[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 39 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H1285-H1290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
majority leader of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-
hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed 
until 6:30 p.m.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and 12 
p.m. for legislative business.
  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
  The House will consider an omnibus appropriations package so the 
House and Senate can both pass it before March 11. As the Republican 
minority whip knows, on March 11 at 12 o'clock, if we have not passed 
additional authorization for the funding of the government, the 
government will shut down. It is imperative that we act.
  In light of the fact that many of us on the Democratic side of the 
aisle will be going to Philadelphia for a legislative retreat on the 
Wednesday preceding March 11, March 9, we need to act by that time and 
send something to the Senate. I hope we can do that.
  The House will also consider H. Con. Res. 70, condemning threats of 
violence against historically Black colleges and universities--too many 
of which we have seen in recent weeks--and reaffirming support of HBCUs 
and their students, introduced by Representative Alma Adams. That will 
be considered under suspension of the rules.
  The House will also consider other bills under suspension of the 
rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the 
close of business tomorrow. Additional legislative items, of course, 
are possible.
  I want to say that, clearly, one of the principal focuses that we 
have is the onslaught and criminal behavior led by Vladimir Putin, 
which is occurring in Ukraine. The President spoke to the country and 
to us on Tuesday in the State of the Union message, in which he made it 
clear that we need to be unified. In fact, we passed a resolution in 
which--for the most part, save three of our Members--we were unified.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would remain unified in the face of 
what is the breaking of international law and could be called a 
genocide of the Ukrainian people by Vladimir Putin. I am hopeful that 
we will remain unified and focused on that issue as we proceed.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I share the gentleman's expression of 
unified support with the people of Ukraine. Clearly, we stand with the 
heroic people of Ukraine, President Zelensky, and the inspiration he 
has been showing to the world, and the strong people of Ukraine.
  What we are seeing from Russia is barbaric. One of my colleagues, 
Representative Spartz, who actually was born in Ukraine, she has been 
very outspoken about the genocide that is happening to the people of 
Ukraine. As the gentleman mentioned, the resolution that we passed with 
Mr. Meeks and Mrs. Spartz, it was bipartisan, and an overwhelming vote 
of support standing with the people of Ukraine.
  Clearly, they have asked for a number of very specific things: some 
military equipment, supplies, as well as humanitarian relief. We need 
to continue to push as hard as we can to make sure it is delivered 
as expeditiously as possible as we watch continuous barbaric attacks, 
raids, bombing, carpet bombing, cluster bombs, things that are illegal 
under international law, yet Putin continues to commit these barbaric 
crimes against the people of Ukraine. They are tough people, and they 
are not going to give up their country. We need to do everything we can 
to help them.

  One other thing that was mentioned in this resolution because people, 
obviously, want to know what they can do. There are a number of steps 
that are being taken and there are other steps that we would also like 
to see this Congress take. In the resolution there were two provisions 
specifically that I wanted to bring up.
  One of the resolution requests was that we--the United States 
Congress--pledge support working with Europe and international partners 
to bolster Europe's energy security and reduce its dependence on 
Russian energy imports.
  The resolution that we passed also goes on to say: We resolve that we 
underscore the importance of maintaining United States' energy 
independence for the benefit of the American people and United States' 
allies. With that there was a piece of legislation that was just filed 
earlier this week to do just that. H.R. 6858, offered by Mrs. McMorris 
Rodgers and Mr. Westerman, the ranking members of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, goes to the 
heart of what we can do as a country and as a Congress to take leverage 
away from Vladimir Putin as it relates to energy.
  We can all see over the years how Europe has become very dependent on 
Russian energy. They, unfortunately, get over 40 percent of their oil 
from Russia. This is also putting billions of dollars in the pocket of 
Vladimir Putin. When you look at the price of oil today, over $110 a 
barrel, just look at the daily benefit that that gives to Vladimir 
Putin. He is making over $700 million every single day selling oil to 
the United States and Europe. Think about that.
  Vladimir Putin is pocketing today over $700 million, and he is going 
to get another $700 million tomorrow and another the day after by 
selling his oil to the United States and to Europe. There are things we 
can do to stop that. That is what H.R. 6858 goes to the heart of. Some 
of those things are very specific.
  President Biden, just a few weeks ago, put a complete freeze on all 
oil and gas projects in America. All oil and gas projects. That means 
we are not allowing the United States to provide for the resources of 
our country and our allies. We used to be exporting oil to our allies 
around the world, it is becoming harder to do that because those 
policies by President Biden are shutting off American energy, and at 
the same time President Biden was asking Vladimir Putin to produce more 
oil for us.
  There is no reason we should be asking Russia to do what we in 
America can do, yet that is a policy that was put in place. President 
Biden can reverse that today. I have called on President Biden to 
reverse all of these specific actions today. This legislation would at 
least show that Congress is ready to allow ourselves to be energy 
independent so that we can take that leverage away from Putin. We can 
take that $700 million away from Putin.

                              {time}  1115

  Obviously, there are a number of other things, just permits for 
things like LNG--natural gas--Putin is supplying a tremendous amount of 
natural gas to Europe. There are six projects right now sitting on the 
Biden administration's desk to approve LNG permit applications for 
major projects, multibillion-dollar, private-sector-funded projects in 
America to allow us to ship natural gas to our European allies so they 
don't need to get it from Putin. Not one of those permits has been 
approved in over a year.
  Same thing, permits for pipelines. It is not just the Keystone 
pipeline. There are many other pipeline projects including two States 
in the Northeast. In the United States, States like Massachusetts are 
importing their oil from Vladimir Putin because they can't get it 
through pipelines in America. This opens that up.
  It does a number of other things to allow America to become energy 
independent, but, more importantly, to take the leverage away from 
Vladimir Putin that he has today that he is using to pocket over $700 
million a day by selling his energy to us and Europe. I would love to 
see that bill on the floor, and I think a lot of other people would, 
too, to send a message to Putin that we are not going to be a part of 
helping him finance this barbaric war on Ukraine.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if we could look at bringing 
H.R. 6858 to the floor, have a full debate, and pass a strong piece of 
legislation that would send a signal to our

[[Page H1286]]

friends around the world, surely to the people of Ukraine, but also to 
Vladimir Putin that he is not going to be able to finance his war off 
the backs of oil he is selling to the United States and Europe and 
using that against the people of Ukraine.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. As I said, I hope we can be unified and seek to pursue 
that which unifies us. If we did everything that the gentleman suggests 
is in that bill, it would not make an immediate difference, and the 
gentleman knows that. The gentleman knows that there are literally 
millions of acres available for additional pumping, oil rigs to be 
arrayed both offshore and onshore. The gentleman knows we just released 
300 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. SCALISE. Thirty million, I believe it is.
  Mr. HOYER. Excuse me. Thirty million.
  So this administration has taken actions immediately to assist the 
Europeans. In addition, of course, the Europeans have done something. 
As the gentleman knows in terms of reliance, the Germans, in a very 
difficult political decision for them, have canceled any further 
actions dealing with receiving energy through a pipeline in Germany 
known as Nord Stream 2.
  He knows further that there is consideration to reactivate or to not 
decommission nuclear plants which provide not only clean energy but 
abundant energy. In my part of the world in a southern Maryland 
district that I represent, we have a nuclear power plant that produces 
clean energy for us in abundance. Very frankly, I have heard this 
argument when we had recession; I have heard this argument when we had 
the stock market go down, and the stock market go up. We are producing 
more energy than any other country on Earth right now. We are exporting 
energy right now.
  Now, the issue as to whether or not--we have a relatively small 
sector, but the gentleman is correct, we are receiving oil in some 
jurisdictions from Russia--as to whether we ought to continue that, I 
think that is a valid argument, and we ought to pursue it.
  But I want to say to the gentleman very, very frankly that we need to 
be focused on what we have done and what we are doing. NATO is unified. 
NATO is taking unified action. All the nations of NATO are taking 
actions both with respect to stopping any benefits to Russia which may 
facilitate the funding of their operations. We have taken very, very 
substantial sanctions, as you know, and we have cut off the Russian 
central bank which freezes Putin's strategic reserve funds. He had $600 
billion that he was relying on that he called the ``war fund''.
  We have imposed full sanctions on Russia's other major financial 
institutions, state-owned enterprises critical to its economy. We have 
removed Russian banks from SWIFT, an action that nobody thought the 
Europeans would join us in, but they have. We have secured new export 
controls to cut off Russia's access to tech inputs, including 
microchips. We have frozen the assets of Putin and oligarchs close to 
him and launched a task force to hunt down and freeze more of their 
wealth. We have stopped the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that I talked about 
which would have made Germany and some of Europe even more dependent on 
energy from Russia.
  Again, some months ago, nobody would have thought that was possible. 
President Biden has achieved that.
  We have done $1 billion in security assistance to Ukraine over the 
past year--a massive increase over past administrations--and have also 
announced a $1 billion sovereign loan guaranty to shore up Ukraine's 
economy.
  America, essentially, is energy independent. As I said, we are 
exporting energy. If we didn't export energy, we may be fully 
independent. Having said that, the gentleman comes from an area of the 
country that refines some of the kind of oil we get from Russia, heavy 
crude, as the gentleman knows much better than I do because he is very, 
very familiar with that industry.
  Energy is important. We believe as well that assuring energy that is 
not damaging to our global health is also important. I would be for not 
buying any oil from Russia. Then what would happen is--and may happen 
yet--is the price of oil would go up. The gentleman knows that. And 
then the gentleman would rise and say to me: How can you possibly allow 
prices to be where they are?
  I want to honestly tell the American people that we are not sending 
troops. We will not have people on the front lines. But we will pay a 
cost to take the actions that the President has courageously taken and 
that President Zelensky has courageously taken to defend Ukraine's 
freedom. We will pay a cost.
  So the President is trying to balance that with doing what needs to 
be done. I, frankly, think he is doing what needs to be done, and I am 
very proud of the fact that, as I said yesterday, we joined together in 
a bipartisan way to support the Ukrainian people.
  We have differences of opinion on energy policy. For the most part, I 
think many of your Members don't believe global warming is the threat 
that we believe it is on this side of the aisle. So we have differences 
of agreement on energy. But what we don't have differences of opinion 
on, I hope, is that we ought to decrease to the extent we possibly can 
any economic benefits to Putin--not the Russian people, but to Putin 
and the war machine that he has put in place, and, as you and I have 
agreed, killing Ukrainians unprovoked, unjustified, and illegal under 
international law. So that is the real issue we ought to be focused on.
  Yes, we ought to continue to have a fulsome debate on energy policy--
very, very important. But I will tell the gentleman, as I said before, 
there are millions of acres--millions--currently available to produce 
more energy in this country.
  The gentleman's party was in charge for a long period of time of both 
the House, Senate, and the Presidency under President Trump, and 
essentially the policies that the gentleman--I don't know all the 
policies in that bill, obviously, I haven't read that bill--that could 
have been affected during that period of time.
  So the bottom line is, the gentleman is correct. We need to make sure 
that Putin pays a horrific price and that we substantially reduce the 
resources he has available to perpetrate this international crime. And 
in the process, we ought to remember that this Congress appropriated 
over $400 million some years ago to help Ukraine, and President Trump 
held that money hostage, urging Mr. Zelensky to see if he could get 
dirt on President Biden. President Trump has recently said how 
brilliant he thinks Mr. Putin is and that our President is dumb. That 
doesn't reflect unity. That doesn't reflect a country that is together 
to confront an enemy. That undermines our democracy.
  Mr. Pompeo has also said he thinks Putin is brilliant. I think Putin 
is an international criminal. He says he is very shrewd and very 
capable. There are many dictators and tyrants of the world that you can 
say that about. He didn't say he was a criminal--I am talking about 
Pompeo and Trump--or that he was committing a genocide, as you and I 
have said. Those were not words that either the former of Secretary of 
State or the former President of the United States used just recently 
after the invasion.
  So I say to my friend very sincerely: We have differences of views on 
energy. We don't have difference of views, however, on diminishing very 
radically any resources which Putin could rely on to perpetrate his 
unjustified and criminal invasion of a sovereign country who has shown 
no threat to Russia or the Russian people.
  At some point in time we will continue this argument about drilling 
and production of more oil. We will continue, I think, to try to be 
unified on the issue at hand. America's unity expressed to the rest of 
the world will give the Ukrainians, I think, more confidence and give 
NATO more confidence. And I might say when I mentioned that NATO has 
taken extraordinary steps, President Biden, unlike his predecessor, 
created respect and unity among the NATO allies. Germany, in 
particular, on Nord Stream 2, the former President uniformly demeaned 
Ms. Merkel and the Chancellor of Germany, and our relations with 
Germany were very strained. President Biden has put those together--
critically important in facing Putin down at this point in time.
  As General Milley said in our briefing--this was not classified--he 
said he

[[Page H1287]]

thought Russia was going to lose in the end--or at least Putin was 
going to lose.
  The Russian people do not want this war. The Russian people do not 
feel threatened by Ukraine.
  Putin wants to create empire, and that is what I think we ought to 
stay focused on and unified on. We will debate energy policy, but let 
us not deceive the American public that any policies of this 
administration have undermined the ability to drill and produce 
additional energy on those millions of acres that are available on 
public lands and in public waters right now. Right now.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, there are many areas where we have been 
unified in our response to Ukraine, but it is not unifying to say leave 
Russia's oil off the table in terms of sanctions. That was left out by 
President Biden. When he issued sanctions he specifically exempted 
Russia's oil, and that is not unifying. There are a lot of people who 
are angry about that because we are watching the amount of money that 
Putin is putting in his pocket every day, and he is using that money.
  So you take other sanctions, you take other things off the table, the 
banking system might be hit hard, except if he is able to put $700 
million--and it is probably closer to $1 billion a day now with this 
higher price of oil because of what he has done and because of what our 
country has done to take energy off the table.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield so I can clarify?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not believe energy ought to be taken off the table. I 
want to assure my friend that is not my position, nor is it our 
collective position as a party. I understand what the gentleman said. I 
agree with the gentleman that to the extent that we can decrease any--
any--underline any--resources available to Putin and his war machine, 
we ought to do it.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that clarification because it is in 
President Biden's set of sanctions that he specifically exempted 
energy. Clearly, that is not unifying, even to us.
  But it is the money that is still allowed to be flowing into Russia, 
into Putin's pocket, to finance the war that many of us want to get at.
  If H.R. 6858, after the gentleman looks at it, has some provisions 
that we could work on, I think it would be very unifying to the country 
to say we are finally going to confront what might be Vladimir Putin's 
largest source of funding, and that is his oil exports to the United 
States. It offends many, many people that, today, we are getting over 
100,000 barrels every single day from Russia because we took things 
like the Keystone pipeline off the table.
  That would have brought us oil from Canada. Canada is a friend, by 
the way. And it is not like the need and the demand just went away. The 
demand is still there.
  President Biden said no, we don't want Canadian oil. But it wasn't 
because he didn't want any oil. He didn't say no, we don't want any 
pipelines. He just said no to the Canada-to-America pipeline, but he 
said yes to the Nord Stream 2, initially. But he also said to Vladimir 
Putin: Would you produce more oil?
  And let's keep in mind--I know there is this conversation about the 
planet. Let's be honest about carbon emissions. Carbon is emitted all 
around the globe. So if we shut down production in America, which has 
been done--and it is not just on Federal lands where the President is 
not issuing permits. He put a freeze just 2 weeks ago on all new 
permits.
  But it is also the banking system that he is using to go after oil 
and gas companies, so there is no investment being made in America. 
They are making investments, billions of dollars of investment, in 
other countries. They are just not making it here in America because of 
those policies.
  Again, that just gives more leverage to Putin. We were paying less 
than $2 per gallon under President Trump. I know the gentleman wanted 
to bring up President Trump.
  President Trump stood up to Putin, by the way. You didn't see an 
invasion anywhere in Ukraine under President Trump. You surely did 
under President Obama and Vice President Biden when Putin walked in and 
took Crimea with no consequence. Afghanistan, the weakness that was 
being showed clearly was being watched by Putin and Xi and other 
adversaries as a preface to then go and start marshaling troops on the 
Ukraine border.
  President Trump didn't let that happen. He stood up to Putin and 
pushed back on Putin. He also used energy as a weapon against our 
enemies because we were producing enough to not only meet our needs but 
to export to our friends around the world.
  Surely, lower pricing was a benefit to Americans, but it also helped 
our allies around the world. That has been taken off the table.
  But let's talk about the carbon emission side because oil is being 
produced. It is just that a lot of it isn't being produced here that 
would otherwise be in the mix.
  So if you look at, for example, Russian oil, Russia emits probably 40 
percent more carbon to make the same oil that otherwise would be made 
in the United States because we have better standards in America.
  I know a lot of people love beating up on America. We do it better 
than anybody else. Our technology is better than anybody else. In fact, 
our technology for producing energy is the envy of the world. It should 
be the model for the world because if we are not making it, Russia is 
going to be making it.
  Believe me, futures prices of oil have an impact on price today, 
which is why, when President Biden walked in and shut the spigots off 
in America--sure, there is production going on from previous leases 
that happened under previous administrations, including President 
Trump, that was driving the price down. But when he walked in day one 
and said no to the Keystone pipeline--in other words, no to Canada's 
oil but yes to Russia's oil--that had an impact on price.
  When he said no to Federal drilling, which then he expanded to all 
drilling, any new permits--sure, the stuff that is going on out there 
is still going on, but there is no new investment being made in 
America. It is being made in other countries, including Russia, 
including OPEC nations. Because of that, they are able to control the 
price because they are cartels.
  We had literally taken the monopoly away from OPEC and Russia when we 
were producing enough and using the resources of this great Nation, by 
the way, in a much more energy efficient way than anywhere else in the 
world. We were reducing carbon emissions in America while producing our 
own energy, while manufacturing more in America. The more things are 
shut down here, they are being made in other places, and those other 
places emit more carbon.
  China is building a coal plant probably every single week. China 
emits more carbon, probably five times more carbon, to make many of the 
same things we make in America.
  So the less we make here, it is still being made; it is just being 
made in other countries. They get the jobs, but they also emit more 
carbon. So, as people talk about carbon emissions, don't leave that 
point out because it is an important point.
  Again, it was President Biden himself who asked Putin to produce more 
oil, just last year. The oil produced in Russia has a higher carbon 
price than made here in America.
  And it makes us less secure. It makes Putin more strong. It gives him 
hundreds of millions of dollars a day that we can take off the table.
  I think that would be very unifying if we had that debate and said: 
Can we get an agreement on some of these provisions that would actually 
strengthen our country?
  Even if Russian wasn't invading Ukraine, it would be smart American 
policy. It would reduce carbon emissions. But especially considering 
what is going on in Russia, this is much more pertinent today to have 
this discussion. Again, I think it can be unifying.

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

[[Page H1288]]

  The countries that are taking the things away that we are shutting 
down here in America emit more carbon. It is a fact. Why shouldn't we 
be talking about that, too, and, frankly, taking away the leverage that 
Putin would have?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, the Speaker just announced, minutes ago, she is opposed 
to importing any oil from Russia. So the comment I just made to the 
gentleman, if you are trying to project that we want to see Russia 
advantaged by any expenditures we have on imports, now the Speaker has 
said exactly what I just said. We are not for that. Okay?
  There are 26 million acres right now available and unaffected, as I 
understand it, by any of the constraints that you have talked about, 
available for additional drilling. There are 11 million acres, so that 
is 37 million acres currently available for production of additional 
product in the United States of America, right now.
  So the red herring of somehow President Biden is constraining the 
production of oil in this country, as I understand it--now, you are 
much more aware of this because you come from a producing State and, 
obviously, are focused on this.
  But the fact of the matter is, I am told that these 37 million acres 
are unaffected and are ready for production right now.
  Now, the debate we have, Mr. Whip, is about what kind of fuels we 
ought to be using. You talked a lot about carbon emissions. Scientists 
tell us that carbon emission is a danger. As a matter of fact, the 
Department of Defense, the Pentagon, testified when asked, ``What is 
the greatest threat to America's security?'' some--I think it was last 
year; it may have been the year before that--said global warming. That 
is what they said.
  Right now, we have an immediate challenge. Nothing you suggest will 
affect that immediate challenge beyond the Speaker and I both telling 
you we agree, and I hope the President pursues this: No money to 
Russia, period. No buying of Russian products.
  Now, the gentleman mentions that, oh, he urged Russia to produce more 
energy last year. Why did he urge that? He urged all OPEC nations to 
produce more energy. Why? Because he did not want Americans to pay more 
at the pump. I think that is a policy you would probably support, 
trying to keep prices down.
  With the oil cartel, when you constrain supply, what happens? Demand 
doesn't diminish because people have to drive to work; they have to get 
their kids to school; they have to get home. Demand stays steady.
  What happens, inevitably, when supply is constrained and demand stays 
where it is or it goes up, prices rise. Yes, you are right, the 
President stands accused of trying to get more supply on the market to 
bring prices at the pump down.
  But we do have a fundamental disagreement, and frankly, we ought not 
to be talking about it now. We had an energy bill that most of your 
side did not vote for. We get that. There is a legitimate difference of 
opinion of where we ought to invest our dollars. We believe we ought to 
invest our dollars in renewable energy that will be there for some time 
and does not pollute our air, increase our heat, and make our storms 
worse for the safety of our globe and our people for decades and 
centuries to come.
  But, we do agree that we want to stop Putin.
  Now, the reason I pointed out Trump, because Trump didn't stop Putin. 
He regaled Putin: He is my friend. I know him. We can get together.
  Putin is a thug. He is a criminal thug. He is an international 
criminal. I think we all agree on that. And it doesn't help for the 
former President of the United States to tell the world I think their 
guy, this criminal, this thug, is smart, or in Pompeo's words, 
brilliant and our guy is dumb.
  Our guy is not dumb. He is very smart. I have known him for 50 years. 
He may disagree on policy, but that is not because he is dumb. He has a 
different perspective.
  Very frankly, he is not withholding money from Zelensky. He is making 
sure Zelensky gets money.
  Trump tried to hold hostage money for Ukrainian security that we 
appropriated because we wanted early on to make sure that Zelensky and 
the Ukrainian people had the resources they needed. Mr. Trump withheld 
them. Now, ultimately, he paid them out, after it was disclosed--after 
it was disclosed.
  We are going to continue to differ on energy policy, but don't 
mislead the American people when you have 37 million acres available 
for additional production unaffected by the restraints that you talk 
about. He is talking about new stuff.
  So, my friend, let's focus, in this instance, at this time of crisis, 
on how we can make sure that America is perceived as unified and of one 
mind, as we did right after 9/11 and as we did yesterday.
  But we abandon that very quickly in this polarized society in which 
we are living. We need to be unified, and we need to be honest with the 
American people. It is not going to be cost-free because neither 
Biden--and Biden, by the way, is urging the Saudis to increase 
production and others to increase production.
  But as the gentleman knows, we far outstrip any of those nations in 
the production of energy and oil. China, a country that is three times, 
four times our size, four times our size, is producing 25 percent of 
what we produce.
  America is producing a lot of energy. It did so under Obama. As the 
gentleman knows, energy production in the country rose during the Obama 
years. It rose during the Trump years. And it still is at a high 
plateau.
  The only thing I would say to my friend, the whip: We have 
differences on energy policy. We ought to discuss those. That is an 
honest difference of opinion. I want to be energy independent.
  I hope you heard the President talk about Make It In America. All of 
my colleagues rose and sort of pointed at me because I have been 
talking about making it America, which is producing energy as well, for 
a good period of time. I started the Make It In America agenda in 2010 
and have been talking about it every year since.
  We need to be energy independent, and we can use energy as an element 
of foreign policy and strategic policy as well, which is why the 
Speaker said, just minutes ago, as I said to you, we ought not to be 
buying oil from Russia, period.
  Mr. SCALISE. As we talk about this energy policy difference, again, I 
do think it could be unifying. I do think we can get to a point where 
we recognize some of the impediments that are real today. While the 
President says Make It In America, there are things that President 
Biden is doing that are blocking the ability for us to make it in 
America.
  Again, I have talked about some of the regulatory agencies that are 
making it very hard even on some of those lands the gentleman 
references that could be open for production where they can't because 
they reinstated some of the things like WOTUS and some of the other 
regulations that were removed so that States could look at the ability 
to permit applications where now they are not able to do that, where 
banking systems, through Treasury, through the SEC, are blocking 
financial institutions or bullying financial institutions to not allow 
investment by American banks into American production of energy.
  It is real. It is going on. It is a problem. And it is why many of 
those energy companies are making their billions of investments in 
other countries right now.

                              {time}  1145

  Again, when you have John Kerry, the President's global warming czar, 
just the other day saying he hopes Russia helps us with this.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman clarify when he says, 
``just the other day''?
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, probably about 4 days ago, where he was 
talking about getting energy production addressed and some other things 
addressed. We shouldn't have a strategy that involves Russia helping us 
right now or Putin helping us right now.
  So don't give Vladimir Putin that leverage. He has leverage. While 
Nord Stream 2 is blocked today, Nord Stream 1, the original Nord Stream

[[Page H1289]]

pipeline, is still operating, providing over 40 percent of Germany's 
energy. That was what President Trump was critical of Merkel about, why 
are you signing contracts that make your country more dependent on 
Russia? He said that verbatim. He was right back then. Germany probably 
wishes they wouldn't have done it today because they were hamstrung in 
the beginning of this. They are now helping, but they are also 
dependent on Russian oil.
  We should be looking at things that we can do to not only wean 
ourselves off of Russian oil but our allies around the world. There are 
real specific things we can do and there are impediments in this 
country today that exist that are unnecessary, that are hurting our 
ability to shut down Russia's ability to use energy as leverage. They 
are doing it right now. They are using it not only as leverage but as a 
financing source. Putin still is pocketing over $700 million a day by 
selling oil to Europe and America.
  If there are things that we can come to an agreement on that would 
address it, I think it would be important that we do it as fast as 
possible to take away those points so that Putin has to think twice 
about continuing what he is doing, this barbaric genocide that is 
happening in Ukraine.
  So just saying that while it might not be something we recognize as 
unifying today, I think it could end up being something unifying in a 
short period of time, if we can keep working through those differences. 
I would just encourage that we try to do that.
  If there is anything else on that, I would yield, but there is one 
other issue I wanted to raise as well.
  The Senate just a few days ago passed unanimously a resolution asking 
to open up the Capitol again to the American people, our constituents, 
who still are not able to come to the Capitol to visit with Members of 
Congress, to sit in the gallery, to participate even in the State of 
the Union. It was a unanimous resolution in the Senate.
  There is a companion resolution by Congressman Steil that was filed, 
H. Res. 961, that would do the same thing and express from the House 
side what the Senate just expressed, that it is time to open the 
Capitol to the public again. The Senate Republicans and Democrats came 
to an agreement to do it. I would just ask that we do the same and show 
the American people that the people's House is open to the people of 
the Nation. If the Senate can come to an agreement on it--again, I 
don't think there is anything controversial in the resolution, but I 
would ask that we would bring that up as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that question. The 
answer to it is the Office of the Attending Physician and the Sergeants 
at Arms in both the Senate and the House are looking at that, both from 
a health standpoint and from a security standpoint.
  I think all of us agree that the American public's access to the 
Capitol ought to be as fulsome as possible, given constraints of health 
concerns and of security concerns. So I join the gentleman in saying, 
as I have said to the press, as soon as we can do that responsibly, we 
ought to do it. I agree with the gentleman.
  I want to add something that is of great concern to me. I hope we 
have agreement in this House, and I hope we have agreement in the 
United States Senate. I have been shocked, deeply saddened, when your 
party passes a resolution and tells the American people that January 6 
was legitimate political discourse.
  If we are telling people in this country that January 6 was 
legitimate political discourse, we are going to have great concerns 
about opening up this Capitol for the safety of our Members, for the 
safety of the public who wants to visit, and for the safety of our 
staff.
  I would ask my friend; does he believe that January 6 reflected 
legitimate political discourse?
  I was shocked, astounded, that a major political party in this 
country would tell the American people what they saw on January 6 was 
legitimate political discourse.
  Will he please reject that concept, reject that conclusion, that what 
they saw on January 6 had anything to do with legitimate political 
discourse.
  Yes, I want to open up the Capitol, but I don't want to make any 
representation to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that what happened 
on January 6 bore any resemblance to what we as Americans believe is 
legitimate political discourse.
  Rightfully, Senator McConnell and former candidate for President of 
the United States, Mitt Romney, rejected that out of hand. I would hope 
you and your party would do so on this floor and tell the American 
people, yes, we want to open up this Capitol, but do not delude 
yourself that anything you saw on January 6 bears any resemblance in 
any way to legitimate political discourse.
  I had not brought that up, but I am constrained to do so as we talk 
about opening up our Capitol.
  Tuesday night, we were an armed camp. You saw it, I saw it, we all 
saw it, the fence around the Capitol, men and women with automatic 
weapons, both military and civilian, because of what happened on 
January 6, because of the concern they had for the safety of our 
democracy and of the ability of the President of the United States to 
come and give a State of the Union address to the assembled Members of 
the Congress of the United States and the United States Senate. That is 
why all of that was there.
  Very frankly, inexplicably, the Republican Party's national committee 
passed a resolution, apparently overwhelmingly, that told the American 
people that January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have been very clear from 
the very beginning, anyone who broke into this Capitol ought to be held 
accountable and is being held accountable. More arrests have been made 
than probably all of the cities where people were burning down cities 
across America in the summer. That is something that ought to be 
addressed, and the Democratic Party doesn't want to talk about that. 
They just want to talk about January 6.
  These resolutions are not about January 6. It is allowing the 
American people to exercise their First Amendment right to come and 
meet with their Members of Congress, which they are not able to do 
right now.
  If you look at that resolution, the head of the RNC even came out and 
said that is not what they were referring to, what the gentleman just 
alluded to. They said they were talking about the people who weren't 
even in the District of Columbia on January 6 who are being targeted 
right now. That is what they said that they were doing. Go take that up 
with them.
  I have been clear about what has happened to the people who broke 
into this Capitol and that everybody who breaks the law ought to be 
held accountable, not just the people who broke in here on January 6, 
but also people who burned the cities down over the summer of 2020 who 
haven't been held accountable. That is something that angers people all 
over the country. They want to see the law equally carried out for 
people who broke the law, no matter where they were, here or in cities 
across America.
  If you want to criticize one side of it, at least be willing to 
criticize the other side of it, too. I surely have. I haven't heard it 
from the other side. I would be more than happy to hear the gentleman 
talk about people who were shooting at cops, killed cops, beat up 
people in streets, burned down police stations, government buildings in 
cities, took over cities, and haven't been held accountable. Shouldn't 
they also be held accountable? I say both should be held accountable. 
Does the gentleman agree with that?
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the equivalency that my friend from Louisiana 
tries to make between citizens, some who committed crimes, but citizens 
who are acting because they are seeing their children's lives taken 
because of the color of their skin and what happened on January 6 to 
undermine our democracy, our Constitution, and our election of a 
President of the United States, reflects the resolution the Republican 
National Committee passed, legitimate political discourse.
  They weren't talking about the people--some people saw, obviously, 
the President incite those people to come from where that political 
discourse, that discussion--which sounded like incitement to me, maybe 
not to you--and

[[Page H1290]]

they came from the White House, at the President's instruction, Mr. 
Speaker: Go down to the Capitol, stop the steal, give them hell, fight 
like hell. Instructing the Vice President of the United States to do 
what the Vice President of the United States concluded was illegal, not 
within his power, and they came into the Capitol calling for the life 
of the Vice President and the Speaker of this House.
  There is no equivalency. But they continue, Mr. Speaker, to make that 
equivalency, to justify what was done on January 6, that, oh, well, 
everybody does it. No, they don't. It is the first time in history that 
it has happened.
  The whip and I are talking about what I think we both want to do, 
open up this Capitol, make it more accessible, have people come in, gun 
free, weapon free--come into this Capitol and see their democracy in 
action. That resolution was read by the American people as, oh, it is 
okay, legitimate political--there was nothing about January 6 that was 
legitimate political discourse, including what the President of the 
United States had to say, at that point in time, Donald Trump. That 
wasn't legitimate at all.
  Sixty courts determined Joe Biden was elected. He still, to this day, 
lies to the American people. Sadly, too many people believe him, which 
led to January 6 and the violence. I am sure that the whip believes 
they ought to be held accountable if they came in here and waved guns 
at people and killed a police officer. I appreciate that he said that.
  If he believes, as Romney believes, as McConnell believes--McConnell 
didn't say they were talking about the people talking in political 
discourse, should we do this, should we do that. McConnell responded to 
that resolution exactly as I have, understanding exactly what it meant, 
inexplicable.
  Very frankly, if we are going to open up this Capitol, we need all of 
us to tell every American we are opening up the Capitol to peaceful--
sure, political discussion; that is what this place is all about. That, 
Mr. Speaker, is what this discourse is about, differences of opinion, 
how we resolve them, how we reach consensus, how we hopefully bring 
people together. But not by waving racist flags, not by hanging a 
gallows in front of the Capitol. That is not how we do it.
  We ought to all, all 435 of us, reject it out of hand. We should not 
in any way try to make it look like, well, some other people did this, 
and some other people did that, and, therefore, it is okay.
  They attacked our democracy, our Constitution, this country. They 
were traitors. We ought to all reject that kind of conduct out of hand, 
not try to rationalize it with some other group did this and some other 
group did that, people with grievances.
  The Constitution does not guarantee being able to shoot at people, 
police or nonpolice. It doesn't justify destroying property. That is 
criminal activity. I agree with that 100 percent. And no city was 
burned down. A little bit of hyperbole there, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1200

  Were there things done that shouldn't have been done? Yes. Were there 
things that shouldn't have been done and things that happened on this 
Capitol? Yes.
  But January 6 was not analogous to any of those things. It was an 
attempt to undermine our democracy, our Constitution, and the election 
of the President of the United States by this Congress in approving 
what we should have no discretion in one way or the other. That is what 
lawfully is done in each State when they send their electors here.
  What President Trump kept asking Mr. Pence to do was ignore the votes 
of the American people, ignore the lawfully elected electors and the 
result of their deliberations.
  Mr. Scalise is my friend. He is a good man. A famous quote says that 
nothing is necessary for the spread of evil but that good men do 
nothing. And that is why I tell my friend I was so appalled at the 
rhetoric of that Republican National Committee resolution and what it 
says to people around this country who may have a grievance, who may be 
angry.
  As Senator McConnell interpreted it, the resolution was speaking to 
what happened on January 6, whether it was at the White House and 
incitement, whether it was at the White House and deployment, or 
whether it was here in execution of what was clearly a coordinated 
effort to prohibit the Congress from carrying out its constitutional 
duties. Expressed and acted out.
  So I say to my friend in conclusion, I didn't mean to get into this 
today, but your questions obviously spurred my feeling about this 
because, yes, we want to open up the Capitol, but I don't want to give 
any citizen the thought that the Capitol is being opened so they can 
come in here, threaten the lives of a Vice President, threaten the 
lives of a Speaker, threaten the lives of the minority leader or the 
Republican whip or any others of us.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican whip is my friend. He was badly injured 
by a criminal who may have been deranged or whatever, but no excuse, 
who attacked him because he was a Republican. Totally unjustified. 
Totally heinous in its execution. The whip has shown extraordinary 
courage, Mr. Speaker, in coming back. I know it has been hard. It has 
been tough for him, and all of us admire him for the courage he has 
shown in coming back, and we condemn in the severest terms any kind of 
action that would have put him or any other of our Members, our staff, 
or the visitors to this Capitol at risk.
  We are considering it. We want to open it up. The American people 
ought to have access to their Capitol.
  Mr. SCALISE. Just again, we condemn violence of all kinds: Political 
violence, people that just commit violence because they want to or they 
think they can get away with it or they think somebody will bail them 
out if they do it. But we should do it across the board, and the 
punishment fits the crime. The laws are on the books. It is the 
prosecutors who go after the people, and they are in some instances. It 
should be in all instances.
  I will continue to call it out on both sides. I would hope on the 
other side we hear that as well, not just when they see it in one 
place, but when they see it in all places, and I would hope we would 
open up the people's House and get the Capitol back open to the 
American people who want to and have a right to come and express their 
views on issues.
  They might want to send an email, they might want to make a phone 
call, but they also might want to go to the office and sign that log 
book and try to sit down either with the Member of Congress or their 
staff to convey their feelings, and we just hope that happens. Again, 
the Senate unanimously said they want that to happen. I would hope the 
House would do it, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________