[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H1381-H1389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2471, HAITI 
DEVELOPMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND INSTITUTIONAL TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE 
    ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 75, EXTENSION OF 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
          H.R. 6968, SUSPENDING ENERGY IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 972 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 972

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2471) to measure the progress of post-disaster recovery and 
     efforts to address corruption, governance, rule of law, and 
     media freedoms in Haiti, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or her designee that the House 
     concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting 
     of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-35. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The 
     question of adoption of the motion shall be divided for a 
     separate vote on all of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
     the amendment of the House other than divisions B, C, F, X, 
     and Z, and titles 2 and 3 of division N. The two portions of 
     the divided question shall be considered in the order 
     specified by the Chair. If either portion of the divided 
     question fails of adoption, then the House shall be 
     considered to have made no disposition of the Senate 
     amendment.
       Sec. 2.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations and 
     the chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     may insert in the Congressional Record not later than March 
     11, 2022, such material as they may deem explanatory of the 
     Senate amendment and the motion specified in the first 
     section of this resolution.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 75) making further continuing appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6968) to 
     prohibit the importation of energy products of the Russian 
     Federation, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means or their respective designees; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Garcia of Texas). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  0915

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me wish a good morning to my good 
friend, Mr. Cole. It feels like just a couple of hours ago I was saying 
good morning. Let me say to the gentleman that he looks marvelous for 
getting no sleep, and it is great to be with my friend.
  Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House 
Resolution 972, providing for consideration of the Senate Amendment to 
H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. It provides for a 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2471 with a House 
amendment and 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
It divides the question on adoption of the motion into two votes in the 
order specified by the chair, and provides that if any portion of the 
divided question fails, then the House shall be considered to have made 
no disposition of the Senate amendment.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 75, the 
Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2022, under a closed rule. 
It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6968, the 
Suspending Energy Imports From Russia Act, under a closed rule. It 
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
provides one motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, the bills contained in the rule are about investing in 
our communities and families here at home and living up to our values 
abroad.
  Throughout last summer, House Democrats were hard at work passing 
appropriations bills funding nearly all of the Federal Government to 
build on the momentum of our economic recovery. This full-year omnibus 
is the product of extensive bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Both 
sides have come together to produce an agreement to fund the government 
that I think has resulted in a very, very good bill.
  That means this agreement does not include everything I wanted, and I 
know it doesn't include everything my Republican friends wanted. But I 
think, at the end of the day, it is a good package that is going to 
benefit the American people.
  I especially want to recognize Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member 
Granger and thank them for forging a bipartisan path forward. I also 
want to take this opportunity to thank the incredible staff of the 
Appropriations Committee as well as the incredible staff of the Rules 
Committee--Democrats and Republicans--who have worked tirelessly to 
bring this legislation to the floor today. I think most of my 
colleagues here do not appreciate how hard the staff works, and I think 
the American people ought to be proud of those who serve up here in 
both parties for their public service.
  The work of Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger could not 
have come at a more critical time. We are at a moment in history that 
demands a strong and confident America,

[[Page H1382]]

and the certainty provided by this omnibus will allow us to tackle some 
of our country's biggest challenges by helping to support good-paying 
American jobs; by building ladders of opportunity for hardworking 
families; by confronting the existential threat of climate change; and 
by investing in lifesaving research into maternal health, mental 
health, and opioid abuse.
  I am proud that we negotiated a government funding package that 
centers on the needs of middle-class and working families, not the rich 
and not on powerful special interests.
  I am particularly proud that one of the provisions included in this 
package--funding for a White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, 
Hunger, and Health--is something that we have worked together on in a 
bipartisan way at the Rules Committee and with Democrats and 
Republicans in the Senate.
  We live in the United States of America, the richest country in the 
history of this planet, yet as we gather here today, close to 40 
million of our fellow citizens don't know where their next meal is 
going to come from. There is not a single congressional district in 
America that is hunger-free. We ought to be ashamed of that.
  Hunger is a political condition. We can solve this problem, but we 
need to have the political will. This conference, I hope, will provide 
that political will.
  I will remind my colleagues the last time we had a conference on this 
subject was 54 years ago, so I am looking forward to working with the 
White House and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to forge a 
path forward to end hunger in America once and for all.
  Madam Speaker, this rule also provides for consideration of a short-
term continuing resolution that keeps the government funded at current 
levels through March 15 to give the United States Senate adequate time 
to pass this full-year omnibus agreement and get it to President 
Biden's desk so that he can sign it.
  And in the wake of the unprovoked and horrific invasion of Ukraine at 
the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin, this Congress is taking 
urgent bipartisan action to protect global peace and security and hold 
Putin's corrupt regime accountable.
  Yesterday, I co-chaired a meeting of the Tom Lantos Human Rights 
Commission. We had a detailed discussion about what was happening in 
Ukraine and the fact that what is happening has risen to the level of 
war crimes, and there needs to be accountability.

  We have all seen the awful pictures and the awful videos, Madam 
Speaker, families gunned down, apartment buildings bombed, and the 
indiscriminate use of force, yet still the people of Ukraine are 
courageously standing up for freedom. Congress, the Biden 
administration, and the people of the United States must stand with 
them, and that is exactly what this measure does.
  By encouraging World Trade Organization members to suspend 
concessions to Russia; taking steps to review Russia's international 
trade status; and, very importantly, by reauthorizing a strengthened 
Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act so that the United 
States can impose further sanctions on human rights abusers in Russia 
and around the globe, America is standing up to bullies like Putin who 
think they can invade their way into an empire and blackmail the world 
with their oil.
  I want to commend President Biden for taking action to stop the 
import of Russian energy products into the United States, action which 
our legislation supports.
  I should also say, Madam Speaker, that I had kind of hoped that this 
could have come up under suspension because I like to think there is no 
dissent on what we are doing in this legislation. I am concerned that 
some of my friends on the other side objected to the strengthening of 
human rights provisions in the Magnitsky Act.
  Ironically, the language that we are using is language very similar 
to the executive order put forward by President Trump. I don't agree 
with him on a lot of things--almost nothing--but I think he was right 
signing an executive order to actually strengthen the human rights 
criteria for the Magnitsky legislation. We ought to hold human rights 
abusers--those guilty of corruption--accountable. And for anybody--
anybody--to want to weaken the standard and to want to let some people 
off the hook, I think, is unconscionable. So I hope there is a strong 
bipartisan vote on this.
  Finally, I want to highlight that our bipartisan omnibus agreement 
includes $13.6 billion in emergency military, humanitarian, and 
economic support for Ukraine. This week, the United Nations has warned 
that this is the ``fastest growing refugee crisis in Europe since World 
War II.'' I am proud that we are taking the moral obligation of 
humanitarian assistance seriously.
  Together, these measures, in addition to the strong leadership shown 
by President Biden working quickly and in close consultation with our 
allies and partners, have placed enormous pressure on President Putin 
and his corrupt oligarchs to end this war. I hope that he does that 
immediately.
  The final thing that I am going to say is to echo what I began with. 
This bill is not perfect through the eyes of anybody, whether you are a 
liberal Democrat like me or whether you are a conservative Republican, 
and this rule allows people to express their support and their lack of 
support for different parts of this bill very clearly.
  Some think that the defense section is too high. I personally do. But 
we have an opportunity to be able to vote yes or no on that.
  Some think that the investments in domestic spending are too high. I 
think they are not high enough, but whatever. People have an 
opportunity to be able to vote yes or no on that.
  So, I hope that we can get support for the rule. I hope that we can 
get this legislation passed today, sent over to the Senate, and help 
the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Today's rule covers three items. The first item is a bill to ban 
imports of Russian oil into the United States and to impose additional 
sanctions following Russia's unprovoked and unjust invasion of Ukraine.
  Madam Speaker, although I will be supporting this bill, I cannot help 
but feel that this is a half measure and a missed opportunity to 
exhibit unified support on immediate steps to confront Putin's evil 
regime.
  Yesterday, Senators Wyden and Crapo introduced a much stronger bill, 
one that was negotiated over the weekend by Republicans and Democrats 
in both the House and the Senate. But rather than taking yes for an 
answer, the majority instead put forward a weaker bill, one that is 
watered down and leaves loopholes wide enough to drive a tanker 
through.
  Banning Russian oil imports in the wake of Vladimir Putin's invasion 
of Ukraine should be an obvious no-brainer, just like it ought to be a 
no-brainer for the President to reverse his misguided policies and 
unleash development of America's own energy sources. But instead of 
doing so, the Biden administration continues to discourage domestic oil 
and gas production and is asking every other oil producer in the world 
to make up the difference.
  Instead of encouraging our own domestic sources of energy, which 
could meet our needs, critically supply our allies, and strengthen 
American energy independence, President Biden instead is taking steps 
like unilaterally canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, imposing a ban on 
new oil and gas exploration and leasing on Federal lands, and telling 
hardworking Americans who are struggling to buy expensive gasoline to 
instead go buy more expensive electric vehicles.
  Failing to develop America's energy resources is a missed 
opportunity, Madam Speaker, just like this bill. We had a better 
option. I wish we had taken it.
  Our second item today is an omnibus appropriations package covering 
the remainder of the year 2022, and the third is a short-term 
continuing resolution to ensure continuity of government funding while 
Congress processes a larger bill.
  Madam Speaker, it has been a very, very long road to get to this 
point. But

[[Page H1383]]

today, the House will act on a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations 
package. As vice ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I am 
encouraged that we are finally nearing completion of this fundamental 
function of Congress to provide full-year funding for the government.
  We are here today in a time of great crisis. Two weeks ago, Russian 
President Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked and unjust war against 
Ukraine, its democratic neighbor to the west. Inflation has skyrocketed 
to a 40-year high, and due to the administration's reckless action, gas 
prices have continued to soar month after month after month.

                              {time}  0930

  Yet despite these crises, the Members of this body have worked 
together and have found common ground on today's legislation.
  As I have said many times, one of the most consequential duties of a 
Member of Congress is to fund the government and keep it open and 
operating. At a time of crisis, this is more important than ever.
  Last year, the Appropriations Committee passed all 12 appropriations 
bills out of committee and succeeded in passing nine of those bills 
across the floor before the August recess. Unfortunately, these bills 
were partisan and did not receive support from any Republican Members, 
with good reason.
  Today, we are 5 months into fiscal year 2022, and despite the long 
process, the path forward has always been clear. It was clear last 
July, just as it is clear today.
  In order to reach a final bipartisan, bicameral deal on 
appropriations for FY 2022, four conditions needed to be met. I am 
greatly pleased that this bill meets all four.
  The first is to ensure that the longstanding, bipartisan pro-life 
provisions historically included in the appropriations bills are 
restored. These include the Hyde amendment, which prevents Federal 
dollars from being used to pay for abortions, except in limited cases 
of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and the Weldon amendment, 
which protects American doctors, nurses, and other healthcare 
professionals from participating in and providing abortions if they 
have a moral objection.
  The inclusion of these and other broadly popular provisions was and 
is an absolute necessity for this bill to have any chance of becoming 
law. I am personally deeply grateful that they are included in this 
package.
  Second, partisan policy riders that were included in the bills that 
passed the House last summer needed to come out. These are provisions 
that both sides did not agree to and do not enjoy bipartisan consensus. 
At the end of the day, we needed to reach an agreement on these items 
to move forward. Fortunately, each of these provisions has been 
removed.
  Third, the level of defense spending absolutely needed to come up. 
Unfortunately, last year, President Biden proposed a budget that 
underfunded national defense, repeating the mistake of the Obama-Biden 
administration of chronically underfunding our national defense. But 
earlier this year, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, both controlled by Democrats, worked together 
in a bipartisan manner to authorize an increase in defense spending of 
$25 billion over the fiscal year.
  In today's bill, appropriators actually went beyond that, ensuring a 
robust increase in defense spending. This increase is necessary to 
ensure that our Armed Forces will have the funds needed to maintain our 
readiness and to procure the weapons and assets the warfighters of 
tomorrow will need to continue to succeed on the battlefield.
  This includes increases for defense assets based in my own home State 
of Oklahoma. If the present crisis in Ukraine shows us nothing else, it 
should show us the need to continue to adequately fund our national 
defense.
  Finally, the fourth condition that needed to be met was that the 
proposed levels of nondefense spending had to come down. In the initial 
set of bills that passed the House, my friends in the majority sought 
to include a 17 percent increase in nondefense spending. While that no 
doubt included many worthy items, Republicans generally felt that 17 
percent was excessive, particularly given the substantial needs on the 
defense side of the ledger.
  But the bill before us today increases nondefense spending by just 
6.7 percent, which will allow for increased investments in key areas 
while also ensuring that we will continue to be responsible stewards of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Of course, this 6.7 percent ensures that there will be significant 
and important investments in nondefense areas across the government. I 
am particularly pleased that the National Institutes of Health will 
receive a robust $2.25 billion increase, which will help advance 
medical science, help address future pandemics, and continue our 
progress toward defeating the scourge of cancer.
  We are also funding ARPA-H, one of the President's highest 
priorities, at $1 billion in its first year of operation. I am also 
encouraged that this bill provides significant increases for TRIO and 
GEAR UP, two programs that are close to my heart, that help first-
generation students go to college. These are just a few of the programs 
that I could point to that are worthy of increased funding and 
investment, and this bill has done that.
  The legislation before us today represents a negotiated compromise 
between the House and the Senate and obviously between Democrats and 
Republicans. Given that, it is a compromise. That means neither side 
got everything that they wanted. As I have often said, in a compromise, 
you have to give up more than you would like to get less than you want. 
Indeed, this is not the bill I would have written had I written it 
alone. But at the end of the day, it represents a good balance for 
Congress and for the Nation.
  Before I finish, I want to congratulate my friends and colleagues on 
the Appropriations Committee, particularly Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and 
Ranking Member Kay Granger, without whom we would not have gotten to 
where we are today.
  I also want to extend my huge thank you, as the chairman did, to the 
Appropriations Committee staff and to the Rules staff on both sides of 
the aisle. These staffers are truly unsung heroes who spent many long 
and sleepless nights over the preceding weeks, including this past 
weekend. We would not be here today without them.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just say that I have enormous respect for the gentleman from 
Oklahoma. There is this old adage that says you don't have to agree on 
everything to agree on something. Much of what he cited is something 
that I think we can all agree on: investments in medical research, 
support for the NIH, investments in trying to find ways to manage and 
cure cancer. All of those things are incredibly important, and I think 
they bring us together.

  Some of the things he said I disagree with. I believe it is a mistake 
to deny women their legal reproductive rights, and I think the defense 
budget is way too big. Spending more on something doesn't necessarily 
get you a better result. We need to spend more efficiently and more 
effectively. We have a military budget that is so bloated, that is so 
excessive, so filled with cost overruns, that even Dr. Strangelove 
would be impressed. We need to do better.
  Having said that, I am aware that we have to be able to deal on 
legislation within the reality that we live in. We have a 50/50 Senate; 
we have a majority here in the House, not as big as I would like. 
Hopefully, that changes in November. But the bottom line is, we have to 
work with what we have. I think that is what has occurred here.
  We continue to hear this claim that President Biden's climate 
policies are somehow to blame for the latest spike in gas prices. I 
think we need to just set the record straight here. Domestic energy 
production is up, it is rising, and it is approaching records. There 
are over 9,000 approved drilling permits the oil industry is not using. 
The truth is that changes in domestic energy policy often take years to 
impact global energy markets.
  Instead, what is happening here is oil companies are using Putin's 
war as an excuse to jack up prices at the pump even more. They argue 
for looser regulations, cheaper drilling, and more pollution.
  This is Putin's price hike. Quite frankly, at this time of global 
crisis, I

[[Page H1384]]

would like to appeal to the patriotism of Big Oil in this country to 
not make record profits their priority, to actually put the American 
people's interest and, in fact, the global interest first. Let's not 
fool ourselves that greed isn't at play here.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4 opinion article 
written by the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul 
Grijalva, entitled ``Oil and gas lobbyists are using Ukraine to push 
for a drilling free-for-all in the U.S.''

                   [From the Guardian, Mar. 4, 2022]

  Oil and Gas Lobbyists Are Using Ukraine To Push for a Drilling Free-
                           for-All in the US

                          (By Raul M Grijalva)

       Last week, we all watched in horror as Vladimir Putin 
     launched a deadly, catastrophic attack on Ukraine, violating 
     international treaties across the board. Most of us swiftly 
     condemned his actions and pledged support for the Ukrainian 
     people whose country, homes and lives are under attack.
       But the fossil-fuel industry had a different take. They saw 
     an opportunity--and a shameless one at that--to turn violence 
     and bloodshed into an oil and gas propaganda-generating 
     scheme. Within hours, industry-led talking points were oozing 
     into press releases, social media and opinion pieces, telling 
     us the key to ending this crisis is to immediately hand US 
     public lands and waters over to fossil-fuel companies and 
     quickly loosen the regulatory strings.
       Our top priority must be ending Putin's hostilities, but as 
     chair of the US House committee on natural resources, I feel 
     duty-bound to set the record straight. We can't let the 
     fossil-fuel industry scare us into a domestic drilling free-
     for-all that is neither economically warranted nor 
     environmentally sound.
       Despite industry's claims to the contrary, President Biden 
     has not hobbled US oil and gas development. In fact, much to 
     my deep disappointment and protest, this administration 
     actually approved more US drilling permits per month in 2021 
     than President Trump did during each of the first three years 
     of his presidency. Before the pandemic, oil and gas 
     production from public lands and waters reached an all-time 
     high, and the current administration has done little to 
     change that trajectory over the last 13 months.
       Fossil-fuel companies and their backers in Congress also 
     profess that more drilling on public lands and waters would 
     lower gas prices for Americans. But if that's true, why 
     hasn't record oil extraction from both federal and non-
     federal lands over the last decade done anything to 
     consistently lower, or at least stabilize, prices at the 
     pump?
       The fact is that crude oil is a volatile global commodity. 
     Worldwide supply, demand, and unpredictable events--like 
     wars--influence the price of gas, not the current 
     administration's decision to approve a few new leases or 
     permits.
       Even if we take industry's claims at face value, nothing is 
     keeping fossil-fuel companies from more drilling on public 
     lands right now. The oil industry already controls at least 
     26m acres of public land and is sitting on more than 9,000 
     approved drilling permits they're not using.
       They have a similarly gratuitous surplus offshore, where 
     nearly 75% of their active federal oil and gas leases, 
     covering over 8m acres, have yet to produce a single drop. 
     Any new leases issued today wouldn't produce anything of 
     value for years, or even decades in some cases.
       If industry did start to ramp up production from federal 
     leases, the overall increase to the total US supply would 
     likely be marginal. In 2020, public lands and waters only 
     accounted for 22% and 11% of oil and gas production, 
     respectively. The vast majority of oil and gas resources are 
     beneath state and private lands--not public lands or federal 
     waters.
       With the facts laid bare, we see the fossil-fuel industry's 
     crocodile tears for what they are--the same old demands for 
     cheaper leases and looser regulations they've been peddling 
     for decades. These pleas have nothing to do with countering 
     Putin's invasion or stabilizing gas prices, and everything to 
     do with making oil and gas development as easy and profitable 
     as possible.
       The US is the world's top oil and gas producer. Doubling 
     down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only 
     perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place.
       And quite frankly, we can't afford to maintain the status 
     quo. In its newest report the Intergovernmental Panel on 
     Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most dire warning yet on the 
     rapidly accelerating climate crisis. If we fail to enact 
     major mitigation efforts, like curbing fossil-fuel 
     development, both quickly and substantially, we will ``miss a 
     brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a 
     livable and sustainable future for all''.
       Fortunately, there is a path forward that simultaneously 
     cuts the lifeline to fossil-fuel despots like Putin, 
     stabilizes energy prices here at home, and creates a safer, 
     more sustainable planet. We must wean ourselves off our oil 
     and gas dependence and make transformational investments in 
     cleaner renewable energy technologies, like those in the 
     Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Build Back Better Act and 
     the Competes Act, and we must do it now.
       The fossil-fuel industry has had hold of the microphone for 
     far too long. It's time we let the facts speak for 
     themselves.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and let me add my appreciation to Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and 
Ranking Member Granger and admit that the world now sees this every day 
in American newspapers and around the world: the pillage, the 
desperation, the violence, and the death of women and children in 
Ukraine, the worst humanitarian crisis that we have seen in a century 
and the absolute outrage of the killing machine that Putin is and the 
terroristic acts. He is a war criminal.
  I rise today to support H.R. 6968 and to thank my friend from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett) for joining us together to be able to move forward on 
language that works to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of 
Ukraine by denying its preferential trade treatment and seeking to 
remove it from the World Trade Organization.
  This legislation bans Russian energy imports and suspends 
preferential trade treatment with Belarus. I was at the border of 
Belarus as it was hosting 30,000 to 40,000 Russian troops and its 
reckless attitude of incarcerating and detaining its own political 
opposition. The head of Belarus is no better.
  The President receives the ability to further increase tariffs on 
Russian or Belarusian goods. Congress is empowered to disapprove any 
Presidential decision to restore normal trade relations or to remove 
the import ban.
  It further closes yet another avenue for Russian participation in the 
world economy by revoking most-favored-nation status dealing with 
exports as well as its participation in world trade and denying Belarus 
membership.
  Further, with this ban on Russian energy imports, Americans will no 
longer be contributing to Putin's most violent actions. He is a war 
criminal. He is killing children.
  Let me also rise in support of H.R. 2471. I call it working Americans 
response act. It is an appropriation that deals with healthcare and 
education. It deals with climate change, and it also deals with 
responding to the needs of the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it additionally responds to the 
potential of those that are facing domestic violence and sexual assault 
with the Violence Against Women Act that I led and had passed in this 
House just a few months ago.
  So let me say that this is a job well done to all of those who have 
been working but let us do this in a bipartisan manner.
  The people of Ukraine cry out in pain. Russia is now brought to its 
knees. Let's make sure that Vladimir Putin never stands on the world 
stage again.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
just quickly respond to my friend's comment about the energy industry.
  I am from an energy district. I am from an energy State. My 
constituents and their forebearers have produced more energy than they 
have consumed for over a hundred years, and they have shared it all 
over the world, but particularly across this country.
  Thank God for them because, quite frankly, what Americans would be 
paying at the pump now would be astronomical were it not for them. 
Since 2005, American oil production has doubled, and that is due to 
their ingenuity. Frankly, we pay almost the lowest energy prices in the 
world.
  I am sorry, but to put all of these energy price increases off on 
Vladimir Putin--he is certainly responsible for those this week, but 
the reality is, for the entire Biden Presidency, energy prices have 
been going up. That is because the President, on his very first day, 
effectively declared war on the fossil fuel industry. He canceled the 
Keystone Pipeline. He changed the leasing and drilling rules on Federal 
lands. The hostility has simply been overwhelming.
  Now, where does that put us? The United States is going to Iran to 
ask them to increase energy production, the largest sponsor of state 
tyranny.

[[Page H1385]]

  We are sending representatives to Venezuela. Why don't we just call 
people in Houston and Oklahoma City and Cheyenne? We have got lots of 
places that know how to produce energy and have been doing it cheaply, 
efficiently, fairly, and cleanly for decades.
  The reality is, let's not attack them. They are our salvation in a 
time of trial, and they are our national security moving forward. I 
feel very strongly about that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), my good friend and distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I also am from an energy State, and I 
want to associate myself with the remarks of Ranking Member Cole as far 
as the energy industry is concerned. Quite correct, the hostility of 
the Biden administration to American energy was front and center from 
day one when the President took the oath of office, and it is only the 
last 6 weeks that we have seen the hostility from Putin and Russia, but 
the seeds were set for record high energy prices because of the 
activities of the Biden administration and the Democratic leadership in 
this Congress, quite frankly.
  But I am here today to speak about the spending bill that is in front 
of us. Halfway through the fiscal year, we finally have the 
appropriations bills for the spending for this year, and I am grateful 
to see a copy on the Speaker's desk. That is the only copy that I have 
seen. Certainly, we didn't have a copy last night in the Rules 
Committee.
  I am gratified to know that there actually does exist a copy of this 
spending bill; but, once again, no Member of the people's House has 
really had the opportunity to look at and weigh in on, no ability to 
amend last night in the Rules Committee, no ability to really affect 
this massive spending bill that is in front of us.
  I planned to offer several amendments to improve this bill. The 
public health mandates are easing around the country, but the 
Department of Transportation still requires patrons to wear masks on 
public transportation, on airlines. This could and should be rescinded, 
and this was an opportunity to do just that.
  As Mr. Cole mentioned, we are experiencing some of the highest gas 
prices in over a decade, maybe even in this generation, and no funds in 
this bill should be expended to restrict the operation or development 
of oil and gas pipelines to get that vitally needed energy out of 
places like the Permian Basin to population centers--Dallas, Houston, 
Oklahoma City--where they can be consumed or where they can be 
liquefied and exported to other countries.
  Federal agencies are behind, veterans' services are severely 
backlogged. I would have loved to have submitted an amendment to 
appropriate some additional dollars, $2 billion, to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs so that they could relieve this backlog for our 
veterans. And, in fact, the budget neutrality requirements in the 
Medicare physician fee schedule could have been waived, and we could 
have done so with the excess funds in the Provider Relief Fund and 
given our frontline health personnel a little bit of a break from the 
fact that they have been on the front lines battling the coronavirus 
for 2 years, and what do they get for that effort? A pay cut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office did 
provide to the Budget Committee, of which I am also a member, a list of 
the top 20 agencies that are overfunded with funds that have been 
appropriated over the last 2 years. The totality of those 20 accounts 
is $340 billion. There were moneys available. A lot of things that are 
in this bill could have been offset if we had simply taken the time to 
do it. I will say, since I am a member of the authorizing committee, 
going forward our authorizing committees have to do their work. They 
have to do the study because we can't expect it to all happen at the 
Appropriations Committee at the eleventh hour.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important that people be able to see 
where those moneys exist. The results of the study, which was compiled 
by the Congressional Budget Office, are contained on a spreadsheet and 
can be found at: https://burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/COB-
UnspentCOVID.pdf.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to correct the record on one thing. The gentleman said he 
didn't get a copy of the text of what we are considering here today. It 
was put into his Dropbox, and he could have downloaded it. It was 
emailed to his staff. It was posted online. Yeah, we didn't print off a 
3,000-page bill because I believe in saving trees. But it was 
available, and I just want to point that out for the record. I will 
also just say--and again with great respect for my two colleagues on 
the Rules Committee--I don't share their enthusiasm about big oil 
companies. I just don't. They are making all-time-high record profits 
while Americans are paying more at the gas pump.
  I will remind my friends that when Donald Trump was President, we had 
unemployment at about 14.9 percent, which was terrible. It is now down 
to 3.8 percent, which is driving up demand. Nobody is questioning the 
fact that there is a supply-and-demand problem here. But we also ought 
to understand that part of these price hikes, in addition to the Putin 
price hike, is the oil company price hike, and as we try to figure out 
how to alleviate the burden on the American people, which we are trying 
to do, we also have to figure out how we do it in a way where any 
savings or any tax incentives that we might provide are actually passed 
on to the consumer because the oil industry in this country, the big 
oil companies, have a history of price gouging, and the fact that they 
are doing it now I think is unconscionable.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
will refrain from correcting my friend again and just send him 
something to read.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from 
Russia Act for immediate consideration.
  Two weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin shocked the world by 
launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In doing so, Mr. Putin 
revealed his true self, and that is a bully, a thug, a tyrant bent on 
subverting his democratic neighbor to the west. In challenging not only 
Ukraine, but also the rest of the civilized world, Mr. Putin's powerful 
weapon is not his army, potent though that may be, but the dependence 
of much of the rest of the world on Russian oil and gas. Already he has 
begun to put the squeeze on democratic states seeking to challenge his 
invasion of Ukraine by threatening to cut off their supplies of energy.

  The American Energy Independence from Russia Act would address the 
challenge and would reposition the United States to be energy self-
sufficient. It would immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline, 
would restart oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and waters, and 
would expand liquid natural gas exports at the moment Europe needs the 
most. In doing so, it would ensure that America remains energy 
independent and can act to address Russian aggression without risking 
economic damage.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my good friend and a distinguished member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, to further explain our amendment.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question 
so we can immediately consider the American Energy Independence from 
Russia Act, led by my friend and the Republican leader of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

[[Page H1386]]

  This week our President, our American President, asked Venezuela and 
Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, asked them to boost their 
output so that American consumers wouldn't see a spike in gas prices.
  It seems like a noble cause at first glance, but I couldn't help to 
think to myself what a strange thing to ask because surely he knows 
that we can also boost domestic production right here at home. Surely 
he knows that domestic production supports American jobs, and surely he 
knows that domestic production is cleaner, by far, than foreign 
production; far better for the environment than Venezuelan oil unless 
that Socialist dictator suddenly became a devout green energy disciple 
without any of us knowing it.
  Surely President Biden knows that energy demand doesn't just 
disappear because you tell middle-class Americans to go buy a Tesla. 
Surely he knows all of this, right? The answer is, of course, yes, he 
does know that, and the entire Democratic Party knows this. It is 
impossible not to know these things because these things are called 
hard facts. They are indisputable. Those facts are simple and worth 
repeating.
  Number 1: The world will demand at least 50 percent more energy in 
the next 50 years. That is a fact.
  Number 2: The energy demanded will be reliable energy; electricity 
that turns on when you want it, heat that keeps you alive in the 
winter, and air conditioning that keeps you cool in the summer.
  Fact number 3: Solar and wind cannot and will not ever provide this 
reliable energy, no matter how often you worship and pray to the 
deities of wind turbines and solar panels; proudly made, of course, by 
the Communist genocidal country of China.
  Fact number 4: American production of oil and gas is far cleaner than 
any other country, except maybe Canada.
  These are indisputable facts. So where does that leave us? For anyone 
wise in the ways of common sense, it leads to one conclusion. It is in 
the American interest to pursue absolute American energy dominance. If 
you don't believe me, let's outline the alternative. Let's imagine we 
go the way of Germany and invest half a trillion dollars in building 
out unreliable wind and solar production, only to watch our energy 
prices rise faster than anywhere else and yet still be forced to turn 
on coal plants and import Russian gas because your green energy just 
doesn't work the way you wanted it to.
  The rest of Europe wasn't all that different. They increased their 
reliance on Russian gas from 10 percent to over 40 percent now, and I 
cannot help but notice that the Democratic Party seems intent on 
pursuing this very path, canceling leases and pipelines, increasing 
regulations, chastising our industry. If no one else here noticed, 
someone in Russia certainly did.
  Fast forward to 2022, and Putin, with his newfound leverage over 
European energy supply, realizes it may just be the right time to 
exercise his imperialistic ambitions and retake the old Soviet 
territory of Ukraine, leaving thousands of innocents dead and a Western 
world order completely upended.
  We are all left thinking the same thought, wouldn't it be better if 
it was America supplying Europe its energy? Wouldn't it be better if 
Europe wasn't held hostage to the whims of a dictator? Wouldn't it 
be better if we didn't have to wonder where the extra oil would come 
from after we rightfully ban Russian imports?

  Most of us are thinking that, of course. Unfortunately, those in the 
majority, those in power are not. I pray that you start.
  We should defeat the previous question, pass the American Energy 
Independence from Russia Act and pursue true American energy dominance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Give me a break. I hope my friends know better, and I hope they know 
what drives the price of oil. They talk as if there is just one little 
switch you can turn on. I hear them talking, just bring the Keystone 
pipeline back online. By the way, it was never built, and it was years 
away from bringing any oil to the United States--foreign oil, by the 
way; Canada is another country. Even if it were built, we are told it 
may lower prices by maybe one cent a gallon and lock us into the same 
dependence on fossil fuels that got us into this mess to begin with.
  We have been arguing for years with my friends to make the transition 
away from fossil fuels to greener, cleaner energy so every time there 
is a world crisis we are not having this discussion, but instead they 
continue to be in the pockets of the oil companies. Follow the money. 
Follow the money. Look where the oil companies are putting their money.
  By the way, when they say we should do more drilling, the oil 
companies now have been provided 9,000 new drilling permits on public 
lands. Much to my disappointment, the Biden administration is actually 
outpacing even the Trump administration in approving new drilling 
permits on public lands and water. So give me a break.
  Here is the reality, and let me spell it out for my friends; and I 
think they know better, but again it is politics as usual: Oil is a 
global commodity. Prices rise when supply chains are disrupted or 
demand is interrupted, like we saw during COVID. Prices rise when oil-
producing countries launch destabilizing invasions; and, yes, when oil 
companies think they can use either of these as an excuse to jack up 
the prices, they do.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4 article from 
Newsweek entitled, ``'Little Evidence' Keystone Pipeline Would Level 
Prices Despite GOP Claims.''

                     [From Newsweek, Mar. 4, 2022]

  `Little Evidence' Keystone Pipeline Would Level Prices Despite GOP 
                                 Claims

                         (By Alexandra Hutzler)

       Republicans are hitting President Joe Biden over his 
     decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline as gas prices 
     rise across the country in the wake of Russia's invasion of 
     Ukraine.
       Former Vice President Mike Pence said last week ``gas 
     prices have risen across the country because of this 
     Administration's war on energy--shutting down the Keystone 
     Pipeline, shutting down oil and gas leases in this country--
     while they were incomprehensibly green-lighting the Nord 
     Stream 2 deal for the Russians.''
       Senator Tim Scott told Fox News on Wednesday canceling the 
     pipeline was ``catastrophic'' and that ``the prices we're 
     seeing today are reflective of his decisions a year ago, not 
     reflective of the conflict that started days ago.''
       But James Glynn, a senior research scholar at Columbia 
     University's Center on Global Energy Policy, said the 
     Keystone pipeline--even if operational--likely wouldn't have 
     had an impact on the global energy markets.
       ``There is little evidence to back up the argument that 
     Keystone XL would have averted some of this price spike,'' 
     Glynn told Newsweek. ``The Keystone pipeline capacity is less 
     than one-tenth of Russian oil exports.''
       ``Even if Keystone XL was filled with fully additional 
     Canadian export capacity, which would have been an unlikely 
     scenario, it would not balance the global oil markets where 
     the price of oil is set through a global arbitrage of the 
     last marginal available barrel,'' Glynn continued.
       The current national average for a gallon of gasoline is 
     $3.837, according to the American Automobile Association 
     (AAA). That's an increase of over 20 cents from the national 
     average reported the week before.
       The White House has also emphasized that the Keystone 
     Pipeline was never running, and was less than 10 percent 
     completed when the project was shut down, amid criticism from 
     the Republican Party.
       ``The Keystone Pipeline has never been operational,'' press 
     secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday ``It would 
     take years to have any impact. I know a number of members of 
     Congress have suggested that, but that is a proposed solution 
     that has no relationship or would have no impact on what the 
     problem is we, here, all agree is an issue.''
       The pipeline project would have expanded an existing 
     conduit for transporting tar-sands oil from Canada through 
     the U.S. to the Gulf Coast. After years of legal challenges 
     and environmental activism to shut the project down, the 
     company behind it officially halted construction in June 2021 
     after Biden revoked a key permit.
       ``The Keystone pipeline is not a viable solution because 
     you can't build a pipeline in an hour, right?'' David Sacco, 
     a practitioner in residence in the finance program at the 
     University of New Haven, told Newsweek. ``The company that 
     was building it shut it down a year ago. So that's not 
     viable. But I think the argument that our energy policies 
     have been a pretty significant contribution to this [crisis] 
     are certainly valid from an economic standpoint.''
       Sacco said there's an argument to be made that the U.S. and 
     other nations purchasing oil from Russia has ``allowed their 
     economy to strengthen, has allowed Putin to basically fund 
     his military and expansion policies.''
       In addition to rising prices, Republicans have hit the 
     Biden administration for energy policies they say make the 
     U.S. more dependent on foreign oil.

[[Page H1387]]

       ``Biden has given up the best defense we had against 
     Putin's evil vision for the world--energy independence,'' 
     Senator Marsha Blackburn said in a statement this week. ``We 
     need to make America energy independent again. It's time to 
     divest from Russian energy and stop funding Putin's war, and 
     reauthorize the Keystone Pipeline.''
       One energy proposal that has received bipartisan support on 
     Capitol Hill is to ban Russian oil imports. House Speaker 
     Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she was ``all for'' the proposal.
       While Biden has said ``nothing is off the table,'' the 
     administration has so far resisted slapping Moscow's energy 
     sector with sanctions because it could further drive up 
     prices at the gas pumps.
       Sacco said he believed gas prices could go up to $5 per 
     gallon as the Russia-Ukraine crisis unfolds.
       Biden has said it's a priority for his team to ease the 
     financial burden on Americans as prices rise. The 
     administration just announced it is coordinating with other 
     nations to release 60 million barrels of oil in global 
     reserves, half of which would come from the U.S. Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve.
       ``The American people understand that defending democracy 
     and liberty is never without cost,'' Biden said last month 
     while speaking on the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I also urge all my colleagues to do a 
little research and look at the profits of Big Oil in this country. 
Look at what they are making. While Americans are paying more at the 
pump, their executives are making more and more and more. You can 
defend Big Oil if you want. And I get it, maybe there is some benefit 
politically to doing that. Again, follow the money. But I have to tell 
you, I think people are sick of this. We have seen this movie before.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. DOGGETT. This rule makes proper for our consideration legislation 
that I have offered to respond to the brutal aggression of Vladimir 
Putin destroying, hour by hour, Ukraine, and its people, with death and 
destruction.
  I am pleased to hear from the gentleman from Oklahoma that he 
supports this legislation because it will be stronger if we are united 
in sending this message.
  Like so many Americans, I have watched the horrors in Ukraine. I have 
seen the people standing with their blue and yellow Ukraine banners and 
flags on the steps of the State capitol in Austin day after day, rain 
and shine, to express their concern.
  And like them, and like so many of us of all political persuasions, 
we wonder what we can do to prevent what is happening that we see 
played out, in real time, on our televisions?
  Well, in my case, it has been advocating that we get all of the 
weapons that Ukrainians need to defend themselves to them yesterday. 
Immediately.
  But to recognize that to put a squeeze on the Russian empire, we 
should respond with the most effective sanctions that we can. One of 
those sanctions arising out of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee is 
the ability to respond with reference to the World Trade Organization 
and Russia.
  The week before last, I introduced with Mr. Blumenauer, the chairman 
of that subcommittee, legislation concerning the trade status of the 
Russian Federation.
  The legislation that I introduced yesterday that this rule puts into 
effect is different from that, and I will discuss that in the course of 
our consideration of the bill.
  But it continues to urge the expelling of Russia from the World Trade 
Organization, which I think we should do to attempt to isolate as 
completely as we can Russia from any benefits from the world economy.
  To see now one American-owned company closing down hundreds of its 
locations throughout Russia, one American company, including some of 
the big oil companies withdrawing from the Russian Federation, they are 
acting in a way that supports what we need to do--put Russia in an 
economic vise.
  I believe that there is much more that we need to accomplish but that 
we respond today on the number one issue on the world agenda, and that 
is what is happening in Ukraine and what we can do to prevent it.
  Now, I understand some people continue to have their own ideological 
agenda to defend and ignore the climate crisis, deny climate science, 
and promote more and more fossil fuels.
  They choose the Keystone pipeline, which is exactly 8 percent 
completed. It uses the dirtiest form of oil in the tar sands.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. From the cold tar sands of Canada, completing the 
Keystone pipeline will not save one Ukrainian life nor will the 
adoption of the rest of their agenda.
  Let me just say, I have only one agenda in this matter, and that is 
to respond to the aggression and do all we can to try to stop the 
brutal attacks unprovoked on the Ukrainian people.
  I am very pleased that this legislation that I introduced yesterday 
incorporates the good work of Chairman McGovern on the Global Magnitsky 
Act.
  That is legislation that fits so well with what I have been urging 
about Russia because it combats human rights abuses there and all over 
the world.
  He has strengthened the provisions of the Global Magnitsky Act, which 
would have expired at the end of this year. By incorporating it, it 
fits well with our agenda to respond to Russian aggression and human 
rights abuses that are going on as people are being murdered as we 
speak today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, to further discuss the need for America to 
be energy independent, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and my good friend.
  Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
previous question so this Democrat-controlled House can finally do the 
right thing: pass the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.
  This morning, Americans are seeing even higher gas prices on their 
way to work than they saw on last night's commute home. Sadly, tonight, 
tomorrow morning, next week, and next month, they are going to see the 
same episode play out on those commutes to and from work over and over 
again.
  With the cost of living and inflation over the last year spiraling 
out of control, the last thing American families need is $7 to $8 a 
gallon gasoline.
  Due to the policies of President Biden, we are more reliant on Putin 
and Russian energy than in recent history.
  I agree that we must immediately halt the import of Russian oil and 
LNG. However, it is a false narrative pushed by President Biden that it 
should be an unavoidable hit to Americans' pocketbooks. This was 
avoidable, and it didn't have to be this way.

  Since Biden's first day in office, he has forced executive orders and 
supported policies that have made us more dependent on Russian energy. 
These policy choices are directly to blame for the increased pain at 
the pump that middle-class Americans are feeling.
  Take, for example, the opening line of an AP article 2 weeks ago: 
``The Biden administration is delaying decisions on new oil and gas 
drilling on Federal land.''
  Sure, some of these leases are not utilized, but that is because they 
are tied up in litigation from far left anti-jobs groups or because 
they are awaiting delayed approvals from the Biden administration.
  So, instead of approving rights-of-way, following the science, and 
putting our oil and gas developers to work, Joe Biden is making 
American families suffer.
  On behalf of the American people, the Ukrainian people, and just 
basic common sense----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman from Minnesota an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. STAUBER.--I joined my colleagues Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Bruce 
Westerman in offering an American energy solution.
  While Biden's solution is to buy oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, 
our solution is to put blue-collar workers, American workers, to work 
here at home and develop our God-given natural resources.
  We have the ability to bring costs down by unleashing the economic 
engine of American energy production.

[[Page H1388]]

We can do that by defeating this previous question and passing the 
American Energy Independence from Russia Act.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are all trying to figure out a way to alleviate the burden of 
energy costs on consumers. I mean, it is brutal for a lot of families 
in this country.
  Listening to some of the speeches here, I kind of feel like we should 
have an amendment that would require Members of Congress to take a 
basic course in economics to understand how supply and demand works.
  Again, the oil companies have 9,000 leases that they are not 
utilizing as we speak.
  I include in the Record an article titled ``Exclusive: Oil companies' 
profits soared to $174 billion this year as U.S. gas prices rose.''

                   [From the Guardian, Dec. 6, 2021]

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

                           (By Oliver Milman)

       The largest oil and gas companies made a combined $174bn in 
     profits in the first nine months of the year as gasoline 
     prices climbed in the US, according to a new report.
       The bumper profit totals, provided exclusively to the 
     Guardian, show that in the third quarter of 2021 alone, 24 
     top oil and gas companies made more than $74bn in net income. 
     From January to September, the net income of the group, which 
     includes Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP, was $174bn.
       Exxon alone posted a net income of $6.75bn in the third 
     quarter, its highest profit since 2017, and has seen its 
     revenue jump by 60% on the same period last year. The company 
     credited the rising cost of oil for bolstering these profits, 
     as did BP, which made $3.3bn in third-quarter profit. 
     ``Rising commodity prices certainly helped,'' Bernard Looney, 
     chief executive of BP, told investors at the latest earnings 
     report.
       Gasoline prices have hit a seven-year high in the US due to 
     the rising cost of oil, with Americans now paying about $3.40 
     for a gallon of fuel compared with around $2.10 a year ago.
       The Biden administration has warned the price hikes are 
     hurting low-income people, even as it attempts to implement a 
     climate agenda that would see America move away from fossil 
     fuels, and has released 50m barrels of oil from the national 
     strategic reserve to help dampen costs.
       But oil and gas companies have shown little willingness so 
     far to ramp up production to help reduce costs and the new 
     report, by the government watchdog group Accountable.US, 
     accuses them of ``taking advantage of bloated prices, 
     fleecing American families along the way'' amid ongoing 
     fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic.
       ``Americans looking for someone to blame for the pain they 
     experience at the pump need look no further than the wealthy 
     oil and gas company executives who choose to line their own 
     pockets rather than lower gas prices with the billions of 
     dollars in profit big oil rakes in month after month,'' said 
     Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US.
       The analysis of major oil companies' financials shows that 
     11 of the group gave payouts to shareholders worth more than 
     $36.5bn collectively this year, while a dozen bought back 
     $8bn-worth of stock. This apparent focus, rather than on 
     further drilling, has caused some frustration within the 
     federal government, with Jennifer Granholm, the US energy 
     secretary, stating that ``the oil and gas companies are not 
     flipping the switch as quickly as the demand requires.''
       A glut of new oil drilling has made the US awash with oil 
     in recent years, turning the country into a top-level 
     exporter as well as domestic supplier, but this has kept 
     prices low to the displeasure of investors.
       ``A lot of this has been driven by investor sentiment,'' 
     said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC 
     Capital Markets, of the current reluctance to expand 
     production. ``They don't want them to spoil the party.''
       The situation has left the White House in an awkward 
     position with its commitments to rapidly reduce planet-
     heating emissions, with environmentalists furious at 
     administration attempts to expand drilling and fossil fuel 
     companies also unhappy over some of its earlier climate-
     related moves, such as shutting down the controversial 
     Keystone XL pipeline.
       The oil and gas industry has fought Joe Biden's attempts to 
     pause new drilling permits on federal land, despite its 
     unwillingness to expand operations in order to reap the 
     returns of costlier oil and the fact the industry currently 
     sits on 14m acres of already leased land that isn't being 
     used, an area about double the size of Massachusetts.
       ``It's not the government that is banning them from 
     drilling more,'' Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond 
     James, told CNN. ``It's pressure from their shareholders.''
       Aside from its role in the current high gasoline prices, 
     the oil and gas industry is a leading driver of the climate 
     crisis, the reality of which it sought to conceal from the 
     public for decades. and is a key instigator of the air 
     pollution that kills nearly 9 million a year, a death toll 
     three times that of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
       The American Petroleum Institute, a leading industry lobby 
     group, pointed to a blog that blamed the Biden administration 
     for policies that ``significantly weaken the incentives to 
     invest in America's energy future'' but did not answer 
     questions on production rates of oil companies.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I love the fact that we can't even get 
anybody to express the slightest bit of outrage over the fact that oil 
companies are gouging us, making record profits, while Americans are 
paying more at the gas pump.
  I mean, I get it. They are very supportive of some on the other side, 
but, I mean, give me a break. I think the American people understand 
this.
  We need to figure out a way to lower gas prices to alleviate the 
burden on working families here. But to get up and defend oil companies 
and oil company executives and put forward bills and ideas that are oil 
companies' wish lists when they have 9,000 leases right now that they 
are not utilizing--and why? Because they are making record profits.
  I would also say to my colleagues that the underlying bill that we 
are dealing with here today contains a lot of good stuff. The gentleman 
from Oklahoma alluded to it in his opening remarks about the incredible 
investments in medical research.
  I was at the White House, as was the gentleman from Oklahoma, when 
President Biden announced the relaunch of his Cancer Moonshot program. 
I mean, the issue when it comes to curing cancer is not whether we can. 
The issue is when we will do it. That depends on investments. That 
depends on supporting innovation and medical research. This bill does 
that. That is a good thing. It should bring us all together.
  As we have talked about, we are going to deal with a bill to help 
Ukraine, especially with humanitarian assistance, given the refugee 
crisis. We are going to strengthen the Global Magnitsky law so that we 
have stronger human rights language, which some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, unfortunately, have opposed.
  I am reading in The New York Times today an article, ``Republicans, 
Once Harsh Ukraine Critics, Pivot to Strong Support.'' I am glad about 
that. I am hoping that the people who called Ukraine the most corrupt 
country in the world under the previous administration will now at 
least vote to support that country as they are under attack by Vladimir 
Putin.
  Anyway, there is some really good stuff in this bill, and I am 
looking forward to getting to the debate on this.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just to remind my friend, it was the last administration that 
actually began lethal aid to Ukraine. The Obama administration did not. 
The record there is pretty clear as to who has helped the Ukrainians.
  Madam Speaker, to further discuss the need to get America out from 
under the thumb of Russia, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my 
good friend.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous 
question so we can immediately pass the American Energy Independence 
from Russia Act. I would like to thank Ranking Member Cathy McMorris 
Rodgers for her leadership on this.
  Really, the question is simple. I think we are missing the point. The 
question here is: Is the President of the United States going to pick 
America, or is he going to pick our enemies? That is the debate here.
  Step one was great, and I am glad that we are going to support 
Ukraine. I was there 5 weeks ago; we need to support Ukraine.
  Step two is we need the President to support America. Energy security 
is national security, Mr. President. It is time to put Midland over 
Moscow.
  Unfortunately, that security has been under assault for decades but 
most recently beginning on January 20, 2021. The administration is 
leading the assault on energy. The reality is that American energy is 
the cleanest in the world, but the President and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge that fact and unleash it.

[[Page H1389]]

  Instead, they are choosing, the President is choosing, our 
adversaries, terrorists, and begging them to produce more when we can 
do it right here.
  Instead of calling on the 10 million Americans who do it every single 
day, we are outsourcing production to adversaries like Russia, Iran, 
Venezuela, and they are harming our environment even more.
  The war on Ukraine is horrifying, and it is heartbreaking. When I sat 
with President Zelensky, he said that the impetus to invade his country 
came from the fact that Nord Stream existed.
  Our President green-lighted Nord Stream but canceled the Keystone 
pipeline. Right now, today, there are six LNG terminals that the 
President, with the stroke of a pen, could approve.
  Are we going to pick the United States of America, or are we going to 
pick our adversaries?

  The United States should not be energy dependent. We should be energy 
dominant. Put Midland over Moscow. Unleash American LNG. Restart oil 
and gas leasing on Federal lands, and protect our own country. Pick our 
country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman asked a question: Are we 
going to pick America or our adversaries? Interesting question. My 
friends on the other side have spent all of their time criticizing 
President Biden and very little mention of Putin. I think that says it 
all.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for further explanation of our energy 
independence bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma 
(Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and fellow Oklahoman.
  Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Cole for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to the previous question so that we can 
immediately consider H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from 
Russia Act.
  Gas prices are at a record high, and unfortunately, they will 
continue to rise.
  While the Russian invasion of Ukraine has worsened the crisis, it is 
not the sole cause. The root cause of high energy and gas prices is due 
to the anti-energy policies of the Biden administration, which 
suspended all oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, slow-walked 
liquefied natural gas exports, and halted construction of the Keystone 
XL pipeline while green-lighting Russia's Nord Stream 2.
  These steps allowed Putin to corner the energy market and fund his 
invasion of Ukraine. American dollars can no longer go to countries 
whose interests run counter to America.

                              {time}  1015

  America produces some of the cleanest oil and gas in the world. If my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to lower emissions and 
promote clean energy, they would rely on American oil and gas 
production in States like my home State of Oklahoma, not foreign 
countries like Russia, Venezuela, and even Iran.
  Oklahomans are tired of inaction from Washington. They expect 
solutions. We cannot continue to tap into the strategic petroleum 
reserve, which is at some of the lowest levels since 2003. In addition, 
releasing 30 million barrels is only enough to meet our Nation's energy 
requirements for about a day.
  Sadly, this week House Democrats are not bringing forward a single 
piece of legislation to address the energy crisis.
  Under the Trump administration, America was energy independent and a 
net total energy exporter for the first time since 1952.
  Madam Speaker, energy security is national security. Sadly, under 
this administration, we have neither.
  Congress must act immediately to take up the American Energy 
Independence From Russia Act.
  This legislation would promote America's oil and natural gas 
production and unleash American energy independence once again.

                          ____________________