Behind the growing Washington consensus on banning Russian oil imports, Democrats and

For Ed Markey, the Democratic Massachusetts senator, and other liberals, banning Russian oil “would help usher in a clean energy economy that frees our country from the oily spigot of authoritarians.” Conservatives like Marco Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, said the loss of Russian oil should be offset by pumping more in the United States and opening the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which President Biden halted when he took office.

Three bills are circulating on Capitol Hill that would ban Russian oil imports and the White House is considering taking the step even without congressional action. But halting imports from Russia is the easy part. The nation provides only a small portion of US imports of crude oil and petroleum products, and that figure has been declining in recent months as tensions rose in Ukraine, to just 4.7 percent in December from nearly double that in July.

The difficult part is offsetting the energy produced by that oil in the long term given the likelihood of a protracted standoff with Russia over Ukraine.

“This isn’t vodka,” Republican strategist Doug Heye said of the importance of oil to the US economy, compared to the effort to ban liquor imports from Russia. “It’s very easy to identify the problem. It’s much harder to figure out the solution.”

The three bills lay out very different paths to eventually replace the Russian oil. Markey is pushing a bill that would require the United States to develop “a comprehensive strategy to prioritize carbon free energy” as an alternative. Rubio is one of several GOP co-sponsors of legislation by Senator Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, that aims to boost domestic oil and gas supply by immediately restarting the Keystone XL Pipeline, requiring the Interior Department to issue new oil and gas leases on public lands, and other steps.

A third bill, which has attracted strong bipartisan support, is being led by Senators Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, both from major energy-producing states. It takes a middle road by simply prohibiting all energy imports from Russia without specifying how to replace them. But some of the bill’s supporters hope that supply would be made up by increased domestic production.

“We’re going to be pushing to do everything that we can to get production up in this country despite some of the policies that have been put in place that have held us back,” Murkowski told reporters last week, criticizing the Biden administration’s energy policies. She and other sponsors stressed the bipartisan support in the Senate and House for the bill, which New Hampshire Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan publicly backed on Monday.

“It is clear that our sanctions have pushed Russia’s economy to the brink, and banning Russian oil and gas is a critical next step to undermining Putin’s ability to wage war against a sovereign, democratic nation,” Hassan said in a statement.

The bills are partly designed to pressure Biden to act on his own, said Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina who is co-sponsoring the House version of Markey’s bill.

“This is not a partisan issue. I don’t know a single American who wants to put one gallon of Russian gas into their car when they fill up,” said Mace, a first-term lawmaker who represents a swing coastal district.

She was attracted to Markey’s bill because it doesn’t mandate how the Russian oil would be replaced and requires a government study of carbon-neutral options, which she said could include nuclear as well as wind and solar power.

“America’s energy independence is very important,” she said while noting that it will take years before Americans are all driving electric vehicles. “In the meantime, if it means developing more pipelines then we need to look at that. All the options should be on the table today.”

Markey said Monday he had spoken with White House officials about his bill and its goal is similar to Biden’s clean energy effort in the derailed Build Back Better legislation, including increasing development of electric vehicles.

“It is time for us to say we don’t need Russia’s oil any more than we need their caviar; and the only way to do it in the long run, and the same thing is true for the Middle East, is just to have an all-electric vehicle revolution,” Markey said.

Some lawmakers raised concerns about proposals that ban Russian oil without first ensuring prices would not rise at the pump.

“I totally agree with the moral clarity that comes with sending no money to Russia for the purchase of oil,” said Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat. “I just think we have to understand that it’s a lot easier for elites in Washington to bear the cost of energy prices spiking than low-income Americans. So I would like to see us do this in a way that mitigates the cost impact on consumers.”

Administration officials declined to ban Russian oil imports in the initial rounds of economic sanctions out of concerns about the impact of higher gas prices on Americans as well as resistance from European allies, who depend much more on Russian oil.

But as the war has intensified, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday that the Biden administration is discussing a ban on Russian oil imports internally and with allies.

Biden is focused on “ensuring we are continuing to take steps to deliver punishing economic consequences on Putin while taking all action necessary to limit the impact to prices at the gas pump,” she said.

The administration has been in talks with officials from socialist and oil-rich Venezuela in recent days, as they seek to offset rising oil prices.

But Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California who also is co-sponsoring the House version of Markey’s bill, said the United States needs to not only ban imported oil but reduce its dependency on “petro states” run by despots, like Putin and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“Maduro has been a hugely brutal dictator, committing huge human rights violations,” Khanna said. “The idea that we would try to normalize that relationship for oil is sickening.”

The United States might have to act alone on a Russian oil ban. On Monday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz signaled he and other European leaders would not sign on to a ban, saying they needed more time to find alternative supplies. Because of the invasion, Germany has halted the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was set to deliver natural gas from Russia.

Khanna, a progressive, said he could support the Manchin-Murkowski bill because it doesn’t prescribe more oil production to offset the loss of Russian imports. And he believes the growing consensus on a ban should encourage Biden to take a strong stand on cutting off the United States from Russian oil.

“I think it’s a signal that there’s broad bipartisan support across the parties, across the chamber for this and the president should feel confident in doing this,” Khanna said.

Jim Puzzanghera can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter: @JimPuzzanghera. Haley Fuller can be reached at [email protected].