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…
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.
