majority threshold?

Mr. President, I appreciate the commitment of the majority leader to ensure that I will receive rollcall votes on these two issues. Having received the majority leader's firm commitment, I will not object.

I ask unanimous consent to address the body for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, let me thank the majority leader for his willingness to put my two motions to instruct on the floor next week for a vote. And I want to take a minute to explain to my colleagues and the American people what these amendments are about.

As I think most Americans understand, half of the people in our country are living paycheck to paycheck. They cannot afford the high cost of healthcare. They are often spending more than they can afford for housing. If they are fortunate enough to be able to have gotten a higher education, it is more likely than not that they are struggling with significant student debt. If they are young parents, they are probably finding it hard to locate quality, affordable childcare or pre-K. If they are older Americans, it is likely they are having a hard time paying for the dental care, the hearing aids, the eyeglasses, or the home healthcare that they desperately need.

Meanwhile, as many middle-class and working-class Americans fall further and further behind, there is another economic reality taking place in our country. We don't talk about it enough--but we should--and that is that the people on top, the very wealthiest people in our country, are doing phenomenally well and, in fact, have never had it so good.

Today in America, we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. We talk a lot about Russian oligarchy--and that is certainly true--but anybody who thinks that we don't have an oligarchy in this country is surely mistaken.

In our country today, we have two people who own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American population, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 92 percent.

And, unbelievably, during this terrible pandemic--which has cost us almost 1 million lives--when thousands of essential workers died, they died because they had to go to their jobs, and going to their jobs, they contracted the virus. During that same period of time, the billionaire class became much, much wealthier. In fact, over 700 billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. In other words, for the people on top, the pandemic has been a very, very good time economically.

But it is not just the increased wealth of the very rich that we are seeing. Corporate profits are at an alltime high, and CEOs have seen huge increases in their compensation packages. And a lot of this is happening because of the unprecedented level of corporate greed-- corporate greed that we are seeing.

Let me just give you a few examples of the corporate greed that is taking place right now. Everybody knows that the price of gas is soaring. Last I saw, it is averaging about $4.25 a gallon. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell made nearly $30 billion in profit last quarter alone. The price of gas is soaring and major oil companies are making huge, huge profits. Amazon recently raised the price of its Prime membership by 16.8 percent. Meanwhile, it increased its profits by 75 percent to a record-breaking $35 billion.

In terms of food, everybody knows food prices are going up. The price of beef is up 32 percent, price of chicken is up 20 percent, price of pork is up 13 percent. Meanwhile, Tyson Foods, a major producer of chicken, beef, and hot dogs, increased its profits by 140 percent last quarter to $1.1 billion. The price of food is soaring, and food companies are enjoying huge profits.

While Americans are finding it harder and harder to pay for the outrageous costs of prescription drugs--we pay the highest prices in the world for our medicine--last year Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie, three major pharmaceutical companies--increased their profits by over 90 percent to $54 billion. People can't afford the price of prescription drugs, but pharmaceutical industry profits are soaring. Again, all of which kind of takes me to the legislation that is on the floor right now, the so-called Competitiveness Act.

Do we need to increase computer chip production in the United States? Yes, we do. But we need to do it in a way that does not provide massive amounts of corporate welfare to an already enormously profitable industry.

In my view, it makes zero sense to provide $53 billion in corporate welfare. That is a blank check: Here it is, microchip industry, no strings attached, no protections for the American taxpayer to the microchip industry.

And as part of this legislation, in addition--I don't know how many people know this--some may think I am actually kidding when I say this--but this legislation provides $10 billion in bailout to Jeff Bezos--the second wealthiest person in America who is worth over $180 billion--so that his company, Blue Origin, can launch a rocket ship to the Moon.

A word about the microchip industry. We are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years, while moving most of its production overseas. Got that? So this is an industry that said: Hey, we are making money, but we can make even more money by going to low-wage countries. Let's do that. Let's throw 150,000 American workers out on the street. We are going to go abroad.

Now, in terms of this $53 billion bailout, nobody knows exactly who will be receiving that money. My guess is that the bulk of that money will go to five major semiconductor companies, and that is Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries, and Samsung. These five companies in line for tens of billions of dollars of corporate welfare made over $75 trillion in profit last year.

The American people are sick and tired of our government working for wealthy campaign contributors and for the Big Money interests. I know it is a radical concept to suggest, but maybe--just maybe--we might want to be working for ordinary working-class and middle-class Americans.

Let me talk a little bit about what our amendments would do. Our amendments are very simple.

The first amendment, obviously, would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, all this amendment says is that if these companies want taxpayer assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. If these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on this investment.

This is not a radical idea. These are exact conditions that were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to 0. It is not a radical idea.

I believe in industrial policy. That means the government works with the private sector. It does not mean that the government simply gives the private sector everything they want with no protection to the taxpayer. So if the result of these $53 billion in grants is these companies make money, that is good--that is good--but the taxpayers who helped invest in these new production facilities should be able to enjoy some of those profits as well and get some of that money returned to them.

The second amendment is really a very, very simple one. It asks: Why in God's name would we be giving $10 billion to a company owned by the second wealthiest person in this country, Jeff Bezos? If Mr. Bezos wants to go to the

Moon, if he wants to go to Mars, he wants to go to Saturn, that is his business. He has every right in the world to do that, but he does not have a right to ask the taxpayers of this country for $10 billion to help him make his trip to outer space. This second amendment simply eliminates that $10 billion grant that goes to Mr. Bezos.

I look forward to winning the support for these two important amendments, which I think are strongly supported by the American people.

I yield the floor.