Andy Barr

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kentucky Eagle, Inc., which is located in Lexington, Kentucky. The company celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2023. Kentucky Eagle, an alcoholic beverage wholesaler, was founded in 1948 by O.A. Bakhaus. Mr. Bakhaus moved from Oklahoma to Kentucky during the Great Depression in 1937 to support his mother and sister. After serving his country as a Major in World War II, he continued his business career back home in Lexington with numerous different businesses, one being what is today Kentucky Eagle. In 1997, Mr. Bakhaus' daughter, Ann Bakhaus, became the company's second CEO. She ran the company as a family business and diversified its products. Under her leadership, the company experienced growth and success. Seventy-five years after its founding, Kentucky Eagle has grown into a leading beverage distributor in the state, delivering beer, soda (Kentucky's own Ale-8-One among others) and water to 23 counties in central Kentucky as well as fine Kentucky Bourbons and other wines and spirits to all counties statewide where alcohol sales are legal. Today, Kentucky Eagle employs over 250 hard-working Kentuckians and is very close to completing an 80,000-square-foot warehouse expansion. The team is led by Mr. Bakhaus' grandchildren, who proudly represent the company as 3rd generation owners and plan on at least 75 more years of business in the Commonwealth. Tate Russell serves as President and Michael Russell is a Vice President of Kentucky Eagle. Kentucky Eagle is a highly respected Kentucky business. As the company celebrates its 75th anniversary, I congratulate the owners and all the employees and wish them a bright future. I am honored to recognize this company before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a unique business, Sharp's Candies, which is located in Lexington, Kentucky. The business celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2023. Bob and Becky Sharp opened Sharp's Candies on Harrodsburg Road in 1973. The business grew, and in 1991 they moved to their present location on Regency Road. Their son Rob and his wife Lisa took over the business in 1991. A uniquely decorated gingerbread house, featuring brown stucco, painted lollipops, and a giant candy cane, is home to Sharp's Candies. The kitchen, where all their candy is freshly made, is found right behind the showroom. All their candy is made by hand, using family recipes and methods learned from their parents. Rob and Lisa take great pride in producing high quality homemade candy and in providing personal service to their loyal customers. Running a successful small business is increasingly challenging. Rob and Lisa Sharp are to be commended for the success of their business over 50 years. As Sharp's Candies celebrates its 50th anniversary, I congratulate them and wish them a bright future. I am honored to recognize this company before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a special man, Glenn Spencer. He was born in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky on August 21, 1945. He passed away on December 8, 2023, at his home in the Peeled Oak community of Bath County, Kentucky. Mr. Spencer graduated from Bath County High School and from Lexington Barber College. For 58 years, he worked as a barber. In addition to haircuts, he provided his customers with a listening ear and with friendship. Mr. Spencer also worked the land, growing trees, pumpkins, hay, and vegetables with his brother-in-law Joe Karrick. Their business, Big Oak Nursery, provided trees all across Central Kentucky. Mr. Spencer was a friend to many in his community, always ready to lend a helping hand and assist friends, family, neighbors, and strangers as needs arose. He was an active member and elder in his church, Kendall Springs Church of Christ. He taught classes there for young children for many years. He was married to his high school sweetheart, Bonnie, for 58 years. They have two daughters, one son, four grandchildren, and a large extended family. Glenn Spencer was a kind, devoted, and dependable man who helped others every chance he had. He made a difference in his community and through the lives of those he touched. I am honored to lift up his life before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a unique and important business, R.J. Corman Railroad Group, which is headquartered in Nicholasville, Kentucky. The company is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2023. R.J. Corman Railroad Group was founded in 1973 in Central Kentucky by visionary entrepreneur and philanthropist Richard J. Corman with a single backhoe and a dump truck. The company now operates in 24 states and more than 70 locations throughout our nation. R.J. Corman Railroad Group employs more than 1,400 people, over 500 of which are based in the state of Kentucky. R.J. Corman Railroad Group's numerous services encompass railroad construction, short line railroad operations, industrial switching services, transloading operations, emergency response services, track material logistics, distribution centers, signal design and construction, and My Old Kentucky Dinner Train. The company serves six Class I freight railroads, many regional and short line railroads, as well as various rail-served industries. R.J. Corman Railroad Company operates three short line railroads serving multiple regions of the state contributing to the economic development of the corresponding communities. Through its dedicated employees, R.J. Corman Railroad Group strives to be the best-in-class service provider in the industry through its total commitment to customer satisfaction, increasing efficient operations while providing an ever-improving safe, and rewarding work environment. R.J. Corman Railroad Group is a highly respected Kentucky business. As the company celebrates its 50th anniversary, I congratulate all their employees and wish them a bright future. I am honored to recognize this company before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a legendary man, Billy Hicks. He was a renowned basketball coach at Scott County High School in Georgetown, Kentucky. He passed away on December 3, 2023. Coach Hicks was born in Harlan County, Kentucky on August 23, 1952, to a coal mining family. As a child, he dreamed of coaching as a way out of the mines. He played basketball at Evarts High School in Harlan County. Coach Hicks earned a scholarship to Wofford College, where he continued to play basketball and graduated in 1974. Billy Hicks coached basketball at Evarts High School, Harlan High School, and Corbin High School. He then was hired at Scott County High School, where he coached for 25 years. Coach Hicks retired in 2019 as the winningest coach in Kentucky basketball history, with 1,023 wins. His Scott County teams won two state championships, in 1998 and 2007. He was selected at the national level to coach the 2012 McDonald's All American basketball team. Coach Hicks was inducted into the Kentucky Basketball Hall of Fame. The Billy Hicks Classic, an annual basketball tournanrent in Scott County, is named in his honor. He touched thousands of lives all across the country and was highly regarded by all who knew him. Coach Hicks is survived by his wife Betsy, his daughter Ashley, son-in-law Jed Johnson, and grandson Wyler Nash Johnson. He was preceded in death by his son Tyler. Billy Hicks was well respected as a coach and as a man throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I am honored to lift up his contributions to Kentucky before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a proud Kentuckian, a great American patriot, and my great-uncle, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Francis D. Faulconer, who passed away on October 19 at the age of 100. My grandfather's younger brother was better known to many of us in central Kentucky as Fearless Frank Faulconer, the first weatherman for WKYT, later WTVQ, and finally WKQQ, where he delivered for us the weekly ``Fearless Frank's Five Day Forecast.'' What many don't know, however, is that before he became our weatherman, Frank had a distinguished military career. After graduation from Lafayette High School in 1941, he enlisted in the United States Army in 1943 and took basic training at Camp Crowder, Missouri, a signal training facility. Overseas in Europe in 1944, Faulconer was transferred to the Liaison G3 Section of the First United States Army. In this capacity, he traveled with Combat Command A of the 3rd Armored ``Spearhead'' Division from Meaux, France, to Roetgen, Germany. Service in the European theater of operation earned him five Bronze Stars for his service in Normandy, northern France, Rhineland, Central Europe, and the Ardennes. Additionally, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Award for helping to escort the reserve elements of the combat command at night, from the rear to the forward elements of the battle line. I will always remember my uncle telling me about tearing down Nazi swastikas from the churches along the battlefront so that American flags could signal the path of liberation. Frank has now taken his rightful place in Heaven and in the history books, chronicling the story of American freedom alongside his beloved brother, my grandfather, Major General J. B. Faulconer, Army veteran of the Pacific theater, with the millions of other heroes of the Greatest Generation. God bless all these heroes. We thank them for their service and for serving as a continual and powerful reminder to all of us that freedom requires sacrifice. It must be fought for. May their example, the example of the Greatest Generation, always inspire us to continually fight for freedom and democracy.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for holding this bipartisan Special Order because we should in a bipartisan way support the nation of Ukraine in a multilateral way, but we must also support a strategy of victory. Putin is evil. He is a war criminal. He kidnapped 35,000 children, killed women and children, and bombed hospitals. He views himself as a reincarnation of Peter the Great. Moldova is next, Georgia is next, and the Baltic is next. This is a conflict not just about territory, it is a confrontation between good versus evil, between the forces of democracy and the shadows of autocracy. By standing with Ukraine, we reaffirm our commitment to the fundamental principles of freedom and self-determination. Nevertheless, we have to provide Ukraine not just with a blank check but with a strategy for victory. That is why we call on the administration not just to support more security assistance, but also to reverse course on a misguided sanctions strategy that has failed. The G-7 oil price cap strategy is a weak approach to depriving Putin of the funding that he needs. So, yes, Congress should support security assistance, but we should also support a sanction strategy that will actually prevent Putin from selling fossil energy to China and India and other parts of the world. The price cap is not working. Russian crude is selling over the price cap. It is not enforceable. We need to eliminate the general license in the sanctions on Russian banks so that no energy-related transactions that are funding this brutal aggression against Ukraine can finance this war. There is a lesson here that deterrence requires toughness, and when you remove sanctions like this administration removed on Nord Stream 2 and when you are not tough on sanctions, that invites further aggression. So, yes, security assistance, and, yes, this Congress is prepared to act, but we want a strategy for victory for the Ukrainian freedom fighters. That requires depriving Putin of the very financial support that is funding this war of aggression, and that is energy sales. That is why we want a revisiting of the sanctions strategy. So with that, we must expedite delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine, reinforcing their ability to defend themselves and deter further aggression. In doing so, we will uphold the values of democracy and freedom while safeguarding the security and stability of our partner Ukraine. The cost is nothing compared to what the cost would be if there was an invasion of a NATO Article V partner where U.S. troops would be on the ground. So let's take the fight to Putin now. Let's end this war by depriving him of the funding that he definitely needs to prosecute this war. Madam Speaker, remember that weakness invites aggression. There are broader implications of this conflict. A further escalation, potentially drawing NATO into a direct ground conflict, would be highly costly. It would be much more costly than what we are talking about here. Providing Ukraine with support now is not only an investment in Ukraine but a critical step in preventing a larger and more devastating conflict that would require the involvement of U.S. troops on the ground, and it sends a signal to Beijing. Beijing is watching. Preventing and deterring Beijing from a cross- strait invasion is a dramatic return on investment. Let's pursue a strategy of victory, and let's get tough on sanctions.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my good friend and colleague, the small business owner from Texas, Congressman Williams, and I support his resolution under the Congressional Review Act to nullify the CFPB Small Business Lending Rule, or section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The small business lending rule that was finalized in March is incredibly onerous. It imposes massive burdens on financial institutions. It will be misleading and confusing for borrowers. It will ultimately harm the very small business owners, the minority- and women-owned small business owners, that they say they want to help because those are the businesses that will not have access to capital-- certainly not affordable capital. While the Dodd-Frank Act does charge the Bureau with adopting rules regarding small business lending, Director Chopra's rule goes far beyond Congressional intent. By requiring the collection of 81 data fields, it greatly exceeds what is mandated by statute. As has been said very eloquently, it will be extremely burdensome on financial institutions, leading to increased costs and less availability of credit for millions of Main Street borrowers and entrepreneurs. I have to address this absurd argument about the voluntary nature of the disclosures here. If this is really voluntary--and I want the CFPB to hear this, the advocate of this rule, I want them to hear. If this is totally voluntary, when my constituents do not provide the CFPB with this information, I want the CFPB to go back and watch the tape, because I don't want my constituents to then be punished by the CFPB when they are not given the information they want. I am going to tell my constituents who are being harassed by this bureaucracy to go back and listen to the ranking member because she said it is voluntary. I want them to quote the ranking member to CFPB when the CFPB harasses them for bureaucracy. Then, I want everyone here in this Chamber to recognize that this week, in the Committee on Financial Services, I asked Director Chopra if he recognizes that if a small business owner fails to understand why demographic information--irrelevant, by the way, to creditworthiness of the borrower--demographic data is being collected, it could lead to confusion and misunderstanding and potential liability for the financial institution. For example, the rule requires small business owners to disclose their race, their ethnicity, and their gender or sexual orientation when applying for that loan. They have to give this information prior to underwriting. If that loan is denied, the applicant could be reasonably led to believe that that demographic information was the basis for the denial and not the myriad of other legitimate factors which play into lending decisions. Madam Speaker, Director Chopra agreed with me that this could be confusing to the borrower. Clearly, there are a lot of important factors that were not been properly considered prior to the finalization of this rule. Does this make sense? I thought we got to a point in the country where race was not supposed to matter, but the other side of the aisle thinks race is the only thing that matters, and that is wrong. That is wrong. This rule's requirement will force many community banks and credit unions across the country to exit small business lending altogether. That is what my constituents tell me. Small banks across Central/Eastern Kentucky tell me this is so burdensome; the requirements are so ridiculous that they are just going to exit small business lending altogether. Now, how does that help the minority-owned small business on Main Street USA? It hurts them. This is absurd that we would actually hurt minority-and women-owned small businesses by burdening them with massive amounts of red tape.

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, finally, I want to address this ridiculous argument from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who constantly cite this poll that they keep talking about, which Democrats wanted. They say, oh, the American people love the CFPB because it describes the CFPB as the Salvation Army or something. The truth of the matter is, if the poll was asked with the truthful information--that this agency drives up the cost and decreases the availability of credit, increases regulatory costs for small businesses, increases interest costs for Americans for their credit cards when they pay on time, decreases access to consumer credit, and is completely exempt from the appropriations process and totally unaccountable--if you ask the question the truthful way, the American people overwhelmingly say the CFPB is a failure.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 681. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ogles

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special woman, Judy Taylor, of Lexington, Kentucky. Ms. Taylor passed away on October 12, 2023. Judy Taylor was born in Louisville, Kentucky and grew up in New Mexico. She began a lobbying career in 1976 as a volunteer for the Kentucky Association of Older Persons. She also worked as a substitute teacher. As her career grew, she became Kentucky's first female contract lobbyist. She blazed a trail for other women in her profession and mentored many young women as well as men over the years. Judy was quite well known and well respected in Frankfort. The renown for Judy was so great that her Celebration of Life services were held in the House Chambers of the Kentucky Capitol. Judy served as the Director of Government Affairs for Keeneland for over 30 years. She represented Keeneland and the equine industry, one of Kentucky's signature industries, quite well in Frankfort. She was well-loved by everyone at Keeneland, and she was known to many as simply ``Judy from Keeneland''. Judy had a great respect for law enforcement and served for many years as a board member for the Kentucky State Police Foundation. An excellent baker, she baked and shared thousands of cookies with those she encountered. Judy Taylor was highly respected throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky. She was a spirited woman of faith, kindness, and generosity. She enriched the lives of many Kentuckians, and she will be greatly missed. I am honored to call her my friend and to lift up her memory before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Womack, chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, not only for his leadership but his rabid support of the Razorbacks. Kentucky and Arkansas have a big rivalry in basketball, but in this case we are on the same page because the chairman has rightly included in this year's FSGG appropriations bill my legislation, H.R. 1382, the Taking Account of Bureaucrats' Spending Act, or the TABS Act, which would separate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the Federal Reserve System, make it an independent agency and subject it, importantly, to the congressional appropriations process. The TABS Act would remedy the serious constitutional defect in the structure of the CFPB as established by the Dodd-Frank Act under which the CFPB draws its funding uniquely from the Federal Reserve instead of from Congress, like most other executive branch agencies. Specifically, Dodd-Frank delegates to the Director of the CFPB the unilateral power to decide in perpetuity how much money he wants for the agency to carry out its broad and potent regulatory and enforcement powers. The Director then requests such amount from the Fed, which is itself exempt from the congressional appropriations process, making it double insulated from accountability. The Fed is then required to provide such amount to the Bureau, no questions asked. This is a constitutional aberration, and it is a violation of the separation of powers. Although the total amount the Director can request is capped in the law, the cap is so high that it effectively grants the CFPB Director unfettered discretion over the Bureau's amount of funding and how it is spent. No other Federal agency in the entire Federal bureaucracy is funded in this manner. Indeed, there is no analogue for the CFPB anywhere in the history of the U.S. executive branch. Even among self-funded agencies, the Bureau is unique. It is a perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure that goes a significant step further than that enjoyed by any other agency, again, in the history of our Republic. The TABS Act would fix this. It would bring much-needed accountability to the CFPB and uphold the Constitution's separation of powers and the exclusive grants of the appropriations power to Congress. I want to make a couple of points about the TABS Act. First, the purpose of this bill is not to repeal or undermine consumer protection laws. Rather, the purpose is to address the constitutional defect in the CFPB's funding structure. No one is objecting to the utility of some Federal consumer protections, but we should also agree that the Constitution reserves to Congress the sole authority to set funding limits for the CFPB and other executive branch agencies. I note that the FY24 FSGG bill would fund the CFPB at near current levels. I also note that H.R. 2798, the CFPB Transparency and Accountability Reform Act, which was marked up out of the Financial Services Committee on April 26, included the TABS Act, and authorized to be appropriated from unobligated amounts contained in the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund $650 million for FY24--again, at levels comparable to what the CFPB received from the Fed this year. My friends on the other side of the aisle can't make the argument that we are trying to defund the agency, that we are trying to gut consumer protection laws because we are manifestly proving we are not doing that. We are funding the agency the way it should be. This clearly demonstrates that the TABS Act is not about eliminating consumer protections or the CFPB, but it is about upholding the Constitution. It is about defending the Congress, this institution. If this bill is enacted into law, the Bureau would continue to operate. The only difference would be that the Congress would oversee their spending in the same way it does for all other consumer protection agencies in most of the rest of the Federal Government. As you know, the Supreme Court recently heard the case of Community Financial Services Association of America v. CFPB in which the agency's funding structure was challenged as violating the Constitution's separation of powers and the appropriations clause, which provides that: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law . . . '' If the Supreme Court strikes down the CFPB's funding structure, as it should in this case, this bill will ensure that the agency continues to operate. Following such a decision by the Court, chaos would not ensue, as some have suggested, nor would there be great uncertainty in the marketplace about the status of consumer protection laws and regulations. On the contrary, this legislation demonstrates that Congress is prepared to assert its appropriations power to stabilize preexisting consumer laws and make sure that the CFPB is funded with better and more meaningful oversight in the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the funding mechanism. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the legislative branch--the people's elected Representatives in Congress--make the key decisions about our government, especially how tax dollars are spent. As Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 58: ``This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.'' This is a sound principle, which in the context of the CFPB or any other executive branch agency, every member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, should defend. This is not a partisan issue. This is about defending this institution and our power of the purse. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: If Congress passed legislation funding the Department of Defense or the CIA in the same manner as the CFPB is currently funded, would that be acceptable? Would we want those agencies to be completely unaccountable to our oversight? The appropriations process is the primary means by which Congress, on a bipartisan basis, oversees those agencies, as well as all consumer protection agencies. Now, some will say that Congress can change the CFPB's funding structure at any time so there is really no problem with the structure. Well, this is ridiculous. This is absurd. Our Constitution does not permit elected Representatives in Congress to delegate away our authority, which is textually reserved to the Congress, to some other branch of government or an executive branch official. It requires that the key decisions remain in the hands of the elected Representatives of the people. Congress cannot delegate away its responsibilities without undermining the separation of powers, even if it could pass legislation to retake such responsibilities in the future. Instead, it is the Supreme Court's duty to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, even if Congress could remedy those violations. For example, the Supreme Court strikes down laws that violate the First Amendment or the Commerce Clause, even though Congress could remedy those violations. There is no reason why the same should not be true of laws that violate the appropriations clause. Moreover, in Seila Law, the Court struck down the infringement of the President's removal power over the director of the CFPB. I hope now it protects Congress' power as it did the President's power in Seila Law. After all, the Supreme Court's role is not just to prevent the erosion of presidential powers but also Congress' power. The reason the CFPB's funding structure is so problematic is that when Congress delegates its core responsibilities away to administrative agencies, the value of each American's vote is diminished. As Congress has delegated more responsibilities and more authorities to administrative agencies, Americans have come to increasingly believe that their votes do not matter. They see that changes in Congress don't change policies set by agencies. Lack of congressional control over the CFPB creates the opportunity for special interests to capture the CFPB who run the agency according to their own ideological vision, not according to the will of the American people. Changing the CFPB's funding structure would be an important and commonsense step in restoring faith in our democracy. It is important to recognize that the structure of the CFPB is an aberration in our government. No other agency is funded by the Federal Reserve at the level set by the director of the other agency. Now, I know a lot of people have raised concerns that striking down the funding structure of the bureau would open up the question of constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and a few other agencies that are funded through assessments or other funding streams that they incur in their operations. The funding structure of the CFPB is unique. Unlike other agencies that may be funded by a specific source of funding that they raise in the course of their operations--seigniorage in the case of the Federal Reserve; fees on banks in the case of the Comptroller of the Currency; deposit insurance premiums in the case of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; tariff revenue in the case of the Customs Service--the CFPB is different. There is no analog. It determines its own funding by taking funds from the Federal Reserve. No other agency obtains its funding by taking funds in this way. Further, there is no nexus between its statutory responsibilities, consumer protection, and its funding source, the Federal Reserve. In conclusion, while there has been much debate about where to draw the constitutional line on how agencies can be funded consistent with the appropriations clause, the funding structure of the CFPB is one we should all agree goes too far. As with the Supreme Court determination in the Free Enterprise Fund case that double insulation on removal was too far with respect to limits on the presidential removal authority, the same should apply here. The funding structure of the CFPB goes too far without having to answer or raise questions about other agencies. Granting Federal agencies the authority to derive their funding from the Federal Reserve outside of the appropriations process is a dangerous precedent and is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution's separation of powers. The Federal Reserve seigniorage for money creation is not a piggy bank. Forcing the Federal Reserve to pay for other government operations risks compromising the Fed's monetary policy independence. For these reasons, I urge the Supreme Court of the United States to do the right thing: to vindicate the separation of powers and to uphold Congress' appropriations authority over Federal executive branch agencies. I urge my colleagues to remedy this constitutional defect, pass the Womack appropriations bill, pass the TABS Act, and restore congressional appropriations authority.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds from being used to implement the Biden administration's January 2021 executive order titled ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.'' The Biden administration issued this executive order under the guise of protecting United States' national security and foreign policy, yet Republicans see right through this. This executive order is yet another example of the Biden administration's effort to circumvent the people's House and advance their radical anti-American energy agenda by depriving the energy industry of the financing it needs from our capital markets. Perhaps if we want to work in our national security interests, Mr. Chair, we should bring energy independence and dominance back to the United States by promoting, not working to prevent, the financing of the very capital-intensive energy sector. We should block misguided ESG initiatives where the ultimate goal is to politicize the allocation of capital and steer investments into the Democrats' desired climate transition. To protect national security interests, we should pass H.R. 1 and unleash American energy not just for our economy but for our national security. Instead, unsurprisingly, the Biden administration releases this executive order that calls for the U.S. to rejoin the Paris Agreement, creates a National Climate Task Force consisting of members from multiple Federal agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Defense, which will result in agencies taking their eye off the ball of real systemic risks in our financial system and global stability to focus on political initiatives and calls for a government-wide approach to the climate crisis. What might be the most egregious is the executive order's call to tamper with financial flows to align with a pathway toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. The Biden administration is calling for the government to put its thumb on the scale of free-flowing capital, pick winners and losers, and pursue an agenda to starve energy companies of the financing that they need and redirect capital into speculative green energy technologies that, frankly, are unproven and will not actually fix the climate. This is in direct contradiction with our national security interests, increases our energy dependence on our adversaries, and is once again showing us Democrats are exploiting the most envied capital system in the world to pursue their most radical and detrimental agendas. My amendment will put a stop to this. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, for the interest of our economy but also for the interests of national security, to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Treasury Department from issuing General License No. 8H, which was issued by the Office of Foreign Asset Control on October 25. It represents a fundamental policy shift in our approach to Russia and ending its aggression against Ukraine. This amendment is a recognition that the Biden Treasury Department's Russian oil price cap policy has failed. It is not curbing Moscow's war spending because the cap has proven unenforceable, especially outside of the G7. Russian oil is trading well above the cap, funneling billions of dollars and, in fact, trillions of rubles into Putin's war machine. It is also a recognition that President Biden and Climate Czar John Kerry's climate agenda and war on American energy has come in direct conflict with our national security and our efforts to counter Russian aggression. Their climate policies have limited the tools available to them and pushed our country into pursuing a woefully ineffective price cap strategy in lieu of closing the huge loophole they created for energy-related transactions in their sanctions on Russian banks. That is right. For the Americans watching on television who have been given the impression that President Biden is being tough on Moscow, the truth is, they are allowing oil sales to finance the war. That is the Biden policy, to create a huge loophole for energy-related transactions that allows Putin to finance this war. License number 8H is an extension of authorizations by this administration going back to the very start of the war in Ukraine. It permits U.S. persons to engage in any transaction with sanctioned Russian financial institutions if the transaction involves Russian energy. This is the Biden administration's weak policy toward Russia. It includes not only Russian energy sales but even production, refinement, and transport. Despite sanctions, again, on Russia's leading banks, including restrictions on the Central Bank, OFAC licensing has exempted dealings that support the most vital source of export earnings for Moscow. Why this administration punishes American energy but rewards Putin's energy is beyond comprehension. This is simply perverse. On the one hand, the Biden administration is greenlighting Russia's efforts to earn hard currency for its war machine even as it asks Congress for billions of dollars to defend and reconstruct Ukraine. The left hand destroys while the right hand rebuilds, but somehow the administration is stumped that this war grinds on without end. Had Biden continued the Trump administration's energy dominance strategy, he would not be as constrained as he is today, and global energy markets would be far less dependent on Russian oil and gas, making a full embargo or sanctions without a general license far less painful for us and our allies. My amendment says enough is enough. If we really want to help the Ukrainian freedom fighters, we have to end Russia's ability to wage war. That means cutting off every avenue available for it to fund its hostilities. As The Wall Street Journal reported just this week, Russian tax revenues for oil and gas surpassed $17 billion last month, an increase of 25 percent from the previous year. These revenues are bolstering Moscow's abilities to threaten Ukraine with the government planning to increase military spending by 70 percent next year. Under my amendment, the United States will not be complicit in these energy sales. It will ensure that sanctioned Russian banks are, in fact, sanctioned. The loopholes that Russia has enjoyed for over a year, thanks to President Biden, will be closed, and we will send a signal to the world that turning a blind eye to Russian exports is over. At the same time, passage of this amendment must be viewed in the broader context of the administration's multilateral efforts to ensure the continued supply of Russian energy. Even if we close off the U.S. and its financial system from these transactions, the Treasury Department has convinced our European allies to roll back EU sanctions under a price cap scheme for oil. Treasury's own data has shown that the price cap still allows Russia to earn billions of dollars each month in oil sales. Moreover, with Urals crude prices rising, the World Bank recently concluded that the price cap ``appears increasingly unenforceable.'' The only way to counteract this trend will be to acknowledge once and for all that the war in Ukraine will not end until Russian energy dries up. That means enforcing sanctions, not rolling them back. The first place to start is here at home with OFAC licensing. My amendment is an important step toward this goal. If you want to get tough on Putin, stop his energy exports. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and bring energy dominance back to the United States.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in response to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, who makes the arguments that the authors of the Dodd-Frank law made, which was that we designed this to be independent. Well, that is fine. That is what they wanted, but they can't do it unconstitutionally. As the Fifth Circuit said very, very well, while the defenders of the structure of the agency, of the CFPB, contend that there is no constitutional infirmity because the funding scheme was actually enacted by Congress in the Dodd-Frank law, and, therefore, it is constitutional. In essence, the bureau contends that because Congress spun the agency's funding mechanism into motion when it passed the act, voila, the appropriations clause is satisfied. That is not the way the Constitution works, Mr. Chair. This body cannot unconstitutionally delegate away our most fundamental power, which is the power of the purse. Vote for the Womack appropriations bill. Restore the power of the purse. Defend this institution.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, and I compliment and applaud him for introducing a very legitimate amendment to address the unconstitutional structure of the agency and the fact that they are a rogue agency. There is no greater critic of the CFPB than me. Ask Mr. Chopra about that. However, I reluctantly rise in opposition, which may surprise my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to the amendment. It is not because the agency doesn't deserve a check the way Mr. Perry wants but because it is important for this institution that we assert, in the long run, the appropriations power of this body. That is why I support the Womack bill, which funds the agency and deprives the Court of the excuse to uphold the agency.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the sentiment, and I am with Mr. Hoyer on providing support for Ukraine, but the 8H license is actually the loophole. It is the exception to the sanctions. I give President Biden credit and Secretary Yellen credit and Wally Adeyemo credit for the sanctions on Russian banks and the Central Bank. The problem is the huge loophole they have created with the general license. What my amendment proposes to do--and I just came from a meeting with Deputy Treasury Secretary Adeyemo, a great patriot--but what we are trying to say is the price cap is not working; close the loophole, sanction Russian energy exports. I offer that as a bipartisan amendment.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, to answer the question, that is a very good question. That is the key question. To the administration's credit, they are trying to solve this difficult question: How do we impose sanctions on Russia and Putin without hurting our allies?

Mr. BARR. And us, because unfortunately our allies are overdependent on Russian sources of energy. The problem is because of this price cap scheme that they have concocted, Russian oil is trading above the cap, so it is not exactly affecting anything. The truth is, there are two solutions. Number one is to decrease our and our allies' dependence on Russian gas by increasing our own production. This is where the administration's climate agenda is in conflict with our national security. Secondly, the general license is the problem. If they repealed the general license and did what Treasury does all the time on sanctions and to help our allies in case-by-case scenarios with a special license--let's say, for Germany in a particular case, okay, that is fine; they retain that authority, Treasury would--but a general license that says Putin can sell all of his energy with no ramifications whatsoever through a general license is not tough on Russia.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 579. Stated against:

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important resolution affirming Israel's right to self-defense against this savage war perpetrated by Hamas and other Iranian-backed terrorists. While it was Hamas terrorists who invaded peaceful communities across Israel, decapitating babies, burning elderly women alive, kidnapping innocent civilians, including Holocaust survivors, it was Iran that was working behind the scenes to fund these acts of terror. I support this resolution because it calls out the mullahs in Tehran for funding Hamas and enabling this attack to occur. How did this happen? In short, it happened because the Biden administration's foreign policy allowed it to happen. Our government designated Iran as a state sponsor of terror, yet the Biden administration pursued a policy of weakness and appeasement toward Tehran. Since the Biden administration took office, Iran has generated approximately $80 billion in revenue from oil sales, and that is because this administration rolled back the Trump administration's successful maximum pressure campaign.

Mr. BARR. In 2021, the administration lifted oil sanctions on Iran. The sanctions relief was so helpful to the regime that the deputy chief of the Central Bank of Iran said that Iran's foreign currency reserves were growing due to the growth of oil and other exports. For months, Secretary Blinken, National Security Advisor Sullivan, and other officials have chased another JCPOA to release billions of dollars in sanction assets. Now we see the administration effectively incentivize Hamas to take American hostages by facilitating the transfer of $6 billion from South Korea to Iranian banks in Qatar, a deal that this administration claims it has frozen for now but Qatar and Iran say is available to them today. Support this resolution.