Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his very generous comments and congratulate him for his leadership in so many different ways, not only on this subcommittee, but also on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which he chairs, and which is so focused on human rights throughout the world.

I thank Mr. Cohen and Mr. Chabot for their leadership on this and bringing this to the floor, bringing it in a bipartisan fashion. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the Congresswoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been a giant, yes, on anti-Semitism, but on civil rights and human rights generally.

We understand that if one of us is at risk, all of us are at risk if we do not honor the rights of each individual in our country. And, as a matter of fact, that is one of the things that makes us so distinct.

This is an important resolution. It is a vital resolution. It is a resolution that must be adopted so that Congress can make clear at this moment, at this tragic moment in our history, that Jewish Americans can feel safe and at home in our country, and that anti-Semitism has no place here. Discrimination and bigotry and hate have no place in America.

Throughout the month of May, we celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month, as the gentlewoman pointed out. Why is that so important?

It is important because when we celebrate the achievements and contributions of a community, we affirm that this community matters; that those in it are valued members of our American family. That is why Black lives matter, Jewish lives matter, individual lives matter.

But we know that there are particular groups who are targeted, targeted for discrimination, and hate, and, yes, violence.

When we fail to recognize or celebrate the history and heritage of a particular community, it sends a signal that they are not valued, that they do not matter, and that they are not equal, that they do not count.

Again and again throughout history, Jewish people were seen as lesser than. Indeed, disturbingly, Jews were seen as less than human, which inevitably led to the discrimination, violence and, yes, even the genocide of the last century.

Jews who came to our shores were seeking a place to live in safety and freedom. We should be proud of that, and we need to protect that. Tragically, anti-Semitism followed Jewish Americans from the Old World to the new one and has become a growing cancer on our body politic.

Too many Americans need to hear the loud voices of their Congress calling out anti-Semitism because too many of our fellow citizens are hearing leaders they support and trust either give voice to anti- Semitism or rationalize anti-Semitism. It is not enough simply to be against anti-Semitism. We must not rationalize or temporize with anti- Semitism.

In recent weeks, we have heard more and more about the great replacement theory, a twisted conspiratorial ideology rooted in historic anti-Semitism and racism that has been used by those seeking to justify heinous acts of domestic terrorism targeting minorities. That is what happened in Buffalo.

We recall it from the billowing echoes of ``Jews will not replace us'' from the marchers in Charlottesville in 2017.

We have also heard accusations of dual loyalty tropes about Jewish financial and political control that inspired the Nazis and, yes, the Soviets alike in their horrific persecution of Jews in the 20th century.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, much of this anti-Semitism is fueled online through social media. We must not ignore it. It must not be allowed to metastasize.

We have a chance to do that today.

As we celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month, let us do so with gratitude and with joy, but also with concern and vigilance: Concern for what anti-Semitism does to Jewish communities in America and for what it does to our Nation and our democracy; and vigilance against those who would infect our politics and our culture with the same evils that gave the world places like Auschwitz, Dachau, and Babyn Yar.

One of the most important ways Americans can support our Jewish brothers and sisters in this country during this time of dangerous and rising anti-Semitism is to say, ``We see you. We stand with you. You matter. You count. You are part of this country and of our community,'' and to do so without qualification or equivocation.

Every Jewish American, like every American, deserves to feel safe and respected in America. Period.

Let us affirm that today. Let us affirm it every day. Let us declare that with one strong voice today and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, before I start making my remarks, the gentleman who just spoke is a member of the Republican Party. The Republican National Committee passed a resolution telling the American people--and they passed it overwhelmingly--that what they saw on January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

A couple of law enforcement officers lost their lives, people were injured,

people in the hallways yelling to hang the Vice President of the United States and to kill the Speaker of the House.

Legitimate political discourse.

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

It was not, when they attacked anything.

You ought to visit the Speaker's home. She has protestors in front of her home all the time. All the time, Mr. Speaker.

Legitimate political discourse is demonstration; it is speaking out. And as a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, we had this bill that raised questions by those very concerned--meaning all of us--about the legitimate exercising of First Amendment rights by all Americans; left, right, and in between. The fact of the matter is that we worked hard to make sure that what the gentleman who previously spoke asserted is not true.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee you that our side of the aisle does not condone violence by either the left or the right. Violence in and of itself should be rejected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on January 6 we saw what happens when extremist ideology disseminated online, in the media, and even by elected officials is allowed to fester into violent action. And I repeat, whether that happens from the right or the left is irrelevant. What is relevant is the violence and the danger that it presents to individuals as well as to property, I would tell my friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, we see far too much these days of ideology being transformed into violence, which is never acceptable and must not be met with silence or acquiescence, or--I would tell the gentleman from Ohio--rationalization.

Legitimate political discourse on January 6. Absurd.

In recent days, Mr. Speaker, we have watched families mourn those killed in horrific acts of hatred in Buffalo, New York, where someone who espoused white supremacy committed a mass shooting targeting African Americans.

We have also seen this terror in places like Atlanta and Laguna Woods, California, where members of the Asian-American community were targeted with deadly violence. We saw it in El Paso in 2019 against the Latino community and in Pittsburgh in 2018 against Jewish Americans.

This resolution does not condemn extremism on the right or the left. It condemns extremism which leads to violence against people on the right or people on the left or people who are neither right nor left and are not politically identified as such.

Indeed, in the aftermath of these events, and particularly this week, Americans have been learning more about the kind of violence-promoting and twisted ideologies of hate that pose a clear and present danger to our democracy, to the safety of our communities, and to the social fabric of our country.

I condemn violence from the left, from the middle, and from the right. And I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would condemn, as vigorously, violence from whichever quarter it is proposed. One of the worst of these, which is known as the ``great replacement theory,'' is no more than a centuries-old form of prejudice and bigotry which holds that minorities are conspiring to replace White people.

This vile and false narrative is, sadly, not restricted to the dark and distant corners of the internet where extremists lurk. It has found a foothold in mass media and, shockingly, even among elected officials and Representatives in this House.

Many in this House who have had the opportunity to condemn this theory and those who espouse it have chosen silence. That kind of silence, Mr. Speaker. Many in this House condemn violence from whichever source, as I just said.

It is from that same kind of silence that the seeds of dehumanization, persecution, and horrific violence were planted in Germany in the 1930s. We know where that kind of rhetoric leads, and we must not allow our Nation to go down that path.

This is one of the most pernicious forms of hatred that fuels domestic terrorism in our day. It is incumbent upon us as the Representatives of the American people and the guardians of our democracy to ensure that those who espouse violent, extremist views have no place in our government, our military, or any position of public trust.

We have seen published by Members of this House images of violence, of threats, of killings of one of our Members.

Hopefully, this bipartisan legislation will do that and will also equip law enforcement with the tools needed to identify and stop domestic terrorists--the head of the FBI says that our greatest danger in America today is domestic terrorism, the head of the FBI--including white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other racially motivated extremists; and do so proactively.

So everybody on this floor knows, I condemn unequivocally, of whatever ideological bent there is, people using violence to promote their political ideas, left or right.

This legislation also commissions numerous reports on the rising threat to domestic extremism that will help guide future policymaking on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, to stop these purveyors of evil from tearing our country apart, we must act decisively, and we must act now.

I thank Representative Brad Schneider and Chairman Jerry Nadler for their leadership on this very important issue.

I know, as I believe every Member of this House knows, that extremist violence can reach anyone, anytime, anywhere, whether it be a place of worship, a grocery store, or as we learned last year, this very Hall.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues of whatever political persuasion--this does not adopt a political persuasion, but it adopts the premise that the use of violence and hate and bigotry should be shunned by all of us.

Our Constitution provides protection for almost any speech that one can pursue--almost. Not all, if we place others in danger. Not all, but almost any speech you can give. We are unique in the world in that regard. We protect that, and we call it the First Amendment, one of our most important amendments. It makes our country what it has been: a free and open Nation for discussion and debate. It must not devolve into the use of violence, the result of death, and the tearing apart of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge each Member to support that premise and support this resolution.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

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

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. and will recess shortly thereafter. At approximately 11 a.m., the House will meet in joint session with His Excellency Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic, Greece. Votes are expected in the House on Tuesday thereafter.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for legislative business.

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

The House will consider Chairman Scott's H.R. 7309, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2022, which is an important part of the Make It In America agenda. Now more than ever, businesses need skilled workers, and it is essential that we reauthorize WIOA to expand access to skills training for high-demand, high-wage jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider H.R. 7688, the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, introduced by Representatives Kim Schrier and Katie Porter. This critical legislation seeks to give the Federal Trade Commission greater authority to rein in excessive gas prices. This bill would protect consumers against irresponsible actors in oil and gas who would artificially inflate prices for extra profit, and it will help Americans struggling with higher energy costs.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider two bills under suspension of the rules in recognition of National Police Week.

Mr. Speaker, 23,229 of our fellow citizens have lost their lives, over the course of the existence of our country, in law enforcement, in doing their duties and protecting us and protecting our property.

The first of those bills is H.R. 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, bipartisan legislation that would expand eligibility for the Public Safety Officers' Benefit program to include stress and trauma-related injuries and death by suicide for law enforcement officers and their families.

Tragically, Mr. Speaker, that happens too often as a result of the trauma and stress which our police officers around the country confront.

The second bill is H.R. 2992, the TBI and PTSD Law Enforcement Training Act, again bipartisan legislation, Mr. Speaker, that would require the Department of Justice to develop crisis intervention training tools for law enforcement agencies so they can better equip officers to respond to individuals with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, some of the most dangerous confrontations that our officers have.

The House will also consider, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6531, the Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act of 2022, sponsored by Jim Clyburn and Hal Rogers, the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately, that failed on suspension, so it is coming back under a rule.

We will also consider S. 2938, legislation to designate the United States Courthouse and Federal Building located at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building, which was sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican Member of the United States Senate.

The House will consider other bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we obviously will be ready at any time that the Senate can pass assistance to the extraordinary, brave, and courageous Ukrainians, who are confronting the Russian criminal invasion of their country unprovoked, unwarranted, and unjustified.

We will have that legislation as soon as it comes back here considered, hopefully, on this floor so that we can get some $40 billion in military and humanitarian assistance that is needed in Ukraine so critically.

It is a sad thing that we passed this bill Tuesday night, and it has been sitting in the Senate with essentially now one Senator, one Republican Senator, Mr. Paul of Kentucky, holding it up. I am hopeful that the Senate can move it over to us quickly.

We passed it in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion when it was here, so that is also a possibility, Mr. Speaker, to be on the floor next week.

Will the gentleman yield just on that point?

On just that point, the gentleman mentioned this the last time we had a colloquy and pointed out that the drilling and processing of petroleum products are the cleanest in the world. You made that point last week, and you have just made it now.

Does the gentleman know why that is the case?

Correct.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have had this discussion before. I am going to take a little bit of time to--because if you just listen to the Republican whip, you would think that America is bereft of production of oil, or of LNG, or of petroleum-based products.

I want to go through what America is doing, what the increase has been, and what can be done.

First of all, the United States is the largest producer of oil in the world--18.61 million barrels per day. Saudi Arabia is about half of that, at 10.8. Russia is slightly less than Saudi Arabia; Canada about half of what Russia is doing; China about half, a little less than half, of what Russia is doing. So, we are the largest producer of petroleum products.

We import some, and that is largely based on the type of petroleum products that we use. On crude oil we produced 11.6 million barrels in February 2022. The all-time high was 12.9, almost 13 million barrels.

When Trump took office, we produced 8.8 billion barrels in January 2017. In 2008, we produced 5 million barrels. We more than doubled that in a decade from that 5 million.

Oil production is up more than 700,000 billion barrels from January to December 2021. It is up. It is very substantially up. Oil production is projected to grow more than 1 million barrels this year alone.

The U.S. rig count--this is important because these are the rigs that are in operation. The U.S. rig count is at a current level of 705, up seven from a week ago, and 257 from 1 year ago--a 57 percent increase.

So the presentation that somehow we are handcuffed in producing petroleum products is simply not true. In terms of natural gas, the United States is also the largest producer of natural gas in the world, at 3 trillion--3.109 billion cubic feet. Russia is second, Iran is third, and China is fourth, and Qatar is fifth.

In December of 2011, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. was producing 82.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas. That was in 2011. In December 2021, we are now producing 118 billion cubic feet, a 45 percent increase in 10 years. Again, to hear the

whip talking about it, it would be as if we have been somewhat constrained and are not doing our job.

Now, I happen to have an export company in my district, Calvert Cliffs, a nuclear facility. Right south of Calvert Cliffs is an export facility for LNG, in Cove Point, Maryland. In October 2021, 66 percent of the deliveries went to Asia, 34 percent went to Europe.

In February and March of this year, it is now 80 percent to Europe and 20 percent to Asia.

Why is that? So that we can meet the cutoff that has either happened because Russia did it or it has happened because the Europeans have stopped buying, in some respects, Russian product.

In any event, at the end of 2021, the U.S. had a peak export capacity of 11.6 billion cubic feet per day. By the end of 2022, that figure is expected to increase by 20 percent. This is not a country that is locking down the production of oil.

In addition, let me point out that there are--I want to get the right figure--oil and gas companies already have 26 million acres of public lands to drill on and over 11 million acres of Federal waters that are currently at their disposal. They have 37 million acres in total. Nothing is stopping these companies from drilling there, if they choose to do so.

The industry, Mr. Speaker, holds 9,000 unused approved permits right now. There are 9,000 approved permits to drill, which they are not using.

Last fall, the Biden administration put 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for auction; unfortunately, the court overturned that. There has not been a pursuit of that, as the whip will point out, since that time. The point is that the response to that offer got a 2 percent response for 1.7 million acres out of the 80 million acres that were offered.

Now, the reason I took some time to go through these figures--nobody ought to be confused by the fact that what we are experiencing is a cause of the President's proper view that we need to move to alternative fuels, a proper view that we need to, as the whip has pointed out, have safe production, safe processing, energy efficient, but also environmentally sensitive production of our oil products. All of which we are doing.

I want to make it very clear that my personal view is we need to make sure that Europe has product, period, for national security reasons and, as the whip points out, for environmental reasons. There ought to be no confusion that oil production in this country is doing very well.

Now, why do some companies say they are not producing a lot? Because they are making a lot of money, a lot of profits, and buying back stock. That enhances the value of that stock. It enhances the value of the company. It enhances the value of the CEO. I don't criticize them for that.

Very frankly, we are at war. A dictator has invaded, without justification, a friendly country, Ukraine. They have fought back with extraordinary valor. What we really ought to do is talk together about how we can make sure that we bring gas prices down.

Now, whether the FTC decides--as the gentleman has pointed out, Mr. Speaker--whether or not there is gouging, if they don't decide that then, as Secretary Granholm observed, they are not sure, so be it. If they are gouging--if they are incorrectly charging consumers a higher price just because they can, then we ought to know about that.

That is what this bill is about, and that is going to be discussed next week. There ought to be no confusion, we are producing a lot of oil. We are producing a lot of LNG. We are trying to provide for our own needs and the needs of those who are confronting tyranny in Europe and are confronting shortages in Europe, which is driving up prices.

For the gentleman to say that these are Biden prices is simply not the case. Biden didn't have anything to do with these prices. We were producing more petroleum products. What happened is the cartels, which have done so--and I am old enough to remember what happened in the early 1970s--the cartels are controlling supply.

As a result, the shortness of supply and the increase in demand--why? Because we dealt with the pandemic. We got shots in arms. Once we got shots in arms and we are not wearing masks on the floor anymore, we are in better shape health-wise.

So what are people doing? They are going out and driving. Demand is up and supply is being kept down by the cartels, not by Joe Biden.

This evidence of the companies not producing more product--I get it. They are getting very high prices.

So why should they produce more product? If you produce more product and if you want to sell more product to make more money--but they are making a lot of money right now and they are buying stock back. The dividends are being paid at a healthy rate. So here we are.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that we are going to deal with both the supply side, which is important, but I also want to make sure that we aren't gouging consumers in the process.

It is unfortunate that at a time of war that we spend all our time blaming our own President.

It is unfortunate that when the Europeans put themselves over the objections of numerous administrations in a place where they had dependence on Russia, Russia has no leverage over us. We don't need Russia for energy. As a matter of fact, we voted overwhelmingly to stop buying any petroleum products from Russia which I supported strongly. On this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle we supported that strongly.

The fact of the matter is the gentleman refuses to recognize 80 million acres--now, it was overturned by the courts later--80 million acres. He says all these people want to produce it and they want to look to new places, and they want to find oil someplace. There was a 2 percent of response.

Mr. Speaker, 1.7 million acres out of 80 million acres were bid on. That doesn't sound to me like a stampede to find it.

But let me tell you what he doesn't tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, when he is making that presentation. And you would think the Biden administration has clamped things down. The Biden administration approved more drilling permits in 2021 than the Trump administration approved in the first 3 years they were in office. Let me say that again: The Biden administration approved more permits in the first year of their term than the Trump administration did in the first 3 years of their term.

So when he says: Oh, the Biden administration is shutting it down and that is why we are having the problem; we are having the problem because Russia--the second, third producer of petroleum products in the world--is an irresponsible dictatorship run by one man, essentially, who wants to use petroleum products as leverage. And he had leverage on the Europeans, and he had leverage certainly on the Ukrainians. They used energy as a bludgeon.

In addition to that, the oil companies were making huge profits as these prices kept going up. So they didn't go out and do a lot of drilling. They didn't bid on a lot of new opportunities that maybe they could have produced oil on. They didn't bother.

Why?

Because they were making so much money. Now, that is a business judgment. But the effect of not doing it meant that as demand went up and less of a supply, not just from their actions but from the actions of the Saudis, others, and the cartel, again, three times as many permits were authorized in the first year of the Biden administration than 3 years in the Trump administration.

So don't tell me about Donald Trump and the free market. The free market is one reason why this is happening. I am for the free market because sound business judgments work: we are making a lot of money, with that money we are going to buy back stocks; it will make the remaining stocks more valuable; we are going to pay good dividends; our stock value is going to go up, and everybody is happy--except the consumer, of course, because supply on the world markets--and it is a world market price, it is not Biden's price, it is the world market price--have gone up because demand is up and supply is down.

So I don't know how the gentleman rationalizes his comments about Biden constricting petroleum production when the permits issued are three times--or said a different way--in 1 year three times the number of permits that Mr. Trump issued in the first 3 years of his term. I wish we would get off this and really focus on the enemy. I know there is a lot of politics here, but we are at war. We need to produce energy.

As I told my friend, Cove Point is now sending 80 percent, reversing Asia supply to European supply because they need it because we are at war. And we are up in almost every category of production of petroleum products. So we can go on and on and on about this. Rig counts that are producing oil are up 57 percent--57 percent from a year ago--a 57 percent increase in operating rigs. It doesn't sound to me like Biden is shutting people down.

Biden does want a clean environment. Biden does want us to look at alternative energy. That is what he was talking about in the campaign that he wanted to look to that. But President Biden has made it very clear he understands in the short term--short term could be 25 years or 5 years--in the short term, particularly during the course of this war, we need to have all the petroleum products, and we need to have them for ourselves and for our allies.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for keeping people waiting. I tend to speak more briefly than I usually speak on my 1 minute, but not because of the importance of this subject, not because of the deep feelings that I have that this is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriations bill is a down payment on the security and success of democracy. We have paid that price before, not only in dollars but in lives, not only in Ukraine, but throughout the world.

Yesterday, Vladimir Putin watched as the Russian military paraded through Red Square to commemorate victory in the Second World War. Instead of honoring, however, those who defeated fascism, Putin repeated his lies about the purpose of his criminal and unprovoked war against Ukraine.

Putin, like Hitler, and Stalin before him, has denigrated the law, humanitarian principles, morals, and any kind of status in the world. We know why Putin invaded Ukraine--not to free its people, they were free, they are free; not to protect Russian speakers, they were protected with all the rights and security of free citizens in a nation of laws. In fact, I suggested that the U.N. send observers into eastern Ukraine to protect Russian speakers.

Russia was not only under no threat from Ukraine, but not from any NATO nation either. No, the plain truth is that Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine because he wanted to consolidate and expand his own power and his control over Russia. In sum, he wants to recreate the Russian empire, a tyranny, a ruling over people by force, not by choice.

After the defeat of fascism in the Second War World, the United States and our allies built a global order based on human rights and the rule of law. In Ukraine, Putin sought to forge a new international order with help from China--one in which might makes right and strong men make rules.

In such a view, individual freedoms must yield to the benefit of the leader and his cronies or the greatness of the state or ruling party. Putin believed that a quick victory in Ukraine would show his might and strengthen his rule and deter America and our allies to stand up to future acts of Russian aggression.

We have all been surprised and heartened and admiring and awed by the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people and their leader.

In their valiant fight they have written a new chapter in the history of their nation and in the story of humankind's struggle for a free world.

Our own Nation: Give me liberty or give me death.

The first stage of the war in Ukraine was a victory for freedom and the Ukrainian people. With the help of Western arms and aid, Ukraine defeated Putin's attempt to win a quick and decisive victory and to occupy and control the capital of Ukraine. Indeed, they have given the Russian military a substantial bruising. But this war, as we know, is far from over.

In the east, Russian forces continue their fierce assault against Ukrainian defenses; their criminal assaults, their murderous assaults, their savage assaults. There is not an adverse adjective that you could use, Mr. Speaker, that does not apply to the actions of Russia, its soldiers, and its leaders. Their seizure of towns and villages and their war crimes against civilians is meant to demoralize the Ukrainian people into submission.

How awed we must be and proud of their determination not to be bludgeoned into submission. The world now knows that Ukrainians will fight to their last breath for their country.

We have pledged our lives, our honor--our sacred honor--and all that we have. That is what our Founders said fighting the behemoth power, the world power of its day. Because of the courage of our Founders and those minutemen and those minutewomen we prevailed.

I say this bill is a down payment. The world now knows that Ukrainians will fight to their last breath for their country--just as the fighters--and that is not just we have to say it, we have seen it in Mariupol.

This bill is a down payment for the success and security of democracy; not just of Ukraine democracy or Ukrainian freedom, but for the freedom of the global community. As I have said in recent weeks, America and our allies must ensure that Putin suffers a strategic loss from this invasion. If he does not, every two-bit dictator in the world will take the lesson that we can do the same.

President Biden understands this, which is why he requested this funding to provide Ukraine with the type of arms it needs to shift from defensive to offensive operations. The battle of Kyiv has at least for now been won. But this war will turn on the battle of the Donbas and the battle of the Black Sea coast.

I urge every one of my colleagues, do not be dissuaded tonight by politics. Do not be diverted from our support of democracy, which 435 of us support, or freedom or liberty about which all of us talk all the time. Talk is cheap; this victory for democracy is not, it has never been, and it is not today or tomorrow and the day thereafter.

Let us not let Putin achieve a victory over democracy and liberty and freedom. Vote ``yes'' for Ukraine, for the American people and our democracy, and for those who love liberty throughout this globe. Let us send a united message. Yes, we have political differences. Yes, we can sometimes be demeaning of one another. But when it comes to the defense of liberty and freedom, we shall be united. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the chairman of the committee, for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor quickly and effectively. I thank Mr. Wilson, who represents the minority, and also Mr. McCaul, who is the ranking member of the committee, for bringing this. I thank Mrs. Spartz for bringing this issue to the personal attention of all of us, with her personal knowledge of Ukraine and her love of her native country.

Madam Speaker, in 1940, after the Battle of France had ended and the Battle of Britain was beginning, Winston Churchill stood before the House of Commons and declared that the United Kingdom would fight on, if necessary, for years; if necessary, alone.

Britain would fight by itself for some time, but it was not alone. Even though America was not at war, we made a strategic and moral determination that we must help Britain defend itself against fascism. To do that, we set up the lend-lease program, which cut through red tape and enabled critical American military aid to reach our Allies quickly so they could win the Battle of Britain, hold back the forces of fascism, and begin a counteroffensive in North Africa.

Lend-lease established America as what President Franklin Roosevelt called the great arsenal of democracy.

Today, the battle for democracy is taking place in another European nation, Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are the ones engaged in combat directly. They are at the point of the spear. They are the ones experiencing death and destruction and displacement. They are directly in the line of the Russian troops to repel Vladimir Putin's criminal and unprovoked invasion, an act that recalls the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941: unprovoked, unjustified, unacceptable.

But they are not alone in this fight. Already, the Biden-Harris administration and our allies have sent billions of dollars' worth of lethal military aid to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin's unlawful and immoral aggression.

I heard the words of my friend from South Carolina that Putin has brought us together, has unified us, unified us as a NATO alliance, unified us as a European Union and the United States of America, unified us as a Congress, that this shall not stand. Already, the Biden-Harris administration and our allies have sent billions of dollars' worth of lethal military aid to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin's unlawful and immoral aggression.

Putin, of course, meant the battle for Kyiv to be short-lived, to last days, and to see Ukraine's democratic government overthrown and a quisling regime installed.

The battle of Kyiv, however, was won by the forces of freedom, thanks to the extraordinary heroism and courage of Kyiv's defenders and the antitank weapons and other equipment supplied by America and its NATO allies. They are not alone.

Now, with war raging in Ukraine's east, we are rapidly sending additional arms to the Ukrainians that will help them hold the line against Russian forces and engage in the kind of counteroffensive that will defeat Russia's invasion.

How extraordinarily ironic it is that Putin urges us not to escalate the war as Putin escalates it hourly, unjustifiably, criminally, despicably. Every negative adjective you can find applies to the unwarranted, unprovoked, and unacceptable aggression Russia has made on its neighbors.

As I told The Danish Foreign Policy Society when I was visiting with our allies earlier this month, the invasion of Ukraine must end in a strategic defeat for Putin and global criminality. Anything less would send a dangerous signal to other dictators around the world that wars of aggression could yield net gains. That must not happen.

America and our allies must ensure that the only thing Putin gains from the invasion of Ukraine is a hard lesson learned through bitter defeat and loss. Let there be no mistake; that is the only outcome we can accept.

The lend-lease bill we will pass today is a bipartisan expression of the House's support for Ukraine and the continued provision of the lethal arms it requires to defend its freedom, its sovereignty, and its people.

I thank, as I said earlier, Chairman Gregory Meeks, Ranking Member Michael McCaul, Representative Joe Wilson, and staff members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their work on this bill.

The Senate passed this legislation unanimously earlier this month. I urge my colleagues: This is not a partisan issue. This is about freedom. This is about democracy. This is about morality. This should not be an issue that is at all dividing the 435 of us who have the honor to serve in this body.

Once this legislation is enacted, the Biden-Harris administration will have another tool to ensure that military aid reaches Ukraine quickly and efficiently so that it can be deployed to the front lines and defend democracy. We owe freedom nothing less than that.

The White House has already requested additional funding for military and humanitarian aid, and the House will stand ready to take action once there is agreement on the path forward.

I tell Chairman Meeks of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I tell Chairman Smith of the Armed Services Committee, as soon as that is ready to move, I will move it as soon as it is possible.

The White House has urgently requested the resources that Ukraine needs. Can we do any less than that? In the meantime, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, as I said, unanimously. Let us show Vladimir Putin, let us show the dictators and autocrats of the world, let us show them what happens when democracy is attacked.

Hitler thought when he took Sudetenland and the free world did little that he could then go to Poland, and he could go to Russia, and he could go to Africa, and he could go to France, and he could go someplace else.

The free world led by America must make it very clear that it will not stand for this, that America will be part of an extraordinary alliance of free nations, moral nations, who believe in law, not might makes right.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to unanimously and decisively approve this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for yielding. And the Speaker pro tem, Ms. Jacobs, how proud Madeleine Albright would be of the two of you standing here, presiding here, and giving tribute to an extraordinary woman who must have been, particularly for women--she was for me as well, but particularly for women, an extraordinary example of success, of focus, of intellect, of achievement. And I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) for taking this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow, as the Speaker just said, at the National Cathedral, really the cathedral--America's cathedral, many of us will gather to remember and celebrate the extraordinary life of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Secretary Albright was a dear and valued friend for over 35 years. As the chair of the Helsinki Commission, I worked closely with her on issues related to human rights and foreign affairs for years, for a decade that I was chair.

Secretary Albright was a diplomat, a teacher, and a mentor to so many who now serve in our diplomatic corps and the world of foreign policy.

She was an author who used her pen and her voice to urge us both to see the untapped possibilities in our world, and not to ignore the dangers that confronted our country, our freedom, and our democracy.

Perhaps most of all, Secretary Albright was someone who never forgot the experience of being a refugee and a survivor of war and genocide. It gave

her great insight and determination to confront the enemies of freedom and human rights.

Her family fled Czechoslovakia when it fell under the oppression of Nazi occupation. Her determination was spurred as well when Czechoslovakia fell under Stalin's heel. That experience pushed her to spend her life working to keep others safe from those evils and to ensure that the world's democracies, led by America, took action to help those fleeing conflict and danger.

In 2018, she released a masterful book that everyone ought to read: ``Fascism: A warning.''

She said in that book: ``Throughout his time in office,'' she wrote of Vladimir Putin, ``He has stockpiled power at the expense of provincial governors, the legislature, the courts, the private sector, and the press. A suspicious number of those who have found fault with him have later been jailed on dubious charges or murdered in circumstances never explained.''

She saw then very clearly the threat that he and others pose to democracy in our time.

I miss her wise words. Luckily, she wrote a lot of them down and those were some that we certainly ought to remember; those insights, as Ukraine's brave fighters battle a new tyranny and another criminal dictator.

After she died, just days following Vladimir Putin's criminal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whom the Speaker just mentioned, said: ``As has happened so often, the man with the guns was wrong, and Madeleine was right.''

Right now, as the world confronts Putin's aggression, as we and our fellow democracies stand up to authoritarianism and tyranny, we do so better prepared, Madam Speaker, because of the warning and lessons that Secretary Albright gave us.

In many ways, the most fitting tribute to her memory is the unity we and our allies are demonstrating in the face of Putin's threat to democracy, decency, and international law.

Before Secretary Albright's death, President Biden had committed $424 million toward his Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal, which drew heavily on Secretary Albright's proposals and sought to tackle the challenges she identified in her book, ``Fascism: A Warning.'' ``It is easier,'' she wrote, ``to remove tyrants and destroy concentration camps than to kill the ideas that gave them birth.''

This is a war of ideas, and America must lead the fight for democracy.

Now, Secretary Albright's legacy is felt throughout the global alliance of our democratic allies and partners confronting Vladimir Putin and Russia together, where billions of dollars in both military and humanitarian assistance are being mustered and deployed in defense of democracy and human rights, the cause for which she lived and of which she spoke so eloquently.

After Secretary Albright died, I spoke at length with my foreign policy adviser, Mariah Sixkiller, who was a part of the group that met at Secretary Albright's home for 15 years for discussions about American leadership around the world. I asked Mariah to write a few words of her recollections. She told me: ``I was honored to be at her table for 15 years and to learn from this great stateswoman. She was,'' as the gentlewoman from Michigan has pointed out, ``witty, wise, bold, and brilliant, even until her final days,'' even, as the gentlewoman from Michigan said, someone as old as 80.

Mariah Sixkiller went on to say: ``She had the perfect combination of good humor and unique charm.'' Our Speaker just reflected that, as the gentlewoman from Michigan did. ``She made us laugh even at the hardest times.''

All of us who knew her and who worked with her during her time in government remember that characteristic wit and charm, along with her keen intellect and her vision of a more perfect Union and a more perfect, peaceful world.

Madam Speaker, I particularly admire the dedication she had to the mission of standing up for the rights of women and girls worldwide.

As the first woman to serve as Secretary of State, a successor to Thomas Jefferson and so many other extraordinary leaders who have served in that post--including, of course, Secretary Clinton--at a time when women were still having to prove they belonged in boardrooms and around Cabinet tables dominated by men, she felt a unique responsibility to be a voice for girls and women striving to be all they could be, undefined by gender alone. And she was that voice.

She knew that when women had more political, social, and economic freedoms, societies are better off in every way. Democracies, she believed, are stronger, and democratization is more successful when women and girls can pursue opportunities in safety, equality, and freedom. The fight for women's rights never ended for her.

Even as recently as just a few months ago, Secretary Albright was working furiously to push for more action to help women and girls in Afghanistan.

We left Afghanistan. We left Afghanistan with the hopes that there would be some civilized action by the Taliban. Sadly, we have seen that they returned to their old ways of discrimination and putting down, disallowing young women to go to school to prepare themselves for leadership. Secretary Albright was active and, as a matter of fact, the leader of the National Democratic Institute, which she chaired and which argued strenuously for the rights of those girls and those women.

That was the last time we spoke directly, as we worked together to help save these courageous Afghans who dedicated themselves to the goal of creating a democratic future in their country.

In the final months of her life, Secretary Albright wrote down some reflections to be included in a new memoir. Discussing what she perceived to be her own shortcomings, she shared this: ``My parents taught me what the best teachers tell us all: that it is no sin to make a mistake but unpardonable not to try to make the most of our talents.''

Fortunately for America and people around the globe, Madam Speaker, Secretary Albright made the most of the many, many, the legion of talents which she had and with which she was gifted.

One of the greatest was as a teacher. As the Speaker said, she was a teacher for 40 years, and I would correct the Speaker and say she was a teacher for at least 60-plus years. Although probably prior to 20, she was a teacher as well. She taught thousands of students over the course of an almost 40-year career in academia.

As a professor in the practice of diplomacy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Secretary Albright helped train and launch the careers of so many who are leaders today for America's foreign policy and national security.

That is why so many of us are going to honor her tomorrow, and we will not ever forget what she contributed to this country, a perfect example of how important it is to accept and have come to this country the brightest minds, the most committed people. What an extraordinary example she was of the enrichment that immigration has given to this country.

Moreover, she had an unwavering belief that women in the field of foreign policy must support each other.

Mariah didn't give that quote. I know Mariah is listening right now. Mariah Sixkiller was my national security adviser, and she worked with me. Very frankly, Mariah knew what I believed before I believed it. She was extraordinary. The inspiration that Secretary Albright gave to Mariah is still fired up in her eyes, in her speech, and in her thinking.

Secretary Albright served as a mentor to scores of other young women who were students, as well as her colleagues at the State Department, and she strove to ensure that these women got a seat at the table.

Secretary Albright's legacy will live through these women who have followed in her footsteps and become the Foreign Service officers and ambassadors working hard on behalf of the American people today and for a long time to come.

Madam Speaker, we are so fortunate to have their talents in service to our country as a result of Secretary Albright's example and advocacy. I, again, repeat, as I am sure she is watching, she is so proud--I hope of our

friendship--but so proud of Congresswoman Slotkin and so proud of Congresswoman Jacobs as they rise on her behalf as leaders of this country.

Tomorrow, we will bid Secretary Albright farewell, but our country and its leaders would be wise to keep her close in our hearts and in our minds in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

In many ways, the battle underway between democracy and despotism is one that Secretary Albright so presciently foresaw. That battle, which currently rages in Ukraine, reminds us, as she did, that the price of liberty is, in fact, eternal vigilance.

We face a torturous road ahead, one that will demand our energy, our faith, our perseverance, and our courage, all of which Secretary Albright displayed throughout her life.

She believed that democracy would surely prevail, but she knew that that result required our constant attention. When democracy prevails, as surely it must, it will be in no small part due to her work, her contributions, and her service.

God blessed America with an extraordinary woman whose name was Madeleine Albright, and that name will be remembered for a long, long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

And I would respond, this bill is about economic resilience. You can't be independent if you go bankrupt. You can't be independent if you can't operate your business. I have gone into restaurant after restaurant in my district, and the owners of those restaurants have had thanks for me, for the Congress, and, yes, for the administration, including Donald Trump, who signed many of these bills, that at a time of extraordinary stress--through no fault of their own, but a pandemic that attacked all of us--they were able to keep their heads above water, pay their employees, even if they couldn't be open, transfer to carry out, and do so many things that they were able to do to remain viable, which is, by the way, why almost every State has a surplus.

Why? Because revenues did not fall as they were projected to fall. That is true in my State. I think it is true in almost every State.

Why didn't revenues fall? Because we kept people above water.

Now, in this particular program that passed--in many respects with bipartisan support in 2020, December of 2020, as well--there were some 250,000-plus who were eligible under the rules that we drafted and passed but only about 100,000 of them got relief, which means that we left behind 150,000 people who were eligible under the rules that we set.

And now some would say to those that were left behind, You are on your own. That is not what we are going to do today. We are not going to tell them you are on your own. We are going to tell them we understand how important you are to the life of our country, to the economy of our country, to the people of our country.

When we enacted the American Rescue Plan--which I want to make clear did not get any Republican votes--we set aside $28.6 billion in emergency grants to help restaurants and bars that have experienced significant revenue losses due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Those restrictions were necessary, which is why, hopefully, we are coming out of not only the initial assault but the variants' assault.

The aim was to help them stay open to keep their employees on the payroll. I suggest if we had not done that, it wouldn't be independence that they would have experienced, they would have experienced recession and perhaps depression.

That funding quickly ran out, however, with only a third of restaurants that applied for assistance ultimately receiving it.

The legislation before us today would replenish the Small Business Administration's Restaurant Revitalization Fund with an additional $42 billion so that the more than 150,000 restaurants still waiting in the cue can finally get the help they need.

Those applicants have been waiting since funding ran out last year. And according to the Independent Restaurant Coalition, Mr. Speaker, 86 percent of owners indicated that they may close down if they aren't able to access these grants.

More than 90,000 restaurants and bars already have shut down in this pandemic. Think about the impact of that on neighborhoods, communities, and local economies.

Congress should act and act quickly.

I share the view of the gentleman who spoke before me that we need to make sure that we eliminate fraud, we eliminate abuse, and that we claw back money that was received through fraud. All that does is hurt those who really need it. And what this legislation says is we are going to get back that money that was fraudulently received by individuals and give it to people who legitimately need it and qualify, such as restaurants, gyms, health clubs, salons, music venues, and other places where people hope to congregate but couldn't because of necessary pandemic restrictions.

They will get a lifeline as we all hope to get ``back to normal.'' We all want to be back to normal. But we want to be back to normal with businesses that are still alive, still able to serve the public.

Importantly, that lifeline to keep legitimate small businesses afloat is paid for, as I said, by recapturing funds that were earlier disbursed to fraudulent applicants.

We are going after bad actors and rewarding good actors.

While this is an issue important to so many members of our caucus, I thank Representative Blumenauer for sponsoring this legislation, as well as Representative Phillips for his championing this cause over the past several months.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and the small businesses that it will help and the millions of employees that it will help.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has passed, and we have just had read, the passage of H.R. 7108, which is the Suspending Normal Trading Relations with Russia and Belarus Act. That passed 100 to zero in the United States Senate.

We expect at the end of this series of votes for that bill to be on the floor on suspension. So there will be no break. We will continue to that.

Thereafter, we expect the Suspending Energy Imports From Russia Act, which we voted on overwhelmingly, to be sent to us. That is currently 79 to zero in the United States Senate.

We are going to pass both of those bills in this House as soon as we get them, and it is my expectation that will complete the business for this week.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her courage in standing for the truth.

I disagree with many things that the previous speaker said. I disagree with his premises and with his conclusion in many respects. But I do agree with him on one thing: This vote is about the character of the House--I agree with him on that--which is why 435 of us ought to vote for this resolution, so that the House can do its duty.

Madam Speaker, once again we are forced to take this step, asking the Justice Department to charge individuals with criminal contempt for refusing to answer subpoenas as issued by the committee investigating the attack on our Capitol and our democracy on January 6, 2021.

The two gentlemen of which the previous speaker spoke I don't know. I have no quarrel with them individually. But we are a Nation of laws, not of men, and if we are to be a Nation of laws, then we need to respond to legal process; and if we think the assertions are wrong, we need to make our case.

On the merits of this resolution there should be no doubt, and it is about the character of this House, the courage of this House to seek honesty, to seek truth. The individuals in question had intimate knowledge of the former President's actions and decisions on that day. No matter who their children are, no matter what their life has been, they have knowledge that it is important for the American people to have through their Representatives in Congress.

Americans must have a full accounting of what transpired on January 6 and in the weeks leading up to it and perhaps subsequent. That is what the bipartisan select committee has been tasked with undertaking, by a vote of this House. Sadly, I expect maybe most of my colleagues across the aisle will vote against this resolution. It is about the character of this House.

Perhaps they agree with the Republican National Committee, which has said that the violent Trump-led insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the deaths and injury of U.S. Capitol police officers, and an effort to prevent the certification of an election was, and I quote the Republican National Committee, ``legitimate political discourse.''

How can anybody make that assertion? How can anybody in the Republican National Committee vote for it? Why doesn't everybody on the Republican Party side of the aisle say, ``That is not what we believe''? Silence prevails.

There is no doubt that the insurrection on January 6 itself was a danger to our democracy, but I agree with The Washington Post columnist and former White House speech writer for Republican President George W. Bush, Michael Gerson, who wrote on December 16, ``It is Republican tolerance for the intolerable that threatens American democracy.''

Very frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle ought to be celebrating those in their ranks who have the courage to stand up for the truth. I have told Liz Cheney, if John Kennedy were writing his book on Profiles in Courage today, I would urge him to include her and Adam Kinzinger in that book.

January 6 was a day of peril for America, but the greater crisis is when one of our two main political parties has become so hijacked by extremism and so enthralled to a dangerous demagogue that it condones, even celebrates insurrection and violence.

Madam Speaker, how can the same party that claims it honors law enforcement simultaneously declare that violent attacks against police officers are legitimate? How can one of our two political parties be so craven for short-term partisan gain that it is willing to encourage and condone insurrection? How can its Members use their sacred votes in the House, the people's House, in an effort to impede the investigation of this dark and dangerous day in the history of our democracy?

That is what this vote is about. Not only the character of this House, but the character of this country, the character of the people who demand, hopefully, truth, because that is what will set us all free.

Because that is what this vote is about: Whether you believe that the violent attack on January 6, one in which a mob threatened the life of the Republican Vice President and threatened the life of the Speaker of this House--the Speaker of all the House--in an attempt to overthrow our democracy, does that constitute legitimate political discourse? Madam Speaker, I can't believe Americans believe that.

We must reject that theory, that the violence that we saw on January 6, the hate that we saw on January 6, is somehow legitimate political discourse, because if people believe that, then our democracy is in grave danger. This vote is about whether you believe a certain individual can be held above the law in our country. It is about whether you believe the American people deserve to know all the facts about January 6 and whether those responsible for the attack ought to be held responsible. And most fundamentally, Madam Speaker, it is about whether the Congress can fulfill its constitutional responsibility and ability to determine the truth.

Madam Speaker, this vote will reveal to us who was willing to show tolerance for the intolerable. It will reveal to us who is willing to stand up and defend our democracy and the rule of law, irrespective of party, irrespective of personality. That is a call to patriotism, to love of country and to love of Constitution.

My fellow colleagues, let us do our duty to the Constitution, to the Declaration, to our democracy, and to the people we represent. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join me in recognizing Elizabeth ``Betty'' M. Hewlett for her more-than-two decades of service on the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Betty has done a tremendous job managing land-use issues and questions relating to the development of land for the benefit of residents of Prince George's County and the Fifth District. She has been a good friend, and I've been proud to work with her throughout the years to make a positive and lasting impact on our community.

Since she began her distinguished career with the Planning Board, Betty has been a tremendous public servant. As Chairwoman, she oversaw the provision of community planning services, the regulation of real- estate development, and the parks and recreation programs for the residents of Prince George's County. Betty was also a trailblazer: she was the first woman and first African-American to serve as the Chairwoman of the Planning Board. She mentored many Black women who became elected officials and now lead their communities with purpose and vision. Her championship of diversity in Prince George's County government and public services has helped create new opportunities for residents to realize their full potential and become forces for change in their own communities.

Betty has served Prince George's County in many ways beyond her outstanding work on the Planning Board. She has played a critical role in the organizing of my annual Black History Month Breakfast, which brings community members and leaders together to celebrate Black History Month and rededicate ourselves to the ongoing fight for justice and equality. Additionally, Betty has served on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Board of Directors and the Metropolitan Development Policy Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Her devotion to improving the lives of Prince George's County residents has been incomparable.

Madam Speaker, I offer Betty my congratulations on retiring from public service after a career of great contribution to Prince George's County and to our State of Maryland. I hope all f my colleagues will join me in recognizing Elizabeth M. Hewlett as she celebrates this milestone and in wishing her all the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Nadler, ranking members, this is an important piece of legislation. How do I know that? Because the people have told us that.

Every time they have had the opportunity to vote in America, they have voted to do this. They know that filling our prisons and creating criminal records for people who use marijuana--and knowing full well that if they are people of color, the possibilities of adverse consequences are geometrically greater.

I tell my colleagues, I am tired of hearing this argument that, ``Oh, my goodness, we are doing this. We ought to be doing something else.''

We are all working on issues of great concern not only to us but to the global community: on the war in Ukraine; on the criminal activities that Putin is subjecting us to; on inflation, a critical problem for all of our people. We are working on that. We are having trouble getting some legislation in the Senate

that will bring down inflation and bring down costs for the American people--not on our side of the aisle.

So, when I hear this argument, ``Oh, we ought to be doing this. We ought to be doing that. We ought to be doing the other,'' this is an important, fair piece of legislation, fair for the American people.

I thank Chairman Nadler. I thank the Judiciary Committee. I thank Members on my side of the aisle. I thank Barbara Lee, who is walking down the aisle right now, who has worked so hard on this.

Why did she work so hard on it? Because she knows the extraordinary unfairness of the application of existing laws. You don't have to argue that. Just look at the statistics, and you find that to be the case.

Chairman Nadler has long been a champion of decriminalizing marijuana and addressing the systemic injustices and inequities resulting from the war on drugs. I was a supporter of the war on drugs. I have been here a long time.

The gentleman who spoke about this as a gateway drug, it is not a gateway drug. I have been convinced of that.

Marijuana has been legalized in 19 States. That is 40 percent of our States, save one, and the District of Columbia. Medical marijuana is legal in 36 States. This is not out of the ordinary. This is what the American people tell us they think is the appropriate thing to do.

Now, for some in this House, those who are treated with inequality, particularly in this area, you are on your own. Make it out for yourself. We are not going to address it because we have other issues.

Of course, we have other issues, and we pass bills on those-- unfortunately, not with much support from the other side of the aisle.

Despite the changes in State laws and social norms around the usage of marijuana, its use remains illegal under Federal law. The gentleman who is presiding over the House today comes from a State that has said that is not good policy. Now, that is not some wacko coastal State. It is Colorado.

Despite changes in State laws and social norms, as I have said, its use remains illegal under Federal law, often resulting in devastating consequences. Hear me, my colleagues: devastating consequences for Black, Latino, and Native communities.

Now, I am not any of those. I would tell you, when I was in college in the 1800s, it was alcohol. We were not the generation of drugs; it was alcohol. It devastated the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of young people. But nobody cried out to make it illegal. They tried that, of course, in the twenties.

According to the Center for American Progress, Black Americans are four times more likely than White Americans to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though they use it at similar rates.

The gentleman who spoke asked why we are dealing with this. For the same reason our Founders said that we believe in equality, that all men--and they surely would add women today--are created equal and ought to be treated fairly and equally. Four times more convictions and prosecutions for people of color--that is why we are dealing with this, because it is unfair in America.

Those criminal records can haunt people of color and impact the trajectory of their lives and careers indefinitely. I regret that there are some Members of our Congress who apparently think that is not worthy of attention.

It can result in difficulty in finding employment, difficulty in finding housing, denial of access to government benefits, denial of financial aid at colleges and universities, and denial of the right to vote. That is why we are dealing with this, because the adverse consequences to people are substantial and negative, and negative not only for them but for our country.

The legislation before us would remove marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing our police departments--which we want to fund, by the way, so get off that line that we want to defund the police--allow our police departments to focus on serious crimes. The legislation before us would remove marijuana from that list.

The bill already, by the way, includes a requirement that a study will be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans, employment, and many others.

This bill also expunges the records of individuals convicted of nonviolent--let me repeat that--nonviolent cannabis offenses and provides resources for job training, reentry services, and youth recreation and mentoring programs.

Now, if you take the position that all of these people are on their own and want no help from us or get no help from us, then perhaps you don't care.

This bill also addresses the disproportionate economic impact of the war on drugs by providing access to small-business grants, opening up the legal marketplace to communities that have been largely excluded.

This bill is a matter of justice and equal opportunity. It is about addressing systemic inequities and reforming our criminal justice system so that Americans and America can become a better, stronger, more fair, and more just America.

That is why we are spending time on this bill today.

I thank my friend one more time, Chairman Nadler, for his leadership on this bill. I also thank Mr. Neal for helping us get this bill to the floor. I also thank Barbara Lee, my dear friend.

Barbara Lee and I have been working for some years now on how to lift people out of poverty into the middle class. We talk a lot about the middle class, and the way you grow the middle class is to let people who aren't in it in it so they can contribute to making a better, stronger America.

This bill will help that because it will take the stigma away from four times as many people of color being stigmatized by our laws.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this bill. The people of Mississippi supported this bill when they went to the polls and voted--not on this bill, that is not accurate--but on the decriminalization of marijuana, because they knew that it was neither necessary to be criminalized, and they knew the adverse impacts.

I don't ask you to support something the people of California did or the people of New York, or even Maryland, but think about supporting the people of Mississippi, who voted on a policy that would make a fair and more just America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the Republican whip from Louisiana, for yielding.

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

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

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

The House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

The House will consider a resolution from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol recommending the House ask the Justice Department to charge Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, Jr., with criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about their actions and knowledge relating to the violent effort to prevent the certification of the 2020 election.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House may consider legislation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional legislative items are possible.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that question, and I have been thinking about that because he asks that regularly.

I particularly have been thinking about that question in the context of the fact that we have so much available acreage on which to produce oil and gas currently permitted. When I say a number, we are talking about literally millions of acres.

Madam Speaker, there are 9,000 unused, approved permits right now. There are 26 million acres of public land available right now. There are 11 million acres of Federal waters available. That is 37 million acres in total.

In addition to that, 80 million acres in the Gulf were put up for auction last fall, 2021, under President Biden, which was the largest lease sale in U.S. history. Unfortunately, the private sector bought only 1.7 acres out of 80 million.

Frankly, it appears to be that no matter what we pass, no matter how many permits we make available, there is not an appetite in the private sector for producing more.

I say that in the context of the producers. To their credit, they are claiming victory. They are claiming victory at the extraordinary profits that they have gotten. They are buying back stocks. They are paying large dividends. But they are not producing more product.

Now, it may well be that they think the price is pretty high, and they are making a good profit and don't need to do anything more. But the gentleman's questions, Madam Speaker, continually imply that there is some impediment to producing more product.

Of course, the United States is the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world, and we have increased very substantially over the past few years in production.

I say to the gentleman the committees are looking at the bills the gentleman refers to. But in terms of production, the United States is producing 18.61 billion barrels per day, which is 20 percent of the world's production.

The President announced, just the other day, the release of a million barrels per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is going to be 180 million barrels over the next 6 months.

In fact, when he did that, I don't know whether it had direct impact, but as the gentleman knows, the price on the global market has come down. I think it came down $7 in the last month or $7 in the last week.

The administration is clearly making some substantial policy changes, one of which is use it or lose it. I said there were 9,000 permitted, ready to go, ready to drill, right now, today.

The President has said, in his policies: We have given all these permits. If you are not going to use these permits, then you are either going to pay a fee or give them back, and we are going ask other people who want to produce more product.

You would think in the capitalist system which we have, which I strongly, strongly support, that given the price of oil being so high, people would look for more product, unless they want to limit the availability of product and, therefore, keep the price even higher.

I don't know which is the option there, but I will tell the gentleman that the President has activated the Defense Production Act, looking for critical materials, not just oil, but lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese, for all sorts of things that we need. The President has taken very, very strong steps.

In addition to that, which is very important, Madam Speaker, what we have done is passed legislation which will, in the relatively near term--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month--make us less and less reliant on overseas suppliers of energy that clearly have shown themselves to be not reliable and clearly have been seen to be people who want to create a monopoly, a cartel, so that they can keep prices unusually high and, of course, in the process continue to assault the environment and damage the climate of this global community, which will have an extraordinary cost.

In answer to the gentleman's question, the committees are looking at those bills that you mentioned. I will mention to them again looking at those bills.

Very frankly, any implication that we are not producing more product because there is some constraint by the Federal Government on production is simply not accurate, Madam Speaker. Again, 9,000 leases; 37 million acres available--26 million on public lands--permitted, ready to go, and they have not been drilled on.

The President is saying: If you don't drill, if you are not going to produce more product--we want more product. We need more product in the short term. If you don't want to produce it, then we are going to give those leases to somebody else.

Millions, millions.

Well, I am not surprised that the gentleman, and many of the bills that he refers to, want to undermine the regulation to protect the health and welfare of the American people which those are designed to do, and most of which I think, you know, the gentleman's side of the aisle did not support or enforce when they were in charge of the Presidency.

Madam Speaker, all of that rhetoric about the President doesn't want to do this, doesn't want to do this, 80 million acres. 1.7 million acres bid on. If, in fact, people were looking for additional ways and means to produce at a price that is historic, they would do so. And he dismisses, Madam Speaker, the 9,000 leases that exist. Now, maybe----

Madam Speaker, yes. If, in fact, that was the reason for non-production, we all would have heard of the fact when we are not producing, and the stock market would have heard about that, and the companies would be lamenting the fact that they are not producing more.

In fact, when you read their reports, they are indicating we are making very high profits. We are not putting money into production at this point in time, and we are buying back stocks, and we are paying high dividends.

I do not criticize them for making what is a business decision. That business decision, however, has had an adverse effect. Why? Because we are not moving quickly enough to not be reliant on fossil fuels which the President, in his remarks, wants to get to.

We have a disagreement between our parties, Madam Speaker, on that issue. Drill, baby, drill. That has been the mantra forever. And it was 73 degrees yesterday. And our planet is hurting.

The trees on my property produced blossoms long before they usually do. They are confused. But not only are they confused; it is dangerous for agriculture. It is dangerous for human beings. It is dangerous for animal life. It is dangerous for our seas. And we have a difference of opinion.

That is what the President was speaking to, that we need to move towards that end, but he understands, as we all understand, that fossil fuels are necessary right now.

Natural gas is--we are the biggest producer of natural gas in the world. We are the biggest producer of oil in the world. That hasn't stopped. And, yes, we need to get to, as our Build Back Better bill does, that none of the Republicans voted for, it gets to a reliance on fuel that will not help Putin.

Now, there are some people in the Republican party who apparently think Putin is a pretty good guy. He is a genius. He is this, that, and the other.

We don't think so. We think he is a war criminal. And we think there are some other folks who are providing us with oil on whom we ought not to rely, not only for the global health, but also for our national security.

And to the extent that we invest in alternatives which, by the way, every energy company in America, and I think the world, probably--I am not going to say that, but in America--that I thought wants to do. They are all doing research on alternative energy sources because they know that at some point, we need to get off of the reliance on fossil fuel. That is what the President was speaking about.

But he leased--he put 80 million acres in the Gulf for lease. Well, why would anybody put 80 million if there was no more drilling? He put 80 million acres, and only 1.7 million the private sector even sort of nodded at, before any tests, before any knowledge. You know, they need the lease to test it.

So I say to my friend, we are going to need fossil fuel, and we need to bring gasoline prices down. But, very frankly, we are not going to bring prices down if we don't produce more product, and the focus is not higher profits, buying back stock, and making high dividends. There is no incentive to do that.

We need to do it. I have urged the President to talk to the leaders of the energy companies in our country. They are part of the success of America. We are at war. We are at war with Putin, a war criminal, a tyrant, and that has destabilized world markets; since the last month up a dollar. That is Putin's dollar we are paying. We are paying that dollar because of Putin.

Madam Speaker, the whip mentioned Putin as an aside; just as an aside, as if the contemplation, as the President pointed out, Madam Speaker, that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. Even Mr. Zelenskyy thought maybe you are overstating the case. Extraordinarily courageous leader in Ukraine.

So even in preparation for the instability that this war that Putin has criminally undertaken without any provocation--murdering people, women and children, people in hospitals, people in schools--yes, oil prices have gone up because the world market was very concerned about this. We don't control it here.

So although it is a dollar since he invaded, I am convinced that a substantial amount of the increase was caused by the instability of his threat. Marshalling troops at the border of Ukraine and Belarus from Russia destabilized the market, no doubt about it.

I tell the gentleman again, there is an ability to drill. There is an ability to do research and discover and do the seismic tests. There is that ability now. I don't accept the gentleman's premise that there is a roadblock.

The President does not want to expand. You understand that. He has said that; you quoted him. He wants to get to alternative energy sources. He wants to save the planet. I share that view with him. But we are going to have to have fossil fuels in the short term because we won't be able to power our economy or our people for some years to come.

Hopefully, by 2035, we will have a substantial reduction, and hopefully, by 2050, a very, very substantial reduction, perhaps zero. But in the short term, we are going to need a resource that has been a critical resource for the growth of our economy and other economies around the world.

Nobody is criticizing those who produce that. I say nobody. At least I am not criticizing them. But I really believe that we could get more production under present circumstances, and that is what we ought to be doing.

Mr. Biden didn't make that decision; the courts made that decision.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, this is not price control. It is limiting the purchaser on a price, but the companies are still going to charge what they are going to charge, and somebody is going to have to pay, and Medicare is going to have to pay. So, it does increase the cost. But it is not price control on the pharmaceuticals. And I want to say that we have a bill, of course, that will allow negotiation in Medicare, just as the VA does.

Negotiation is not price control. Negotiation is saying, I am going to buy a lot of your product, and I want a better price.

A lot of us do that. We call it Sam's Club, or some other club that we go to. And we buy large volumes and get a cheaper price than our poorer friends who just buy it one at a time. So I am for this bill. It is a good bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representatives Craig, Kildee, and McBath for their leadership on this bill. They have long been champions of making healthcare and prescription medications accessible and affordable for all Americans.

More than one in three Americans are at high risk of developing diabetes, and over 37 million Americans already have it. A lot of those folks can't do without insulin. They don't have an option. And insulin has been on the market for decades and is not protected under patent, and the development prices have ages ago been amortized.

Madam Speaker, to treat their condition, the people who have diabetes must rely on insulin injections to regulate their blood sugar levels. Now, if you have no option of not buying a product, those who sell that product can put the price wherever, if it means your life. A lack of insulin can lead to insulin shock, diabetic coma, kidney failure, and death.

It is unacceptable that this lifesaving medication is priced out of reach for many who need it because it costs so little to produce.

This is not a mechanism that has to charge these prices because it took so much to produce it. It costs only $10 to manufacture a month's supply. Yet, a month's supply can cost hundreds of dollars. However, with out-of-pocket costs as high as over $600 for a 40-day supply--now, if you extrapolate 40 days, that is 10 days more than a

month, so that is a third more. So let's say it costs $13 to produce. $600. Why?

Because if they don't have it, they die.

So all we are saying is, let's make sure this is affordable so people can sustain their lives and their health.

Many Americans have resorted to rationing by skipping doses of their insulin because they can't afford it. The legislation before us would cap the out-of-pocket price of insulin at $35 a month.

Let me again remind you, that is 350 percent of the cost of producing it. This would ease the burden of skyrocketing prices and impossible choices.

Americans should not have to choose between paying the rent or for food, whatever, or paying for their insulin. As a matter of fact, they can't make that choice. They need both. They need to eat, and they need to live. And insulin is so often the way they assure that outcome. The prices will continue to rise unless we choose to act today.

Madam Speaker, House Democrats already voted for this measure once, and Republicans already voted against it. So I guess we don't have any surprise of what's going to happen here.

The Republicans are going to say to those who are using insulin: You are on your own. You are on your own. We are not going to worry about it.

And we are going to say: We are here to help. We are here to make sure you don't get ripped off. We are here to make sure that you have the medicine that you absolutely need to survive.

We voted for this measure as part of the Build Back Better Act in November. We made a promise to the American people that we would address the cost of prescription drugs, and we honored that promise.

Republicans said no. They said once again: Consumer, you need insulin, you are on your own. They voted for higher drug prices. They voted for the status quo where many Americans have to choose between lifesaving insulin and putting food on the table.

Today, my fellow colleagues, is an opportunity to vote to save lives and to provide a lifeline for millions of Americans with diabetes.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not say to the American people: You are on your own.

Tell them: We are here to help. Vote to help them. Vote to ensure that they will be able to afford a drug they need to protect themselves from death.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting to bring prices down across our economy and our healthcare system. Join me in protecting Americans' ability to access lifesaving medication that prevents needless suffering, extends life, and provides a higher quality of living.

Join me in voting for the Affordable Insulin for All Act. Again, I thank Ms. Craig, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. McBath, the chairman of this committee, and all those who brought this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, don't say, You are on your own.

Say, We are by your side, and we are here to help.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, Garret Graves, for yielding. I thank him for taking this Special Order for a special person.

Now, I must say I am not going to have any funny stories about Don, although funny stories there are. Nor can I say that I ever fished with Don, because I didn't. Nor did I ever hunt with Don. I didn't. But I served 41 years with Don Young, and I got to know him very well: As a friend, as a Member of this House, as a fellow American; and, yes, incidentally as a Republican and a Democrat because neither Don nor I proceeded in our relationship on the basis of our party affiliation but on the basis of common ideals, common objectives, and common love for this country.

I am honored to join my colleagues in paying tribute to my friend Don Young, who represented the State of Alaska in this House for 49 years.

Don was one of three people who were senior to me in this House. There are two Republicans, Mr. Smith and Mr. Rogers, who I think both have the same seniority, so maybe they are co-deans of the House. But I am the senior Democrat in the House, and therefore, I had a long time to work with, to know, and to grow in respect for a crusty curmudgeon who could be as tough as nails but could also be as nice as you would hope a fellow colleague to be.

As a matter of fact, I was here working as--I wasn't an intern because I was getting paid. I was at Georgetown Law School working when Alaska became a State. When Alaska and Hawaii became States, they became States together. The theory was that Alaska would be a Democrat State and Hawaii would be a Republican State. I use that analogy because who knows what we are going to be 10 years from now or 20 years from now, so making decisions on a partisan basis probably is not what we ought to be doing.

But Don loved Alaska, and as the junior Senator from Alaska said today at the memorial service held for Don as he lay in state, an honor few Americans get--less than 50 Americans. Don Young got that honor.

Many, of course, have commented on the sudden and unexpected nature of his passing. Surely, however, death had to take him by surprise because if he had seen death coming, death would not have stood a chance.

Don Young was ferocious. He was ferocious for his constituents, for whom he felt a sacred responsibility and delivered so much over his 25 terms in office. He said, ``I will defend my State to the dying breath,'' and that he did.

When he was taken from us, Don was on his way home from legislative session, headed back to meet with his constituents and make sure they knew how he was fighting for them in Washington.

Don was ferocious, but he also was gentle. Those who got to know him saw that behind that often-prickly facade was a tender and warm-hearted man who cared about his country and cared about his colleagues. He cared most of all about his family.

The love he felt for his family, for his constituents, and for the institution was as enormous as the State he represented.

I particularly was close to Don and fond of Don because he loved this institution. I love this institution. It is one

of the unique institutions of the world where the only way you can get here is for your neighbors to choose you. Nobody can appoint you. No Governor can appoint you. No President can appoint you. No majority here can appoint you. You come here because your neighbors respect you. And Don's neighbors 25 times over almost 50 years got the opportunity to say: Don Young, we trust you, and we want you to go to Washington to represent us.

There is only one Member of Congress from Alaska. They have two Senators but only one Representative. What an honor for all of us to be selected by our neighbors to represent and articulate their voice in the Halls of this Congress.

I respected Don, and he respected me. On many occasions, we stood and worked together on behalf of this institution and on behalf of the Members of this institution.

Don had a passion, as we all know, for decorum, known for tapping his cane and urging whoever sat in the chair to call the vote. ``Regular order'' would come from the seat at the back of the Chamber because he felt that the Chair was not bringing the vote to a close soon enough. And he was right. It didn't mean that the Chair closed the vote because we were waiting for other people to come because they were late--but never Don Young. When the bell rang, Don Young answered the call. He never sat in the corner. He was always ready for the fight. He was always ready for the challenge.

When votes were called, we weren't always on the same side. That is what is written here. We were very rarely on the same side, but we were always on the same side when it came to Members, this institution, and the American people.

In fact, just because we were on opposite sides, it did not mean that we were on opposite sides from a personal standpoint. I hope all of us could learn that lesson. We are all chosen by our neighbors, as I said, to be here. For that reason alone, we ought to respect one another.

I don't mean that everybody does things that ought to be respected all the time; they don't. But it is important to understand, particularly now as Putin is testing whether democracies can work. Xi, the leader of China, and Putin wrote a 5,000-page paper just about 6 weeks ago. Their premise was democracies cannot succeed because they cannot come together, and they cannot make decisions in a timely fashion.

Don Young was somebody you could go to in a very collegial fashion, and if you disagreed, you disagreed with honor on each side. But if you agreed, you joined hands to accomplish the objectives of that agreement.

I always knew that Don believed he was doing the best he could for those he served, and he spoke and voted with his convictions. Whenever, as I have just said, we found common ground and common cause, it was a pleasure working with him and knowing that I had alongside me someone so fiercely devoted to getting a job done on behalf of his people and on behalf of our country.

It says here that now Don is at rest. The good Lord is saying, if that is rest, I am in real trouble because that guy is not stopping. He is still punching. He is still fighting. He is still yelling out ``regular order.''

We are better for having known him and served with him.

I join in offering his wife, Anne--who I hugged and gave a kiss to earlier today. I said how much I grieved his loss and shared her love for this extraordinary man. His daughters will miss him. Their families will miss him. We will miss him. And this institution will miss him.

Madam Speaker, we are going to talk about hair, but this bill is about discrimination. This bill is about equality. This bill is about individual integrity. That is what this bill is about.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I thank my friend from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for putting it forward.

This bill, as I just said, is not about hair. It is about hair, of course, but it is about the reaction, the inequality, the discrimination, the ``you are not welcome here if your hair texture is different,'' and you have to or want to fix it in a certain way.

It is about the ability of every person in our country to have access to education, to economic advancements, and to opportunities to get ahead.

This is an issue of civil rights. The legislation before us would prohibit discrimination based on a person's hair texture or hairstyle if that style or texture is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.

My hair is different than Barbara Lee's, who is seated next to me. Neither one of us had anything to do with that. I had no way to have the texture of my hair any way other than what

my genetic makeup was, nor did Barbara Lee.

Why, therefore, should there be any thought that anybody would be able to discriminate on that basis? Too often, styles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros are wrongly perceived as unkempt or unprofessional.

In fact, many of these styles are not only central to one's culture and heritage but also based upon convenience, based upon a way to have an easier time.

For a long time, and still today, expectations about what hairstyles are considered appropriate or professional, as the previous speaker said, have created immense pressure to conform to a beauty standard of straight hair that requires considerable time, effort, and cost. This burden falls disproportionately on Black Americans, particularly Black women and girls.

At the same time, enforcing the standard sends a terrible message to young people about their belonging in society and can harm their very self-esteem.

A survey commissioned by the Dove company found that Black women were 80 percent more likely to change their natural hair to fit into an office setting and 1\1/2\ times more likely to be sent home from the workplace due to their hair than non-Black women.

For children and teenagers in school, spending time conforming their hair to a different standard takes away from their time spent doing homework or getting enough sleep.

I hope I never get so old that I don't remember that I really cared about: Did I look like the other kids in school, or did I look different?

I happened to have been really skinny as a kid. I am not too fat right now, but I was really skinny as a kid, and I was really self- conscious about that. When you are a kid, being self-conscious is really painful, and you feel put off if somehow you are different.

For children and teenagers in school, spending time conforming their hair to a different standard takes away from time spent doing homework and getting enough sleep, but, much more importantly, their psychological well-being.

This legislation recognizes that natural hair, natural hair, natural hair--none of us made our nature; it was made for us--should not be a cause for discrimination or denial of opportunities.

If we treat this discrimination in the same way as we already treat discrimination based on race--nobody decides the color of their skin. It is who you are. It is what you have.

As Martin Luther King told us, it is really irrelevant. The content of character is what is relevant--not the hue of skin, but how I treat others and how others treat me.

That is what we meant by all men and women are created equal. They are not created the same. We are different. But it is the character and conduct that ought to govern how we are accepted and treated.

This is similar to title VI and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and other civil rights laws.

Nationwide protection is necessary so that no one is denied the simple dignity of being one's authentic self in America while having access to all opportunities this country offers.

Character and conduct--our military took steps to end hair discrimination last year, if anybody thinks this isn't a real issue. Obviously, the military thought it was an issue, and it was an important enough issue that they took action.

The House passed this legislation in 2020 with bipartisan support. Frankly, it is disappointing that 188 Republicans opposed this legislation last week when we brought it to the floor under an expedited process, under suspension.

This should be something that all of us as Americans, as people who honor the Declaration of Independence and that statement that reverberated around the world of a very central premise that is America: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all,'' and we said ``men'' because we were limited in our thought pattern at that point in time. But as we have grown, we have expanded it.

Men and women of all different types and colors and, yes, sexual orientation are equal. Not the same, but deserving because God has created them, deserving of our respect and our equal treatment.

I am bringing this bill back to the floor, Madam Speaker, under a rule so that we can pass it with bipartisan support today. I think it will be bipartisan. This really ought to have unanimous support since it is about fairness and nondiscrimination.

I know that some people say, oh, this is going to cause some people problems because some people are going to claim that you violated my rights. Yes, that is America. That is why the Constitution says you have the right to redress grievances.

Yes, it may have some in court, but you can get around it really quickly: Don't discriminate. Treat people based upon their conduct and character.

We must act to ensure that everyone can get a job, succeed in school or at work, find housing, and obtain economic security without facing discrimination simply because of their hair.

Again, I thank my friend, Bonnie Watson Coleman, for her leadership on this bill. And I urge my colleagues to make America a little fairer, a little more hewing to that basic premise of which I just spoke.

Let's pass this bill. Let's make America a little more American.

Will the chairman yield?

Is it not correct, Mr. Chairman, the reason this bill is on the floor is because Republicans voted against a suspension----

Which could have easily passed to say we are against discrimination? And because 188 Republicans voted ``no,'' this bill needed to come forward because, as the chairman has just pointed out, the law is in doubt because courts have taken different positions. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for yielding.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for joining in this effort to ensure that America speaks with a strong and certain voice.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, we heard from President Zelenskyy, an historic address that moved us all. He spoke in an hour of peril for democracy in his country and at a turning point for democracy around the world.

We were, and remain, awed by the courage mirrored by that individual who leads Ukraine, and of the people he leads who, in light of an overwhelming force, said no, we will not yield. We will stand, and we will fight, and we will speak out for our country.

Contrary to the premise of the war criminal who leads Russia saying that they would welcome the Russian troops with open arms. That was a lie, a lie to the Russian people, a lie to the Russian conscripts, and a lie to the world.

Vladimir Putin's criminal and unprovoked invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine has only grown more brutal, Madam Speaker, through the days and weeks. We have seen his forces target civilian areas, bomb hospitals, and disappear Ukrainian elected officials in areas they occupy.

This House is being asked today whether to repeal Russia's permanent, normal trade relations status. The question ought to be: Is Russia behaving like a normal, law-abiding nation? And of course, the resounding answer of the world has been no.

Indeed, there is nothing normal about its behavior or about Putin's choices. He has violated every norm that has been in place since the end of the Second World War. He is testing the resolve of the democratic free world. And thankfully, we are meeting that test with unity, with resolve, and with strength.

The revocation of Russia's normal trade status with the United States, as well as that of its ally, Belarus, is just the latest tool, Madam Speaker, being employed to isolate Russia economically and prevent the replenishment of its military assets being depleted in the invasion of Ukraine.

Putin clearly should have envisioned the pain that his invasion would be bringing down on his own country. That is a shame, because it is clear that a large segment of the Russian people do not want this war and, in fact, thousands of them are in jail because they have publicly made that clear.

They don't want to see their children being sent off to kill, maim, and terrorize the people of a friendly neighbor that caused them no threat; whose citizens maintain close people-to-people relations with the Russian people; and they do not want to lose access to the global marketplaces in which many Russian entrepreneurs and innovators have been participating and finding opportunities.

But no, the murderer of Moscow determined that he wanted to see the Russian empire restored, not because he was threatened, not because Russia was threatened, but because it would serve his ego and concept of empire.

As Russia continues to grow more and more isolated, as the vise tightens around its media, as the last few flickers of freedom for its people are extinguished, its people need only look to the Kremlin for answers.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Vote ``yes'' for the heroic people of Ukraine. Vote ``yes'' for a leader that has shown us courage and commitment to freedom and to democracy. Vote ``yes'' to tell Vladimir Putin that norms still matter, and we will not stand by as he seeks to break them.

No, normal relations are not warranted.

Vote ``yes.'' Vote for democracy. Vote for freedom. Vote for a courageous people. Vote for a free Ukraine.